Topic: Deity PR-4 Recorder

[jbell]

I really want the PR4 to work as advertised.  If the preamps are good it will work great for my recording situations.

[Gutbucket]

Is the Zaxcom patent still in effect? I assumed it had sunset.  AFAIK, It covered simultaneous local recording and wireless transmission in a wireless body pack transmitter.  Work around was simply doing either/or.  Its applicability to PR-2 and the work around by Deity of disabling analog pass-through to the headphone/line-out always seemed dubious to me, since PR-2 is a recorder not a transmitter, and recorders naturally feature monitor/line outs.  Technically PR2 can wirelessly transmit to the phone app, but only for monitoring, not reliably and only in lossy quality.  Nobody is recording that signal, so its not really functioning like a wireless transmitter.

In comparison Instamic (now owned by Zoom) more clearly infringes, assuming I'm correct about its scope, and yet they are selling Instamics without a patent challenge.

Just did a search and found this discussion on the patent- https://www.reddit.com/r/LocationSound/comments/1ednhdp/is_zaxcom_actually_holding_back_the_industry_in/

[aaronji]

To the best of my recollection, the Zaxcom patent applied to a dual ADC system. Basically exactly what the 32-bit float deal does, but in 24-bit. I think the patent may still be in effect, but I am not sure. I guess that SD got around it by implementing a novel, patented, approach to dealing with the two ADC outputs.

[Gutbucket]

That may be a different patent.  The one which presumably lead to the revised US version of the PR-2 with disabled signal pass-through to the headphone jack is the one concerning simultaneous recording and wireless transmission. It's discussed in the link I posted above.

[DSatz]

I think the relevant patent may be the one attached here, from the USPTO's Web site. Its "adjusted expiration" date is listed on Google's patent site as June 10, 2028 and no, Google's copy of the patent document is no better than the USPTO's. It was filed in 2005 and granted in 2010.

Boy am I not a patent attorney, nor do I have time to study this unwieldy thing right now. And from what I've read on line, one or more lawsuits may have resulted in some of the claims being nullified.

-- In their suit against Røde they listed the following patents, with their dates of publication shown:

US 7,711,443 B1;   // 2010
US 7,929,902 B1;   // 2011
US 8,385,814 B2;   // 2011
US 9,336,307 B2;   // 2016
US 10,276,207 B1;   // 2019
US 11,610,605 B1   // 2023

[edited later to add:] jbell, I think you're exactly right to be concerned about the preamps, specifically their dynamic range. You can use the most advanced A/D converters in the world but if the mike preamps clip, or their noise floor is exposed, you'll have nothing but a pure, pristine recording of a clipped or noisy signal. Deity claims to have a new generation mike preamp circuit that's about 10 dB quieter than the previous generation, and they say that those preamps are in the PR-4.

[adrianf74]

[edited later to add:] jbell, I think you're exactly right to be concerned about the preamps, specifically their dynamic range. You can use the most advanced A/D converters in the world but if the mike preamps clip, or their noise floor is exposed, you'll have nothing but a pure, pristine recording of a clipped or noisy signal. Deity claims to have a new generation mike preamp circuit that's about 10 dB quieter than the previous generation, and they say that those preamps are in the PR-4.

@jbell said it best. That's my main concern as well -- the PR-2 was noisy AF so I don't need that kind of noise being introduced.

Hopefully some tests will take place in the real world once people start receiving them. As jbell said, this works perfectly fine for my purposes and could replace my F6 easily especially since I have a RiotBox for the mics.

[DSatz]

fwiw Deity has also announced a second-generation PR-2 with these new, allegedly quieter preamps in it.