New Sound Devices MixPre II-series coming?

[jerryfreak]

I read somewhere that a MixPre-6 II user thought that the preamps were superior to his original MixPre-6 preamps. I know SD says the preamps are identical but I wondered if anyone with experience of both units agrees with that user's assessment.

i think they have a slight improvement on noise floor but i believe they still advertise them as Kashmir so probably similar in character

[rippleish20]

"How do the MixPre II mic preamps compare to the original MixPre series?

The new MixPre II models, like the original MixPre-3, MixPre-6, and MixPre-10T recorders, offer the same discrete class-A Kashmir microphone preamplifiers with an exceptionally low noise-floor regardless of the gain setting. "

There is no evidence that there is *any* difference.

Mixpre-6

Kashmir microphone preamp with 76 db gain
Equivalent input noise: -128 dBu max (A-weighting, gain=76 dB, 150 ohm source impedance)

Mixpre-6 II
Kashmir microphone preamp with 76db gain
equivalent Input Noise: 128dBu max (A-weighting, gain=76dB, 150 Ohms source impedance);

[morst]

Why not just transfer via USB C? Or c to a etc? No need to take the card out to get the files on your computer.

The USB-C connector rating is for 10,000 insertion cycles. Don't want to wear out the port!?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8377/usb-typec-connector-specifications-finalized


"Durability of 10,000 connect-disconnect cycles"

[rippleish20]

Interesting review of II series and a small comparison to F6.

/>
Subjective but interesting comments:

1) Finds Mixpre II recordings slightly warmer than F6

2) See slight differences in sound based on recording level. The implication is that the 32 bit float allows you to correct in post but maybe recording at a higher gain level to begin with is desirable. I find this interesting personally. Despite suggestions that one can record at conservative levels with devices that have such low noise levels, I continue to record at a fairly high gain as I wonder if it still affects the end result. I find recordings at 24 bit that are subsequently normalized or amplified different than if they are recorded at a high gain and not manipulated. I could be imagining things, howver...

[jerryfreak]

would make an interesting controlled AB comp

[Gordon]

Ran mine in the wild last night and it's nice to just let it run and not worry about the occasional red! On the board feed the announcements clipped to like +15db and it sounds perfect when dropped down.

[justme]

Subjective but interesting comments:

1) Finds Mixpre II recordings slightly warmer than F6

I'm not surprised about that. They are said to both use the same preamps as their predecessors and they had the same differences.
I thought it was quite easy to spot a MixPre in a AB test with the Zoom due to the slightly warmer or increased lower end.

Now I want to see all others releasing or adding 32-bit float to their range of recorders.

[justink]

Interesting review of II series and a small comparison to F6.

2) See slight differences in sound based on recording level. The implication is that the 32 bit float allows you to correct in post but maybe recording at a higher gain level to begin with is desirable. I find this interesting personally. Despite suggestions that one can record at conservative levels with devices that have such low noise levels, I continue to record at a fairly high gain as I wonder if it still affects the end result. I find recordings at 24 bit that are subsequently normalized or amplified different than if they are recorded at a high gain and not manipulated. I could be imagining things, howver...

It's true. Use all the bits. Been saying this here for years. That's what makes 32 bit so desirable imo.

[jerryfreak]

Interesting review of II series and a small comparison to F6.

2) See slight differences in sound based on recording level. The implication is that the 32 bit float allows you to correct in post but maybe recording at a higher gain level to begin with is desirable. I find this interesting personally. Despite suggestions that one can record at conservative levels with devices that have such low noise levels, I continue to record at a fairly high gain as I wonder if it still affects the end result. I find recordings at 24 bit that are subsequently normalized or amplified different than if they are recorded at a high gain and not manipulated. I could be imagining things, howver...

It's true. Use all the bits. Been saying this here for years. That's what makes 32 bit so desirable imo.

this is kinda where 32bit float wins

if youre trying to "use all the bits" with fixed point,the results of going over are disastrous

with floating point, its inconsequential

[voltronic]

Interesting review of II series and a small comparison to F6.

2) See slight differences in sound based on recording level. The implication is that the 32 bit float allows you to correct in post but maybe recording at a higher gain level to begin with is desirable. I find this interesting personally. Despite suggestions that one can record at conservative levels with devices that have such low noise levels, I continue to record at a fairly high gain as I wonder if it still affects the end result. I find recordings at 24 bit that are subsequently normalized or amplified different than if they are recorded at a high gain and not manipulated. I could be imagining things, howver...

It's true. Use all the bits. Been saying this here for years. That's what makes 32 bit so desirable imo.

this is kinda where 32bit float wins

if youre trying to "use all the bits" with fixed point,the results of going over are disastrous

with floating point, its inconsequential

One should also keep in mind that certain ADC chips perform better at certain bit depths and/or sample rates than they do at others.  I remember back when DSD was all the rage, and quite a number of people said they were hearing better quality compared to high-rate PCM recorded on the same units.  Come to find out that when you measure these units, many of them were under-performing with PCM data.  I wish I could find where I read this.  Then there's the whole issue about which digital filters are applied, etc.

The point is, designers make compromises to meet a price point or other constraints.  You shouldn't expect a reasonably-priced unit to be equally good at everything, much as we would want it to be.  Perhaps these AKM chips are happiest when doing 32-bit.  Until someone with an Audio Precision analyzer puts these units through their paces, it's hard to say.

[yug du nord]

IMO..  dithering is a compromise so that people can easily listen.
If 16bit is your goal, I personally think a 16bit recorder would give you the best finished product.
If 24bit is your goal, same said for a 24bit recorder.
I haven't touched a 32bit recorder, but my assumption is the same.

But I honestly am a caveman, so YMMV.

...but the no need for level adjustment in 32bit float is pretty friggin wild. 
I wonder if the same is true (or possible) in Soundforge DAW..  it converts to 32bit float.  Not sure if you could straight up record in 32bit float though.

[Gutbucket]

IMO..  dithering is a compromise so that people can easily listen.
If 16bit is your goal, I personally think a 16bit recorder would give you the best finished product.
If 24bit is your goal, same said for a 24bit recorder.
I haven't touched a 32bit recorder, but my assumption is the same.

Sorry but I must disagree.. on both points

First of all dithering is not a compromise.  It is the correct standard procedure which should be applied whenever truncating from a higher bit depth to a lower one.  The alternative is to simply truncate without dithering which produces quantization artifacts.  Granted that may be inaudible in many cases, but it is not the correct way to do it.  Perhaps you meant the reduction of bit depth in general (which is done correctly by applying dither first) from 24 to 16 bits or whatever, rather than dithering.

But I have to disagree there as well.   As long as the total dynamic range of the program material fits within the delivery container, no additional bits are needed.  They will contain only random values below the bottom of the actual range (noise) and/or zeros (silence) above the top of the actual range.  Those extra bits contain nothing of value, they are wasted.

Extended dynamic range is beneficial when recording and processing. Once those processes are complete and the total dynamic range of the audio file can be easily determined and will not change, there is no harm in throwing away the excess bit which contain no useful information.. assuming it is done properly.

[voltronic]

 

IMO..  dithering is a compromise so that people can easily listen.
If 16bit is your goal, I personally think a 16bit recorder would give you the best finished product.
If 24bit is your goal, same said for a 24bit recorder.
I haven't touched a 32bit recorder, but my assumption is the same.

Sorry but I must disagree.. on both points

First of all dithering is not a compromise.  It is the correct standard procedure which should be applied whenever truncating from a higher bit depth to a lower one.  The alternative is to simply truncate without dithering which produces quantization artifacts.  Granted that may be inaudible in many cases, but it is not the correct way to do it.  Perhaps you meant the reduction of bit depth in general (which is done correctly by applying dither first) from 24 to 16 bits or whatever, rather than dithering.

But I have to disagree there as well.   As long as the total dynamic range of the program material fits within the delivery container, no additional bits are needed.  They will contain only random values below the bottom of the actual range (noise) and/or zeros (silence) above the top of the actual range.  Those extra bits contain nothing of value, they are wasted.

Extended dynamic range is beneficial when recording and processing. Once those processes are complete and the total dynamic range of the audio file can be easily determined and will not change, there is no harm in throwing away the excess bit which contain no useful information.. assuming it is done properly.

+1 to all of this. ^^^


In a similar (but different) vein:

I always question the use of super-high sampling rates with program material that has no high frequency information anywhere near the Nyquist frequency (1/2 the sample rate).  I have found this more than once with high-res FLACs purchased from certain online stores, especially with reissues / remasters of vintage jazz albums.  For example, there was one album that was sold in 24bit/192kHz.  Looking at the spectrogram, there was no HF information above 35-40 kHz (cymbal hits) save for some steady-state noise.  That means they could have delivered the files in 88.2 kHz, and it would have been more than adequate.

The common thread here is that you should use all available resources to get the best results, but there is no sense putting everything in a huge container when a smaller one would do an equally good job.

[aaronji]

^ Even 88.2 kHz is probably overkill, assuming proper filtering. Unless you are recording for a specialized purpose which requires ultrasonic frequencies, there really isn't much reason to record them...

[voltronic]

^ Even 88.2 kHz is probably overkill, assuming proper filtering. Unless you are recording for a specialized purpose which requires ultrasonic frequencies, there really isn't much reason to record them...

A lot of the classical releases on HDTracks, Qobuz, Pro Studio Masters, etc. are released at 88.2 kHz, and more often 96 kHz.  I think those sample rates have their place in modern recordings, using mics with extended frequency responses.  Consonants in choral recordings, cymbal hits, triangles, etc. have information up to the 40 kHz range.  Of course, we can't hear those frequencies, but we can hear the resultant frequencies as they interfere with other things, and that may add to a realistic presentation.  (Debatable, of course.)