Sound Devices MixPre-3 and 6, Part 7

[DavidPuddy]

I think the issue may be Wave Agent. I just read that it still does not support 32 bit files (really Sound Devices???) This didn't happen last time because I only ran 2 mics, hence no need for Wave Agent. If the software is exporting the files at 24 bit, it makes since that I can't "de-clip" them.

I'm going to download a trial of Audition to see if I can pull up the polywave file since my Audacity seems to have crapped out.

EDIT: Yep, it was Wave Agent's bad exports that was the issue. Thanks all.

[jerryfreak]

I'm sure that Jerry doesn't have RX7 and is simply offering an opinion without any basis for it.

of course you would be wrong, but you obviously have a track record for making up random stuff, so there's that.

Like the 'restoring files with full dynamic range' claim. Its an approximation/recreation at best, and is by definition inferior to properly non-clipped levels in the first place

All of this is academic as clearly David's waveforms are not clipped

Its apparent you are still hell-bent on insulting people first then attempting to contribute topically as an after thought. Maybe best to stick with your buddies in the PZ echo chamber. At least your odd takes won't be challenged there. In any case, poor form to drag your animosities out into the actual content areas of the site

also re:

Let's just say that it is way better than simply lowering the gain as Jerry suggests.  Software Engineers that make a lot more money than you and me times 10 with college degrees in this specific area developed it, and the latest version (I have 2019) is amazing.  I also get it that it is stupidly expensive, which is why most people don't bother purchasing it, and simply criticize it.

David's waveforms aren't clipped. It is indisputably better to simply adjust volume in a 32-bit-float file with samples over 0db, than it is to use software to needlessly interpolate data. Thats how the format is designed. The former is inherently a less-destructive process than recreating anything. While it is fine that you may think the people who developed your software are genuiuses,  if you dont understand the fundamentals of how the software works, you will never reap the full benefits of the tools they offer. I can build an entire house by hammering the nails in with the side of a hammer if i desire.

[Scooter123]

Yes, Freaky Jerry is suggesting that he is smarter than audio software engineers who have spent their entire career developing software to correct clipping.  He should perhaps contact Isotope and apply for a job.  I bet the Isotope Engineers never thought of simply reducing the volume!  Two college degrees in audio engineering and 15 years on the job experience, and they missed this obvious solution.  Brilliant.     The clipping is still there!  All that reducing gain has done is mask the problem by reducing the volume.  Its sorta like reducing covid testing to correct the covid infection rate. 

RX7 was designed in part to fix clipping, not by hiding the problem, but by using a specific software algorithm to spot and identify what frequencies are clipped via a scan and to restore the wave form using the software algorithm fix, a two step process.    It is not quick, it is not easy, and it is not cheap, but it works better than any other solution.   I usually run RX7 overnight on files for click tracks, and other anomalies. 

[jerryfreak]

please, for the love of god, go back to your troll hole

Posting stuff like this clearly demonstrates you didnt take a moment to even look at the files in question and are just here to stir up shit

The clipping is still there!

[justme]

Why on earth would one feel the need to go to izotope to artificially correct something not in need to be corrected other then simply lower the levels, do a normalisation or what ever and you are done.
It's not bricked walled in a 32-bit floating point space. Only for those living in the old fixed point world and refuse to step out of it.

[Chuck]

Haven't used my MP-6 in over a year. Just saw a new firmware 7.11 is a available. I'm on 5.5... Yah, or Nah?

[jerryfreak]

Haven't used my MP-6 in over a year. Just saw a new firmware 7.11 is a available. I'm on 5.5... Yah, or Nah?

theres been plenty of times people have settled on older FWs for various reasons

i say, if it ain't broke.....

[WiFiJeff]

I think the issue may be Wave Agent. I just read that it still does not support 32 bit files (really Sound Devices???) This didn't happen last time because I only ran 2 mics, hence no need for Wave Agent. If the software is exporting the files at 24 bit, it makes since that I can't "de-clip" them.

I'm going to download a trial of Audition to see if I can pull up the polywave file since my Audacity seems to have crapped out.

EDIT: Yep, it was Wave Agent's bad exports that was the issue. Thanks all.

When I first got an MP6-II, I was dismayed that Wave Agent could not handle 32 bit files.  Someone (maybe it was me) contacted SD and was told they did not intend to update Wave Agent.  I have been using Audacity to separate files (Audacity has just upgraded to 3.0, I have not used the new version yet). In any case it is a free download, not sure why you don't just kill your problem install and reload it.

Jeff

[DavidPuddy]

I upgraded to the new version of audacity and it works like a charm. Thanks all. I am disappointed in sound devices regarding this issue.

[aaronji]

^ I wouldn't be too disappointed; as Jeff mentioned, they have pretty much said in other forums (fora?) that they didn't see a point in updating WaveAgent since almost every editor deals with the polyphonic WAV format.

I am curious, though: how did it work out with the 5/6 input and your CK63s? Any issues? Were the levels the same as those for inputs 1 - 4?

[DavidPuddy]

^ I wouldn't be too disappointed; as Jeff mentioned, they have pretty much said in other forums (fora?) that they didn't see a point in updating WaveAgent since almost every editor deals with the polyphonic WAV format.

I am curious, though: how did it work out with the 5/6 input and your CK63s? Any issues? Were the levels the same as those for inputs 1 - 4?

THanks for the reminder. The levels on 5-6 were about 10db or so under the other channels, even at the same gain settings. I ended up not using that pair as channels 1-4 were quality pulls. It doesn't sound bad...just that the mics were not really appropriate for the setting. I didn't notice any additional noise, so no worries there.

[aaronji]

^ Interesting; thanks. That was with 5/6 set to line and 1 - 4 set to mic, I assume? I have been curious about how this works in 32-bit for a while, but since I have the original MixPre-6, I don't have the option to play around with it.

[jerryfreak]

^ Interesting; thanks. That was with 5/6 set to line and 1 - 4 set to mic, I assume? I have been curious about how this works in 32-bit for a while, but since I have the original MixPre-6, I don't have the option to play around with it.

id have to dig into my test notes but iirc the trim and gain ranges are similar regardless of bitrate

[Gordon]

32bit poly can easily be split in izotope as well.

[OhioHead]

Silly questions on a new MixPre-6 owner:

1) fully charged USB battery pack, Pre-6 is showing the battery as "Orange USB" is this normal?
2) if running a pair of balanced mic's do you plug into 1 & 3 or 1 and 2? 
- It is cleaner in my bag if I use 1 & 3, what settings do I need to play with to support 1 & 3?

Thank you!