Sound Devices MixPre-6 II (second generation)

Thats a really nice thingy!
Very cool!

There seem to be a number of MixPre owners who are unhappy with the size of the rotary knob on the side and either want to use the big mixer knobs instead or want to make the rotary knob bigger.

Sound Devices built its reputation on what are known as the 7-series of recorders. These were launched in the mid-2000s and were rapidly adopted by sound recordists in film and radio. Among other things, they became the dominant recorder in feature film production. I thought it might be amusing to post a couple of photos of a 702T 2-track recorder, which when it was discontinued in late 2017 or 2018 sold for US$2700. All of the 7-series recorders shared this basic layout.

This is the front of the recorder. There are no big knobs, just two little knobs on the left, marked 1 and 2, that pop out when depressed and are used to control the gain on each channel:

702T-front.jpg (57.2 KiB) Viewed 17466 times

This is the right side of the recorder. See that little knob on the left called Menu Select? Look familiar? That is the rotary knob that controls most of the recorder's functions. In the decade that I've owned a 702T, I have not seen a single owner complain that the knobs aren't big enough or that the rotary knob is in the wrong place :) Indeed, the decision to tuck the rotary knob away on the side was a good one, and I can't think of a single reason why it should be bigger.

702T-select.jpg (69.16 KiB) Viewed 17466 times

I do agree that the power button on the 702T (top right in the first photo) is more felicitously placed than the one on the MixPre, but it is also very small and in a place where it is protected. Why? Because its size and placement keep it out of the way when operating the recorder and also make it unlikely to be accidentally pressed.

The MixPre recorders are being used by professional location sound recordists and I've also yet to see one of them complain about the knobs. The only complaint that I've seen from pros is that the storage card is behind the battery.

Here's a suggestion for those who find it annoying, especially when a USB-C cable is attached, to turn a MixPre recorder on and off. Use a pen or similar.

Where does that idea come from? The Sound Devices 7-series recorders use Sony L-series batteries. These are not in a compartment. They attach directly to the back of the recorder, which speeds replacement on, for example, a feature film set.

The recorders have a guard mechanism that prevents the battery from accidentally detaching. It is awkward, indeed in my experience very difficult, to unlock a battery using one's fingers. Solution? The end of a pen to depress the guard, at which point the battery slides out easily.

Indeed, Sound Devices recommended this. Here is a photo of the back of the recorder. You can see the locking pin in the upper right of the battery:

702t-rear.jpg (114.85 KiB) Viewed 17442 times

Here is what Sound Devices says in the 702T user manual:

Battery Release Pin
Push down the pin with a long skinny object such as a key, screwdriver, or a pen. With the pin pushed in, slide the L- or M-Series battery to the right to release the battery

It never occurred to me to complain about this. I guess I think that making sure that a battery can't detach by accident, while in the middle of making a recording, is a good idea.

The same thing works for the power switch on a MixPre :)

The problem occur mainly when the MixPre series are bagged and powered with USB-C and have head phones attached. You can't rotate it from the front as you are only able to grip it from beneath it.
And the USB-C power cable is in the way for the switch.

But if you use it in studio, on desktop or as an audio interface and mic pre amp as a youtuber - which was the one of the target users SD had when they designed it, then there are plenty of reach to control the knob or the power switch if you ever want to power it down.

The problem occur mainly when the MixPre series are bagged and powered with USB-C and have head phones attached. You can't rotate it from the front as you are only able to grip it from beneath it.
And the USB-C power cable is in the way for the switch.

But if you use it in studio, on desktop or as an audio interface and mic pre amp as a youtuber - which was the one of the target users SD had when they designed it, then there are plenty of reach to control the knob or the power switch if you ever want to power it down.

The MixPre has a small rotary knob on the right side for the same reasons that Sound Devices's professional field recorders have a small rotary knob on the right side (see the photos three posts up). Among other things, the location and size of the knob make it easy to operate the recorder when used from the kind of bag that sound recordists use in the field (with apologies to left-handed sound recordists).

I think that people should spend less time thinking that Sound Devices doesn't know what it's doing and more time thinking about their own inexperience. To take one example, it is just a fact that the rotary knob gives one finer control over gain than both the mixer knobs and the touchscreen, and also, unlike the mixer knobs, makes accidentally changing gain impossible. That rotary knob is there for a reason, and learning how to use it properly will give users better control and save time.

In my view, the power switch is a complete non-issue. If one has a problem using the switch, which is quite properly small and out of the way, see the quote from the Sound Devices 702T user manual two posts above for a common sense solution. Presumably most people have a pen or a set of keys on them. It’s an audio recorder, not a television set or a living room stereo amplifier :)

That enlarged knob is the same on my MixPre-6 II, I think it’s the same on all Series II devices.

That enlarged knob is the same on my MixPre-6 II, I think it’s the same on all Series II devices.

As I understand it, Sound Devices added what it calls a “tire” (that’s the word used on the Sound Devices web site) than can be used around the rotary knob, or not, as preferred. There is speculation, apparently credible, that the “tire” is a LEGO part :)

These complaints are not coming from people who have experience with location and field recording, and they are definitely not coming from people who have recorded out of a bag designed for sound recording. If I were feeling flippant, I might suggest that it sounds like whingeing from teenage boys who are addicted to big shiny knobs and touchscreens and who make YouTube videos in their bedroom :)

:D and maybe I should leave it to that, as that is how this 'attack agains change' makes me feel as I realise that is how I feel also about few things.

However I will say this

- the "tire" as well as the extension knob change nothing, they are optional parts that can be removed in few seconds.

- not all MixPre users are professionals on sound recording, and not all professionals think alike.

- there is other uses for them than location and field recording.

- I could send you one to be tested, but I take it you have already made your mind.

Hey Kim,

Props for being inventive. There’s just a question about whether this particular invention is a solution in search of a problem :)

I’ve seen a fair number of complaints about these kinds of issues in this thread and I just wanted to suggest that Sound Devices knows what it’s doing and share where the MixPre design choices come from, because they don’t come from thin air and they have a long, successful history in the market.

I suspect that many readers of this thread learned for the first time that that rotary knob comes straight from the recorders that made Sound Devices’s reputation, and that this is not the first time that a pen or a key or a pocket knife might come in handy.

I was trying to be lighthearted about it, hence the smilies.

If I gave you the impression otherwise, I should add that I do not make my living as a sound recordist.

Cheers

The higher series of Sound Devices recorders are workhorses and loved by pretty much everyone.
I've have barely touched them but I do own and use my MixPre-6 a lot.

And when in bag the power and knob are in a very tight space compared with the 7-series recorders for example.

If they only would have let the power switch protrude a little, a few millimetre would have made a difference instead of recessing it and that would have been way better.
I made several 3,5mm Neutrik angled extension cable to free up some space around the left side stereo out and right side, TC/line in and headphone out. With a straight 3,5mm headphone connectors inserted it's beyond tricky

That enlarged knob is the same on my MixPre-6 II, I think it’s the same on all Series II devices.

As I understand it, Sound Devices added what it calls a “tire” (that’s the word used on the Sound Devices web site) than can be used around the rotary knob, or not, as preferred. There is speculation, apparently credible, that the “tire” is a LEGO part

These complaints are not coming from people who have experience with location and field recording, and they are definitely not coming from people who have recorded out of a bag designed for sound recording. If I were feeling flippant, I might suggest that it sounds like whingeing from teenage boys who are addicted to big shiny knobs and touchscreens and who make YouTube videos in their bedroom

For me it was a solution to a very practical problem. I use the 10T also as a headphone amplifier with computer and it is located above my head, making the access to headphone volume control very difficult without the extension knob. That is the use on witch I have also problems with the power switch.

Thanks, I was having trouble understanding what the issue is and now I know.

If I didn’t have my MixPre right in front of me I’d use a USB surface controller, or the Wingman app if its functions met my needs. But now I see what you’re trying to do.

Sound Devices just like to use bizarre external design and ergonomics in their products. Sometimes their things are very strange and unpractical. But they compensate it with sound quality. Consumers must be happy and struggle at the same time. Also they need to sell somehow higher end Scorpio models an so they put all buttons in front side there. Take a look - we have $10K recorder here with way better ergonomics...
Sound Devices design is not a problem free company. If handle was placed at the side in ancient models that does't means that it should be there in new models. Sound Devices firmware also may be very buggy. (45 seconds boot time in PIX recorders , headphones out distortion problem in MixPre3-II/6-II/10-II series still don't fixed) But again - they compensate it with best ever sound quality.

I also don't share the thought that Sounddevices had a great plan for the way they designed the power knob and the head phone knob. I have the MixPre 10 II in an Orca bag and fiddling with the power switch is just annoying. Far worse is their NPF battery sledge where it is almost impossible to change the battery when everything sits in the sound bag. Whoever came up with that design should be punished.
And putting the SD card slot behind the battery sledge is - argh.

Consumers are so upset with Sound Devices and its MixPre recorders that the prices are going up on 9 March: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=108171

This is in a segment of the market where prices normally go down over time, not up.

The price of the Sound Devices Scorpio is also going up by US$505. This is the recorder that, according to the post two up, “they need to sell somehow”.

I also don't share the thought that Sounddevices had a great plan for the way they designed the power knob and the head phone knob. I have the MixPre 10 II in an Orca bag and fiddling with the power switch is just annoying. Far worse is their NPF battery sledge where it is almost impossible to change the battery when everything sits in the sound bag. Whoever came up with that design should be punished.
And putting the SD card slot behind the battery sledge is - argh.

Agreed, that power switch just plain sucks. I was flabbergasted that it remained the same on Gen II. The battery sled on the new version I find much harder to get on and off compared to the old version. In retrospect, I wish I had kept the old one for that issue alone, now access to the SD card is even more painful. Probably should have learned to properly slate so I wouldn't have been seduced by timecode. I also found it mildly annoying that they replaced the multi-connector cable I got with Gen I to usb-c only. Which may be fine for Mac users (or Mac users with the newer units) but isn't useful for Windows users.

Agreed, that power switch just plain sucks. I was flabbergasted that it remained the same on Gen II. The battery sled on the new version I find much harder to get on and off compared to the old version. In retrospect, I wish I had kept the old one for that issue alone, now access to the SD card is even more painful. Probably should have learned to properly slate so I wouldn't have been seduced by timecode. I also found it mildly annoying that they replaced the multi-connector cable I got with Gen I to usb-c only. Which may be fine for Mac users (or Mac users with the newer units) but isn't useful for Windows users.

Hi Chris,

Sounds like you’d be happier with a Zoom. Let me know if you want to sell your MixPre ii, I’m interested in buying one.

Hi Chris,

Sounds like you’d be happier with a Zoom. Let me know if you want to sell your MixPre ii, I’m interested in buying one.

Wow, that's really off the mark. I said I loved the first version except for that switch. I've also mentioned on your other thread that the reason I bought the Mixpre to begin with was reading about the quality of their higher end gear and because I hated the interfaces with Tascam and Zoom. However, just because I don't love every aspect of the Mixpre ii, doesn't mean I hate it and want to sell it. NO ONE likes that power button except perhaps you. It's a complaint I've read everywhere. We're allowed to dislike aspects of any piece of gear we come into contact with because most don't satisfy everything. I just find it surprising that they didn't change that between version i and ii.

Hi Chris,

Sounds like you’d be happier with a Zoom. Let me know if you want to sell your MixPre ii, I’m interested in buying one.

Wow, that's really off the mark. I said I loved the first version except for that switch. I've also mentioned on your other thread that the reason I bought the Mixpre to begin with was reading about the quality of their higher end gear and because I hated the interfaces with Tascam and Zoom. However, just because I don't love every aspect of the Mixpre ii, doesn't mean I hate it and want to sell it. NO ONE likes that power button except perhaps you. It's a complaint I've read everywhere. We're allowed to dislike aspects of any piece of gear we come into contact with because most don't satisfy everything. I just find it surprising that they didn't change that between version i and ii.

Off the mark? Where did I say that I love the power button? Oh right, I didn’t. Indeed, if you look a few posts up, I specifically compare it to the better power button on my 702T.

There’s a reality here that people need to come to grips with. The two Sound Devices professional field recorders that are closest to your MixPre-3 II are the discontinued 702 and the current 633. They are significantly more robust, with larger surface areas for buttons and connections, but they are also larger and heavier.

They are also a hell of a lot more expensive. A MixPre-3 II, until the coming March 9 price increase, is US$650. A 633 sells for $3400. Until it was discontinued in 2018, a 702T cost $2700. By the way, on March 9 the price of the 633 is also going up, by $180.

Why the hell do you think I own both a 702T and a MixPre-3? Because the latter is half the weight and almost half the size, which in some cases is useful. Believe it or not, half the weight and almost half the size leaves less room for controls, and the price means that it is less robust, including its controls.

Get real.

P.S. I want to add that my decision whether to use the 702T or the MixPre-3 has nothing to do with preamp quality. In normal circumstances, it wouldn’t be necessary to say that, but one of the regular wags here has actually suggested that there may be a meaningful difference in preamp quality between a MixPre I and a MixPre II. When it comes to suggestions like that, the Yiddish word fakakta comes to mind.

Hi Chris,

Sounds like you’d be happier with a Zoom. Let me know if you want to sell your MixPre ii, I’m interested in buying one.

Wow, that's really off the mark. I said I loved the first version except for that switch. I've also mentioned on your other thread that the reason I bought the Mixpre to begin with was reading about the quality of their higher end gear and because I hated the interfaces with Tascam and Zoom. However, just because I don't love every aspect of the Mixpre ii, doesn't mean I hate it and want to sell it. NO ONE likes that power button except perhaps you. It's a complaint I've read everywhere. We're allowed to dislike aspects of any piece of gear we come into contact with because most don't satisfy everything. I just find it surprising that they didn't change that between version i and ii.

I'm with you Chris. I love the MixPre 3 II in every aspect except for the power button. I had rented a MixPre 3 (version 1) as a test about a year ago and loved the sound. But, that damn power button was just too far to dig in with my finger when IO had my USB-C power bank connected.

I ordered the MixPre 3 II and figured they would have fixed that issue, since there were so many complaints about it. Anyway, I live with it because other than that, it delivers great sound.

I purchased a MixPre-3 v.2 today so that I can run timecode from it to my Pocket 4K. I picked up a standard 12” cable, but also asked my sound vendor to make a 4’ (1.2m) cable. One thing that I want to do is park the camera and MixPre, with timecode running, on my tripod, as shown in these photos: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105319&start=150#p600076

Now that I have one of these recorders, I suppose that I should find out what 32-bit is about. There’s lots of talk on the internet about the theory, much less on the practicalities from people who have actually used it. I know that 32-bit requires 33% more storage capacity than 24-bit, but one of the things that I want to find out is how long it takes to process and render 32-bit audio. More generally, what does it do to one’s workflow? I hope to find out over the next few days.

I was both surprised and interested to learn today that Sound Devices has included a compressor in v.2. That’s what a limiter basically is, but under “Custom” there are now settings for ratio, threshold and release. Some musicians, and probably voiceover artists and podcasters, will use this. For sound design/effects, the compressor makes it possible to test, in the field, what the impact of compression would be on a particular sound. That is cool, and potentially quite useful. Compression is one of those subjects that is hard to understand in the abstract, and I think that having a compressor in a field recorder is also a great learning opportunity.

Remember that limiters are only available in 16- and 24-bit mode recordings.
They are not available or needed in 32-bit float recordings.

Remember that limiters are only available in 16- and 24-bit mode recordings.
They are not available or needed in 32-bit float recordings. :)

That’s true, but the new custom compressor settings are there to shape sound, not to prevent unexpected clipping of peaks. In other words, someone who is using the custom settings is probably not expecting a problem with clipping and isn’t interested in using the factory limiter. It follows that that recordist also has no reason to record in 32-bit.

If you use the compressor in your digital audio workstation, the new custom settings make it possible to apply compression at the time of recording. If you aren’t using your DAW compressor, and have no desire to learn how, the compressor settings in the recorder won’t be of use.

I’d also like to note that recording in 32-bit is not cost free, literally. Up front, it increases one’s storage need by 33%. Yesterday, I watched a video that said that it also substantially increases processing/rendering time. One of the things that I want to determine is whether that’s true on a reasonably fast computer. If it is, whoever is doing sound editing is not going to be thrilled to receive 32-bit files if 32-bit recording wasn’t actually needed, or if a limiter could have done as good a job. The person paying the bill won’t be happy either :)

Further to the above post, I’ve come across a video in which Paul Isaacs talks about the use cases for 32-bit. Mr. Isaacs is the public face of Sound Devices and its Director of Product Management and Design. If anyone knows about this subject, it’s him. The discussion about 32-bit starts at 10:20:

He says, in effect, that 32-bit recording is for very special cases and for inexperienced novices (his terminology, not mine). He gives three specific examples. Unsurprisingly, two of the three involve recording of sound effects, where recordists are generally reluctant to use a limiter:

1. recording rain interrupted by thunder;

2. recording a passing airplane, presumably one at low altitude;

3. remote recording (i.e. the sound recordist is not present) of an ad-lib performance where the dynamic range is unpredictable.

Thunder is one of the cases where I would use 32-bit myself. When I record thunder (I’m talking about trying to get a serious clap, not a growl in the distance), I do not regard using a limiter as an option. A recording of thunder cushioned with a limiter is noticeably inferior. Instead, I do two recordings at the same time at two different gain levels, one very low, one higher. This works, but is not as convenient, both at the recording stage and the editing stage, as a single recording. I might add that for recording thunder, healthy preroll is very handy. It gets rid of the need to go through a long recording to find the thunder :)

The airplane example raises the same issue.

On the third example, I think that there is a case to be made for using 32-bit rather than a limiter, but this is not a problem that most people are going to face.

Isaacs also talks about people who don’t know enough about sound recording to set gain properly. I’m not in that category, so 32-bit won’t help me there either. My concern is that these people will just stick with 32-bit, because it’s foolproof, and never learn.

For me, the benefit of Isaacs’s talk is that he’s telling people, at least those that listen, that 32-bit should be used in exceptional cases and that it isn’t a panacea.

Next step is to find out what it does to the editing process, especially to processing/rendering times :)

I still do adjustments within the MixPre-6 II so the levels I’m monitoring look decent. I know you’ll do that too better than I can. But I’m often in category 3 in your list and something like category 1. So I try to be somewhat skilled at it all, but then I can relax because it’s 32bit. Especially true now that Resolve fully supports 32bit.

I still do adjustments within the MixPre-6 II so the levels I’m monitoring look decent. I know you’ll do that too better than I can. But I’m often in category 3 in your list and something like category 1. So I try to be somewhat skilled at it all, but then I can relax because it’s 32bit. Especially true now that Resolve fully supports 32bit.

I’m just think it’s good that Paul Isaacs, who is as authoritative on the subject as one can be, has drawn a line between the hype around 32-bit and the reality. He has also confirmed advice that I’ve received from New York’s two most important vendors of location sound gear.

Like Paul Isaacs, I think that 32-bit is especially interesting for recordings of wide dynamic range sound effects. Post-processing is less of an issue because sound effect recordings are usually fairly short and are made in the expectation that there may be a lot of post-processing anyway. Post-processing manipulation is the whole point of recording sound effects at 192kHz, which is increasingly common.

What I want to find out now, by trying 32-bit, is exactly what it does to workflow and processing/rendering times during editing. A video that I saw yesterday says that the impact on processing/rendering is exponential, not linear, and substantial. However, the person who made the video did not talk about how powerful/fast his computer is.

Have you edited 32-bit recordings? Do you know what the impact is compared to 24-bit?

Audio file sizes are a third larger so that takes more resources and signed 32bit floating point takes more processing time than 24bit binary, but I’m afraid I’ve not done a controlled comparison. I could have told you a few decades ago when I was working directly with those things, but processors have changed greatly since then and it’s possible that there’s little impact on the processing end by the CPU given the much more capable designs we have now. I don’t think it’s exponential, but it will take a little longer since you’re handling that binary value anyway as the mantissa and shifting it left or right by the value of the signed exponent. Shifts are a lot faster as we are talking about the theoretical shift of roughly 750 dB in Waithe direction, but the shift of likely 1 or 2 bits only for most sounds we might encounter. Given everything else going on in the production of the video, the larger audio file size is the larger impact.

Audio file sizes are a third larger so that takes more resources and signed 32bit floating point takes more processing time than 24bit binary, but I’m afraid I’ve not done a controlled comparison. I could have told you a few decades ago when I was working directly with those things, but processors have changed greatly since then and it’s possible that there’s little impact on the processing end by the CPU given the much more capable designs we have now. I don’t think it’s exponential, but it will take a little longer since you’re handling that binary value anyway as the mantissa and shifting it left or right by the value of the signed exponent. Shifts are a lot faster as we are talking about the theoretical shift of roughly 750 dB in Waithe direction, but the shift of likely 1 or 2 bits only for most sounds we might encounter. Given everything else going on in the production of the video, the larger audio file size is the larger impact.

Sound Devices’s Paul Isaacs at 24:30 of the video above: “24-bit is gonna be more than good enough for most applications”.

Here’s the second video that I’m talking about. The person who made it uses 32-bit because he’s a drummer and he makes videos at shows like NAAM. He says that he can render 4K video on his laptop without difficulty. His comments on 32-bit rendering time are at 02:20. He’s talking about very significant differences from 24-bit, which would be really felt with long recordings. I’m going to find some time to test this myself over the next few days:

You know he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says 32bit audio requires “a lot more space” than 24bit. It’s simple math, a third more! Then he claims a 10 minute audio render in 24bit requires more than 20 minutes in 32bit. That’s not exponential and I wasn’t clear if he’s rendering 24bit output from 32bit input or something else.

If there are modern theatre projectors that handle 32bit or if the DCP specification includes DCP with 32bit audio, then you don’t have to convert anything. If the output is 24bit, you may need to shift the occasional amount of values one or two bits in real world usage.

At least this is my assumption how 32bit is used and converted to 24bit audio which I’ve done.

I suppose he’s not wrong about the results he says he gets but it’s not clear what else might be happening.

You know he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says 32bit audio requires “a lot more space” than 24bit. It’s simple math, a third more! Then he claims a 10 minute audio render in 24bit requires more than 20 minutes in 32bit. That’s not exponential and I wasn’t clear if he’s rendering 24bit output from 32bit input or something else.

If there are modern theatre projectors that handle 32bit or if the DCP specification includes DCP with 32bit audio, then you don’t have to convert anything. If the output is 24bit, you may need to shift the occasional amount of values one or two bits in real world usage.

I suppose he’s not wrong about the results he says he gets but it’s not clear what else might be happening.

Hi Rick,

Sorry, but you completely misheard what he said about rendering times. Listen again. And yes, 33% more data is indeed “a lot more data” to store, not that it advances the discussion to complain about his use of language.

As someone who owns a MixPre recorder with 32-bit float, I’m just interested in finding out the facts about where 32-bit is useful, where it isn’t and what the costs are. Sound Devices’s Paul Isaacs, and my NY sound shop, have answered the first two questions, now I’m working on an answer to the third.

Thanks for catching my bad read on that portion on the rendering times which went from “one and a half or two minutes for audio to twenty to thirty minutes.” That’s big alright. I was only remembering the “twenty to thirty minutes” thinking the difference was 10 minutes or 50% whereas it was really two minutes becoming thirty minutes. Sorry about that folks.

He does mention he used Adobe Premiere and may be related to how he defines his timeline and so on. It’s good we try and get a handle on these impacts with Resolve 16.2 which now supports 32bit audio.

A 33% increase in audio storage isn’t “a lot more” for someone shooting long video of which only a few percent is audio information, but that’s subjective. If you’re only shooting audio it’s a lot more, but when you’re shooting and storing both audio and video, it’s not a concern to me. So different perspectives of course result in different conclusions.

Thanks for catching my bad read on that portion on the rendering times which went from “one and a half or two minutes for audio to twenty to thirty minutes.” That’s big alright. I was only remembering the “twenty to thirty minutes” thinking the difference was 10 minutes or 50% whereas it was really two minutes becoming thirty minutes. Sorry about that folks.

He does mention he used Adobe Premiere and may be related to how he defines his timeline and so on. It’s good we try and get a handle on these impacts with Resolve 16.2 which now supports 32bit audio.

I use Final Cut, Logic and iZotope RX/Ozone, all of which are fine with 32-bit audio.

I have to do some tests of my own. If the fellow in the video four posts up is right, rendering time is a significant factor in deciding when/if to use 32-bit. If anybody on this forum has actual experience with editing 32-bit audio, comments on that experience would be more than welcome.

If rendering times are long, it’s one thing to use 32-bit to record sound effects, which is two of the three examples Paul Isaacs talks about in the video above, but it’s another altogether to use it for long form performances/documentaries, which Isaacs clearly doesn’t recommend. Maybe OK for hobbyists with lots of time on their hands, not so fine for people who are paying for sound, or indeed for hobbyists who value their time.

I understand Isaacs’s point about novices, but I really wonder whether someone who doesn’t know how to set gain properly knows how to place a microphone. It’s not like setting gain is rocket science. In my view, the novice argument for 32-bit is badly flawed, and what’s likely to happen is a bunch of people who don’t know what they’re doing using 32-bit as a crutch. What they do on their own time is their business; the question is whether they think that other people should pay for their lack of basic knowledge.

I have quite a bit of experience of working with 32-bit now. Just recently finished a short DCI 4K commercial for cinema where we recorded the audio with the SD MixPre-10 II in 32-bit float mode. I haven't found that rendering times increased exponentially. For me 32-bit didn't have any significant impact on rendering times.

I have also been working with iZotope RX7 Advanced for months on repairing the fu..ed up surround mix of a full feature without having the stems. Everything has been done in 32-bit.
The only big increase I have found is when I was working on a 192kHz 24bit project (recording of an orchestra) - that is 4 times the data of 48kHz 24bit and that takes a big hit on rendering times.

What I found to be really great with using the 32bit mode of the MixPre is that on small sets you can have the sound guy concentrating on booming the sound without the need to constantly fiddle with the levels.
So I didn't understand why Paul Isaacs downplays this...

For me 32-bit didn't have any significant impact on rendering times.

Thanks, good to know. I’ll be doing some tests this week using RX, Logic and Final Cut, hopefully with the same result. Your experience suggests that the fellow who made the video above, despite being able to render 4K UHD, hasn’t got enough processor power/RAM to handle 32-bit. We also don’t know how much data he’s driving at a time. What computer/processor and how much RAM were you using?

Thanks, good to know. I’ll be doing some tests this week using RX, Logic and Final Cut, hopefully with the same result. What computer/processor and how much RAM were you using?

Rob, my main workstation is now in its 9th year:
Intel i7-980 sixcore 3.33 GHz with 48 GB RAM, Asus P6X58D-E Deluxe mb, Nvidia GTX780 with 6 GB, LSI-9750-8i raid controller with a 35 TB Raid-5, 2 TB Samsung 850 SSD for System, 0.5 TB Crucial M4 SSD for render cache

Another great use case for me: setting up the recording of a huge orchestra where I can only estimate the levels before the rehearsal and have to leave the device unattended otherwise (the conductors hate if you do anything behind them during the rehearsal; and of course you can't do anything during the live performance). Of course ideally this kind of recording would be done with an audio crew on its own - but that is not always possible.

Rob, my main workstation is now in its 9th year:
Intel i7-980 sixcore 3.33 GHz with 48 GB RAM, Asus P6X58D-E Deluxe mb, Nvidia GTX780 with 6 GB, LSI-9750-8i raid controller with a 35 TB Raid-5, 2 TB Samsung 850 SSD for System, 0.5 TB Crucial M4 SSD for render cache

Positively ancient. I think that I know now why you and the guy who made the video above are experiencing different render times :)

Re your comment “I didn’t understand why Paul Isaacs downplays this”... Not sure he’s downplaying it, but he does regard 24-bit as the norm, and his comments about 32-bit may be based, in part, on the assumption that most MixPre owners aren’t running a professional video workstation. Most people don’t have 48GB of RAM, or a dedicated SSD render cache.

I may try to do my tests on a couple of different machines with different specs.

Thanks for the feedback of the orchestra recording, Robert. I was steeped in binary and floating point math fifty years ago on IBM mainframes among others. It wasn’t a big deal then (and was more efficient than packed decimal math that I believe IBM created) and our phones today have far more power than a 50 year old mainframe computer.

I think the test results reported in that video may be more attributed to using Adobe Premiere or some other settings as the gentleman suggested.

I just tested 32-bit on a new Mac mini. The computer is maxed out with the important exception of RAM. The RAM is only 8GB because I'm installing my own, and this was an opportunity to see how 8GB of RAM would handle a 32-bit recording. The other thing worth noting is that the current Mac minis have Apple's T2 chip. This chip greatly improves performance of some functions. I doubt, but can’t say for sure, whether it is a significant factor in this test. The CPU is top of the line for the current mini.

I recorded a 32-bit 48kHz Wave file, single track, 2.5 minutes long, deliberately clipping the audio. I then opened iZotope RX, which is the first stop for most of my sound recordings, and imported the file. I reduced the gain to below 0dB in several places in the recording and then exported (“bounced”) the file as 24-bit, which is what I would do before import to Final Cut.

As far as I am concerned, the export was lightning fast. There certainly wasn't any noticeable delay. I'm not going to bother testing in Logic or Final Cut, because in a situation like this RX would be the first stop anyway, and I don’t edit sound in Final Cut. I'm also not going to bother testing on a computer with more RAM, given that 8GB worked fine. It's possible that long recordings would result in some delay, but I'm doubtful that it would be terribly significant. I don’t know what would happen with an appreciably slower CPU. I would suggest the obvious - that people test 32-bit with their specific computer system and workflow before using it.

The added workload is gain correction and an eventual 24-bit export. The gain correction has to be done so that it sounds natural in relation to the audio before and after. This is often not as simple a matter as it sounds. I would much rather get this right via proper gain setting in the first place. What other people do is their business, but I think that Sound Devices's/Paul Isaacs's examples constitute a correct analysis of the kinds of situations where 32-bit should be used.

Sound Devices has made a short video (see below) showing the 32-bit workflow. Consistent with Paul Isaacs's comments on 32-bit, the video shows an RX workflow, and the example is a sound effect of an automobile engine revving.

Note that in the video below there is a need for only one discrete gain correction. In a recording of a performance, or during a documentary shoot, there may be many corrections to make if gain has not been set properly. There’s a point where this becomes a discussion about expertise, professionalism and, in the paid world, cost-cutting (axe the sound mixer position), but those issues are probably not worth discussing here.

I've been working with 32-bit floating point WAV files for three years now on a much lower-spec Mac Mini (2014 i5 with 8 gigs of RAM) and have never encountered problems. These are files recorded on my live sound mixer (QSC Touchmix), which records 32-bit floating point WAV into an external SSD or high-speed hard disk. I use it to record concerts when I'm doing the sound.

I still use the original MixPre 6 for location recording and have no plans to upgrade, but as someone who works on documentary I can think of a few times where the newer generation MixPre would have made life easier. One example was last year in Brittany where I was documenting a procession that has happened every year on the same date since the late 1600s. Part of the event took place inside a church, followed by a procession to a statue, and once the church service was over I ran down the path that goes to the statue and positioned myself to capture the procession as it went by. There was no way to predict the right levels on the MixPre (the procession involved about 75 people and included singing). I set the gain relatively low, relying on the low-noise preamps and my low-noise mics to give me room to bring up the levels in post, but even so the limiters came on when the loudest group of singers passed by. Once the procession drew near I was too busy capturing video to even glance at the levels on the MixPre.

I still use the original MixPre 6 for location recording and have no plans to upgrade, but as someone who works on documentary I can think of a few times where the newer generation MixPre would have made life easier. One example was last year in Brittany where I was documenting a procession that has happened every year on the same date since the late 1600s. Part of the event took place inside a church, followed by a procession to a statue, and once the church service was over I ran down the path that goes to the statue and positioned myself to capture the procession as it went by. There was no way to predict the right levels on the MixPre (the procession involved about 75 people and included singing). I set the gain relatively low, relying on the low-noise preamps and my low-noise mics to give me room to bring up the levels in post, but even so the limiters came on when the loudest group of singers passed by. Once the procession drew near I was too busy capturing video to even glance at the levels on the MixPre.

This is Paul Isaacs’s third example, where as a practical matter there’s no sound recordist present. In those cases, the choice between a limiter and 32-bit is a judgment call. I’d go with a limiter unless I think that the shot and perfect dynamic range fidelity are sufficiently important that fixing gain problems in post is worth my time or, if I’m paying a sound editor, worth writing a cheque for.

Isaacs’s example of a show where 32-bit might be useful is Carpool Karaoke. The recordist sets up the recorder and mikes, but is not in the car. It’s unclear whether Carpool Karaoke is actually recorded in 32-bit, but given the profile of James Corden and his guests, and the budget, it could make sense. However, it’s interesting that Jerry Seinfeld’s Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee was being recorded successfully long before 32-bit was available. There’s a lengthy, informative video on YouTube in which the Seinfeld show’s Sound Supervisor explains how they do their recordings, and there isn’t a word about 32-bit.

Interestingly, 32-bit is still not a feature in professional field recorders, including in Sound Devices’s own new top of the line, US$10,000 Scorpio.

Here’s the video about how it was done on Seinfeld’s show as of 2016:

Awesome what you can do while you’re staying at home.

This is a solid video that Alex Knickerbocker made for iZotope, uploaded today, on how he uses Insight 2 metering when mixing for broadcast. Even if one uses something other than Insight, the video is worth watching just for the workflow:

Vancouver location sound mixer Rodolfo Piedras (RLFO Sound) has uploaded a video on how he sets up his MixPre, original version, for location work, including timecode for camera and smartslate. For someone purchasing a MixPre who doesn’t already have Tentacle Sync boxes, it may make financial sense to purchase a MixPre, version 2, saving the need for the box connected to the recorder. Depends partly on what one has to pay for a version 1 recorder. If you’re curious about his accent, he’s that rare specimen, a Mexican immigrant to Canada :)

Setting Up a Location Sound Bag Using a MixPre-6:

From earlier today...

On YouTube, these videos are thus far "unlisted" but show up in notifications to Gotham Sound subscribers, and they are apparently also on Gotham’s Facebook Page. They appear to relate to the upcoming virtual Sound Summit this Thursday and Friday. One commenter on YouTube says that the sound quality for the first video is better on Facebook.

Virtual Broadcast Audio Convention 2020: Sound Devices with Gotham Sound's Peter Schneider and
Sound Devices's Paul Isaacs. The discussion about starts at 08:30. The discussion before that is about Covid-19:

There’s also this discussion with Gotham’s Nick Huston and Zaxcom’s Glenn Sanders and Colleen Goodsir:

And this discussion with Caleb Hill of Bubblebee about their wind protection:

There are some comments relevant to MixPre v.2 recorders in this thread about Sound Summit 2020: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=112536

Firmware was updated to 7.0, but headphones distortion noise problem still exists in MixPre3II/6II/10II.

Who is planning to spend $300 to acquire the Sound Devices MixPre NoiseAssist plugin for adaptive ambient noise suppression from traffic, generators, HVAC, et.? If it magically works without noticeable quality degradation of the ‘good’ sound, it would be worth it for those who haven’t invested heavily in post tools. Post noise suppression for me is useful with very cautious use as it can distort vocals, but I’ve only dipped my toe into the pool of tools available for that purpose.

What are your thoughts or preferences?

In-device noise cancellation is designed ideally for either live broadcast or quick turnaround work. It only has a 1 msec delay so may be superior to another solution external with significantly more delay.

It’s dangerous because if you over do the suppression, it will permanently colour your ‘good’ audio. The default suppression is -6 dB and that is on the border of affecting other sound, -5 dB may be safer. That can help get rid of many low level background notices like HVAC or equipment fans.

Post is safer and has a lot of tools available, but I was hoping this NoiseAssist might work best on my Sennheiser MKH416 when I have it camera mounted and it does pick up camera fan sound. Getting rid of equipment fans at the source would be nice to have.

Each instance you apply this plugin costs $300. Putting it on the MKH416 uses one instance. Sound Devices suggests applying an instance to either the Left or Right stereo mix of all channels. So if you destroy the L audio with an aggressive suppression, you can avoid complete disaster using the clean R audio.

Edit
Too bad you can’t trial this plugin before paying $300 for one instance. If it tested fine at -6 dB that might be enough. But I don’t have the audio experience of many folks here. The $300 might be better spent on iZotope ad nauseum.

Aside
When I wanted to install the new firmware, my Wise Dual Card Reader refused to recognize any cards. No idea how as I had hardly used the reader since the lockdown began, but I discovered the card reader cable was suddenly faulty this morning. Thankfully another cable worked.

I have the MixPre 6 first gen and find it to be an excellent piece of equipment. My thought to the 32-bit second gen and pre-emptive noise suppression is that even with gen1 I can notice characteristics of the mic used (I have several Rode mics.) These characteristics can be of more magnitude than some noise. However, all can be managed to my satisfaction with RX7.

Now this is not to dismiss the art and skill of pre-emtive work whether it be noise suppression or EQ management. But this seems to fall into the efforts of those with a larger crew like with lighting or set design which is beyond what I can now do. Until such time I place the mics well and feed them into the PreMix6 and use the individual channels from Wave Agent to RX7 to Fairlight (with iZotope plug-ins.)

Some day I may get the 32-bit for the dynamic range, but I still puzzle over how to properly present this to an audience. I am learning HDR and much is being accomplished with displays which gives a much nicer presentation. But sound is already pretty good and the new efforts seem to be going to the direction of Atmos. Will 32-bit really contribute significantly? I can see the usefulness of 32-bit recording for certain sounds (engines may come to mind), but how often does this occur. I can also see the usefulness of working with 32-bit original sound files. However, it seems the 24-bit for presentation should satisfy for a very long time.

Stormy Crows

Post noise suppression for me is useful with very cautious use as it can distort vocals

Yes, I have found this to be true as well. I had an assignment to work on a feature film shot outdoors with dialog from an East Indian woman who had a high pitched voice. One clip had some loud hum from a generator in the distant background. I ran it through dehum in Isotope's RX7 and it handled the hum quite nicely after analyzing it. The waveform showed a notch filter applied not only to the low base frequency, but to every harmonic of that frequency. This had a bad effect on her voice, making it more distorted. Maybe it was my inexperience with adjusting the tool, but I let the Director make the call as to whether to use the corrected clip or not.
If you get a trial, make sure you test it in a situation like this. It could be that if the dehum had been only on the low base frequency, it would have been acceptable.

I would think that Sound Devices's NoiseAssist is potentially a big deal and I find it interesting that the company is selling it for its high-end 800 series recorders as well as the MixPres. The press release provides helpful info on what it does and on who developed it and how: https://www.sounddevices.com/sound-devi ... recorders/

I think that people on Jeff Wexler's forum will be trying NoiseAssist and evaluating it soon enough, if they aren't already. The fact that one can use iZotope RX in post, at a cost in time and money and without guaranteed results, is beside the point. If I can fix a location recording problem before I press "Record", I'm going to do it. If this will address noise problems that microphone selection won't, and without damaging the audio you want, it's a winner. There's a big potential market for this just in relation to things like air conditioners, overhead airplanes and street traffic.

I'm aware of another product that does this, but Sound Devices's solution, if it works, is both a lot less expensive and much more convenient to use.

Given the company's record, I don't think that they'd be going ahead with this, and naming Sound Devices's co-founder as one of the developers, if it's snake oil.

I know I could benefit when using the MKH416 mounted on the camera. But I can see needing two if it works well as I’d still put one filter on one of the L-R mixes.