#21

sd tech support recently told me that the ‘t’ versions will be needed for realtime ambisonic microphone decoding for live binaural monitoring, the ‘m’ versions won’t have it. thought i’d post just in case that matters to someone, it could be a bummer to find out later…

#22

The MixPre has vastly superior analog limiters, the Zoom uses digital limiters, which are, unfortunately, almost useless. In my experience w/ field recording, limiters are very handy, and this alone made the MixPre a superior choice for me.
‘
I installed the M plugin to my non-musician MP6. Its great! Now I play my modular and Norns outside, while camping. The MixPre serves as my mixer and I can punch in the recording on a whim.

2 Likes
#23

I wonder if there will be a “T” Plug-in like there was an “M” Plug-in?

1 Like
#24

Oh. That’s… a really big letdown, and surprising, in light of the demo videos I’ve seen. Sound Devices’ recorders were always out of my price-range and not geared for multitrack recording, so I don’t have much experience with their products. Is this the first time they’ve tried to maintain distinct code-bases and feature sets on the same hardware?

I suppose this does reflect the emergent use of ambisonic and binaural recordings these days - games. multimedia and VR. Ten years ago, ambisonic seemed all but dead, like quad.

#25

Didn’t realtime ambisonic decoding require a separate box costing low five figures up until recently? Could be they offer this for the m just like now m features are offered as extras. I wouldn’t rush to call it a letdown. Till now, SD products’ features have been pretty considered.

#26

I can understand why the non-M version costs more. The HDMI hardware must surely account for all of the extra cost (HDMI is very high bandwidth).

But isn’t mid-side decoding really trivial in DSP?

edit: Am I getting confused…? I see that only the non-M version does M/S decoding, but are we talking about some other decoding technique that is yet to be released?

#27

ambisonic decoding isn’t trivial…

#28

Yeah, I think in my head I thought we were talking about M/S decoding, which for some reason can’t be done on the M models. I’m pretty sure that M/S decoding/encoding is trivial.

#29

ambisonic decoding is done easily enough post-recording regardless of the version. according to sd, the t version uniquely offers realtime binaural monitoring, and the way to have access to all features is to get the t version and then additionally the m software/firmware. and as @eesn points out, ambisonic recording is currently reaching new levels of accessibility (thanks also in part to the new sennheiser and rode ambisonic microphones). btw, the current firmware doesn’t support binaural ambisonic monitoring, but an update is anticipated “soon”.

2 Likes
#30

Indeed, their products still are pretty considered. But as a keen binaural dude back in Minidisc days, I was excited by the proposition of returning to that - electret mics with plug-in power and everything - if only for afternoon walks. It’s not a straightforward task, getting those old MD and HiMD binaural recordings back, but the majority of those that matter to me could be replaced with new ones.

Make no mistake, the honeymoon’s not over with my MixPre, here, yet… I mean, yes, Ambisonic is more accessible now, but so is binaural - cf the Hooke Audio, Sennheiser and even Roland offerings - and that’s great, but it’s hard not to look wistfully at one’s MixPre “M” when both of these were legitimate choices for audio recording-types, not people doing sound to picture, VR, etc as they seem to be, now.

#31

IMO the thing about sound for VR is that there’s limited use of 360º sound acquisition, due to the limited application of, and high barrier to producing, good quality 360º video. Which leaves interactive experiences, producing assets and content for which is even less trivial. Will this change? Maybe. But, I believe, not in the direction of passive consumption of linear media. So take out proper ambisonic, object-based atmos, and the usual 5.1 surround sound production which happily works with stereo pairs, and what’s left isn’t worth worrying so much as to suddenly see your existing (top-shelf) device as limited.

1 Like
#32

I think my tone’s been off, and it reads like I’m complaining more than I really am; I don’t want to derail this thread any further than I have, so I’ll agree that it’s top-shelf in my best Alan Partridge voice and stick with my initial assessment. I’m recording way more with the MixPre than I did before I had it.

2 Likes
#33

Niall - this is one of the most gracious messages I’ve read all day. Well done, Mr. Partridge.

2048x2730-alan-partridge-what-ive-learned-43-jpg-e3a0a5bf

2 Likes
#34

Picked up a MixPre-6 when they were released, and it’s one of the best gear decisions I’ve ever made. Before the MixPre’s, I could never justify the price of SD gear, but I couldn’t be happier with the MixPre-6. The interface is simple, beautiful, and intuitive–so nice after fighting with the UI on Tascam and Zoom recorders. Sound quality is pristine, and the mic pre’s are outstanding. The 1/8" output jack is rock solid, and I’ve had zero issues running the output to monitors or mixers during performances. It accepts modular-level outputs with no issues, and has been my constant companion for field recording and modular production.

4 Likes
#35

I’ve been looking at Mixpre 3 for a long time, I’m looking to use it with some usi pros mostly to make quiet field recordings. (I compared the features on the sound devices site and saw that they recommend the 3 for field recording and worried that I was missing something?) Can someone please just confirm for me that I won’t be missing anything by getting the 3m instead of the 3 for field recording. I don’t see myself using it as a multitracking device much but I don’t make video so I have no use for timecode. @marcus_fischer Are timecode and hdmi the only things ‘removed’ from the m version? I have done some research but just getting anxious before spending this much. Are there any other differences which aren’t obvious in terms of how they function? Thanks in advance.

#36

Anyone here connected a Mixpre to Linux? Does it definitely work as a class compliant USB-2 interface (aka UAC-2).

(i.e. does it allow sample rates other than 48kHz and more than 2 inputs?)

#37

Firmware 3.0 is out!

https://www.sounddevices.com/support/downloads/mixpres-firmware/?device=3m

4 Likes
#38

Thanks for posting! I’ve been waiting for this update (as a MixPre 3M owner). It looks like the manuals have been updated to reflect the new firmware as well. One feature I hadn’t expected: the new controller integration includes the ability to add a Q marker. Lots more to explore, I’m sure.

#39

If you’re only going to use it as a basic 2 channel recorder, I think the Mixpre 3M would be a great choice. I have the Mixpre 3 because of the video features, it’s an incredible field recorder. Solid build and beautifully clean audio, of course!
Use the money you save on the M to buy a decent USB power brick, the 3 chomps through batteries.

1 Like
#40

Loaded up the new firmware as soon as it was released. Now that you can hook up controllers, I’m thinking of using it to mix live and record stems at the same time. Normally, I mix and record my modular performance in stereo, but I’ve found mixing for the venue sound system isn’t great for recordings. With a controller, I could input 4 mono channels, and a stereo effects return, mix for live stereo, and come home with the stems to remix. Also got the Musicians plugin when it was on sale, so I could potentially add reverb to individual channels.

1 Like