Werner Althaus

you mean on movie sets or in general? I don't hear a problem in the flat recording of the 435 provided here. RX 5 (or 6 or 7) does a good job with those harmonics if they are a problem but if hi-passing it works for you that's all that matters. I should clarify my earlier remarks regarding HPFs and ADCs for the benefit of the OP because they read like a contradiction to me now. Sorry if I'm repeating myself. If the HPF is a digital filter ( I believe the Zoom H6 or F8 recorders are like that) then I wouldn't bother with it because anything applied in the digital domain can be done in post as well. If low end is a problem I'd prefer to use the built-in lo-cut of the mic or some inline analog HPF. If you actually mix on location then use them if necessary to achieve a good mix . But many times a recorder just records ISOs so why bother committing to a digital HPF at 80 if you can do it just as well in post. If the filter is before the ADC then the capture of ISOs as well as the mix can of course benefit from a good HPF because if the low frequency energy is excessive ( windy outdoors or in proximity of heavy machinery or whatnot) then the headroom at the ADC is affected. Limiters will also not work too well if confronted with a ton of unnecessary low frequency content. But on a recording like the examples provided by the OP ( typical low end rumble of HVAC) I don't think the ADC is affected by the low frequency energy. here I'd rather get full range recordings because not all HPFs are created the same with regards to phase shift, ringing, overshoot, etc. The recording of the 435 flat proves this in my mind. It just sounds best when recorded flat, inebriated subject notwithstanding. If it's not needed in the field I'd prefer to do it in post. But other microphones behave differently, Our Calrec Soundfield MK IV flat will turn even moderate HVAC rumble into earthshaking low end, given a capable playback system. In this case you'd really want to record with HPF, although not at 80Hz.

Thanks for the response. My question is less about using RADAR studio as DAW for Post and more about abandoning AVID HDX and possibly even Media Composer/ Video satellite in favor of Protools Videotracks or running HDX and media Composer/ Video Satelitte with limited capabilities, for example no HD Sync to reference to house black. I'm assuming it's not an issue due to a filebased workflow but I'm concerned about missing something. I just need a second set of eyes on this "workaround" Thanks again.

I posted this in the computer section also, I hope that's okay, if not, please delete. I have a question for the post production / computer experts here. Our facility runs two ProTools HDX suites for audio post for Television. We mix in stereo only. The audio systems used to be synched to house black with an AVID Sync HD and the video satellite (AVID Media Composer with Mojo DX I/O) is also synched to house black . Since our workflow is entirely file based now I’m not sure if I still need to use the Sync HD and here’s the reason why I’m asking. We bought an IZ Technologies RADAR Studio for our A suite about 2 years ago. It replaced an old MacPro. That machine is a high end 24 channel Multitrack in addition to a DAW workstation. In a nutshell, the system runs FANTASTIC, eight I-7 processors and 32 GB of RAM, SSDs, stripped down windows 8.1, it’s so fast and stable it’s amazing. I installed the HDX card in it and it works perfectly but truth be told, it runs equally good or better using the built-in ASIO I/O and run everything native off the CPU. I put massive sessions on this system with hundreds of instances of various plug-in in addition to using the Protools video track ( instead of the Video Satellite) in order to see if I can get it to choke but it handles everything with utmost ease, the system usage display in protools barely registers any activity, even less than using the HDX DSP accelerator. Being so impressed with this system we bought a second RADAR Studio a year ago and it has been a bit more problematic. When I installed the HDX card in the open PCIe slot the computer couldn’t see it at all. I had to change the PCIe slot order to get the computer to even recognize it but now the RADAR side of things ( this is a dual boot machine, windows or RADAR mode) doesn’t work properly anymore. We contacted IZ technologies, even shipped the unit back, HDX card included for a complete overhaul and motherboard replacement and that helped somewhat but it’s still not working properly. The slot order they used to make the computer see the HDX card doen’t match the other machine we own and, according to them the motherboards have been revised and processors have been upgraded ( from 3.6 MHz I-7 to 4MHz I-7). The way it currently sits here the RADAR side of things works perfectly but the DAW/ windows side doesn’t. It fails parts of the DigiTest ( before the overhaul it didn’t see the card at all, when installed in this slot). As a result Protools can’t see the AVID sync HD unit ( which is connected via serial port ) and certain Plug-Ins ( McDSP ) can’t be run as DSP plug-ins. They won’t pass audio that way so I use them native. We have discussed this at great length with the vendor and manufacturer and we are at a point where we need to decide whether to seek a full replacement ProTools system built around a new MacPro as a refund or if we can keep and use the RADAR Studio as is without shooting ourselves in the foot. I mixed a couple of shows on it as is and it does work great. I use media composer as video satellite without synching either one to house black. It doesn’t seem to matter since no linear audio transfers are happening between machines, only file based audio is pushed back and forth. My concern is that I’m missing something here. What are the negative consequences of running a post audio mixing suite without Sync reference and without DSP accelerators? What else am I going to find out later that would have influenced my decision whether to keep going with a new RADAR Studio running on less than all cylinders vs getting a mac based system. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks

I'm posting this in the "post" section as well, I hope that's okay I have a question for the post production / computer experts here. Our facility runs two ProTools HDX suites for audio post for Television. We mix in stereo only. The audio systems used to be synched to house black with an AVID Sync HD and the video satellite (AVID Media Composer with Mojo DX I/O) is also synched to house black . Since our workflow is entirely file based now I’m not sure if I still need to use the Sync HD and here’s the reason why I’m asking. We bought an IZ Technologies RADAR Studio for our A suite about 2 years ago. It replaced an old MacPro. That machine is a high end 24 channel Multitrack in addition to a DAW workstation. In a nutshell, the system runs FANTASTIC, eight I-7 processors and 32 GB of RAM, SSDs, stripped down windows 8.1, it’s so fast and stable it’s amazing. I installed the HDX card in it and it works perfectly but truth be told, it runs equally good or better using the built-in ASIO I/O and run everything native off the CPU. I put massive sessions on this system with hundreds of instances of various plug-in in addition to using the Protools video track ( instead of the Video Satellite) in order to see if I can get it to choke but it handles everything with utmost ease, the system usage display in protools barely registers any activity, even less than using the HDX DSP accelerator. Being so impressed with this system we bought a second RADAR Studio a year ago and it has been a bit more problematic. When I installed the HDX card in the open PCIe slot the computer couldn’t see it at all. I had to change the PCIe slot order to get the computer to even recognize it but now the RADAR side of things ( this is a dual boot machine, windows or RADAR mode) doesn’t work properly anymore. We contacted IZ technologies, even shipped the unit back, HDX card included for a complete overhaul and motherboard replacement and that helped somewhat but it’s still not working properly. The slot order they used to make the computer see the HDX card doen’t match the other machine we own and, according to them the motherboards have been revised and processors have been upgraded ( from 3.6 MHz I-7 to 4MHz I-7). The way it currently sits here the RADAR side of things works perfectly but the DAW/ windows side doesn’t. It fails parts of the DigiTest ( before the overhaul it didn’t see the card at all, when installed in this slot). As a result Protools can’t see the AVID sync HD unit ( which is connected via serial port ) and certain Plug-Ins ( McDSP ) can’t be run as DSP plug-ins. They won’t pass audio that way so I use them native. We have discussed this at great length with the vendor and manufacturer and we are at a point where we need to decide whether to seek a full replacement ProTools system built around a new MacPro as a refund or if we can keep and use the RADAR Studio as is without shooting ourselves in the foot. I mixed a couple of shows on it as is and it does work great. I use media composer as video satellite without synching either one to house black. It doesn’t seem to matter since no linear audio transfers are happening between machines, only file based audio is pushed back and forth. My concern is that I’m missing something here. What are the negative consequences of running a post audio mixing suite without Sync reference and without DSP accelerators? What else am I going to find out later that would have influenced my decision whether to keep going with a new RADAR Studio running on less than all cylinders vs getting a mac based system. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks

Amazing what 23 beers will do to the quality of your voice. Regarding straining the AD converter, there's hardly anything in indoor dialog recording ( other than standing in front of a fan or an open window on a windy day) that would "strain" the ADC. unprotected Large Diaphragm Condensers at close range , yes, but not an SDC mic on a boom (unless it's unprotected and swung wildly). Regular HVAC rumble, while audible, does not affect the ADC's performance, outdoor windblasts on insufficiently protected mics do, they become the dominant part of the electrical signal, clobbering the ADC and killing headroom. That's why high end digital consoles come with HPFs on the analog front end as well as the digital domain. If you did another test with the 80Hz HPF turned off we might actually get a sense of what the 435 really sounds like. Just my 2 cents.

Not to sidetrack completely, I think use of the 80Hz HPF really depends on whether it's a digital filter after the AD converter or an analog filter before the AD converter. If it's analog then by all means, it'll help the AD converter out a lot not to have to deal with all that unwanted low end rumble ( even though I'd prefer a lower -3dB point for male voices, 60 Hz would be great) but if it's in the digital domain ( Zoom F8 ???) then I'd prefer to just capture flat.

I second that, using the 40 and 50's lo-cut ( -3dB point around 150 Hz if I read the graph correctly) in addition to the 80 Hz HPF on the mixer really hurts the 40 and 50 in this comparison, otherwise I believe the 40 would have fared better than all the other ones. The 416 sounds decent, the 435 sounds thin but useable. A Schoeps MK 4 or MK 41 would have slain them all as far as off-axis response is concerned.

Location sound, A1, A2, post, etc. https://employment.unl.edu/postings/66882

I liked the tiny desk series when they'd only use one single 418.

sarcasm? I have to ask being from Germany too.

IIRC NPR tiny desk uses MKH 418 stereo MS shotgun mics ( 416 mid with some evolution series figure 8 for the side in one housing) but you'll see all kinds of mics in there , like the Coles ribbon 4038 on the horns.

In the words of my friends at our HR department:" You can call yourself whatever you want" Are we still talking about microphones?

Please let us know if this does what you'd like it to do. Good luck.

I am listening to one as I type, seems to have those qualities you seek, edgy and big low end. I have 2 of them, one sounds like it needs help, kinda wonky, hollow mids, the other one seems better. These are T powered mics though so you'd need a mixer that can provide T-power or get a P2T converter. These are not made anymore and not readily available on the used market. Back in the day they were held in high regards for their low self noise and ruggedness, good choice for what you're trying to do although most location sound pros have moved on to MKH 40s and Schoeps.

Doesn't that already exists? It's called a MKH 435 , same RF circuitry and capsule, just different plumbing, yes?

The MKH 60 with the Hi-boost engaged can come pretty close IMO and you can disable that rear bass lobe with the low cut but truth be told, nothing sounds like a 416, that's why it's still in use, mostly for VO work and sports broadcasting. Big, meaty ball impact for basketball, Volleyball, etc. = 416, nothing else will do.

When I think of "fixing it in post" I think of a lot of things that are done to overcome problems created in the field however, EQ'ing a properly recorded track to suit your tonal preferences is not one of them, that's called "mixing". The response issues that the 416 has in your application can't be overcome by modifying the "plumbing" of the mic whereas the character differences of the 416 vs a Schoeps MK 41, as they relate to dialog, can be overcome with EQ .

Thanks for the info. I managed to arrange a demo prior to the purchase.

I need to buy a set of dpa headworn mics for upcoming projects and time is of the essence. One of our vendors tells me that the 4188 is sold out and unlikely to become available until next year but the 4288 is available now. I'm told that the 4288 is identical to the 4188 except in form factor. The specs look identical but in the past I've auditioned dpa lavs with very similar specs to find that they do not sound identical, not even close. Does anyone here have knowledge as to how the two models compare in real life? I have used the 4188s before and like them.

I have to ask: Is this in the style of surf music? Note: Nothing Fender on that stage.

That's indeed a beautiful rig. White tolex always gets my attention going back to seeing some guy rockin' a MusicMan combo in white. I wish I had pictures of all the cool rigs I've seen with all kinds of color variations that don't show up in any books. A good friend of mine used to have a white Tolex 5F6A Bassman four 10" combo and a brown Tolex Bassman head with a matching brown single 12" cab with tone-ring. Both were definitely stock. never seen another one like it. But I do have to ask: Where do you perform and how loud can you play your amps? I used to gig with my old Bassman on 6 ( halfway up) and my Concert around 5 and it was loud, very loud but very pleasant sounding. These days I play that 18 watter barely on 0.5 and my bandmates in their 20s and 30s are already complaining, leave alone the FOH sound guys., different times I guess. It's that stupid idea that the PA guy needs control, blahblah, I much prefer a proper backline with bigger amps that don't need to be miced. The result sounds much better if the band knows how to balance themselves. leave the PA for Vocals. That is a great question, care to elaborate on how mics play a role in achieving the "Surf sound"? Live? Studio?

Hihihi What would they have used? a setup similar to this one from the PBS show "American Epic"? https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-american-epic-recording-machine-nicholas-bergh-20170721-story.html

The cleans are Tele through a Fender Concert and 6G15 Reverb, dirty is Les Paul jr through a RealTube dirt pedal and the WEM Dominator. This was recorded a long time ago and I didn't own a bass then so I tuned the strings of my ES-5 Hollowbody down a full octave and played the bass lines. The strings were hanging off the fretboard like overcooked spaghetti and intonating the notes was very difficult but I like the results. Everything sounds trashy, definitely not a pro recording, haha.

Interesting. In that video those sound really close but in my experience that doesn't tell the whole story. Reminds me of the Strymon Flint reverb/ trem pedal, in videos it really seems to nail that tone but in real life when compared directly with the real thing it sounds small and cheap.

Colin Cripps? That's a whole different category of tone, definitely not clean but very chimey with beautiful overtone bloom, typical EL-84 tone, just better than the rest IMHO. I brought up Colin in the context of the relatively recent surge of popularity of the Filmosound projector/ amp conversions. There's a whole bunch of builders doing designs inspired by those conversions, there's even a pedal that supposedly sounds like a Filmosound 385. For Colin's sound samples there's the Tex amp webpage, I'll link to my favorites. The SG and tele samples are wonderful while the Les Paul clips are muddy and boring to my ears. In a way that's a good thing in that the amp doesn't alter the true sound of the guitar too much, great guitars sound great through it, mediocre guitars sound mediocre through it. https://soundcloud.com/tex-amps/sets/texamps I like all kinds of tones, for cleans the bigger brown-face Fenders are definitely it but they do make great platform amps for pedals or other type of preamps as well, they can get very brutal sounding with the right preamp.