dudsound

Thanks Evan. +5 is the spot then. Dudley

I'm looking at a PSC RF multi SR six-pack, the slightly older model with the D-sub connector on the back, to give me addition receiver capacity should I need more than the three slots that the SL6 provides. Receivers in my SL6 have the audio output set at -6 and this works well for a range of levels in. With the SRc in the PSC rack and plugged into input 7 of the 688, (line only), I needed to increase the output level of the receiver to +5, (ie the highest), to feel reasonably comfortable that the iso levels were not too low. Is this the experience other users have had with this or similar setups? Thanks Dudley

Just found another little niggle regarding my B2 SRc working with the SL6/688. I was testing out the battery life of my SSM's with the Lectro battery and a third party battery, (EXpro), supplied as spares by my dealer. I found setting the battery chemistry on the SRc to AAL gave me good early indications of the tx battery gradually going down, and then about a ten minute warning of ultimate failure when the tx battery symbol on the SRc starts to flash. Unfortunately when looking at the tx battery indicator on the 688 display, the tx battery symbol showed 100% all the time including at the point when the SRc tx battery indicator was flashing, (and the battery LED on the SSM was flashing red). Hopefully this is just another firmware tweak for the SL6/688 along with sorting the scanning issue between the SRc and the mixer. Incidentally, the SSM managed 6 hours with the Lectro branded battery, and 5 hours with the EXpro branded battery. (50mw). Dudley

Many thanks Larry & Gordon for your swift replies and for the dialogue with Sound Devices. Dudley

Does this effect B2 SRc's? Also, adding another problem to the list, I have recently purchased a B2 and have found that when in my 688/SL6, the SRc scan does not show up on the 688 screen, (see picture), but looking at the receiver screen you can see the scan is happening, and now, is it correct? There are a couple of other tuning issues which also don't work from the 688, but most other non-tuning functions appear to work. I have placed my receiver in other peoples 688/SL6 with the same results, but I have also put a B1 SRc into my rig, and all functions worked perfectly from the 688, thus proving this is B2 problem. I have had some dialogue with Sound Devices who said it was a Lectrosonics problem, and my dealer spoke to Lectrosonics who said it was a Sound Devices problem, so no surprises there, but recently according to my dealer it does look as if Sound Devices have taken this on and as this started in December last year when I bought the receiver, I had hoped the recent 688 firmware update which I appreciate was primarily for the Audio Ltd A10 system would also address this problem with the SRc. Well it hasn't included a fix for the B2 SRc and in fact looking at what the new firmware, (4.52), does, even the A10 does not scan from the 688. Dudley

I would also experiment with the low frequency cut on both the transmitter and the MKH60. Excessive low frequencies can be the cause of pumping with many transmitters and a bit of bass cut could help to cure this. Dudley

Whilst the opinions of those who are in the SD corner compared to those in the SQN corner can cause discussion the like of only the Marmite argument can compare with, rest assured you will have no problems sonically by choosing an SQN.The limiters are legendary and have been for many years before SD arrived on the scene, but also your fears of distortion do not warrant worry assuming you operate within reasonable limits. After over thirty years of using SQNs, I have just put aside my SQN 5 series 2, (I haven't sold it, yet), and replaced that with an SD 664. The decision to do this was based purely on the facilities the 664 could provide in a lighter package compared to my SQN5/SD788t setup. But for all the fantastic electricerry the 664 can provide, I still think the SQN5 sounds better and for me that means it has a warmer more rounded sound. Analogue in a honed perfected form. At the end of the day it will not matter which of the top mixer manufacturers you choose and all have different merits, because your sound will have gone down a long road before it finally oozes out of your television, and at that point no-one can tell who made the mixer knobs, I am merely advising you with some years experience that an SQN is still sonically a good purchase. (Also, I suspect rofin, Rob, maybe on the inside of SQN) Good luck Dudley

Oddly enough I did the same thing when I was about 17, (1976), and they replied to me as well, but at least my postage was a bit cheaper than yours. Dudley

Many thanks CrewC

I was lucky enough to have recorded that clip about four years ago which is part of a longer sequence that was not used in the George Harrison documentary, Living In The Material World. We shot a long interview with George Martin at Abbey Road Studios and after that we recorded the sequence with George Harrisons' son Dhani, George Martin and his son Giles picking through the original eight track recordings from the Abbey Road album. A fascinating day but unfortunately since landing on YouTube it sounds a bit mangled and meddled with compared to my original tracks and a shame it was dropped from the final film. Dudley Houlden

For the most accurate and natural stereo image, a cardioid microphone should be used for the mid signal. By progressively using "tighter" microphones instead of a cardioid, eg an MKH50 or 60, the resulting stereo image looses clarity and sounds more like three separate areas, hard left, centre and hard right with "holes" in the image between them. I did know one recordist who used an MKH70 with a 30 in an MS configuration, but that seemed pretty pointless to me and I think his boomswinger thought so as well. A hypercardioid like the MKH50 is probably the best compromise between being a very versatile microphone you would use anyway for a variety of situations, and one that is able to present a reasonable stereo image in an MS configuration. Brent, whilst I assume you are supplying your tracks in AB stereo because your production has specified this, and unfortunately many editors are very poorly informed about how to use MS stereo so supplying stereo in that form is a risk unless specifically requested or agreed to by post, you are of course loosing the main advantage of MS stereo which is the ability to manipulate the "width" of the image after the event or even discard that element with the knowledge that you still have a mono version, the mid signal, which is as good as you would ordinarily supply. Equally, if you are recording dialogue in MS you are also including additional noise/atmos, (which may be desirable), from the S microphone when you submit in decoded AB stereo form, and of course this cannot be minimised after the event, unlike MS stereo. Dudley

This solution to a similar problem on the Sound Devices website could possibly be applied to your setup. http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/recorders/788/788t-w-wireless-in-38-40/

Hi Ross I use VHF Microns as camera links with the SDR receivers, but I also use an SR receiver on a duplicate frequency as a headphone feed. I'm surprised that Tanky couldn't find the wiring configuration but Better Sound Ltd, (0207 482 0177), still hire out a lot of Micron gear and have in the past supplied all sorts of MIcron specific leads including headphone outputs, so they would know what's what and may even have a couple of these leads tucked away as they are not for current models.

Apologies for my late reply, but I was not criticising Billy for him throwing new technology at a problem, I was merely highlighting the fact that sometimes a simpler solution is at hand rather than getting out another piece of kit which as you are so rightly discussing now, it is almost expected by many productions that you should have all this extra equipment, without any further expense to them. And then of course was the additional time factor involved in processing the material for submission to the production. Again, I assume, no recompense to Billy for the overtime involved. Regarding the range issue with the actors on the reverse shot, I'll obviously retract my simple suggestion as being naive in the light of local knowledge of the strength of the radiating Manhattan skyline! Dudley Houlden

From Billy Sarokin Is this not just a question of swapping the actors transmitters from back to front, (or vice versa depending on the shot), so they remain in sight of the receiver aerials!? If you mount the transmitter for the boom on the pistol grip of the gag, just by the fact it is going to be high in the air means you will get far better range than keeping it in the boom-swingers pocket. I tend to agree, but sometimes it doesn't have to be. Dudley Houlden