Jump to content

Stuart

Members
  • Posts

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stuart

  1. I find it preferable in reality TV to let producers know that it's a necessity for sound to be monitored for quality/mic rustle/mics fallen off etc by a professional experienced sound recordist and for content by a production member. If either is not right then we needn't have bothered. (apart from that pesky subtitle button they seem to have found...)
  2. Yep. Just started reading the article linked to by Larry about IM of digitally modulated signals being linked to the makeup of the digital signal. Kind of makes sense when you type it out loud. More stuff to learn. Bugger.
  3. Is this tied up with the digital wireless has no intermod idea Glenn? My thinking is that "digital wireless" still has to use an analogue radio wave to carry its digital data stream and those waves must still interact with others and cause intermodulation products in the RF realm. Its just that it is manifested as a total drop in signal as the error correction gets past its limit rather than being manifested as audible artefacts of intermodulation like an analogue system would with its analogous audio. Thus a digital system seems to have less range as it drops out at the point where an analogue system would be just starting to give, possibly liveable, whooshes and splats. Hhhmm I'm mixing up intermod with pure range a little there but I guess it is all mixed up in real life. This is a meandering thought of mine not the knowledge of an expert as you can tell! Thanks Stuart
  4. Hiya Andy, The cards are Transcend 133x 32gb. I've had good success recording literally hours on end of 12 track audio with them in a Zaxcom Fusion with no problems. As I own a bunch I thought I would give them a try in the 664 despite them not being approved as they have proved up to the job of multitrack audio in terms of data throughput. I understand the ideal of sticking solely to approved cards but the way I see it Sound Devices can't exhaustively test the myriad cards out there and are unlikely to test these as they are a pretty old model now. I already own the Transcend cards and all is good up to now with no lockups, corrupted files, slow media warnings etc. but this is all mainly running tests at home not out on real shoots or proper testing like SD will be running so don't take my word for it. Stuart
  5. Been doing test recordings with 32gb 133x with no problems as yet from hours on end of 8 track recordings, quick start stops etc and one real job. About to go on to a job with them so will let you know. I also have some 64gb 400x transcend cards for use with a Zaxcom Fusion and will try them in a 664 and post back. Stuart
  6. Ha. Sorry Richard. Although clumsy of me it wasn't a poke at you at all. It was a tongue in cheek reference to "real" shows (fully budgeted and crewed feature films) that Chris talked about in his original post. I think he may have tweaked his original post now as it came off a bit brash to a few people. I can see how that happens now. Hopefully you can tell from my post I am actually very much a fan of the way yourself and Paul have designed the TCB system. Stuart
  7. Sounds like by working backwards you have answered your own question. Seeing as you work on "real" jobs that are TOD based why bring RF in to it? One of the three of your team should be able to find 30 seconds to jam a couple of sync boxes. The TCB master is bigger and more expensive because it does more stuff. If indeed you fully understand the TCB system you will know that the designers explicitly say in their promotional info that they designed the system to cover the work of more than one system so they didn't have to constantly swap out kit for each new TC situation they are faced with on their "fake" shows. Letting kit manufacturers know what kit would be useful for us and thus what would sell is obviously useful for both sides of that dialogue. They don't really owe you anything though even if you buy a couple of their products. Stuart
  8. Very dry sense of humour you've got there Chris.
  9. No worries. Yep think I was a lucky early UK recipient of a 664 but I know a couple more people with them now. It did have a sticker saying something like "Reserved for Ros.." But I couldn't read the rest of it so just peeled it off and threw it away.
  10. Long story but I've ended up with two. One of them did develop a fault after a while. My guess is the RF amp was overloaded by placing a transmitting TX physically too close to one of the ariels and this has since been repaired and PSC told me an RF limiter is one of the improvements they have made. The other one has since gone in to use and has been flawless and I feel more confident with that one as it is also up to date in terms of PSC's on going improvements. This is a bit off topic now but the amp in the RF Multi SMA is only there to make up for the losses of the splitter, connectors etc. What your receivers "see" at their antenna inputs is the same with whips or a wide bandwidth RF distro being fed from dipoles. It is then up to your receivers to filter this but nothing is really gained up. The advantages being the ability to place more efficient antennae (better ground plane than a receiver's case) in more optimal position, tapping in to larger rigs with things like phantom powered head amps. The system has worked really well for me.
  11. Hiya Roso, The CX2 was still a drawing when I bought mine. Even still I doubt I would have gone for it as the way I work I'm often with a new camera most days so don't fancy getting the screw driver out every morning. The V-lock system is quick and neat and puts the weight in the right place for the camera ops. I'm pretty sure the CX2 will suffer the same Sony cobbling of the slot inputs limited to one channel and thus you would be running cables in to the back anyway and yes having a small internally power able receiver is more flexible given the cameras we have to deal with these days. My opinion on audio quality over the Lectros is of course based on use as a hop where the preamps aren't being pushed as they are receiving a well modulated signal from my mixer. I think things like the preamp quality with Lav mics, perhaps build quality (though I judge that to be good enough for hop use) is where the savings are made over a 2040 system. I thought the Lectro kit was really well built and it reminded me of Sound Devices stuff from that point of view. But yes, I did ultimately judge the En2 audio quality as a smidge better in a hop setup to my bronze ears. My range assesment is pretty flaky to be honest but basically if I leave a 2040tx in my living room and wander down the street with my bag I can get about 80m before consistent hits. The En2 does the same. Given the RX is up high on the back of a camera for hop use this range is more than enough and I guess no news is good news after a year of use and no complaints of hits from post production. Always roll backup of course... I now have my bag arranged with TX's next to the recorder/mixer (a 664 today!) closest to my body and the talent Rxs using dipoles mounted as far to the front as possible on the front petrol pouches running through a PSC RF Multi SMA distro. I wanted VHF put they couldn't do that unfortunately. Check your PM. Cheers. Stu
  12. I use an En2 system as a hop. 2 TxPro transmitters, Dx2 receiver (not the slot mount). I tried three systems primarily for hop use and this one won for me for various reasons. I found it sounded better than the Lectro SR, SMQV rig and I found the Zaxcom systems just a bit too messy and had experienced buggy hire units which didn't help my opinion of them I guess. I did some very picky listening tests against a hard line including whispering compander foxing levels, loud peaks, keys etc and I think you would be hard pressed to tell the difference on real recordings from real locations as I struggled on quiet recordings at home. Tx's externally powerable plus I have cos11s for them if I ever need to use them as normal radios. Hawkwoods vlock mount for the RX as well as a coldshoe mount for smaller cameras. Internally power RX from lithium AA if needs be for about 8 hours. Camera ops like its size and weight. Range is seemingly as good as my 2040s so more than enough for a hop. Cost a bit less than the other options though that honestly wasn't a big consideration because as Wil says, you don't cock around with the quality of hops. Stu
  13. It's almost like they thought about it ;-) Got my 664 yesterday. Spent 10 or 15 minutes playing with it and covered the whole menu with no need for a manual and feel I know what everything does and why. A big difference to my experience with a Fusion 12 I bought earlier this year (different machines but just saying...) It's interesting you thinking about the preamp and AD quality etc. Personally I'll be using the most of the inputs on the 664 to track radio mics and include them in a best I can achieve mix sent wirelessly to cameras. Anybody in my line of work who is getting hung up on input specs of mixer recorders is kidding themselves they are a different kind of sound engineer than they actually are. As a bit of a purist myself I do understand though. Sound Devices have really nailed it with the 664 in my opinion down to little things like the timecode led that blinks when powered down to let you know the TC circuitry is still doing its thing. It's the little things like this that SD think about that make me well chuffed with my purchase. Stu
  14. I suggest you try and find a "FabLab" near you. They are free or cheap to use projects that give small businesses, students and budding inventors access to great machines and tools for doing things like making prototypes etc. Along with things links 3D printers, vinyl cutters etc the one I used had a large flat bed CNC routing machine. I used it to make some precision cut slot resonator acoustic treatment for my studio. They work on a principal of learning and sharing learnt skills with the next person. Or you can pay for booked time slots on the machines as a business. Have a look and see if there is one near you. http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/labs/ Stuart
  15. I think I might be able to lay claim to be the first to copy Mat's BDS idea having had a bash a couple of months ago. Thought I best get in before the patent lands. I did a few things differently managing to squeeze a few more sockets (I reckon the maximum possible) onto the bottom of the box. I've got three ganged off the first switch for Mixer/Recorder, Hop Txs, RF distro, then three pairs for Rxs, and one single for IFB Tx. I also added a socket for power input to the box rather than having a flying lead and used green LEDs rather than red, just cos. I did manage to pop the LEDs in two of them though before realising about needing to drop the voltage with a resistor confirming my prediction that I would mess something up compared to Mat's annoyingly tidy work! Working well and looks neat and I know I have plenty of distribution for the fullest of bags when needed.
  16. Already have compounded the problem of increasing expectations of what a one person sound department can achieve, is how I read this. I'm all for helping post and editors out and try to get any info I feel is pertinent or useful to them when I can but adding another device to your bag to do one of the mixers jobs whilst you are doing one of the boom ops jobs is a concept I find somewhat short sighted really and perhaps a little selfish. Just my opinion though.
  17. Chris, you're a gent. Thanks for the info. I think I will build something similar but with a left/right assign switch and try it with my 552 in the hope it would then work the same with a 664 when they arrive. Thanks Stuart
  18. Did you get any further with this Jean-Paul? I'm planning to do a similar thing to squeeze a boom into a 664 in addition to 6 radios by using, perhaps, an MP-1. I too assumed it was just a -10 input but given that the tape out of the 302 is already -10 and the above cable is recommended for linking from that to a 552 maybe it isn't as simple. I'm at the fringes of my electrical understanding but perhaps its some kind of impedance matching? Anyway. Did you have any joy? Thanks for your help. Stuart (And Michael yes I have posted on the SD forum and will also be sending a lovingly crafted email directly to SD today)
  19. My suggestion. Have the app "say" the number as well as the beep. Could be fed into your mix or just acoustically. Might be useful for doco situations where shouting out slate numbers is a bit too distracting for the contribs. Sven is probably on the look out for VO work right about now. I'd like to see Sound Devices integrate something like this with CL-WiFi so the actual file name could be displayed wirelessly...
  20. Pretty straight forward on a 788 with a CL8 and it's Aux assign switches. Then the recordist can pick what is sent to Comtek feed for each scenario. I'm not sure about Comteks but I have set up Sennheiser IEMs with presets directly tuned to each talent frequency so the listener can switch through themselves (obviously only one mic at a time). Perhaps then a Sennheiser send of boom only from the bag and then that could be tuned to if needed. A bit messy and requires a modicum of thought from the listener. 788s I say.
  21. You won't get much range using those poly holders as antennas.
  22. This is the great conundrum of location recording that leads to my assertion that you can't judge a recordist on the quality of their tracks alone. There are too many outside factors in our line of work to do that. How about this: The speedboat shoot had loads of information, kit budget, test runs and time allowed to get the kind of clarity of dialogue recording that can actually be achieved when given all of that list. The 2 actors in a room setup was shot very quickly with no rehearsals, boom lit or framed out of useful range (concurrent wide and tight!), leading to rough sounding lavs being used despite of inconsiderate wardrobe choices compounded by rushed radio mic'ing at the behest of a barking AD... And my conjecture on this one: B cam crew went ahead and set up this scene whilst the Sound Crew (A-Z cam!) shot the preceding setup. On getting to the podium room setup after clicking the A cam in to the pre-set head and a couple of lighting tweaks everyone is ready to shoot. At this point the Sound Crew are getting in and running cables and noticed there is a mic on the podium when they had been informed on previously asking that there wouldn't be one. The mixer quickly suggests that they swap the dummy prop mic for a nice CMC641 but the visual people (everyone else on set) don't like the look of it and a hidden plant under it would end up sounding too distant and they are now too short on time to rig it anyway. The mixer confirms with the AD that they can get good sound on the mid/CU pass because they haven't been given time to mic the talent. In the end the director decides to shoot a big wide and concurrent tight with the B cam to save time and avoid getting a grilling from the producers about running in to overtime again. When the mixer brings up the issue of no sound coverage for the CU the AD doesn't really understand the problem because he's only 21 and got the job because he's the DP's nephew. The day ends with the DP overhearing the conversation and saying "just ADR it for christs sake" OR None of that happened and it was a simple case of the mixers ISO tracks and notes not making it through the workflow system to your desk? All conjecture on my part of course but I would say each of the ideas floated can and do happen and it would be worth your while to think outside the box a little. See if you can arrange to spend a day on set with one of these "useless" mixers and then return the favour and have them in to experience the tight deadlines and lack of needed information etc you have to deal with. I would suggest the same for the reality stuff you talked about. In my experience reality TV can hold the most extreme case of invisibility of the sound department to the point where I have regularly found PDs shooting scenes and even interviews with no sound op present and have then been greeted with surprise or even hostility for pointing out that they have no sound so will have very little footage of use from what they have just been gazing at in their viewfinder and listening to with their ears. Banding around this concept of achieving good final sound inspite of the production recordings is only a constructive one in terms of gaining work and perceived kudos for a post house. What would be more useful for the whole sound department from shooting to broadcast/print would be more time spent on set by the post mixers and in the studio by the production mixers.
  23. Hiya Math, I've been using some dipoles from Badland to great effect with a PSC Rf multi SMA. They're a little different to the one you linked to. I think they are called "centre fed mini dipole". I'll try to dig out my original invoice. Speak to Adrian there. He supplied me some great, hardy rubber duck type ariels tuned for channel 38ish that screw on to a little rubber centre with a flying lead to whatever connector you need. Great prices as well. Result! Stuart
  24. Stuart

    polycom hdx 9001

    I'm not entirely sure on what you need to achieve but my inclination would be to just put a lav on or near the speaker on the unit. Of course mic your people as well if you need to. This way you don't need to get involved with trying to get sound in and out of the thing. The unit itself will pick up everyone's voices to be fed down the call as that is what it is designed to do and your recording will sound natural and have everything the room hears. As a geeky memory I think Polycom use DPA mics as their contact mics! Apologies if I have barked up the wrong tree. Stuart
×
×
  • Create New...