Noah Timan

Thanks Tom. I think maybe nobody makes what I'm after. I do already have a couple of 1 rack space, 10-pound, AC-powered boxes that do this function (along with others). I was hoping that someone made a simple interface, small and light, that simply took AES audio in via standard connectors and output via thunderbolt. No need for the size and weight for all the circuitry for mic preamps, ADCs, video technology, 48 channels etc etc. Something hopefully small and in the 1-2 pound range. As I said, I think maybe what I want doesn't exist but I thank everyone for the helpful suggestions!

Thanks all. I'm beginning to fear that what I seek doesn't exist except as something big and heavy and overloaded. Tom, do you know what the Blackmagic device was? I couldn't find anything on their product pages.

Try the Groundskeeper brand from Canada. Solidly built with good backs.

Thanks to both of you! Rado, that might work, but I'm wondering if there isn't a more direct device that does it. VAS, the symphony system may be a little overkill for what I'm trying to do (take 12 channels of AES and output them via Thunderbolt or USB, no A/D conversion etc). Thanks if anyone has any other ideas...

Hi all, hope everybody's well. Can anyone recommend a simple, small, lightweight interface that would accept 8-12 channels of AES audio from an external source and output to USB or Thunderbolt? It does not need to do anything else. Thanks in advance if you've got any ideas...

On my current show I use three different recording rigs and two of my recorders have built-in sound report generating functions. On the third I still do paper reports. In my experience and from conversations and discussions with many different dialogue editors and post folks, no matter how meticulously we fill them out or deliver them, sound reports rarely get used in feature and episodic workflow, beyond production and telecine noting what was delivered and telecine using them to verify any discrepancies of what takes are on a given roll. For post, they're usually working off a conformed cut, and there's no efficient cross reference in place (that I know of) being employed to access reports and notes or track assignments from daily rolls. I can't tell you how many times over the years people have come back to me with questions about something, whether it be the telecine lab or post during conversations, and I pointed out that the answer to their query was noted and dutifully explained in the sound report, followed by ponderous silence. Unfortunately, sound reports seem like a relic from the previous model that desperately need an upgrade in production/post workflow to be able to be used efficiently by those folks. I completely understand nobody wants to cross-reference info from the EDL and dig through a bunch of production sound rolls and files or paperwork and spend all that time just to see if we'd delivered a note. (And as one dialogue editor humorously told me once, "When you guys put, 'AIRPLANE NG', I'm like, 'I KNOW'"). Given that the upgrade hasn't happened yet, my response has been to keep their creation and delivery as simple as possible, given the extreme likelihood that they will not be used for much beyond a list of what exists on what sound roll during initial transfers. In theory it'd be great for post to be able to access track lists and notes with a quick click, but in practice (even though this probably should exist at least in metadata) it never seems to. My .02

Thank you, sir, for the compliments! I don't do it alone. I'm pretty sure I've got the one of the hardest working sound departments in New York City behind my back when we do this show, augmented with lots of help from the greater NY sound community as we're constantly doing multi-unit work where we have to split up and add teammates to the formation. And I've been blessed by being able to work with two amazing costumers who never give up on finding solutions with me, grips, electrics, props, set dressers all who run in to fix problems and don't worry about getting "yelled at" for taking a minute to solve something, camera ops who hate the multi-camera routine almost as much as we do and understand our fight...POI's a funny show. We're all in the trench together for an extent, so we all understand how it is and try to help each other out. I've been on far easier shows and movies in the past where people were way more prone to throwing a middle finger up at another department instead of helping. And it's honestly astonishing what my post team is able to accomplish in the limited time they have to work with. Our main producer/director put a post up on Facebook sometime after we finished "If..Then..Else..." thanking us, talking about how absurd we have to come up with a big budget action/sci fi movie every 8 days, and he's not that far off that exaggeration. Or at least he wasn't in that case. (I still hurt thinking about that one!) Anyway, thanks.

<< It sounds like Noah has mastered that art of fighting the good fight along all the technical lines of framing and noise reduction. But I also argue that it's always worth the effort to at least point out the obvious, "We wouldn't have to shoot everything in close-up, move all our locations 20 miles from the nearest airport, and ADR half the performances if the actor would speak up just a little." Perhaps for a particular actor it just doesn't work, but, for an actor that can pull it off without blowing his performance mojo, it is by far the most straightforward solution in most cases. >> Well, in my practice, when you point out that obvious thing, the producers and directors smile a painful smile and say, "I know". In that pained smile is a lot of subtext, which is saying, "I know it sucks for you because you're unhappy with these tracks. But let me tell you, pal, however bad that sucks for you, it sucks way worse for me. I have to pay thousands of dollars to solve all of these location issues, shoot the show in a way the director/producer/showrunner doesn't want to, and then deal with the actors having a temper fit if they have to go to looping." What makes our show especially challenging is that we DON'T shoot it all in closeups, shoot it 25 miles from the airport, or loop half the thing. We shoot it in all sorts of angles on the streets of New York in a variety of locations which could be politely described as "not ideal for sound recording", and we still have to get the tracks somehow. But practice makes perfect, and the beauty of television is that you get another crack at scenarios that on a movie you might only have one shot at. If you don't throw up your hands and give up, bemoaning your fair-enough complaints about physics and lack of magic wands, you can continue to hone and refine your approach and see what one can do on one's own end to improve things. In my experience, bit by bit, things get better. Yes, it's a cussload of work and it'd be a far easier life on a show that shoots on a studio set most of the time with theatrically trained actors that naturally project. But sometimes we don't always get it the ideal way. I feel like i'm beating a dead horse if I continue to opine (based on my experience) that simply asking someone to perform a skill they aren't trained to do isn't going to yield much sustained result, so I am going to largely give that one a rest for now. I will only say that with absolutely zero disrespect intended towards anyone, I and my crew certainly wouldn't do all the work we do in political negotiations over locations and noise and camera operators and DPs and gaffers and props and background directing-ADs, dealing with flithy sound blankets and carpets and decrepit old moldy refrigerators and compressors and the bottoms of a gazillion shoes, having to play stern policeman to a chatty cast of hundreds standing around while we're rolling, etc if I could get a similar result by simply going to the producer and director and saying, "If he/she doesn't speak up, you're going to have to loop the whole thing."

Dan, it's not just Jim -- like I say, most of our regulars are soft speakers and I've had plenty of experience with others in movies and other shows. When they don't project, no amount of asking/demanding/suggesting has gotten them to do it for more than maybe, MAYBE the moment it's being asked for, in my experience. The funny thing is many of them have naturally loud speaking voices, but when the camera starts rolling those loud voices disappear.

Thanks Larry! Mighty kind.

Well, I'm glad it worked out for you. My experience is different, though. I have never gotten a normally quiet actor to suddenly start projecting for any sustained length of time. That's with dozens and dozens of soft speakers on all sorts of movies and shows. Perhaps I've just been exceptionally unlucky...

And how often have you been successful at getting an actor to change their volume over a consistent basis by asking, or 'educating'? My point is that it's a learned skill more than it's a conscious choice. If I can't sing in key, saying to me "sing in key! You're off key! You need to be on key!" probably wouldn't get me any closer. I'd have to learn how to sing and practice scales etc. In my experience, theatrically trained actors tend to project because they've been taught to do so and have practiced that skill. In my experience, it's going to be fighting the current with those without that learned skill who naturally speak from the throat.

Steve, the fight isn't with the actors. That one you'd always lose, if you were foolish enough to try. Regardless of how cooperative their attitude is, actors who aren't trained to speak from the diaphragm are not going to suddenly start doing it as a default because you asked them to. They are in their own tunnel like everyone else, and your needs are not going to be high on their priority list when they are in the moment. They either have theater training and speak up on their own, or they don't. Any requests for "more volume", from either you or the director, are usually going to have results for maybe one or two lines before they slip back into their default performance level. It's a waste of time. I learned that lesson long before this show. The fight is with the recording circumstances. That is the only thing you as a mixer can affect, in my opinion/experience. That is the "technique" Ty speaks of that allows us to "get the good stuff"...do everything you can to eliminate noise from the recording. Is it fair? No. Am I jealous when I hear of other shows where everyone projects all the time? Yes. Is that life? Yes. .02 nvt

Thanks Marc! Yeah, it was cute that they referenced it...obviously Jim's "speak softly and carry a big stick" routine isn't lost on anyone. He's the obvious standout, but most of our cast tend to be quiet folks...it does obviously make it more challenging, especially since we spend so little time at the studio. Michael is a really talented actor, a wonderful guy, a good friend and a dream to work with from a sound perspective...if any of you get the chance in the future to work with him, I recommend jumping at it.

Hello Ty, all I gotta say is this: I wrote a much longer answer to this question when it was posed on the jwsound Facebook page in December, but I can't find the thread. In brief, I do have different microphones, gain structures, EQ settings, rigs etc I like for the different members of our cast. That's a technique that really has to be done by ear to get tailored to the particular voice -- it's not a one-size-fits-all procedure. But mostly we just have to fight and scratch and kick to get the noise levels down so we can record these guys and gals without a ton of BG noise creeping in. We ride the frame lines hard, do a ton of carpeting, fight off wide'n'tights, chase away noisemakers and basically fight and kick and scratch for every line. Like any show, it wouldn't be possible without all the support from a great crew, from 2nd 2nd A.D.s to grips to electrics to camera operators to set dressers to a series of returning directors who cooperate wherever possible.