John Blankenship

It's 55 cents now: http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=178004,00.html and http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=200505,00.html JB

Skills & Experience. JB

You should'a broke out the 4.2 and rolled. Naturally, it would be a good idea to run a backup on the Deva for when the producer discovers that post can't handle Nagra tapes any longer. John B.

PSC makes a 48v. Phantom to 12v.T-Power adapter (under $40): http://www.professionalsound.com/specs/barrels.htm and Sound Devices had discontinued their 12v.-15v. Phantom to 12v.T-Power adapter, but you might be able to find one used: http://www.sounddevices.com/products/xltpmaster.htm Sennheiser also makes one (around $60). John B.

I've had to crank the gain all the way up into the line input of several cameras. If the circuit is designed properly, this should still be superior to going into the mic level input. I'm not sure how most cameras are currently designed, but the line input on many devices goes directly into a pot which then feeds the line amplifier stage. To crank the pot up in this scenario is not a problem at all. However, the converse is true... if you're going into an input, such as a mic level input, and you have to crank the input level way down, you could easily be overdriving the amplifier stage that is prior to the level control. To muddy the waters, there have been camera designs that have internally padded their line level input down to mic level and then amplified it back up. This is very bad engineering practice and not appreciated by anyone who really cares about audio. I hope this helps rather than confuses. John B.

Robert, Tell me it isn't so! For instance, let's say you are running a mic into a mixer, from which you have a line out cable into the Lectro transmitter and then going mic level from the receiver into the camera... Here's what you are doing signal-wise: Your mic is feeding into a low level preamp in the mixer which boosts the signal up to line level...then, that signal is attenuated at the input of the Lectro transmitter where the, once again, low level signal is AGAIN feeding a low level preamp which is amplified to the point where it modulates the transmitter and the signal is sent to the receiver which then amplifies the signal to a line level and then you are attenuating that signal back down to a mic level, where, AGAIN it feeds a low level mic preamp which boosts it back up to line level to feed the camera's operating circuits. Most of us are aware that the single most critical amplifying stage is a low level (mic level) preamp. It operates down near the circuit minimums where noise, RFI, and gremlins lurk. In the above scenario, by feeding the camera's mic input, you are now going through THREE low level amplification stages, amplifying the signal to line level following each one, and then attenuating the signal back down into the subsequent stage. If I were writing a White Paper on "How To Damage An Audio Signal," the scenario of repeatedly attenuating a line level signal to mic level and then amplifying it back up to line level, stage after stage, would be one of my prime suggestions. Lectro receivers always operate at full gain in the output stage. The level coming out of the Lectro receivers is then either left at that full gain or is attenuated via a passive resistor network down to whatever level the operator sets it at. The simple answer: Always run a Lectro receiver at max gain out unless it's absolutely necessary to do otherwise. Robert, I don't like the sound of Lectro's limiters, either. They're a "brick wall" type of limiter that isn't gentle to the signal. They are there primarily to prevent over-modulation (a big no-no). The best adjustment point I've found with Lectro transmitters (for units UM200C or later -- UM200B and earlier were calibrated differently ) is to push them until the limiter light just occasionally flickers on peaks -- but not too frequently. Experiment. Listen. Make sure that when you're trying different level settings of the transmitter that you're adjusting the input of the camera with the corresponding reciprocal adjustment so you're not just hearing the camera being hit with different internal levels. John B.

The same argument can be made for both sides of the equation. It's a question of who controls the greed. Like so many other things in life, extremes are a danger, balance is key. John B.

Thanks, John B.

Darren, I like the reel. Where did you get it? Thanks, John

Robert, You want cable with stranded conductors, not solid ones. Once you get it "trained" it lays out well and winds up nicely; you'll be pleased. John B.

For those who haven't been following along with the thread on RAMPS about the new Fostex FM-3 & FM-4 mixers... At NAB they had the FM-3 on display. I came away from NAB with a Preliminary Information sheet that has the FM-3 (with photos) on one side and the FM-4 (with drawings) on the other. Here is a link to view or download a PDF into which I've scanned both sides of the brochure: www.indyfilm.com/2104 John B.

What Eric said! I'm not sure what you think you need from any of us at this point. Many, if not most, prophesies are self-fulfilling. If you constantly point out to everyone that you have a Mackie and ask if they're looking down on you because you do, they will. Not because of the Mackie, per se, but because of your focus on it instead of focusing on how well you do the job. In the past I have done cart jobs with my Sound Devices mixers and got the job done fine. I then felt the need to move to a fully configured cart. I currently use a Soundcraft GP-1 which was purpose-built for our use, DC power, multiple headphone circuits, talkback circuits, output limiters, etc. Just before I got it, I had purchased a used Mackie with the DC conversion. I was planning to give that a try for my cart rig. Upon putting it through its paces I felt I could make it work but also felt its limitations. After comparing them, I didn't like the preamps and planned to use a Sound Devices mixer for the low level preamps (and limiter) and only use the line inputs on the Mackie. My decision does not reflect on someone who uses the Mackie -- preamps and all. It reflects on my comfort level. However, before I had the Mackie implemented, I purchased the Soundcraft. I like it better for many reasons: better preamps, greater headroom, long throw P&G faders, output limiters, talkback capability, two separate boom op headphone feeds, less crosstalk, less power consumption, etc. Now, a big HOWEVER: Given the real world conditions of noisy locations, background traffic, head turns, varied delivery, et al, I'm sure it would have been difficult for any client to tell the difference between the two on final tracks. I guess my point is that I went with the Soundcraft because I'm much more comfortable with it in my total setup. I've since done a number of modifications to it to be even more comfortable. So, in my mind, you have answered your own question. You have integrated the Mackie into your rig in a manner that works really well for you and, hearing you describe it, you sound extremely comfortable with your setup. That's key. If all it took to be a big time sound mixer was the mixing panel itself, then whoop-te-do, a no brainer -- buy a killer panel and get rich (humor)! A good cart setup has so many requirements beyond the mixing panel. It's that total package that speaks loudly, not just some part of it. "How efficiently can you work with that package?" is the critical question. Plenty of Comteks for the suits? Feeds to and from vid village. Several channels of wireless. Good sound logs (okay, maybe just adequate given a director who rolls take after take without a whisper in between). It's the sum total of you and your gear, how you integrate into the production, and how well the job gets done that makes the difference. But if you direct everyone's attention to the Mackie, they will notice it. If you direct everyone's attention to your work, they'll notice that. The answer is up to you, not us. Just my .02. John B.

The thing is... I DO comprehend many of your "fun notes", however the obsessive preoccupation with excrement, body parts, and purposefully inappropriate comments reminds me too much of Junior High School. JB

Understandable since you and R seem to have a lot in common. Both of you appear to be sad individuals who pitifully strive to derive some satisfaction in life by derailing otherwise productive and enjoyable sound forums with trash talk. You may have misread BobD. Although he can be caustic and curmudgeonly at times, he actually has something to say that contributes to this forum. You might wish to follow his example. JB

Ironically, when it comes to the quality of sound we end up with, the acoustics of the location and the way that the microphone is positioned to capture that sound make several orders of magnitude greater difference than the mixing panel. So, if one is evaluating, does that mean we should be judged mostly by the quality of the location manager and our boom op? John B.

Robert, I agree that a person should be evaluated by their work. Having said that, it would be honest to admit it's natural to check out the tools another professional has in their arsenal. If that information is used for any sort of evaluation, it should be done in context. If every piece of gear in your kit came out of Guitar Center, it would give one pause, but if you've found a way to integrate some budget pieces within a professional kit, that's different. A top notch sound person COULD put together the gear to capture quality sound from one trip to GC, but they wouldn't because there are specific, purpose-built pieces of equipment that add functionality and nuances that do the job better. The measure of a sound kit is not any particular piece of gear, but how everything works together to help you get the job done. So, if you've found a cost-effective way to make a budget tool work well for you, don't sweat it. It doesn't make you sub-standard, it just makes you smart. My Oktavas (which serve a worthwhile life as stunt doubles for my Schoeps) are grinning. John B.

You're right on all counts. PSC told me that it was designed for using with lead-acid chemistry. For the 15v. version, they actually substitute a different power supply since the one in there now is running full tilt as you said. I'm using the IDX lithium Ion NP-1 batteries running tandem in a dual battery holder. That gives me over 9 Amp hours per pair. I can be charging a pair while running a pair and I can swap out one battery at a time. Of course I don't run a charged battery alongside a depleted one for any longer than the few seconds it takes to swap the two without bringing down the power grid. I love the light weight of this system. Depending upon what's powered up on the cart I can often get over 4 hours from a pair. Typically, even if all the audio gear is on battery, I try to power the video monitors from A.C. If I ran everything on the cart: mixer, two recorders, 5 Lectro receivers, 3 Comtek transmitters, a Lectro transmitter, two video monitors, lights, and a powered playback speaker, I would only get maybe 2.5 hrs. per pair. John B.

Philip, I'm glad you jumped in to offer your comments. I knew you were really happy with the unit and your satisfaction was among the reasons I decided to go that route. I'm certainly not knocking the unit and don't want anyone to think I am. My intent in sharing my experience is that I think it helps everyone to understand how it works in order to know if it'll fit well in a particular situation. Your comments help to underscore the circumstances under which it certainly does fit the bill. The bottom line is, the backup battery needs to be of a lower voltage than the power supply generates. I'm curious what the actual output voltage of the 15v. supply is. John B.

So, I'm guessing... being an "artistic manipulator" means you control people, but you do it in style? John B.

Thanks, Brent. I've got to agree with everything you're saying, but... This is a one day commercial shoot with a good client who has specified the workflow they prefer. They're the ones who'll be editing it and they've done the same Red workflow before and were pleased with the results (I wasn't sound person on their previous Red shoot). They're happy to have the double system sound as a backup but would prefer to have the camera audio usable, if possible. They're a good client. I like working with them. They pay. And yes, I plan to also put a sync box on the camera if possible. So, I'll treat it just as if it were a full double system shoot but also give them the best camera audio I can since they asked for it. Thanks again, John

An important note about the PSC "Cart Power" unit: First, please understand I'm not knocking PSC, or their products, here. They're good people who make good gear and give good customer service. However, as more and more people are using lithium batteries, I feel compelled to mention a "gotcha" with the Cart Power. I was excited to receive the unit -- it appeared to be just what I needed: Universal AC to 12v. power supply with plenty of amperage and automatic switchover to my battery supply if I lost AC. Well, it turns out, that in my setup, it does just the opposite: It drains the battery first and then switches over to the AC power supply. Oops, that's the exact opposite of what I need! The problem lies in the way the unit operates in that it defaults to whichever is the highest voltage of the two (D.C. out from the power supply, or D.C. out from the battery), and then switches over if that voltage becomes lower than the other. I'm using Lithium batteries, and since they run at a higher voltage than the power supply output, they drain first. PSC said they have run into this before and can make me a unit with a higher voltage (15v.) power supply that should solve the problem. I'm a bit leery of this solution since the Lithium batteries charge up to a quiescent voltage above 16v. and when under load from the cart still start out at about 15.75v. So, whether the 15v. power supply would totally solve the issue depends upon exactly what voltage it actually outputs and what that voltage is under load conditions. For instance, a great many 12v. power supplies actually output something higher than 12v. I returned the Cart Power to the dealer with no problem. The person I spoke with at PSC was gracious to deal with and I only have good things to say about the company. However, I'm sharing my experience because I feel it would be helpful for everyone to understand specifically how this unit operates. John B.

Thanks, Robert, and everyone for the feedback. I think you're right, it's time I update both of my slates -- one at a time, of course, gotta keep one working. This particular project is being edited on a 29.97 timeline, so it's a perfect fit for a 23.98/29.97 cross-jam. Thanks, Sean, for mentioning the "cross-jam" menu item. My client (they're doing the post) tells me they will probably use the camera audio if there are no problems with it, but are happy to have the DVD-RAM from double system, just in case. So, I'll opt for hardwired to the cam instead of a Comtek or other wireless feed. They tell me they've been happy with the audio from the latest builds. I have two sets of Red input cables, one set custom attenuated for my mixer and one set without attenuation (and they usually send a set with the camera), so I should be ready for whichever build we're using this time. My previous Red experience was with build 17 and using the cables that came with the camera, the signal was way too hot. Since I knew on that job the Producers would be using my double-system audio and syncing via the sticks, I didn't concern myself too much with the camera audio quality. Philip, After running more tests and trials, I'm now suspecting that the 23.98 Tascam anomaly may have to do with how the Deva II ouputs its 23.98 code. I'll know more after I update my Denecke gear. Thanks for your feedback, it helps. John B.

Philip, Thanks for checking that out. When I go to the studio tomorrow, I'll double-check my settings and do further tests. My SB2 is the version before Denecke added 23.98. Tomorrow, I also plan to speak with the editor for this week's Red project. Thanks again, John

I understand. Hence my comment. You frequently address the pros here as if you're Professor Kingsfield and everyone assembled is a newbie. It makes you look bad if you only know how to talk to clueless people. I have faith that you can do better than that. John B.

How patronizing.