John Blankenship

The key to keeping controversy positive is to challenge ideas and not attack the person. Ad hominem attacks can turn things sour in a hurry. Challenging and discussing ideas can help everyone learn and grow. Whoa... group hug time... John B.

Hey, Robert, Tell us more of this guilt you speak of. Maybe you should do a T.W. apology... no questions taken... one camera... selected friends and media. Manage your image, dude! John B.

I would also suggest stretching the "Suspenders" around both tubes and moving the pins for a more traditional star pattern. I think the suspension may work better that way. I've used the K-Tek "Suspenders" around even a large body mic mounted in Rycote rings, with great success. You'd be surprised how resilient they are. But, hey, whatever works. Buy only the real thing -- ingeniously designed by Manfred Klemme of K-Tek and manufactured in the U.S.A. using premium quality materials. John B.

I think you're referring to the K-Tek "Suspenders": http://www.ktekbooms.com/products.php?id=46 They're excellent. Just be sure and get the real deal and not the knock-offs that B&H sells. John B.

It's funny how great minds think alike (or, is it, "grated minds"). When asked how much I charge if I use THIER gear, I say $100 more for dealing with equipment that I haven't personally tweaked, checked out, and calibrated. John B.

One of my books (a gift from a wonderful filmmaker) is titled, "Okay For Sound: How The Screen Found Its Voice," copyright 1946. However not many of the multitude of pictures show the process of sound recording. The photos are used more to underscore the films they are writing about. John B.

Robert, There was a thread on RAMPS recently that mentioned someone who found a source for remote CF drives that worked well in this application but had to order enough to make it worthwhile. He then offered them to other mixers at a reasonable price. It might have been Charles Tomaras but don't quote me on that. There may even be something about it here on JWsound. It seems I recall seeing a photo but don't remember if it was here or a link from RAMPS. Happy hunting, John B.

When someone asks me about a half day, my response is that, "Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a half day." If they need an explanation, then I mention that by the time I've prepped gear, driven to the location, done the job, packed back up, then returned to the studio, I would seldom be able to do the same thing for another client -- especially, if I don't have a hard "out time" from job number one. I've lost gigs because of this, but not many, and usually not the ones I'd want. Most pros understand this position so little explanation is necessary. However, having said that, there are sometimes special circumstances and my clients have voiced their appreciation when flexibility has been required. I had one regular client ask up front for 5 and a half days with a short day on Saturday, the final day of the shoot. It was a reasonable request and I accommodated them. There turned out to be some overtime hours during the week and I was on my way home early on Saturday -- a good week with stories to tell. In another instance, a regular client offered a rate up front that was reasonable and fair for the two or three hours prep followed by a ten minute uplink to a sports center show. A big plus on an uplink such as this is that you know for certain what the "hard out" time is. So, the short answer is: No half days -- but there are exceptions. John B.

Class act!

I use, and have used, several different tackle boxes, etc. The one I'm currently using the most is a small two sided box (Plano 3213) that has 5 compartments on one side and 8 on the other. I can carry several lavs, wind protection, and affixing gear options. http://www.buzzillions.com/reviews/plano-tackle-box-mini-magnum-3213-reviews The main reason I like this one is that it'll fit in a belt pouch for run-n-gun gigs.

Oh, no! That's horrible news. Dave was a super guy -- always a bright spark at the RAMPS event. I knew I hadn't seen any posts from him for a while. He was such a good guy with such a positive attitude. The last we communicated was via email in late August. My heartfelt feelings go out to his close friends and family. I wonder if we can get any more information. John B.

In your world it may be dead, but that isn't true everywhere just yet. I don't disagree with your point about what should be included in the book, but DAT is still being used. Although I haven't recorded anything to DAT for almost a year -- and then it was because the producer asked for "both, just to cover all the bases" -- I know of at least one successful Midwest mixer working on lots of high-profile national spots who still uses DAT exclusively. The industry being as divergent as it is, I doubt that he is alone. I had a client ask me about DAT just a few days ago. Of course I mentioned I had much newer technology than that but could still record on DAT if that was his wish. DAT may be taking its last gasp, but the rumors of its death are a bit premature. Having said all that, a book should strive to be as timely as possible and not easily dated. That's a tough one in today's market. John B.

Okay, so, there's a button to un-ignore ignoring the ignore button. John B.

So, is there a button to ignore the ignore button? John B.

Perhaps that's a good thing since people are fascinated by train wrecks. But, it reminds me more of a discussion -- then a new guy walks into the room. People adjust and continue discussing. John B.

Robert, Have you noticed the irony yet? It seems John F. is receiving some flack largely because of the equipment choices in his book. How ironic it would be if he had shown a Mackie mixer as the hub for a cart setup. It, too, would have probably drawn comment, however, I have it on good authority that there are accomplished professionals using this mixer to great success. John B.

Jeff, The gray text will be a little harder to read on some computers -- would prefer black. But, mostly: Thanks for all your efforts! John B.

From glancing at the sample pages the book looks to be pretty well written, based on the book's focus and the market the writer is aiming it toward. For a basic manual covering so many different types of setups, it presents an easy to understand -- but still fairly comprehensive -- view of how different professional audio gigs are handled. A few little things like the two track Cantar jumped out at me, but if anyone here has ever tried to write a manual that no one could possibly misunderstand, you'd know how near to impossible that task is. John B.

I sorta hate to propose this, but it's the kind of thing I'd consider if there's no other explanation: Is it possible you plugged into the camera's time code input instead of the output? John B.

It boils down to the difference between the theoretical world and the practical (real) world. In the theoretical world, the client would contact us a couple of weeks in advance and offer to pay us for a day of testing, location scouting, establishing workflow, etc. -- nice dream. All the ideas you advanced are ones I'd use under differing circumstances. And, they're all good ideas in the theoretical world. In the real world of this particular shoot, my client was busy trying to pull together a production on short notice because their client wanted something at the last minute and my client was busy trying to wrangle executives from their client's company to all be in the same place at the same time, meanwhile putting out numerous "fires." The last thing my client needed from me when they called and said, "are you available..." was for me to make it "all about sound." I was booked only a couple of days prior to the shoot and technical details were discussed the day before the shoot. I made my 5D pitch, then was informed what they wanted and needed. My client understood the compromises they were making in the audio and were willing to do so. It was their choice. They are savvy enough that we did record double system in case they couldn't get by with the camera audio. Earning a living in this business is more about meeting our clients' needs than it is about how perfect our sound is. My sanity improved dramatically (although it's still in question) when I quit thinking about perfection on the job and decided my mission is to give my clients the best quality I can within the conditions they give me to work under. If it were strictly about sound and I were required to make it the best possible, to begin with, I'd veto at least 90% of the locations they've chosen. That, of course, is not the real world. If I'm paying for the production, I get the choice; if they're paying for it, they get the choice. Naturally, I still voice concerns when I have them, and council them on compromises they are making, but an important part of my job is to know when to shut up and just do the job they need and want. Perfection is a theory. Making a living is the reality. John B.

If Denecke makes it, it's solid. They are the time code gurus. John B.

Since this is a kind of religion for some folks, I thought the term was "Dehovas" -- as in a devout "Dehova Witness." Don't jump my case; I use a Deva. John B.

I've had it happen that the Scripty turns to the director and says, "you want that to be an A?" and the director, trying too hard to overthink it on the spur of the moment, comes up with something out of left field that requires everyone to write way-too-much in a way-too-small space. In most situations, if they can't capture a scene in 24 different shots (sometimes leaving out I and O for clarity's sake), there's usually a much bigger problem than numbering the takes going on. I have worked with a combo method where a "Scene," "Take," and "Sound" number were all used. The "Sound" number being basically the "European" method with an incremented number. I did like the fact that the sound number could correspond to the DAT's "ID" number, which also corresponded to my incremented "Event" number on the sound report. (Yes, way back in the DAT days.) These days, on Red shoots, I'm frequently running into "Clip" numbers in the "Take" column. That works fine since it corresponds for post when syncing in the editing system. I'm in favor of the simplest method that contains sufficient information for anyone to find anything when necessary. In other words: Whatever works, but KISS. John B.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but like I said, that's what they wanted. My choice (after offering my opinion) then became to either do the job to the best of my ability, or to turn it down. I took the job and did my best for a good client. I made the right choice. It uses a standard tip-ring-sleeve mini-phone jack input. I sent line level into my 302, then adjusted the output for a fairly hot mic level. The camera has no metering or monitoring -- a pain. I don't want to commit to what is the perfect (an ironic term, in this case) level for this camera since I didn't have the time to do a full-on test. I have a file I use to check headroom in calibrated 1dB steps which I'll use when I have the time and that'll tell me more about the camera's parameters. ------------------------------- Philip: As is usual, I agree with your comments. Actually the main output level of the 302 is software adjustable over a wide range (the first setup item) -- a handy feature. To send an unbalanced signal from the main outputs, Sound Devices recommends: Pin-1= ground; Pin-2=hot; Pin-3=Not Connected. So, yes, you need either appropriate adapters or a special cable. ----------------------------------------- For the future I plan to modify a couple of Studio 1 adapters to each accept two channels of balanced line-level in and to have adjustable unbalanced mic levels out. When I get the opportunity, I'll then calibrate them for best operation on a 5D since this client now works with that camera -- and others will too. Like I mentioned in the earlier write-up, for future 5D shoots, I'll then have three options: 1) Working entirely as a film shoot, 2) Sending a wireless scratch track to the camera, 3) Sending a "best-quality" feed to the camera. Naturally, when I can, I'll push for either of the first two and I'll always push to use double system in any case. John B.

I sent the line level output of the board on my cart to a Sound Devices 302 near the two camera positions, then sent an unbalanced low level signal from the 302 to the cameras. That way I maintained the balanced output of the cart mixer. I have a Studio 1 adapter box with transformer balanced inputs that has worked great in the past (since the days of the XL1 and the VX1000 are pretty much over, I thought I'd probably never use it again -- go figure), so I've arranged to get another one which will give me a simpler solution in the future. John B.