daniel

"less features=less learning", not necessarily. How those features are organised and marketed have something to do with this and sometimes less is more. For me 'good' documentation of complex equipment usually includes diagrams and not just loads of text however special being able to read and write makes me feel ;- )

I don't know. I spent all my money on the Leo :- ). Well not quite all of it. I'll get to hear the difference at some point but reading Simon Davies answer on the 'Rycote Baseball' thread perhaps the baseball is not as effective with wind but a bit more transparent. The Leo as the advantage of being able to put a fur over it for greater wind protection or even a lighter material over the 'bucky ball' than the standard Cinela fabric (which covers the ball in 2 pieces) so making it more transparent (which I may try, as to me the Leo is certainly not totally transparent). Leo probably sits between 'baseball' and 'BBG' in terms of transparency and effectiveness.

Whoosh! The rycote 'baseball' makes my Leo feel very expensive/overpriced. And to think some thought rycote were the robber barrons :- )

Martin, I appreciate you are very happy Zaxcom customer and most of your reply I read as justifiable enthusiasm for the kit you own. However, the last 2 sentences are a bit of a non sequitur and perhaps a little dismissive of other people's work practice, experiences and opinions. Feel free to continue but I'm just saying. Sincerely, Dan.

Thanks for asking the question and to all those those who replied. I think I now have better idea of how a Zaxcom system goes together. My comprehension skills are not so bad so in a way I'm relieved it was not only me who struggled to make coherent sense of the information on the website. As the system is so featured and sophisticated I wonder if the use of diagrams would also help potential customers understanding of the Zaxcom eco system a little more.

Someone has to wear headphones, bottom line.

Brilliant. I was trying to develop something similar with 3d printing but gave up and paid cable man to do his resin filled versions. The issue i wanted to resolve was the exit angle of the cable. I thought i could use the new style neutriks (female threaded shell) to make a serviceable LP connector which would be relatively easy to change the exit angle of the cable (for use with different bits of kit). The problem was making a cap (similar to your own) which didn't screw into the metal shell but clipped over the protruding piece of (the cut down) gland. I think the effectiveness of an interference fit is determined by the tolerances and the characteristics of the materials in play. The hope was to also to have no need for working the metal shell and just use a knife and file to modify the chuck and gland before finishing with the cap. Too much head scratching for an XLR.

+1. It is quite possible that maintaining 'natural' stereo hearing would be advantageous to a boom op., in some environments at least. Of course a mechanical boom op (boombot™ :-) is a long way off if ever, but from a conceptual point of view it strikes me the device would almost certainly need more than the 1 audio sensor (mic) it is cueing for the recording. Eg. it might have something like a surround array of audio sensors to 'map' the acoustics of the environment in realtime and determine the sweet spot for the recording mic without having to 'find' it (like an autofocus system). Of course cuing the mic silently, getting the ad libs, not tripping on cables, adjusting the edge of frame for an unrehearsed camera move or change in lighting and all the other things a good boom op does are probably more of a technical challenge and its more likely the PSM will be replaced with a machine (Automix/mix-assist/DNS) than the boom op ;-)

looks good. are these silver caps/knobs using the remaining thread of the machined shell to screw into place? looks like you're also using the a cut down cable chuck to keep all the internals of the XLR in place?

"the boom op will be able to also monitor levels on an iPad thanks to a wireless feature the FS7 has", is this just meters or audio as well? No mention of who is wearing the headphones? Mostly sounds like a 2 operator ENG gig - minus the mixer (box) and HPs. If there's a reason you don't want you sound op. to wear even a small (mixer) box of some kind, possibly because of the nature of the shoot, I would consider using something like a plug-on TX to reduce cable management and maybe (depending on the system) make handling the levels a bit easier too. You could put a handheld recorder in front of the TX and your boom can monitor levels with ears and eyes and you have another back up plus 'go wild' capacity. You could use 2 RX and send the same signal to 2 cameras/devices (to help with sync between the 2). Do you have extra crew members to help manage location issues? Aside from signal control in the electronic domain, i would say managing the acoustics of a tricky location is key and involves well timed manual work with the material resources available - it can be a challenge for a 1 person sound dept to find the time to do this as well as do all the more obvious things. Eg. An either or situation for your sound op when you start the scene using just the boom but things get a bit inconsistent, do they wire cast or try to control the environment some more - they'd probably like to have done both before you even started but now only have time to do 1.

Fanny packs ('bum bags' for brits) have made a come back and 'DPA' is suitably niche, retro and expensive (if you throw away the 'accessories') to be very hip in shoreditch.

Ah, windpac. I managed to sell mine some years back. It was fun in a way but it felt like a faff, didn't seem as effective as full rycote but that wasn't the point in the end. I know the rain cover is probably some 'special acoustic foam' but may be in NYC you can find close enough and make another, using the original as the pattern.

I've never had to deliver audio rushes for scripted work on MD (or HiMD). I imagine this would be stressful, especially as the there seemed to be a very long wait after you pressed stop while it finished saving. Atrac on MD predates mp3 (1992 and it was already in use in theatres) and the storage tech of the time was so limited it was always a technology with a short shelf life but they made good enough back up recorders for TV doc work - (before that I used a walkman pro). Their short lived ubiquity meant there were lots of models and the industrial design on some of the consumer models was pretty good from our perspective. Eg. bag friendly in way nothing (prosumer) since has been: 5 years too late by the time it came out but I do wish tascam or zoom would make a small recorder with a side display like this: Sorry, I know you're talking about high end stuff (like Nagra D) but for all the limitations of MD, the quality wasn't worse than a Nagra SN or Beta SP (for speech at least) and analogue video still had another 8 years in the industry when MD came out. The RH1 (above) was a much more polished device to use than the early handheld wav recorders it overlapped with and would be replaced by.

And only in the last iteration (HiMD) of minidisc could you transfer a 'file' from the machine. Such a shame, because everything else about MD was brilliant but they only properly unlocked the technology once it had become obsolete.

Wow, Your dipoles are all but integrated into your nomad. Are there any ill effects from being so close to the recorder? Makes me wonder, is the next step the antenna full integrated into a bag/recorder/SL6, especially now bags are using some aluminium in their structure. Eg stingray.

Ethan I feel your pain brother. Extended family has made the difference for us, not sure how we'd have coped without. Until they're in fultime nursery/school enjoy the special time with them and try not to worry about the money/career. My oldest is 16 in the summer, they grow up so quick (like in a blink), don't let our particularly niche form of wage slavery undermine your family life.

With a boom op you hands are free to twiddle all the faders and start both machines, why not. Boom or mix to both recorders for sync, sticks and idents?

Low budget, so probably no boom op, 6 wires (for safety?), so commit yourself to the boom (both hands) and you can't juggle the lack of I/Ps on 744442 combo, then rent F8 or buy (and sell afterwards). The rental is like the cost of 1 RM and if your booming the bag is going to be a lot lighter.

Perfect your radio technique and just run an XLR from the boom to bag without plugging it in, or even go 'wireless' :-) As you wont have the luxury of isos you will have to mix at least 3 mics and (unless you've got a boom op) the scenes with 4 or more wires are going to be tricky to boom and mix well. Put your most important 3 on the first 3 of of 744 and mix the other 3 or 4 into the 4th. If you do have a boom op, you could send boom (and or radio/s) from 442 direct outs to camera (if capable) for maximum isos. I think you could also have a scratch (sum) mix from 744 on 1 camera track too.

Definitely not the only person to have thought about it. Not so much 2017 as 202x just to tie down the paperwork. How about using O/P 3/4 as an insert point in the meantime.

Clap sticks/smart slate - especially if the code is bleeding into the picture :-(

I think most of us do it sometimes (to hear what it sounds like :-). I can't remember ever being convinced.

The 2 are totally different. In 1 case the phasing is happening because of time difference, in the other it is happening because of time similarity. Which is why flipping the waves polarity doesn't eliminate acoustic phasing - but it will change the way is sounds.

Do DSLRs output TOD/24hr and RUNREC? Through which port? I think I get the logic of what you are saying, although if you've paid for a TC sound recorder you'd probably want to use the cameras LTC to jam the recorder from (instead of use an audio channel). I've joked a few times about putting an RM TX on camera so I could hear what was going on (in the camera dept) but (if you really want to use up an audio channel on the recorder with something from the camera may be for bleed through reasons) you could send camera audio (top-mic) to the sound recorder for syncing with PE and this would have the advantage of being, at least occasionally, monitored for continuity. Although this is a different point from the 1 you are making and you already sell a product for a particular workflow, I'm still waiting for a TC and audio scratch track TRX system. Something with some functionality when used as single box (like a tentacle) but when paired with another 1 can TRX TC and Audio in either direction and manage a RUNREC situation. Until then it's tentacles or and RX on a DSLR and whatever they want on the proper cameras.

There are some similarities between "shooting" and "capturing audio" as well some differences - they'll figure it out eventually.