daniel

Thanks Tom, a very interesting read.

These look interesting not least for ]the changeable sound which can be selected in four stages from a linear or even analytical sound to a rich, vibrant bass via the “CUSTOM STUDIO Sound Slider”. What position are you using the 'sound slider'? I'm giving a pair of Sennheiser HD8 DJs a go cos they've got the DJ in the name :-). No, seriously because they've got circum-aural swivelling ear cups, they get smaller for transport, and have good isolation, comfort, sound, spares and positioning on the head so don't flop around in battle.

No, I'm not saying that, you are. I wasn't trying to be contentious with this topic but as an aggregate I'm reading 'merging' software wouldn't work very well but will do sound people out of jobs, which seems a bit contradictory. I was just trying to explore the possibility such a thing might make certain recording techniques a little easier and effective. And if anyone is 'misguided' enough to develop such a piece of software I imagine it'll be a software company like Apple, Adobe or Avid (Ie. companies unbothered by the existence location sound people) rather than our hardware manufacturers - although the possibility of licensing the use of an already developed algorithm to a software house may offer a hard to resist revenue stream for said IP holder.

Thanks Jim, I love and endorse this sentiment and aspiration. 1 way very good way of achieving the goal of empowerment for historically disadvantaged groups would be for large companies to pay their fair share of taxes and stop finding clever ways of avoiding this: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/04/google-uk-tax-deal-share-options-scheme

On this occasion there is currently no problem post is trying try to fix :-) I agree with all the comments posted so far regarding properly recorded tracks. The (hypothetical) context for this enquiry was: ~ A 'bag drop' situation, Eg. a car with no room for a sound operator but enough room for a multitrack recorder with an audio bracketing function (or similar). ~ Long takes with lots of dynamic range. ~ The type of production unlikely to have a dialogue editor. If something like 'merging' bracketed channels is useful enough to put into recorders (Zaxcom and Sonosax) why not have something similar (like 'merging' bracketed tracks) in PP?

On the 1 hand I'm thinking of something like a 'bag drop' situation with 1 of the recorders with an audio bracketing option or similar. On the other hand we have 2 companies making portable recorders with extended dynamic range with dual AD converters and a clever algorithm so I'm wondering has anyone developed a piece of PP software with a similar type of algorithm. We see this in the world of photography, Ie. In-camera HDR and post production HDR.

It would also be cool if CL12 gave 633 'mix-assist' functionality. Probably neither of these suggestions are possible though :-(

Are there any applications/plug-ins assisting post production with the use of recordings which deployed some form of audio bracketing in their acquisition? Kind Regards, Dan.

When using the CL12 with 633 can the remaining 6 faders (not used for I/Ps) be assigned to other duties like O/Ps?

Is that epoxy putty?

dt250 are very good or sony 7506 (which fold and are cheaper).

Dave, You're a better man than I. I didn't feel confident enough to start taking my G2000s apart to even assess what would be involved. What you've posted looks great and if it works even better :-). Interesting what you say about the 'B' antenna level, I wonder what's going on there. I've never been that convinced the RX ever really use the 'B' antenna (based on occasionally watching the display), which was partly why I asked if anyone had tried modifying this part of the system. I guess sennheiser set them this way deliberately for some reason. It would be interesting to attach something like a 'paddle' (or something likely to have considerably stronger signal) to the 'B' antenna and observe how the RX responds. Do post some more pics if you get the time. Atb, Daniel. Ps. I read a zaxcom system is on your horizon but have you heard about the EK 6042. Looks like it will be a versatile dual RX that'll work with sennheisers analogue and digital TX so a nice way to transit from 1 to the other perhaps.

Similar to Rich, I was going to suggest putting an XLR cable with and then without a grounded shell between TRX and O/P stage, at least to see what happens. I was also curious to know what happens with your 4018 + mmpB + TRX742.

Nice photo - it's like you bought 1 for each of the 4 categories (handling, wind, mounting and ruggedness :). Glad you mention the DPA 4018 as I have been wondering if it might have been a closer competitor to the 50. What preamp did you audition? The MMP-B has the switchable low cut and high boost which I thought might add to it's versatility.

I've had similar thoughts myself about stretchy sheath. In terms of construction it might be like Simon Hayes' 'Greensleeve' but like you say a crushed velvet or similar (it could get a bit cramped in those tubes). dr.

Thanks John, I've PM'd you.

Thank John, That's a very generous offer - I'm tempted to go with the Neumann just to take you up on this :-). It seems a strange decision to discontinue this product if it is the only way to control the mic from a battery powered device - is there something new in the pipeline or is it a reflection of how these mics are being used in the main?

Argh, scuse my dyslexic 150 / 185 muddle (fixed in the edit :-). Constantine how does 1 define "need" in this context? I've previously not owned AES42 capable recorder so it was not such a practical option. Now it is, is it not worth at least considering? It's a similar in price. It may improve my workflow. It would seem to be the direction of things. Maybe my clients might even appreciate the difference. Add something new to the marketing. Etc. I agree the MKH50 is probably the 1 for me but this is as much out of familiarity as anything and if you don't explore these things how/when does a person move on. But I do appreciate you guidance on this.

Thanks Glen, Yes, I was aware that Zaxcom have an AES42 plug-on option. Not quite ready to go down this particular route yet and for the instances when I would go with a TX on the boom that wasn't compatible with my current RM system I'd probably rent and I don't think many of the rental houses in the UK are doing much in the way of Zaxcom.

Thanks Peter, Good points regarding TX compatibility. With the KM185 I could get the analogue output stage as well as the digital, which is not an option for the mkh50. So to ask the question (I might have done initially) MKH50 vs KM185A or D? Or put it another way is the KM185 any use outside? dr

Is this a fair comparison for boom work indoors but occasionally outdoors as well? Currently leaning more towards the MKH50 as I'm more familiar with it and its reach makes it versatile plus it has the pad and HPF switches. If I went with the KM185D it would be without DMI-2 box and direct into SD633 (or similar), so many of the advantages of the KM185D's DSP would be mostly lost (?). Kind Regards, Dan.

Thanks for the feedback. I was thinking more along the lines of: http://www.neutrik.com/en/ethercon/ethercon-chassis-connectors/ instead of the thing on the back of a router. But I was also playing devils advocate with regards cost of cables and connectors (and thinking out loud and OT). But I defer to your greater wisdom and emphasis on these things.

We might spend a lot of money on cables but relatively they are small part of the investment of owning kit - but I know what you're saying. How about dual channel and power break outs with cat5 and an rj45 connector at the RX (small, cheap, light and ubiquitous? Then if the RX gets dante enabled the same chassis connector can be used - it would be especially cool if dante allows for daisy chaining (? - no :('star' topology). 2 connectors per unit, 1 in, 1 out, the last 1 in the chain sends all the channels to the mixer/recorder. So something needs to be the hub/star. Sorry - thinking out loud and OT.

I quite like the mixer cage idea. I've been thinking of similar but a little lighter. My motivation was to make a stable platform that could swing down to allow convenient use of RMs with Front (as opposed to top) displays - in my case g2000s. A bit like a heavier hinged matt box flag that the RMs are attached to. Ideally the thing would attach directly to the mixer / recorder, have a bit of room for a battery and some accessories and would have a light fabric dust / rain cover.