Jay Rose

Tuna subs.

They're measles. The more you accumulate, the more you're likely to infect somebody else with your ideas.

"Uh... when you're casting, remember that God has this girlfriend..."

Dr Barry Blesser (inventor of the first digital studio reverb, Fellow and then President of AES, CTO of a couple of high-tech studio equipment companies now, etc...) devoted a talk to this kind of subject at the AES Annual Banquet in Boston in 2000. Blesser points out that doctors learn how to manage a medical office as part of medical school, and architects and civil engineers get it in their training... but even PhD audio people are never taught the basics. He focuses on circuit- and DSP- engineers, but also covers us in creative and production roles. The talk is at my website: http://www.dplay.com/aes

... like I said, they both keep getting better...

Guys, thanks for giving me heads-up on current PT capabilities. As I said, I'm not running current PT, just the latest version of Nuendo (there was an update last week). So I don't know what PT is capable of now. In fact, as I said at dozens of NAB and AES conventions, years ago when I was the public face of the Orban DSE/Audicy workstation line and people would ask me about competing DAWs: Don't trust anything anybody says about a competing product, unless they're running the current version. It's not that we're lying, it's just that everybody keeps on making their product better, so what I (or anybody else) know about the competition is out-of-date. And you know, I love it. I started in this business when everything was big iron. Magnesync and Ampex products didn't change over their whole life, let alone a couple of times a year. Having software and computers that keep on getting smarter is wonderful!

Long discussion recently on PT vs Nuendo for exactly what you're doing, in the LinkedIn post sound newsgroup. Bottom line imho: 1) PT is the standard and will save some hassles if you're interfacing with a lot of other audio professionals (dialog cutters, foley recordists, mix stage, etc). 2) Nuendo is faster and more powerful for post - a lot of the new features PT 10 is bragging were introduced in Nuendo five years ago, though both programs keep updating. (Nuendo isn't for music production. It really does concentrate on audio post.) 3) Both are completely compatible with OMF and other industry standards, if you buy the full-bore program. ProTools has light and M-powered versions that are much cheaper, but they're music-oriented and you have to add a lot of software to make them video-friendly. 4) If you're buying a full rig - the complete software, plus i/o and sync hardware - both cost about the same. As I said, this is imho. I've used both, and for a long time I kept both current in my studio. And ymmv. And anything else that'll keep this from turning into a Holy War.

Like many, I admire your response. I wouldn't change anything. I have seen "faith based" as a code word for "all of us are working for the Glory of (insert name of particular) God, and we expect this to be mostly a contribution". Actors get it, we get it in post as well, and I've seen it on equipment donations wanted for various ministries. They'll probably find someone who'll work for their rate... and if they're really lucky (sorry, if they're really Blessed) they might even find semi-retired or otherwise time-on-hands professionals for each department who'll actually do a good job.

More likely a bunch overly made-up teenagers with ambitious parents. If the 'model agency' is planning to scam production personnel with this kind of a deal, they've probably told the girls "pay to enter our contest and the winners get to be in a professional tv show!" And a third-string hotel is providing 4-per-room lodging for the promo value... and a Subway-wannabe is providing Pilchard Salad sandwiches... --- For "one of the largest modeling agencies in europe", google sure had a hard time finding them. I eventually found their website noahbroadcasting.tv... exactly one static stock photo, with the words "coming soon 2012"...

I have a day rate for myself, and one that also includes my studio. I look at the project and its TRT and specs, weigh my previous experience with the particular director and editor, guess the number of days... and then fudge up or down depending on how much I want the gig. But it's always with the caveat that changing the specs or delaying approvals may affect the cost. And breaking pix lock after I get the material definitely will cost them. If I don't have experience with the director or editor, I made an educated guess, tell them a range, and say I'll be able to refine it after I see an edit and OMF of at least one reel or episode. The big variables I'm looking at there are the quality of the production recording; how sensible the edit layout is (boy, does that vary depending on the editor); and in cases where they've laid in music of sfx, how much fixing I'll have to do to make those tracks work. As you get more experienced, you'll get more accurate with your time estimates. But the principle works even on your first jobs.

Just to be sure... you -are- putting lav on a different track, and also filling appropriate tone and adding mono reverb to make up for the additional boom distance... One thing that helps a lot if you have to use both from the same take or at least same content, is make the transition on a syllable change within a word. The brain's word-sorting software helps hide the difference.

Well, there's not much difference between a MixPre and an FP24...

If a couple of hundred feet of 110-ohm Gepco is too expensive to have on standby, get a couple of baluns and use RG-59.

My CPA gave me advice for those "fishing expeditions": "Gee, I'm sorry, my office is really crowded with equipment and I don't really have a place we can meet. How about my accountant's office? Just tell me which specific papers you want me to bring, and please cc' him." Apparently they have to specify an area when you ask. And that's all you have to justify. Again, none of this is real until you consult Your Licensed Professional.

My CPA might have been wrong, but he's licensed and helped me win other audits (primarily sales tax). So I'll stick with his advice. Anyone following this thread should similarly ask their CPA or attorney, rather than assume anything said by us soundies is actually correct. For what it's worth, my CPA doesn't mix his own soundtracks. That makes sense. Fortunately, as far as I know you can use as basis the market value of that part of the house when you converted it, not what you paid way-back-when. So the some of the gain still qualifies for any lifetime principal residence exemption. Again, check with a licensed professional.

Their "expert" DP on this job might have also ignored your feed and used the camera mic instead. Even if the camera had a good mic, acoustic delay and noises would hobble Plural Eyes.

FWIW I started taking home office when I went freelance... even though I was doing the "work" in studios downtown. My account said it was legit, since you still need a place to mark scripts, call clients, do your books, etc... and you can't do that at the rented studio. Or at the White House. He also said it made points that this was a dedicated space - a spare bedroom I'd converted to an office - rather than claiming my kitchen table. IRS never challenged it. (It can't even be an issue now, since I've built a full studio suite in the house.) The doctor's case might have been different if the hospital also gave him a desk where he could plan operations or look at tests, and provided him with a phone and made his appointments...

Fuzzy, I don't know if doc production is different in other areas or different sized budgets. The jobs I do (small theatrical and network, for prodn companies in LA and Boston) are flexible enough that I can talk to the director or producer directly about possible changes, if they'll help the story. In a more stratified traditional production this might not be possible.

It could be stranger. I saw a 1950s promo film from one of the major studios. It showed a boom op while the v/o declaimed "This is the boom man. He works for the director of photography, and heads the sound crew." (No comment on the gender. It -was- the 1950s.) BTW, I just checked IMDB's descriptions and they seem somewhat reasonable... not what's being quoted in the CL ads. Maybe the CL posters got it from a textbook. But certainly not mine, or anybody else's I know of...

The usual flow for docs around here is the pix editor does the first mix in FCP/Avid, because at that point they're still refining the story and showing it to small test audiences / funders / etc. They acknowledge the track is rough. Then they pass an OMF to audio post, where it gets split according to character or mic or background noise or whatever else will make sense for the mix... the same as with narrative films and tv shows. With one BIG exception: Docs don't have a shooting script or multiple takes. This has two results. - Sometimes, the editor or producer will call me ahead of time to ask whether I can make an edit or noise reduction on a critical line work in post, and possibly predo just that clip. Otherwise, they have to reconsider how the story is told. Audio tools (and monitoring and skill set) are a lot better than what an pix editor has available. - Sometimes (actually often) the editor will pass me an edit that sounds incredibly clunky to my ear. Editor and producer have gotten used to it, but it bothers me and I think will hurt the movie. So I re-edit using phonemes from elsewhere. If I can't find the pieces, I'll ask for a transcript of the original and then ask for a couple of clips that might not be on the OMF, just so I can get the necessary syllables. If it think a slightly different wording will work better and it's during a cutaway, I'll try to sell that to the producer.

The issue is phantom requires balanced audio* and the mini wants unbalanced. The only small and simple way to do this is with a transformer. Shure makes their A96 (?IIRC) with XLR on one side and 5/8"screw on the other... you could easily make a cable with the screw connector to a mini. Then you just need phantom. If the transformer is center-tapped, all you need is an appropriate battery or batteries and a resistor. If it's not, you'll need two matched resistors and two relatively matched caps. I don't know what the minimum voltage your mic needs, but some phantom mics will work fine at as low as 9v. -- * The thought arises: why should phantom (in this case) require balancing? What would happen if you went pin 2 to battery + (with limiting resistor), and through a cap to mini tip, pin 3 through a cap to mini sleeve, and pin 1 to battery - and sleeve? Sure you'd lose some LF through the series caps, but you can choose appropriate ones for production sound. And you'd lose the CMNR - something you wouldn't lose with a transformer at the camera end - but that's another subject.

I have a heck of a lot of respect for anybody who can teach fulltime. I took an assistant professor gig at a big-city school when I quit my fulltime studio job to go freelance. The pay was okay and they gave me lots of freedom, but like Ray I found it to be Groundhog Day. I guess it's a lot like the difference between film and stage acting, or Glenn Gould's take on live concerts vs recording: with media, you have to do it perfectly just once; with live, you have to do it pretty well but forever.

... if the issue is you're using a non-standard coax so the crimp BNCs don't fit... how about soldering to a good quality RCA plug, and then soldering (or even shrink-tubing) that plug to a BNC adapter?

Well, I still have Otari and Fostex timecode DATs in my rack, just waiting for one of you guys to send me production sound for it. : ) ...And a timecode DTRS, in case you want to record isos...

Gee, the ultra-conservative Washington Times wants to blame liberal Hollywood...