The Immoral Mr Teas

Nice one Mirror! But what makes you think she was dead? In space no one can hear her scream, nor her banging on the trunk ... but if they could, hey I've developed this great new Space Speaker system to drown her out with a loop of Space Oddity!

The carrier bag, Jim? Probably a touch more "Silent" - ha ha! Jez

Yep, I've kept hold of as many of my original Rycote boxes as I could and in one, the AC, I cut a hole for the handle (which an extra internal bit of card can cover if I want to). Whilst I also experimented around having wide tubes for carrying windshields around, at the end of the day the cardboard box it came in does a fine job of protecting it in a bag. My WS2s and my WS4 I carry around in a Hofbauer plastic case - one of the cheap ones which unfortunately were replaced - which just happened to be perfect for the job (I've written about this elsewhere with more details a few months ago if anyone needed more info). Jez Oh and PS - re the new Rycote cylindrical bags the tubes are held in - I wouldn't mind using one as a belt holster for say a single MKH40 with Baseball (with some internal foam part way up then a space at the top to include the extra width) ... assuming the bag is wide enough for the Baseball. Simon?

I'm interested to hear more about the space playback speaker system they eventually went with. Lots of news reports but no tech detail so far ...

and having read it again after my post a few minutes ago I love the reference "most interesting" to 'The Most Dangerous Game'

Jan, without quoting it all, that is some of the best advice I have read. Thanks, cheers, and with you! Cheers, Jez Adamson

Then there's this as long as it lasts... But sorry to hijack a worthy and relevant thread. I agree with JWB that fitness (or "fitness" will do!) can play a big part. Although I do post not production on challenging schedules my friends got me into 'mini hikes' around the studio grounds before and/or after lunch "hour" ... and sorry forgive the pun but in this industry watch your back! Jez

Sorry to bring this all back up (I should have stayed away anyway) but I don't feel I could contribute to another MS argument if I hadn't, and I've been pretty much unable to reply for a couple of weeks. To the OP Mattias first of all, since the topic thread specified "in film" (and I was responding to Malcolm and Simon as regards to cinema film) my response was on that: actually I agree with both Jay and Constantin in their replies that a separate mic could be used to provide ambience - whether coincident or not and whether encoded into an MS mix bus or not. My basic reply to Mattias to his first question would be - if you are doing the post production yourself then yes, do what you suggested and find out what works and what doesn't. You will probably find that much would work quite well and some things don't, for whatever reason. On the other hand, if you were just thinking to provide something 'extra' for someone else doing the post then no, stay away from experimentation that someone else has to deal with and concentrate on getting intelligible mono dialogue. Very briefly, to Phil and Constantin who quoted me (and apologies for late reply): Phil, yes, I work in post sound (I thought you knew this?) and not only agreed with Malcolm's quip but was a little taken aback by the suggestion that we in post sound could not deal with what was given us rather than (as I think) there is too little understanding between departments of what works where and how. Constantin, I don't think it is enough to say to enquiring persons that MS is a coincident mic technique - one can and does derive MS material from any stereo source, whether spaced or coincident LR or a 'centre' mic and another. Not in this thread but often said is that one can use any mic for a mid but the side must be a figure of eight (presumably for stereo imaging but there's several reasons why this might not be the case). Easy for me to say but easy to argue against, so the debate continues. I'm thinking maybe Jeff might want to start a new group header on The MS Problem. But back to film (and indeed even for broadcast there were cries against indiscriminate use of MS I was pleased to see, particularly since I started in my career during the loony times Malcolm and Phil describe) I pretty much agree with what Malcolm had said. How often on a film location is there a perfect recording situation that you can get crystal clear dialogue? with perhaps some distance relationship to the mise en scene and focal length? and STILL have perfect noise conditions at 90/270 deg? How often will these perfect conditions carry through any kind of long Bergmanesque take that will survive editing? What will all this in/out of phase ambience translate to in a theatre, ... wherever you might be sat? My experience as a post person in film is that most MS derived recordings are useful only for their mono element. FX is a particular bugbear because so much stuff was recorded as such in the 80s boom and beyond - car passbys, door slams, ticking clocks. I'm not talking broadcast but film. I'm a fan enough of MS that I have an MSM rig and a Soundfield, as well as several MS combo possibilities to turn to. Folk song collection? Birdsong? Yep. Jez

Or 552 with four ... another 'new lease of life' solution for aged X3 owners with a back shed full of "do you know what I paid for that back in the day??"

Nothing really seems to have replaced the AJA as far as I have looked over the last few years (for AES). Although there are DIY boxes but I've only seen 2 channel which is less useful than the AJA 4. On the other hand, did not the Fostex PD6 (or 606 perhaps) and the HHB PDR2000 have multi AES out on a Dsub25? For a cart (at 48 or 96k) might this be a decent go around until you fork out for the obvious Sonosax AD8?

Well you're stuck with a minimum playback speed of 3.75ips which is possibly unsuitable for many tapes (I don't remember if commercial rtr tapes were 3.75 or 1.87) then it's just an ugly matter of wires perhaps snaking about an otherwise beautiful machine? For those here unaware of it though check out the classic David Lane Nagra playback machine, which was developed as a budget Nagra T replacement for transfer houses/radio - no record but mono and stereo playback heads (and synchro) in I believe a IV-S body to cope with the variety of Nagra recorded tapes coming in. Jez For a homemade version (yep I've thought of it too) it could be any Nagra (like a 3 or IVL) so long as the transport works OK ...

Re Joseph and Nicolas, a quick unexpected late night look at JWS and saw the above. Couldn't manage to quote relevant portions. I think HELP, like A Hard Day's Night, was directed by Dick Lester? His son, Dom, is one of our fine collection of UK sound post folk. I think my parents have a 1/4 inch Hard Day's Night in their loft still ... Best, Jez

If we're talking (good old fashioned) FILM, then every rerecording mixer I've ever worked with has had a thorough understanding of MS, or sum and difference technique - in theory, mixing practice and recording practice. After all, they would be incapable of dealing with the likes of Dolby Surround, Dolby Stereo, etc etc if they hadn't a good understanding of what is fundamental theory. If we're talking of a more modern widespread take on post sound for picture, it's a shame if Simon has come across many post folks who don't seem to understand the application. In my experience it has often been the other way around: that recordists who have "learnt" MS through a mentor or perhaps on a distant Wood Norton training course have taken their learning, applied to a specific application (say FM stereo or NICAM TV broadcasts) and not understood how different media, monitoring setups and indeed encryption systems relate to MS. I for one was first taught MS theory in relation to mono compatible stereo radio technique 30 or so years ago, and would later be taught it again in a very different field of music mixing. I've worked with MS in many forms and there is a host of difference between an FM broadcast, a stereo stylus and a Dolby Digital stem, all with their own problems to know about. For instance, there are several "facts" about MS spoken by folks here in the threads above which are quite simply inaccurate, although for a specific application could be said to be "good practice" for MS working: just based upon what was taught them, or what has been repeated so many times, without a real consideration of the actual theory. Back to actual multichannel film, post production people have often rejected, not wanted or expressed dissatisfaction on being delivered or forced to deal with MS elements, not because they had little or no understanding, but because they understood very well how they would have to deal with such elements. And there's probably 'some' MS tucked away in virtually every major film mix of the last twenty or so years, in the MX tracks, even if the DX and FX had been thrown back at one! What is it useful for then? Well possibly everything else out there with two (or more) channels - certainly broadcast and streaming. Just as MS as a 1920s theory got a new lease of life in the adoption of two channel for stereo, the development of the stereo stylus, tape recording, then again with stereo radio, it continued into ambisonics (which is MS) which itself got a new lease of life in surround broadcasting. And on and on it goes : new uses, advanced development for MS and vector formats with VR, AR ... And who knows? How will theatrical sound develop beyond Dolby Atmos and its kin? And whilst those old DD, DTS and SDDS mixes needed to be remixed down to home or broadcast-able formats how might format compatibility progress in the future? Probably with some knowledge in post of Blumlein and his maths scribblings! Best all, Jez

They talk some more bollocks about it ... And suddenly what would be a problem to the rest of us is an opportunity! It got me thinking ( or "thinking" ) too when I read it about a similar problem: why bother with internegs ... or negatives at all for that reason? So many levels! Is it necessary? And what I LOVE about analogue vs digital is the unlimited number of copies ... oh no, I'm confused ... I bet if I think about it again for a few minutes I'll come up with a REALLY good idea ... As Jim said ...

Has anyone created a bag for this thing yet?

I was quite surprised when chopping to bits a 805 to find the mesh / slots had a somewhat skewed relationship to the actual interference tube hidden within ... being a tube with holes along its length (widening toward the trumpet). That said, the 805 was designed to have the holes upward, and I have no reason to suspect the 'LR' grilles should be twisted since they are all designed to work in a free field with the obvious close echoes coming from below and the sparse unwanted separate noises (to reject through interference) coming from left, right, and sometimes above. Jez

Although I own and use a Bruel & Kjaer hydrophone I have had great results for many applications from simply submerging the Countryman B6 mic - which is tiny enough to simply trap a protective air bubble over the diaphragm. Unfortunately my B6 died on a shoot last year but I'm certain to replace it at some point since it's such a useful and compact 'hydrophone' to always have in my FX bag. Jez

Jeff, that is one heartwarming and encouraging story! Many of us have been there without the fairytale ending! Jez

LOTW, or as training demands, MPUX

... the SX R4+ is already a beautiful solution, no? And an admirable development of the features/possibilities of the R82 / R4 era machines. As far as the new SDMP and Zoom F machines go, it is the lack of AES 3 (more so than 42 to me) that makes them less attractive to me than they could be - even in their price bracket (that of the MicPre D, Tascam 680, the old R4 Pro). Yet they clearly have their markets without (simple) AES IO. Still curious how the HDMI port might work with sync (tho admit haven't watched vid yet before replying to Dan's comment here ... ) Jez

Yep, as Chris says, something as simple as an old microtrack (in my experience), or Tascam or zoom might do well, going line in, if line in at consumer level is an option.

The SD 744 is a 2x preamp + 2x line in recorder - I presume you know this and I'm stating the obvious but I'll mention it anyway. Not sure what the sps does in output (does it need the preamp?) and the TC is a factor irrelevant for ambisonics but perhaps important for your other applications. The Zoom F4 and F8 as well as the SD new MixPre series and the Tascam 70 w tc are worth looking at. If you can forsake TC the Tascam DR70 or the new Marantz might be enough. As has been said multichannel gain matching might be required and is imo woefully non-implemented in recorders. The older, larger, Tascam DR680 I've been told has very good gain linking, and might be worth looking at. The original R4 was ideal for ambisonics and I'm sure the R4+ is as good and an improvement in every way.

Hi John, I'm not sure I'd be keen on driving any kind of car, let alone one unfamiliar to me, wearing earwigs - I find my ears a big part of the perceptive experience. So I wouldn't be too surprised if you occasionally came across a blank refusal and thus needed a fully implemented Plan B. Just a thought. Best, Jez

Thanks for the reminder of this Glen! It's been a couple of decades since I've been around the venerable 48. If I'm able to source a DT48 spare cable from Beyer I might well use it to construct a coiled cable for my DT150s (of course I'll have to find a suitable screwable 3.5/6mm stereo jack plug for the other end - what with the box at the other end this might get quite pricey). Jez (edit - the WK100.07 replacement cable might save me a lot of grief at a straight 32 euro purchase ... Not sure that it's quite the same heavy duty cable Glen was referring to for the old DT 48 though - I had a vague memory of something slightly wider and thicker)

Even dragons need to crap ... ? Interesting if Ian has started constructing framed bags and accessories, Malcolm. I have a few KT bags/add-ons and like the modular system quite a bit. Unfortunately the KT web site is still under construction (tho I can hardly complain about online apathy ...) As an aside (irrelevant to OP ...) I've just been playing with the hydrophone over the last week and had some pleasure using the old bashed up Optex bag I use for the setup - perfect side access system for the charge amplifier controls, and whilst unframed a very solid stable box due to the amount of corduroy employed. Jez