More stuff on the CEDAR DNS 2

[Ty Ford]

Hey,

Pretty expensive, but very impressive. Here's my review.

http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-cedar-dns-2-portable-dialog-noise.html

Regards,

Ty Ford

 

[Jeff Wexler]

Well done, Ty! Really a good real world review of an amazing device. My sincere hope is that this device will not be abused or allowed to abuse a production sound track in the hands of someone making really bad decisions on location. For jobs with no post production and in the hands of an experienced sound mixer, this could be a great tool. Unfortunately, I am afraid it is going to be used most on jobs being done by less experienced people (sound people and production folks choosing horrible locations and expecting miracles).

[Ty Ford]

Jeff,

Thanks. Yes, as we discussed, abuse is likely, but I'm thinking that those folks you mention may not be able to afford the DNS 2. I did have a talk with one of my consultation clients recently about a big noisy transformer mounted high on a wall in an area that they liked for location. I told her that it wasn't a noise problem, it was a location problem. She took it to heart and convinced her client that it was not in their best interest. They went with her recommendation and chose another location. Yay!

Regards,

Ty

PS: Having Jim Gilchrist, Len Schmitz, Jonathan Cohen and Bernie Ozol here for the testing was very special for me. Good guys with great ears and no egos. I may try to rope them in for other location sound reviews. 

[Werner Althaus]

Really useful review and examples. Much appreciated.

[Matthias Richter]

getting a demo unit in the next few days myself. Excited to test drive that device. But that´s a device I don´t see myself getting any additional money for. So I don´t know if it makes any sense. Because my jobs do have post production. Always. And most of the time they will start from scratch.

[Jeff Wexler]

I have very strong opinions regarding the use of this device in production but I won't go into all of them right now. I will say that I was a bit appalled at something someone had said that went like this: buy the Cedar unity, use it in production, let the client listen to what it does and if they want you to use it, charge them, maybe $100/day. This is a really, really slippery slope and leads right into that trap of hoping that you will get a job because YOU have the "magic box" and the other guy doesn't have it. I know the economics aren't there for this particular item, anyone spending $4000. on a piece of gear would like to get paid something for it, I just think it is a really bad idea to be negotiating while on the job. Also, I will add that the first time this is used badly in production and in a destructive way that causes anyone in post to say "what the hell were they thinking" --- this could really hurt your chances of ever working for that client again.

[Philip Perkins]

Thanks for the research, it sounds about like what I get out of my studio Cedar box, in terms of what it sounds like when you push it very much.  Cedar is not a tool to do heavy duty forensic style NR, at least not in one pass.  The Cambridge system (a dedicated computer in fact) with a hip operator can do this, but I've never been able to do what they can do with the big iron with one of the smaller Cedars affordable (kind of) by mortals.  In any case....I don't see myself trying to use this much for the work I get.  All the NR that I might do is way better done in post, on monitors, in a quiet studio, and I don't think that will be a hard sell.  For soundies doing live broadcast etc stuff where there is no post, this will be a good tool, as are the previous Cedars.  For the job that is low budg enough to not have much post-mojo and have producers somewhat heedless of location BGs, use of this may actually make things worse for them, as they cut things together in which the Cedar settings might have been different (or the shot is a pickup that didn't have it in use that day) etc..   Auto-mix, then Cedar, coming to a reality show near you?

[soundtrane]

Yesterday some guys from Dubai came over to my place to interview me. In my living room, and it was hot so we HAD to keep the ceiling fan on. They had a Zoom with them. I told them i will record myself on the X3 and give them the files later. Put a lav on myself, through the Cedar DNS2 into the X3. Worked beautifully. They were absolutely amazed upon hearing the result. Just sayin'... 

[Werner Althaus]

9 hours ago, soundtrane said:

Yesterday some guys from Dubai came over to my place to interview me. In my living room, and it was hot so we HAD to keep the ceiling fan on. They had a Zoom with them. I told them i will record myself on the X3 and give them the files later. Put a lav on myself, through the Cedar DNS2 into the X3. Worked beautifully. They were absolutely amazed upon hearing the result. Just sayin'... 

If you have to shoot in a noisy environment then this would be an amazing tool to have but in my experience if there is a great new tool in my kit there'll be times I regret ever telling anyone about it. Slippery slope indeed.

[Boomboom]

In my part of the world, producers will likely refuse to pay deal hard for having that unit and improve sound on-location. I see newcomers will provide it for free and in the end, we'll all have to get one to remain competitive . The bad news is certainly not that it exists, it's that it's expensive and will add weight in both our bags and debts for the same paycheck in the end. Plus (and above all), the "unrealistic expectations" cited up here, that will lead to "what? too noisy here? don't you have that Cedar thing ?"; which in the end would lead to the DNS2 being part of a "standard" bag setup.  As much as I think it's a very great piece of gear, I have mixed emotions about this.

[AnuarYahya]

Great review! and good points all round. maybe in the future something similar will be built-in into our recorders..

It is definitely a double edged sword for location sound tho. The only way I would feel comfortable using something like this is if it where all sent to separate isos like it was suggested in the review. 

 

[Philip Perkins]

Well folks--it's up to you!  If you want these to become a producer gimme (and what will you do when you need A: to run and gun in a lightweight bag and B: need more than 2 channels?) then go right ahead and buy and deploy!  So many expensive innovations have become standard-package items, why not add another one, especially one that can irrevocably screw up recorded audio so quickly and thoroughly!  You thought clipping, compression artifacts and too much EQ were bad?  Wait until you hear how Martian you can make your audio sound with this thing with minimal effort.  Recorder manufacturers--you have bigger more important issues to solve with current machines than adding an imitation of Cedar to your gear.  Soundies: admit that for most of us this thing would be a "showboat" item--a way to show off for producers while getting into the posties' ricebowl a little. 

[AnuarYahya]

I also am not crazy about the implications this technology might have on my current workflow. I mean its hard enough as it is. But we cant fight change.. These are just tools, and as technology advances we all need to adapt, learn and sometimes buy new stuff. I think this technology is promising. Imagine what they will be able to accomplish in five or ten years from now! Blows my mind! And it could be implemented in our recorders just like auto-mix or mix-ahead or whatever.

All I really care about is getting the best results: good, clean, isolated dialogue. Whatever helps me get there is welcome. Our job is to protect the performance of the actors, and if they need to go in and ADR everything because the crickets were too loud, that is a loss.

But then again maybe this stuff is best left to post production.. They'll be like "don't even stress about that plane bro we'll just fix it in post." I don't know. 

The filming process is changing so much so fast! Who knows how we are going to be filming movies in thirty or fifty years from now, its kind of scary to imagine. That is if we don't destroy ourselves and the planet before then. 

[Philip Perkins]

They are already at "don't even stress about that plane bro we'll just fix it in post."  This thing becoming a standard kit-item just means that productions can be even lazier and more heedless of location BGs and crew noise.  Not every innovation is worth adopting.

[afewmoreyears]

Humm...I have a few problems with this..  Workload, usage, getting paid for it, merging responsibilities, space on cart, storage... etc.

   Because so many folks give away free wireless, or Comteks, those items are now pay out big time, and reap little financial rewards for many... I HATE this...  Here we have another example of, make our life a bit more complicated, spend more money, carry more gear, more to store, more to repair and more to try to coax a payment for from production. Let Post deal with the noise reduction, purchase and operation of this system..  As has been said by Philip, if this gets mainstream on set, the cat WILL be out of the bag and we will FOR SURE be recording in every F*&% location filled with every irritating sound possible... and every crew member that knows about it will be that much less concerned about making noise while shooting. Grips and electricians for example...?  Forget it... with their on set conversations, banging of gear,  loading trucks while shooting, loud lights and ballasts singing loudly,  we will now have no recourse... because the little box can simply fix it ...right? It is already at a level I consider to be obscene on most shows I now work on.  Let this out of the bottle and watch out...

@ about $4000 and now along with wireless units and Comteks I now have to negotiate for the miracle box...  great... cant wait... But the Producer said... "all in"... It's all we have... We flew 20 Clients first class from London. Another item we give away... or lose the job.  

   I say, fix it in post where they have the proper critical listening room and time to deal with the correcting of problematic audio... Not on set with the sometimes crush of workload, fires to put out and concentration to simply get all the tracks now required laid down properly in the first place. We rarely even get rehearsals they are in such a rush these days, so getting the system tweaked properly should be fun running 6 tracks of Lavs in a crush.. But wait, I could say, "hey can I get a few minutes to tweak the noise reduction system?"  That will go over well..  Or, I could just do it on the fly, while 18 Clients are chatting about Sushi seated right behind me on a stage the size of a pill box with potentiality disastrous results.... Now that's a critical listening room right?  Ahhh, but I have that Additional safety "non NR track" I am now recording!!  7 tracks now.. This all sounds like such fun.. The only noise reduction I prefer to use on set is a stearn AD, the off axis rejection of my CS3e and a properly placed mic.

[ProSound]

1 hour ago, afewmoreyears said:

Humm...I have a few problems with this..  Workload, usage, getting paid for it, merging responsibilities, space on cart, storage... etc. 

+1 I have the same issues with it with my #1 issue of getting paid for it. These days I have a hard enough time getting paid for everything        I already use. 

[AnuarYahya]

lol yea ok I agree my mind has been changed. This is a post problem, on set everybody should strive for absolute silence. Fix it in post as an emergency and last resort only. Then the producers can pay whoever to do it properly in a studio setting. 

[John Blankenship]

By far, the best on-set noise reduction is location, Location, LOCATION!

Next to a quiet location with proper acoustics, all else is a compromise.

[Eric Toline]

Let me preface this by saying that I manage the Professional Sound Services operation in Ft. Lauderdale. I was the one who started the DNS2 discussion after I heard it at NAB this past April and spread the word. The mixers who have demoed & bought the unit at my shop had the same amazed response to the unit. The difference is that 90+% of them don't do long form scripted work. They are mixers who do the type of jobs where there is no take 2 and/or no real post available. For that type of work the DNS2 has been a lifesaver. As with any breakthrough technology, it is not for everyone and judicious use is required.

 

[Philip Perkins]

Besides live broadcast and live sound reinforcement, what kinds of recording are there that don't have any post at all?  Where the media from cameras and sound is used totally as-is with no editing at all?

[John Blankenship]

As Eric mentioned "no real post," I imagine this translates to "no proper audio post."  In fairness, that describes a lot of corporate and quick turnaround TV projects these days.

[Philip Perkins]

There are a number of pretty good NR tools built into Premiere-Audition.  No excuse.  And the corporate guys are just as on it about audio quality as any doco or movie folks I've worked for. 

[John Blankenship]

I certainly wasn't referring to all corporate and TV folks, just the ones who ignore any audio finesse in lieu of a speedy turnaround.

[ninjafreddan]

I too tried it out at a broadcast trade fair this spring and was very impressed with the quality of the noise reduction.

I would love to own it, but I've thought about it and it's too expensive. As a EFP-soundie I do my best to record clean multi-channel sound and send a good wireless camera feed. To my knowledge, I haven't lost any future jobs by providing sub-standard sound quality, because I make sure that every channel is usable, otherwise I fix it. Now and then, my mono camera feed is used by editors because they are lazy or thinks it's good enough. Not happy about it, but the client is always right, right?

I love technology, but if I start providing a noise-reduced camera feed, the editors will use it for sure, and that will make my field work harder, knowing that my run-and-gun mono mix will be used. Too me, it's just a safety backup and logging.

I think its faith will be in the hands of the rental companies, if they promote it as "the savior of location sound" and provide it once for free, the next time a production company rents gear for a TV-production, it might catch on and become the Auto-Tune of the broadcast business.

The rack unit is already used in broadcast, so the big TV-network producers know how well it works.

If the DNS2 would have costed around $2000, I would have considered buying it. But I'm already spoiling my clients with wireless time code etc, just to make my work-flow simpler.

 

Time will tell

Fred

[Constantin]

There are these fast turn around jobs and those with "no real post". But why is that? Usually because someone isn't willing to pay what's required to make a proper video. So now we should buy this box for those jobs and spend lots of money so they can save it? No thanks.