Jump to content

Buy a new wireless


login

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Tony Johnson said:

Here is a question for Lectro users working on Series or Movies, assuming booms and lavs are wireless.

 

What do you do when an actor suddenly changes their performance during a take, on a rolling reset or on take 2, as in they either raise or lower their performance, perhaps they shout one or just do a read that is 10db louder. Maybe the Director runs them through a series of line reads with wildly different performance levels.

Relating to the debate above, I can see why Mixers like the comfort of what they know and trust and what they deem necessary, but having used and still use a combo of both Zax and lectro I have never had an answer to the question above with Lectro.

 

Tony

 

 

Tony, I know, I know. Can I answer? 

Sincerely, Martin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, Tony Johnson said:

Here is a question for Lectro users working on Series or Movies, assuming booms and lavs are wireless.

 

What do you do when an actor suddenly changes their performance during a take, on a rolling reset or on take 2, as in they either raise or lower their performance, perhaps they shout one or just do a read that is 10db louder. Maybe the Director runs them through a series of line reads with wildly different performance levels.

Relating to the debate above, I can see why Mixers like the comfort of what they know and trust and what they deem necessary, but having used and still use a combo of both Zax and lectro I have never had an answer to the question above with Lectro.

 

Tony

 

 

We do what we've always done?  You get a gain structure going that works well in the context of the shot/scene/job-in-general and have a boom op that understands that the best dynamics control of all is their highly attentive mic placement technique, as they "read" what the talent is doing from moment to moment.  I don't for a minute denigrate remote TX control, but there are other ways to skin the cat.  BTW--this is one of the reasons some of our most experienced and decorated members go with cabled booms whenever they can....right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Philip Perkins said:

We do what we've always done?  You get a gain structure going that works well in the context of the shot/scene/job-in-general and have a boom op that understands that the best dynamics control of all is their highly attentive mic placement technique, as they "read" what the talent is doing from moment to moment.  I don't for a minute denigrate remote TX control, but there are other ways to skin the cat.  BTW--this is one of the reasons some of our most experienced and decorated members go with cabled booms whenever they can....right?

Phillip, They "go with cabled booms" and why do they do that, in your reference?

Sincerely, Martin 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Philip Perkins said:

You get a gain structure going that works well in the context of the shot/scene/job-in-general and have a boom op that understands that the best dynamics control of all is their highly attentive mic placement technique, as they "read" what the talent is doing from moment to moment.

Really? so the boom op regulates the level by moving the boom out and in depending on the level? what if the acoustic is live and roomy or there is a lot of bg noise. I am not sure this is always going to work on a practical level.

There are other ways to "skin the cat" just not as good as turning the transmitter level down.

Tony

10 minutes ago, MartinTheMixer said:

Phillip, They "go with cabled booms" and why do they do that, in your reference?

 

Cabled Booms dont work for all sets, but if you are lucky enough to work on a set that allows all cabled boom then thats great. Not my world thats for sure.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tony Johnson said:

Really? so the boom op regulates the level by moving the boom out and in depending on the level? what if the acoustic is live and roomy or there is a lot of bg noise. I am not sure this is always going to work on a practical level.

There are other ways to "skin the cat" just not as good as turning the transmitter level down.

Tony

Cabled Booms dont work for all sets, but if you are lucky enough to work on a set that allows all cabled boom then thats great. Not my world thats for sure.

Tony

Tony, no I mean why did you say that they go with cabled booms when they can? I guess I just don't understand that. You're saying something is the reason that they go with cabled booms, so my question is what is this something that you're referring to?

Sincerely, Martin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MartinTheMixer said:

Tony, no I mean why did you say that they go with cabled booms when they can? I guess I just don't understand that. You're saying something is the reason that they go with cabled booms, so my question is what is this something that you're referring to?

What i was meaning is that, if the set and situation allows you to use a cabled boom then that is great but i would have thought that these days cabled boom is the exception and not the rule on film sets. Shooting styles have changed and the speed and versatility a wireless boom provides makes it an obvious choice.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MartinTheMixer said:

Phillip, They "go with cabled booms" and why do they do that, in your reference?

Sincerely, Martin 

 

I'll jump in here, Martin, to elaborate on Philip's comment about cabled  (hardwired) boom mic. I stuck with cabled boom mic way past the time that just about everybody else had gone to wireless boom. Of course over many years we did boom with a wireless setup when the shot absolutely demanded it. Don Coufal and I have done lots of wireless boom, utilizing Artech wireless, Lectrosonics wireless, Audio, Ltd. wireless and Zaxcom. With most wireless setups, the all important mic preamp is in the transmitter, the exception being the use of an external mic preamp (which I have done with the quite common Lectrosonics/Sound Devices MM-1setup) but even that setup only gives you a little bit of extra control and improvement over the built in preamp. With a cabled boom mic (or any mic for that matter) the microphone is going through what is arguably a higher quality preamp and also an input over which you have control of the all important primary gain stage, the preamp gain, sitting right there in front of you on your mixer or mixer/recorder. So, when the dynamics of a scene change drastically, you're in control and can do the sort of "two-handed" mixing gthat a lot of us old folks used to do.

Now, when I started using the Zaxcom wireless, I got a lot more comfortable with doing wireless boom because of the quality of the mic preamp in the transmitter and the lack of any companding or limiting in the purely digital RF transmission, the microphone sounded virtually identical to our hardwired setup. I had not had this experience with any other wireless setup and of course I had experienced what happens when what I believed to be the best gain setup proved to be not the case and there was compander noise and limiter distorsion. That said, even with those problems solved with the Zaxcom wireless setup, Don and I still preferred our cabled boom approach for the following reason: Don had never found an acceptable wireless monitor for his use --- Comteks obviously wouldn't do, the Lectro IFB was better but still not acceptable, it wasn't until Zaxcom came out with the ERX IFB that Don would totally accept going wireless for the boom.

The other thing I have to mention which a lot of people may not realize, I have been fortunate enough to work on many, many movies where just about every scene in the movie has been done with the boom mic --- rarely, if ever, have we been in a situation where we have had to "wire everybody" and do the scenes exclusively with lav mics. That's one of the reasons the boom mic has been so important.

When Zaxcom introduced Zaxnet and the total wireless control of the transmitters, this completed the system. We now had local control, at the recorder or mixer, of the all important mic preamp gain, just as we had with the cabled setup. I use the word system because I think it is important to recognize that when comparing Zaxcom wireless to other brands of wireless, it isn't a direct comparison. It should also be noted, with reference to all the comments about all the fancy features of Zaxcom which many say they don't need, you can choose to use Zaxcom wireless just as you would use Lectrosonics wireless, ignoring all the features and functions that you may feel are too complicated or too fiddly or whatever, then you can make your comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant that among some of the most experienced mixers working a cabled boom is still the preference--this has been borne out in various polls recently.  One reason they do this is that they like the sound the get better than that which would be delivered by even the best pre+TX+RX chain available, which they would certainly have on hand as well.  Another reason is the ability to trim-on-the-fly, to compensate for talent delivery.  Re: a good boom op controlling dynamics with mic position--yes, absolutely.  The technique has limitations, as all techniques do, but the differences in angle and proximity do not have to be that great to exercise a great deal of very hi-fi, natural sounding level control.  Both of the level control techniques I've mentioned I think are better than "turning the transmitter down".  If you do this, even via remote control, the TX level is likely to be wrong for the next thing you record.   I change the gain of the TX as a last resort, not as the first tool I reach for in this regard.   I can't contest that wireless booms can make some things easier/faster on-set, but I think the mixers who still cable when they can would tell you that the hassles involved with using the cable are still worth the trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you do this, even via remote control, the TX level is likely to be wrong for the next thing you record" --- here's the thing, even employing the techniques you mention, Philip, if the transmitter's preamp is hit hard and you have limiter distorsion or compander artifacts, the only real solution is to change the preamp gain, either remotely or at the transmitter. Additionally, with Zaxcom NeverClip preamp, getting the preamp gain setting to the right level is, for me, more about providing a signal for my mix that fits well with the dynamics of the scene. I do not have any worry that the dynamics of a performance is going to be clipped or limited by the transmitter as it quite well might be if I were using a different brand of wireless. To sum it all up, I wouldn't want anyone to think that I employ this two-handed mixing, changing the gain all the time on the transmitter (because I can), that is not the case. But when that is the best solution I am pleased that I have that facility and function easily at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jeff Wexler said:

I'll jump in here, Martin, to elaborate on Philip's comment about cabled  (hardwired) boom mic. I stuck with cabled boom mic way past the time that just about everybody else had gone to wireless boom. Of course over many years we did boom with a wireless setup when the shot absolutely demanded it. Don Coufal and I have done lots of wireless boom, utilizing Artech wireless, Lectrosonics wireless, Audio, Ltd. wireless and Zaxcom. With most wireless setups, the all important mic preamp is in the transmitter, the exception being the use of an external mic preamp (which I have done with the quite common Lectrosonics/Sound Devices MM-1setup) but even that setup only gives you a little bit of extra control and improvement over the built in preamp. With a cabled boom mic (or any mic for that matter) the microphone is going through what is arguably a higher quality preamp and also an input over which you have control of the all important primary gain stage, the preamp gain, sitting right there in front of you on your mixer or mixer/recorder. So, when the dynamics of a scene change drastically, you're in control and can do the sort of "two-handed" mixing gthat a lot of us old folks used to do.

Now, when I started using the Zaxcom wireless, I got a lot more comfortable with doing wireless boom because of the quality of the mic preamp in the transmitter and the lack of any companding or limiting in the purely digital RF transmission, the microphone sounded virtually identical to our hardwired setup. I had not had this experience with any other wireless setup and of course I had experienced what happens when what I believed to be the best gain setup proved to be not the case and there was compander noise and limiter distorsion. That said, even with those problems solved with the Zaxcom wireless setup, Don and I still preferred our cabled boom approach for the following reason: Don had never found an acceptable wireless monitor for his use --- Comteks obviously wouldn't do, the Lectro IFB was better but still not acceptable, it wasn't until Zaxcom came out with the ERX IFB that Don would totally accept going wireless for the boom.

The other thing I have to mention which a lot of people may not realize, I have been fortunate enough to work on many, many movies where just about every scene in the movie has been done with the boom mic --- rarely, if ever, have we been in a situation where we have had to "wire everybody" and do the scenes exclusively with lav mics. That's one of the reasons the boom mic has been so important.

When Zaxcom introduced Zaxnet and the total wireless control of the transmitters, this completed the system. We now had local control, at the recorder or mixer, of the all important mic preamp gain, just as we had with the cabled setup. I use the word system because I think it is important to recognize that when comparing Zaxcom wireless to other brands of wireless, it isn't a direct comparison. It should also be noted, with reference to all the comments about all the fancy features of Zaxcom which many say they don't need, you can choose to use Zaxcom wireless just as you would use Lectrosonics wireless, ignoring all the features and functions that you may feel are too complicated or too fiddly or whatever, then you can make your comparison.

Jeff, Thank you. Now I am getting it. That was great. So I'm guessing you're using an amp or just an external antenna to get the zaxnet back to the boom op's erx?

Also, does the boom op not have a problem with the delay? Or wait, is he just sending audio straight from the boom to his erx? 

Sincerely, Martin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Philip Perkins said:

One reason they do this is that they like the sound the get better than that which would be delivered by even the best pre+TX+RX chain available, which they would certainly have on hand as well. 

Thats interesting Phillip as the tests i have done with going cable into my Sonosax ST8 Mixer and via TRX743 have it sounding different, not better. I would argue the preamp in the 743 is as good as the sonosax mixer. I guess its fair to say we have quite different ways of working but i do get where you are coming from.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MartinTheMixer said:

Jeff, Thank you. Now I am getting it. That was great. So I'm guessing you're using an amp or just an external antenna to get the zaxnet back to the boom op's erx?

Also, does the boom op not have a problem with the delay? Or wait, is he just sending audio straight from the boom to his erx? 

Sincerely, Martin 

Oh boy, here we go with the whole delay thing --- the signal arriving at Don's ERX is my mix (Don and I have always worked this way and this is a matter for another discussion --- what does the boom operator want to hear) and that signal does have a latency or delay but it has never been a problem. To answer your first question, yes, I do use an amp and suitable antenna for Zaxnet transmission. The inherent properties of 2.4 ghz transmission pretty much demands this approach so that I am assured that the range for Don's ERX matches the range of the UHF wireless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The important take-away is that good mixers figure out their own ways of dealing with this very common issue, within their budget, personnel and time constraints.  Thanks to JW for running down how he and DC work now--I always look on their methods (and results) as the Gold Standard for boomed dialog.  I still maintain that the boom op is still the best primary level control, esp in a group scene, but all of the above is certainly the ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I still maintain that the boom op is still the best primary level control, esp in a group scene, but all of the above is certainly the ideal"

Sorry, Philip, if you thought I was denegrating your comments about the boom operator's importance on this issue of level, certainly not my intention. I have had the joy of being the recipient of Don's masterful work arriving at my mixing panel, coming in at ideal level and balance, no need for me to even touch the fader --- Don is truly mixing the scene, I'm still called the sound mixer but that's only because that's how it appears on the Call Sheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Wexler said:

Oh boy, here we go with the whole delay thing --- the signal arriving at Don's ERX is my mix (Don and I have always worked this way and this is a matter for another discussion --- what does the boom operator want to hear) and that signal does have a latency or delay but it has never been a problem. To answer your first question, yes, I do use an amp and suitable antenna for Zaxnet transmission. The inherent properties of 2.4 ghz transmission pretty much demands this approach so that I am assured that the range for Don's ERX matches the range of the UHF wireless. 

Jeff, nono, not here we go. I was just curious if you had figured a way around this. I have not tried your way "real world", but have just experimented with it, and in my experiments, I was hearing thru my ears the actual sound and hearing thru HP, the ERX, that's all, and it just sounds odd of course. I just think it would be a matter for me to get used to it. Here I go again with the analogies, but it's like backing up a boat trailer, you get used to it. I would think it might just be a matter of the boom op getting used to it. 

Also, does that mean you have two separate Zaxnet transmitters? And if that is yes, does that mean you have 2 different zaxnet amp/antenna systems?

Sincerely, Martin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only one Zaxnet transmitter in use (at this time it is the IFB200 but I have an older IFB100 if for some reason I need a separate unit or a backup. The phenomenon you mention while booming, hearing the real time sound (leakage from headphones that are not adequately sealed) and the IFB sound, this could be disconcerting. Reminds me of the caution that I had to tell people about way back in the beginning with the first digital gear we were using: people would try and test out how a microphone sounded into a transmitter with latency (any transmitter or digital device that has processor induced latency) and they would put on headphones and use their own voice --- the result, of course, was that every microphone sounded hollow, phasey or just plain odd! I had people come back to me and tell me it sounds awful, how can you ever use that! Then, going back and testing the same setup but listening to someone else's voice pretty much solved the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wexler said:

Only one Zaxnet transmitter in use (at this time it is the IFB200 but I have an older IFB100 if for some reason I need a separate unit or a backup. The phenomenon you mention while booming, hearing the real time sound (leakage from headphones that are not adequately sealed) and the IFB sound, this could be disconcerting. Reminds me of the caution that I had to tell people about way back in the beginning with the first digital gear we were using: people would try and test out how a microphone sounded into a transmitter with latency (any transmitter or digital device that has processor induced latency) and they would put on headphones and use their own voice --- the result, of course, was that every microphone sounded hollow, phasey or just plain odd! I had people come back to me and tell me it sounds awful, how can you ever use that! Then, going back and testing the same setup but listening to someone else's voice pretty much solved the problem.

Jeff, I see. I tried 2 Zaxnet transmitters at same time to see if I would have some intermodulation problems. I wanted to see if I could send mix to scripty/director/camera at same time and still send iso boom to boom op. Neither trans were amplified at the time and they were only about 8 inches from each other. There seemed to be no problem doing that. It looked like all the components were playing well together. My next experiment will be amplifying one of them, and if that works I will amp both of them with external antennas and try to get them to interfere with each other. What a mass of transmissions. I probably won't have mosquito problems nearby. 

As far as the listening to myself, that always sounds weird, but if I have to, I just record me and then listen back. I think "perceived" reverb bothers me the most in trying to listen to me. And besides I'm a sound mixer, no one else listens to me, why should I?

As far as HP leakage, I thought maybe boom was wearing those vice clamped, studio covering your head hp's from Remote. The lips still wouldn't match the audio, but at least boom op wouldn't have to hear it not matching.

Sincerely,  Martin 

 

 

2 hours ago, Tony Johnson said:

What i was meaning is that, if the set and situation allows you to use a cabled boom then that is great but i would have thought that these days cabled boom is the exception and not the rule on film sets. Shooting styles have changed and the speed and versatility a wireless boom provides makes it an obvious choice.

Tony

Tony, I am just guessing here, but my guess is that it depends on how much money is on that particular set as to whether it's the rule or exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MartinTheMixer said:

Tony, I am just guessing here, but my guess is that it depends on how much money is on that particular set as to whether it's the rule or exception.

Not a correct assumption, Martin. Tony has worked on every kind of job, low budget, high budget, short schedule, long schedule... it is the style of shooting, the specific project and it's demands that will dictate the necessity of wireless boom. More could be said about this, obviously, but I did want to correct your conclusion regarding budget, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jeff Wexler said:

Not a correct assumption, Martin. Tony has worked on every kind of job, low budget, high budget, short schedule, long schedule... it is the style of shooting, the specific project and it's demands that will dictate the necessity of wireless boom. More could be said about this, obviously, but I did want to correct your conclusion regarding budget, etc.

Jeff, I'm not referring to Tony, or to anyone. What I'm saying,  is if you go on a set of something that has a $10,000 budget 88, or more, percent of the time, you are not going to see a wireless boom. And that number is probably low. 40 percent of the time, you won't even see a wireless mic, or any kind of Comtek. So I'm absolutely right when I say that if there's no money, you are greatly upping your chances of seeing cabled booms. My comments rarely reference people, just situations. I think some people think I speak in code. I don't, I just say what I'm thinking. 

Sincerely, Martin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Martin, I wrongly assumed that you were saying just the opposite --- when there is money and time, you might see cabled boom mic, but on lower budget and time critical, it will be a wireless boom. I still think you need to clarify your "$10,000 budget" scenario because I'm fairly sure that with that sort of budget there will not even be a boom operator --- most likely there will be one sound person with a bag (if they can even afford a bag) with one boom mic on a short fishpole plugged into a Zoom recorder. All the rest of the sound will be gotten with the mic on the camera. I'm being a bit facetious but it does point out the difficulties in having to communicate with eachother by writing stuff here on JWSOUND that gets mis-construed and mis-understood. What Tony said about the ubiquity of wireless boom on sets these days still stands in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jeff Wexler said:

Sorry, Martin, I wrongly assumed that you were saying just the opposite --- when there is money and time, you might see cabled boom mic, but on lower budget and time critical, it will be a wireless boom. I still think you need to clarify your "$10,000 budget" scenario because I'm fairly sure that with that sort of budget there will not even be a boom operator --- most likely there will be one sound person with a bag (if they can even afford a bag) with one boom mic on a short fishpole plugged into a Zoom recorder. All the rest of the sound will be gotten with the mic on the camera. I'm being a bit facetious but it does point out the difficulties in having to communicate with eachother by writing stuff here on JWSOUND that gets mis-construed and mis-understood. What Tony said about the ubiquity of wireless boom on sets these days still stands in my book.

Jeff, its ok. I totally understand, there are people on here that have such a wide range in experience, equipment and understanding of sound and when we communicate on here, it doesn't always translate well. That's interesting, more money could equal cabled boom. I never would of thunk it. I think I will adopt that. "No, we don't use wireless booms, we're strictly high end here". Ha. I realize this might not be a Jeff question, but do many bag/one man band mixers who are booming themselves, do many of them use the transmitter on boom just so they don't have to deal with cables? I don't know. I've had mixers say this in sound stores to me before and it's true, "I don't work with other mixers, so I don't know what they do." 

Sincerely, Martin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MartinTheMixer said:

I realize this might not be a Jeff question, but do many bag/one man band mixers who are booming themselves, do many of them use the transmitter on boom just so they don't have to deal with cables?

Well, you'd only be dealing with one cable in that scenario, and you're holding its source and wearing what it's connected to. Unless you're likely to hand it off to someone else sometimes, I think the risks and complexities of the additional wireless in that situation outweigh the convenience.

About 25-yrs ago, out of necessity, doing reality police TV, running and gunning with a crew of two (camera and sound — sometimes I'd be camera, sometimes I'd be sound), I would often tape a phantom power unit for a 416 and an early Lectro Tx onto the boom pole, even if I was wearing a bag with a mixer. Obviously an extreme example, where things were "hairy" and hectic. (Big and heavy cams back then. Getting in and out of cars fast, getting tossed about during pursuits, running and jumping fences, etc. Sometimes in snow and ice. All while wearing "bulletproof" vests, and maybe some atypical things on your belt.) With wireless lav(s) on cop(s) and me booming and "mixing" and sending wireless to camera, this allowed me both the safety of not getting literally tangled up in a truly dangerous situation, plus the option to ditch the mixer altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that if an actor is going to change the level of their performance drastically, the well seasoned and well trained actors will give the sound crew a heads up so that they are not surprised/deafened by the change of their performance. If an actor doesn't do that it can be a good teaching moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...