standard mixer to boom interface

[Twade]

Hey,

With the new Zaxcom TRX992 transmitter with built in IFB receiver the brain started to wonder.

What do guys use now?  What are boom operators/mixers using to send their boom to the mixer and get a return to the boom op for monitoring?

The Remote Audio Boom Cable System with talkback?

A comtek?

A XLR cable sending and a long headphone extension?

Thoughts and comments appreciated.

[Jeff Wexler]

I am not the best one to answer this because the way Don and I work is no longer the norm. So, I will give an answer anyway since I have some comments regarding monitoring and communication. Most people, I believe, now use a wireless transmitter on the boom operator to send the mic signal back to the sound mixer/cart/receiver in a bag, etc.). Since the boom mic most probably needs phantom power (48 volts) and most common transmitters cannot supply this power, the boom operator also wears an outboard mic power supply (Denecke, Ambient, PSC, etc.). For the boom operator's monitor, the most common is a Comtek receiver or a Lectrosonics IFB receiver --- this is fed a monitor signal from the sound mixer. Depending on how the monitor signal is configured, this can be either the boom mic alone (pre or post fader) or the mix of the boom mic and whatever sources are being used for the shot. There are a few boom operators out there that use the Sound Devices MM-1 which provides phantom power for the mic and the preamp and goes inline before the transmitter. This gives the possibility of monitoring the mic directly rather than a return signal from the mixer (and it also allows you to drop the outboard power supply).

Now, as for communication between the boom operator and the mixer, this runs the full gamut from just pulling the boom mic down and just talking into it, all the way up to fairly elaborate systems of private communication with mic on boom operator's headset, Mark Ulano-style communication system (with its own dedicated comm. cart), and so on.

What the new Zaxcom 992 will provide is for all of these things, and more, in a single box for the boom operator. Having not tried it yet I can only speak from reading about what it will be able to do --- it is clear that it will eliminate the need for several other boxes: Comtek or Lectro receiver, 48 volt power supply, etc. I know there is also going to be a provision to momentarily put the boom mic in use onto a private line transmitted on a 2nd channel back to the mixer, so the 992 will also allow for private communication functions.

[Philip Perkins]

Hey,

With the new Zaxcom TRX992 transmitter with built in IFB receiver the brain started to wonder.

What do guys use now?  What are boom operators/mixers using to send their boom to the mixer and get a return to the boom op for monitoring?

The Remote Audio Boom Cable System with talkback?

A comtek?

A XLR cable sending and a long headphone extension?

Thoughts and comments appreciated.

There are lots of ways to skin that cat, depending mostly on what your mixer has built in.  In it's simplest form the system is just a duplex mic cable (2 cables in one jacket) or even two normal mic cables attached together.  The boom mic signal goes down on to the mixer and a headphone feed comes back.  From here on things can get as elaborate as you want.  Many high end mixers have talkback systems feeding various buses that can be used to set up special submixes for boom ops, they also have provision for "private line" communications from the boom op back down the line to the mixer.  Nowadays many sound crews work wirelessly, that adds another layer of complications (and cost) but frees up the boom op from dragging cable around (and worrying what it is getting interfered with by). 

Philip Perkins

[RPSharman]

Especially on shows which you only have a two person crew, or shows which often require 2 booms, being wireless is very handy.  It allows for quick position adjustments if the lighting changes, and lots of other advantages.  If I am on a very quiet set (rare) with a very quiet scene, I will sometimes run an XLR to the boom op to use the preamps on the board, if I feel it is necessary.  My wireless boom setup is the PSC 48v power supply with UM400 transmitter.

I send a private feed to the boom ops via PR216 Comtek receiver.  I like these better than the IFB only because I have found the range to be superior and the "hits" to be less painful to the ear.  The fidelity might be a little better on the IFB, but neither are as good as a hard line, and I found the difference negligible when I was booming.  My board, as do most, allow me to send whatever feeds my boom op wants...boom only, mix, etc.

Regarding hearing the boom op.  I can pick his voice out of the crowd, so usually just talking up to the mic if the pole is extended is usually good enough.  I found when I was booming with my regular mixer, we had a shorthand language which allowed me to say what I needed over an open mic without worrying about who was listening to the Comteks.  If privacy was critical, we'd shut off the mic feed to the Comteks.  I have the same language with my current boom op.  It ads a little fun to the day knowing that between scenes, people can be listening to only his very cryptic half of a conversation.

[Philip Perkins]

I think this last is an important point for newer mixers--the "private line" function of sophisticated boom talk back systems isn't really private--the boom mic might still be open and then there's just plain old transmission thru the air.  I generally tell boom ops that if they have something to tell me that they need a private line for then maybe that remark shouldn't be made when they are standing in the middle of the set at all.  For really serious issues (like incipient "Bale-outs") my boomista will usually ask me to come in and talk to her directly.  Sometimes there is a code involved ("Can you bring me some more tea?" etc.).

Philip Perkins

[RPSharman]

Richard,

We need to hang out at a hotel bar on location again sometime soon.  Your experienced input always keeps me in check, and makes me consider all my decisions very carefully.  Your input here is of the utmost value to me, and I hope I can write that without sounding like a total kiss-ass.  Although our set "realities" are very different, I think our passion and desire for the best possible result is very similar. 

I am certainly guilty of broadening the line between convenience and quality, but honestly feel that the overall quality of my performance as a department has become just as important as the quality of the end product.  All of my films have been shot on a schedule of 30 days or less, and I know that many departments' quality, including my own, has been compromised for speed.  Balancing the two has become part of my job.  Although I almost always use a wireless boom, I make sure that my sound utility is kept busy, so as not to make a producer feel they are unnecessary.

Robert

[Jeff Wexler]

This topic is starting to morph into something quite different, but equally important. I need to respond to a few of the things RVD is saying here.

RVD

Personally I'm against this trend to make sound crews "totally wireless" this bothers me on two levels.  One, I want the boom operator to have as quality of a monitor as he/she can have in order for them to evaluate their work.

This is one of the things that will be, theoretically, solved by the Zaxcom 992 boom box. The monitor return audio is exceptionally high quality. The issue of the mic signal being compromised by going through a transmitter has already been solved by use of the Zaxcom digital wireless.

RVD

Two, and more importantly in my opinion, is if you show the producers that you can work with a two person crew and be wireless and "get the job done" then you should always expect that producer to want to hire you as a two person crew, thus eliminating the utility sound person's job. 

On a union job, the producer is not allowed to go with just a 2 person crew. Even if the producer has been convinced in the past that the job only requires 2, the producer will need to apply to the union for a waiver --- the producer needs to convince the union local that the job only needs 2 people.

RVD

The utility position used to be known as the "cable person" and has rightfully morphed into the "utility person" by virtue of what their job entails.  However, their original and primary function is to run cables to and from the set and assist the boom operator during shots that require movement on the part of the boom op.

The change to the designation of "Utility Sound Technician" is very significant. Anything that can be done to insure the employment of a 3 person sound crew (Article 6 - composition of the sound crew) while NOT tying it to any specific technology, equipment or even procedure, is a good thing.

RVD

I worry that these "wireless" crews are going to further eliminate the utility person's job.  When working as a two person crew what do you do when you need another moving microphone, immediately wire that actor just because you only have two people?

Jack Coffey worried about this so much that he even went to the FCC to try and have wireless mics outlawed! I am pleased at the outcome of Jack Coffey's efforts to secure a mandatory 3 person crew, for this he is to be commended. I had serious disagreements with him at the time, the strategy and tactics that he used, and I am still wary of any labor struggle that is tied to a given piece of equipment or technology. We must have a 3 person crew because that is what is needed to do a proper professional job (certainly on feature films) not because some producer says it could be done with 2 --- one guy to "capture" the audio on a recorder (or camera) and one guy to change batteries.

I don' think we should be critical of those who do one person or two person jobs, for whatever reason (non-union, no contract, low budget side-letter, etc.), and as I said above, even  if some producer is convinced the job can be done by 2, this is not the way it should be done.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

On real movies I think not having the 3rd, whatever you want to call them, would be a terrible move for a producer.  The mixer has to stay with the cart, the boomista has to stay with the pole, both need to be listening for blocking changes and (esp anymore) "casual" or "50-50" rolls and cuts.  Production expects that anyone in front of the camera of any importance is wired.  So once the scene is moving--who will do that work with someone to be added to the scene or for the next scene?  If they want A: wide wireless coverage of talent and B: multitrack audio, with all the media management and secretarial work involved, there has to be another experienced body to deal with all the gear.  This is not a private coffee-boy for the mixer, this is someone whose work w/ the wireless and plant mics is making a real contribution to the project.  And I can tell you that it sucks a lot to not have such a person most of the time.

Philip Perkins