Jeff Wexler

Thanks for the heads up. I hope someone will figure out what the difficulty is. I remember the hopes early on that if all the recorders would just write boradcast wave files, everything would be splendid --- after all, a .wav file is a .wav file, right? Unfortunately, all sorts of weirdness and incompatibilities began to crop up as more and more machines from several different manufacturers started showing up. I still believe the promise of fairly unified, predictable and reliable systems can be realized in the near future --- I just hope it is sooner rather than later (since there really isn't any turning back to linear DAT machines since many of them are seeing their "end of life" right before our eyes. I for one will not mourn the retiring of the DAT format. Having been one of the very first to use the DAT format I am equally pleased to be one of the first to abandon it completely several years ago with the original Deva. Regards, Jeff Wexler

I am sure someone has done such a test, I just don't know who or where to look. There is considerable anecdotal stories about the relative advantages of T-power vs. Phantom power, but it really has come down to a compatibility issue now with fewer and fewer devices supporting T-power. I do not have any real anwers, even though I have had a lot of experience with both, but my hunch is that there are some inherent electrical and performance advantages of 48 volt Phantom power over T-power. As for the Octava as a Schoeps subsitute, I feel that a good Octava (and there are a lot of really bad ones out there) can do a very good job and is very "Schoeps-like" in its characteristic sound. Regards, Jeff Wexler

It was a long time ago (duly noted) but I believe it would have been an 815. We did have an 815 as our "long mic" but it was seldom used. We were already at this time pretty firmly of the mind that the "short" mic (notably the Schoeps hyper) was the main microphone for use indoors and outdoors. This particular dialog scene had many problems, for all of us, and is also one of the only 2 scenes that required some ADR (looping). It was a somewhat lengthy walk and talk on very uneven payment (that had been torn up mostly to the point of loose gravel from age, deterioration and construction) which required the use of a dolly with very noisy wheels. That, coupled with the fact that it started to rain (but of course you don't see the rain unless it is seriously back-lit --- you just hear it hitting the actors' hats, the plastic covering the camera and the off screen lights and grip equipment) we did not get sound that could be in the movie. Regards, Jeff Wexler

Your method of working and recording is so odd, not relating in any simple way to any of the methods that have been proven in the past and presently. I am willing to believe that the Teac recordings sound better, using full track width and what I assume are inputs superior to that which you were able to achieve going into the camera, but the difficulties you have introduced for utilizing this sound in post are quite daunting. You must first find a way to "digitize" (I hate that term) the analog output of your Teac tape deck by playing it out in real time into some digital audio hardware interface in order to get it into the computer. This operation itself must be presided over by appropriate and qualified software with which to deal with the sound. The next task is to conform to the image from the GL2, hopefully by utilizing the guide track that either was or was not recorded on the videotape. I think the only advice that can be given at this time is that which points you in the direction of the interface hardware you will need to get your analog audio into the computer. Assuming that there is some picture editorial system being used, possibly FinalCut Pro, the methods and equipment that you are using to bring the image into the computer can also be used quite simply to bring the analog audio in from your Teac recordings. If, for example, you are using a DV deck of some sort to bring the images of DV tape into FCP, this same deck can be fed analog audio from an external source and the deck will do the A to D and bring digital audio over to the computer via Firewire (just as you have brought the images and sound over from the DV tape. I hope this helps (but I have the feeling you have a bumpy road ahead). Regards, Jeff Wexler

I have enjoyed the soundtracks of many older movies (I don't think I have seen "San Francisco" that you mention here) and even have gone so far as to state the possibly heretical notion that the sound in modern motion pictures has actually been getting worse. Even with all the technology advancements and measurable and definable improvements, many older films actuallty do sound better, particualrly the dialog. There are many reasons for this. If you analyze some of the fundamental reasons and try to apply them to current work with current technology, the results can be stellar. The problem is, the very advancements in technology and procedures in production are the very things that have caused us to lose sight of the things that played a major factor in the good soundtracks in the past. One simple example: in older films where there usually was only one way to record sound properly, with a state of the art microphone on a boom positioned nicely over an actor's head, this is the way the sound was recorded. Having only one camera, and with a director and a director of photography knowing that they must compose things properly so they will cut together, natural perspective recording was the norm (rather than a beneficial circumstantial accident as it is today --- "the 'B' camera is down so we will have to use just the one..." There are other more elusive reasons: actors were expected to have voice training, diction and clarity were valued, so when actors' voices were recorded, even if with arguably "inferior" technology, they actually sounded better than today's crop of actors who seem to be afraid of their own performances and producers and directors who are unwilling to direct the vocal part of a performance. The list could go on and on but I think the lesson is that most of the problems we needsolve require real world and often painfully human solutions, and there is not a piece of hi-tech gear we can bring on the set that will produce the good sounding films of the past. Regards, Jeff Wexler

This is the only image I have for the new Cooper CS-306; I think Andy may have posted something on his website by now, maybe not. Regards, Jeff Wexler

Andy will be showing the new CS-306 at NAB I believe and it is considerably smaller than the 106. It's layout, design and form factor is very much the same as the 106 and the 208 with a flat panel, meter bridge, slide faders and so forth. It is not your trypical "bag mixer" and as a matter of fact probably could not be used in as bag situation at all, so it is not an alternative to the SD 442 or even the discontinued Cooper 104. I think it will be a very useful addition to anyone's kit as an extra mixer for remote work (insert car work for example) or for someone who wants to build up a very small, light and compact sound cart. There may be some documentation available at the Cooper website. I have a .pdf preliminary spec sheet but I will have to find a way to make it a smaller file to post here. Regards, Jeff Wexler

Welcome to the group Brad. I had a feeling you might have something to say about the analog vs. digital mixing panel debate. For the benefit of others here, I did have some conversations with Brad while he was trying to make the decision to upgrade his mixer. I had already had lots of experience with the Cooper (as had Brad) and also more recently then with the new Cameo Mixer. I was not willing to make a definitive statement about analog vs. digital because although I had decided that the Cameo was not for me I knew of several sound mixers for whom I have tremendous respect, had opted for the Cameo and would never turn back. Several of these people are still using their Cameo (even though it is a product that has been discontinued by Zaxcom). The situation today is quite a bit different than it was when Brad was having to make his decision, even though a relatively short period of time has passed. What I see today is that the need is increasing every day for a highly flexible and configurable mixing panel and there are many jobs for which most of the analog boards in use are barely adequate. With the exception of the new Sonosax, as I mentioned earlier, there is no analog board that can match the routing flexibility and functionality of the crop of digital mixing panels available today. This brings me to the other difference today and that is the availability of suitable digital mixing panels that even when designed primarily for the mass market music oriented customer can still be made very useful for our purposes. These panels, most notably the offerings from Yamaha, also now have a track record with many more sound mixers using them, much more than the limited number of people who used the Cameo. In its day the Cameo was the only digital mixing panel that was designed from the ground up to be a production sound mixing panel for our industry. The Cameo did have its problems and Brad was hit by most all of them I believe, and as I mentioned before it ultimately was discontinued from Zaxcom's product lineup. I do not think that my experiences, or Brad's, with the Cameo Mixer should figure too largely in people's decision-making process today, analog vs. digtial, because there are so many more choices on both the analog side and the digital side. For me, the fundamental issue of how they SOUND is still a factor for me, although I am constantly being told by my well respected collegues that the new digital boards sound great. Regards, Â Jeff Wexler

Excellent question! I have pondered this most of my professional life since I came in as a Sound Mixer right from the very start, having done ONE day only as a boom operator. The first job I ever did in sound was booming for Bruce Bisenz on a commercial that my father was shooting. It didn't take me more than a few minutes to realize that this wasn't a job I wanted to do (or was even well suited to do). So, when the opportunity came up to do another job, I declared myself a sound mixer (even though I had never mixed and had never really boomed properly either). This is a very good question at this time as so many things have changed in the business, in the jobs that we do, that there isn't a logical progression of skills or job descriptions, and there is also a total lack of training ground, internships and so forth, for people to progress in an organized manner. Fortunately for me, there were many jobs in the beginning that were documentary type jobs where I had to boom and mix. This helped me get a really good grasp of microphone characteristics, how something should be miked, how it shoud sound. I was also fortunate that when I finally solved the union problems and I was able to do bigger movies, it was then possible to work with really experienced boom operators. So, by working with people like Pat Suraci (Pat had 25 years experience working in New York, did the Godfather movies, French Connection, The Excorsist, etc., etc.) I not only benefited from the good boom work, I could watch, observe and learn, what good boom opertators are supposed to do. Around this time I had realized that absolute importance of the boom operator and went on a campaign (that continues to today) to always try and make everyone else realize what an important position it is. No matter how skilled I may become as a mixer, there is almost nothing that can be done back at the mixing panel if tihngs are not right at the microphone. The simple answer to the question, I believe, is at the very least, the sound mixer should have a very deep and fundamnetal understanding of what boom work is all about and if this can be acquired while having never actually boomed yourself, this is okay. I think there is a distinct advantage to be had if as a sound mixer you have had the actual experience of not only booming but BEING the boom operator --- by this I mean learning first hand how to handle the set, work with the rest of the crew and so forth. I might turn this question around and put forth the notion that one can be a better boom opertator if there has been some experience mixing jobs. I know for a fact that Old School (who originally posted this question) was able to do such good work, even in the position of cableman, because he had mixed and boomed. So, when finally moving up to full time mixing, having done the other jobs was a real asset. Regards, Jeff Wexler

I decided to start a new topic here regarding the use of digital mixing consoles or analog consoles. I will weigh in with my opinions and experinece but I think I hold the minority opinion in this. I do know that many talanted, experienced and knowledgeable sound mixers are using full digital boards (like the various models from Yamaha) and some are using analog boards with some variety of digital interface to the recorder (or in some cases, a computer as the recorder). It is certainly true as well that you get a lot more "bang for the buck" with the digital units (this primarily being a function of marketplace: the digital boards in use by our small group of sound people have a much larger market in the consumer, pro-sumer, home studio, music world). I have talked with people using the Yamaha 01v and it has a dazzling array of features and functions, with signal routing configurability and possibilities far beyoind ANY analog board. This is attractive, and necessary quite often, for more and more jobs that require an approach to the work that is much more demanding than the majority of jobs that I do. So, it is fairly easy for me to stick with the Cooper, a beautfully sounding board with far less routing capabilities than the digital boards. I also have found that althogh you do get more bang for your buck in terms of functionality and flexibility (the kind of flexibility that is difficult or impossible to provide in a totally analog board) to my ears there is a real penalty in how they SOUND. The people who are using these digital boards every day in production (and many are good friends who I respect a lot) tell me that I am wrong on this score, that the mic preamps are terrific and they sound great... I am still skeptical. Until such time as I can no longer actually do the job with my Cooper, I will be sticking with the analog Cooper 208 as my main mixing panel. I will add that the new Sonosax (which is somewhat of a hybrid analog / digital board) is the only analog board out there that comes close to providing the sort of flexibility and configurability of the digital boards and still provides the benefits of a terrific sounding analog mixer. I believe there are only a few out there that can afford to spend that amount of money on the mixing panel, when, as you point out, there are so many other choices with the digital consumer/professional music boards available for considerably less cost. I hope that someone else chimes in here, someone who is using one of the digital boards, that could be very helpful when trying to make the decision. Regards, Jeff Wexler

Hey, Rob, glad you got a chance to see the picture. We really were YOUNG (no pun intended) and we had a good time on that little movie. I don't know who else on that crew is still working. I do know that Peter Schindler (who was a 2nd AD on that) went on to be a producer --- I got Peter started in the business and when he became a producer I did several films with him. Peter is now firmly in the TV world and is working, I believe, on "Criminal Intent." Hope all is well with you and thanks again for the good work way back then. Regards, Jeff Wexler

I used my Cooper 106+1 for many, many years, and when I needed to feed direct outs pre-fader to the Deva I contacted Andy Cooper for some guidance on wiring up cables using the Insert points. I do not remember exactly how they need to be wired but I do remember that because they arfe insert points you have to deal with the fact they want a send and a return (or they need to be send and NO return?). I did several movies with these cables and the only downside (which wasn't really a problem) is that they are unbalanced and lower in level than a full balanced direct out. When I first got my 208 I used the direct outs, unbalanced, until I got the modification that puts a subD connector (Tascam style) and provides 8 balanced direct prefader outputs. Regards, Jeff Wexler

I got my Cooper 208 before the digital option was available and also, obviously, before the version 2 was out. I have very specific thoughts on where things should be digital and where they should be analog, and it is some of these feelings that made me go back to the Cooper after having a Cameo digital board for awhile. I really like everything to be analog all the way until it enters the Deva and I have never been a big fan of the idea of having a digital output from the analog mixing panel. With a digital board (that is, of course, analog IN because the microphones are analog), it is a different story and if I were using a digital board I would feed the Deva a digital signal. Regards, Jeff Wexler

I think we all had the "pinched lid" fiasco at some time or anorther, but I agree with Phillip that there is almost no way to look into these problems or repair anything with msot of the new gear we use these days. When I was a lot younger I used to work on my own car, even pulled an engine or two and did pretty major work. I remember one time when I bought a new Honda and the salesperson asked if I wanted the extended warranty; I was already to say no because I knew I would be working on the car myself probably. As I lifted up the hood and looked into the engine compartment, I immediately said YES, I do need the warranty! The engine compartment was almost unrecognizable with all the black boxes and everything, I was worried I was even going to have to read the manual to figure out how to check the oil. Regards, Jeff Wexler

Most all of my output needs can be done with just the Cooper 208 (Comtek, Video Village, EPK people, etc.) although even as terrific as the Cooper board is, the original design concept in relation to bussing and monitoring is somewhat challenged by the new ways of multitrack recording. The Mac Mini comes standard with Airport card (Wi-Fi) so it will connect easily with any Wi-Fi network it can see and gain access. It does not do its own wireless connection to the Internet (but could with the proper ISP account and an outboard adapter). I do not use the keyboard for metadata although I probably could. I have gotten used to entering metadata on my Deva usin the Deva touchscreen and that works okay for me. I have consdiered tires for the cart that are non-pneumatic as you describe (the so-called "flat-less" tires) but I'm not so sure about them. I also have not found them in a soft enough and rugged enough material and in any size over 8 inches. Regards, Jeff Wexler

one of the films I was so fortunate to do with the late, great Hal Ashby... and I also got to work with my father on that one. So much I have learned from those two and so thankful for the chance to do as many films as I did with Hal... he was the best. Regards, Jeff Wexler

I'm not quite sure what I was showing Goldie here but we both seem to think it's pretty funny. We had a terrific time on "Foul Play" and a little bit of trivia: it was John Coffey's first job on production --- Don and I hired him to work as our utility person (of course back then the position was always called "the third man" or "the cable guy") and I think that helped launch John's career in production sound. Regards, Jeff Wexler

I have sold the 2 I had put up for sale and I don't know that I will be selling others soon. If I do decide to sell, I will post here in the Want To Sell section and probably also on r.a.m.p.s. Regards, Jeff Wexler

Yikes! I can't even imagine being that cold. Do you get to just stay indoors and sit by the fire or do you have to go out and work in that cold? Regards, Jeff Wexler

The PowerBook that I use is the 12" also. I chose that one specifically because it was the smallest and lightest. I never had a problem with the fan and yes you can make certain adjustments with Energy Saver system preferences and keep things a little cooler. The first run of Aluminum PowerBokks in the 12" screen size ran very hot and there wasn't much that could be done about it. The joke was that even though it was the smallest of Apple's laptops you really couldn't keep it on your lap very long. Now with the Intel MacBooks coming out there is a lot of speculation as to what the various configurations will be, keeping in mind that it is almost a certainty that a mid-level laptop in iBook line up will be coming out before the school buying season. The new iBook is thought to have a 13" screen putting it inbetween the existing 12" and 14" iBooks. Regards, Jeff Wexler

I think it is pretty easy to do. I have posted the majority, maybe all, so far and it seems to be working fine. It is best to choose which board area to post to (and it really doesn't have to be the Images of Interest area) and you Start a New Topic, name it whatever you want, put in a brief description and then attach the file. The file attachment happens in the "Additional Options..." at the bottom left. The only somewhat difficult part is that you have to have already sized the image (both physical display size and file size) so that it can be posted. There is presently a limitation of 128 kb per attachment per post. This could be increased, I believe, if need be. Also, I realize that preparing an image properly may be a challenge for some if they are not so familiar with the various graphic programs available on their computer, but it really isn't all that difficult. Regards, Jeff Wexler

Having the Mac Mini on the cart semi-permanently will free me from often having to setup my PowerBook, find a place to put it, remember to take it home, etc. It is just a neat way to consolidate computing function on the cart (and I will have BoomRecorder installed for use when I need it). I use only the built-in optical drive on the Deva --- works fine (but I do have several other outboard drives of various sorts if needed). As for the wheels --- 10 inch pnematic fixed wheels in back, small under-equipped solid rubber casters in front. The cart is not very road worthy and must be tipped back on the rear wheels when moving it over any rough surfaces. The cart is however quite light and small footprint and can be carried by 2 people very easily. Regards, Jeff Wexler

side view showing Cooper pulled out in working position

just to get things going, here are two images of my sound cart (not very good photos, sorry). Monitor is a 10" Xenarc, Audio, Ltd. 2000 quad box next to it, Deva IV below that, Sound Devices 744T and then the Cooper 208. What is not seen is the new Mac Mini behind the Xenarc (that 's because it isn't there yet), the Cart Power Supply at the bottom of the cart that runs all the equipment.

I will look into that request. Since this is the first time I have ever configured and administered this particular forum software (as you probably know there are a lot of ways to go at this) I am still learning what can and cannot be done with it. I know that spell checking "on the fly" is supported but the software depends on the capabilities of the user's host computer and OS to accomplish this. There is already a "Preview" button at the bottom next to the "Post" button but I don't know if that would help. I really don't know whether the author of a post can go back to that post and edit after the fact (if that's what you were asking). I will investigate. Regards, your host, Jeff Wexler