Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jozzafunk

  • Rank
    RDA avoider
  • Birthday 11/09/1975

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Recording Sound
    Swinging Boom
    Sound Editing and sound mixing stuff
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
  • About
    Love recording good sound - Especially doco in unusual locations - also love sound editing

Recent Profile Visitors

2,140 profile views
  1. I have neither so can't really comment sorry - tho have been using a 633 almost daily since they arrived in New Zealand, and find it to be superb - reliable / user friendly mostly / great upgrades / light / well specced If you want my 2 cents about those 2 - hard to say - 664 would cover most, if not all jobs I deal with - the additional options the 688 dsp provides don't seem worth the price difference but if you doing reality / panels regularly dugen would be invaluable I would say and I'd guess would pay for itself in a few days
  2. Interesting test - fairly apparent differences even just on the laptop, but very difficult to be objective - the Sonosax sounds so 3D!!
  3. Seems to be fairly large difference between the 2 just on the lappy speakers - not much bottom end on the me2, probably more lav than tx/rx, me2 1/4 of price of mke2
  4. Not at all, it's not rocket science, some stuff is better than other stuff, if you've got the option you use the better stuff - there's no point arguing subjectivity, that's what kicked off this conversation in the first place.
  5. What is your point? As I read it you were inferred a renowned recording artist recorded vox on lo-fi cheap gear, however you were completely mistaken, so er, what was the point being made? Anybody can use anything to do some sort of job, a pro / craftsperson will use the best gear they can. 633 preamps are better than f8 preamps / the difference is a very apparent difference that counts to a few people initially and many more down the line whether they know it or not / If you don't think initial quality counts you either have low production values, poor hearing, poor monitoring or haven't done much post mixing / they are also more expensive / you get what you pay for / technology is changing, you get more for less, not necessarily a good thing / there's a good reason vinyl is having a resurgence .... IMHO ( except for pre quality matter, that's just a fact ) I'll probably get a f8n as backup / extra tracks, but I would much rather 788 / 688 / nomad
  6. it'sin the outputs routing menu, green is post fade / blue is pre or something like that Says it on the page
  7. When I first started in the industry about 12-13 years ago I worked for about the first 2 years in a busy production office without really having a lunch break - I broke down after a while and became really angry and sad and had to take 6 weeks off to stare out the window. It was an amazing experience that I value to this day - I learnt a lot about myself and where my 'edges' were. It's good to know ones limits, there's possibly better ways of discovering them
  8. Last rig I did I ran cables to a 302 and sent line level to my bag, I'm using 4099s tho I think they're lower sensitivity.
  9. Beauty - thank you sir - this is very useful
  10. oh there we go - I'll defer to Phil on this one - I've got a few complaints about premiere pro exports myself!
  11. Protools ( and I imagine pretty much all audio post software ) has settings to convert all ingested files to same sample rate/bit depth automatically and/or supports mixed formats anyways - it's kinda a non-issue if you ask me
  12. There's nothin' quite like the depth found in certain aged cask strengths - Coming to the bottom of a Adelphi Caol Illa - outrageous stuff - too easy to drink
  13. 80 proof is 40% alcohol - anything above from that is better with a drop of water anyways
  14. You're asking in the context of getting a feed to your cart/bag for your own reference tho hey?
  • Create New...