jozzafunk

We tried an earlier proto on a 17 page backwards walk and talk, it was great for that

we had the cicadpocalypse down south here in NZ a few summers back

it was madness

they had to do a fairly big rewrite on the feature I was on for it to make sense, we were all going home shattered and exhausted because of the constant din and lots of crew were wearing earplugs fulltime

I measured sound levels of up to 96 dBFS on a phone app I had - like definitely exceeding OSH regs by a considerable amount for noise exposure

My 633 has worked at least 500 days possibly quite a few more thru rain / snow / seaapray / racecar dirt track etc without missing a beat and still sounds great - hopefully for quite a few more - I don't begrudge these repair prices

your question makes no sense - go buy the cable you need, or learn to solder and make one

Ive got ambient x 3, panamic x1, ktek x1 - My boom op swears by the panamic but I prefer him to use an ambient - it's quieter, and much prefer the ambients myself - I'm still regularly using the ambient I bought 15 years ago

In my experience the jointed ones fail more often

3 hours ago, The Documentary Sound Guy said:

I hate to bring up a topic that caused a flame war last time, but I'm struggling to find a definitive answer about how Zaxcom wireless interacts with sample rate, and how to interpret the sample rate specs on some of their transmitters.

I've seen several (older) reports that Zaxcom wireless samples at 32KHz, which therefore caps the frequency response of those units at 16kHz.  What I'm not clear on is whether this is true across the board, if it applies only to specific modulations (XR?), or specific transmitters.

Zaxcom doesn't seem to specify much about their wireless modulations (the best information is here:  https://zaxcom.com/modulation-overview/), but they do specify ADC audio specs for their transmitters:

• ZMT4-x:  24 bits / 48 kHz
• ZMT4:  32 bits / 32 kHz
• TRXLA5:  24 bits / 48 kHz
• TRX743:  24 bits / no sample rate specified

For the most part, there's no sample rate or frequency response specs for the receivers, but the RX200 lists:  

• AES3 balanced output 32 kHz
• Frequency Range 20Hz to 16kHz

RX200 is intended as a camera receiver, so I wouldn't assume that all the receivers follow this spec, but it does seem to confirm that Zaxcom uses 32kHz sample rate at least some of the time.

That summarizes the official information I've been able to find.  What I'm wondering is:  Are the ADC specs on the transmitters a proxy for the sample rate they are transmitted at, or would their frequency responses always be truncated to 16kHz for transmission anyway (in which case, why bother specifying the *ADC* numbers)?  I notice that 32 bits @ 32kHz requires roughly the same bandwidth as 24 bits @ 48kHz, so I can see how it might work technically, but I haven't been able to find any firm information about the sample rate during transmission.

I'm particularly interested in how this might affect the TRX743 vs ZMT4 — I would pick the dedicated TRX for my boom over the flexibility of the ZMT4 if I knew the frequency response was better.

I would also like to know about the various modulations:  Does ZHD (48 or 96) sacrifice the top end frequencies to fit audio into a smaller bandwidth?  In that case, would XR be a better choice for fidelity?

I don't want to restart the flame war about whether this "matters" or not.  What I'm interested in is knowing the capabilities and limitations of the equipment that I'm buying.  I would judge that the difference between 32kHz and 48kHz is mostly academic for typical recording situations ... but there's a couple situations where I *would* care about it (mainly, specialized SFX recording, and classical music, both of which I occasionally have call to work with).  So, faced with a situation where the lower frequency response of a 32kHz sample rate might matter, I'd like to know which, if any, Zaxcom equipment I would want to choose or avoid.

The 743 has a nicer preamp than the zmt, my zmt3 phs are noisy to the point that I don't use them for interior drama, let alone classical - don't know about zmt4s - I thought the cut off was 15khz - nothing a nice cable wouldn't fix

On 10/29/2022 at 4:18 PM, Johnny Karlsson said:

I listened to the 2022 mix of Revolver on Apple Music, and it’s very bright and clear. But I’m not sure that’s “better”, because to my ears it’s almost “too bright and clear”, making it  somewhat harsh sounding. Maybe the vinyl version will tame that a bit…

Your top end might be in better shape than Giles' eh?

17 page walk and talk, not as dense as some of those - we were on a tracking vehicle, boom op had beta boom easyrig

I've tried with 4098s a few times but the cubs always sounded better - the 4098s were very susceptible to noise from the car, less so when I used them without the cable, but still touchy

I did a bunch of publicity videos for this - There wont be much of the original footage in the wild yet as it was in the vault until not long ago.

Most of the audio is from mono 1/4 tape running at 15 ips used by the film crew with some of it on 8 track from the studio.

There was 4x the audio as they just left the recorders running over the 22 days they were shooting - cameras were on/off a lot

In plenty of places conversations were drowned out by cranked up amps ( on purpose and unintentionally ) - the Sound dept wrote ML software to split out everything, so much of it, especially the intimate conversations were not at all audible originally. There is a video showing comparison but not sure where this is available, it was shown to a bunch of press

It's an pretty amazing watch hey

Rubber monkey in New Zealand has a new one. Check their website

Ive got a CS3e - picks it out but I rarely enjoy the sound of it - the cs-m1 sounds much nicer in this video to me

2 hours ago, Dan Brockett said:

Larry:

This might be a thread detour or more of a Karl question but since you are talking about it, do you foresee the possibility of a potential 2.4Ghz product for Lectro in the near or far future? 

I have the Deity system and a Røde Video Wireless, both are sort of prosumer-ish, I get it. but they aren't bad, most of the time although limited obviously.
As limited as 2.4Ghz systems seem to be, it would be interesting if a top line product like Lectro threw their hat into that technology ring with a pro product.

 

I am concerned about the FCC's culpability and responsibility to not keep auctioning off the UHF spectrum to the highest bidder, which will never be us wireless mic users.
Less spectrum plus more users isn't forecasting a bright future for UHF for wireless mic users. Thoughts? 

I would hope not. 2.4 is becoming a swamp on set with all the other depts running gear on it 

15 hours ago, Southeast Sound Guy said:

 

You are saying that the MM into the HMa results in better audio quality than just the HMa right?

Yep, considerably better - to the point where Im happy to go wireless boom all the time 

Not 100% if it’s the question but using MM into HMA and a straight HM on the daily - difference is night and day

Line level into Mic

While we’re here. I need a new mount for my 8050, older cinela seems bent out of shape, not good at all   Recommends?
 

That sounds awesome but will last exactly around 15-30 seconds from switching it on on a set running wireless camera and lighting 

You’ll never regret buying a 50

Don’t go Zax until you’ve done at least a few gigs with a borrowed / rented one

On 6/20/2020 at 2:49 PM, John Blankenship said:

Joel,

 

Do you know for sure you need bass traps? They're for diminishing standing waves in specific frequencies or ranges. You left out what is one of the most critical aspects of the drawing -- the dimensions: length, width, height, and also the variation of the angled wall.  Is the box-shaped foyer open? If so, then those dimensions matter, too. Once you have a plot of the room, it'll become clearer how to proceed with interior acoustics -- a whole different thing than the sound transmission issue this thread addressed. Naturally, being in the room and plotting it thoroughly with proper gear is by far the best approach, but it's still good to have specific measurements on paper, to know what you may be dealing with standing-wave-wise.

 

Other than two speakers on stands, your diagram doesn't address how sound reinforcement will be handled -- that figures into the equation. Many smaller speakers can distribute sound more evenly and require less sound volume from the main ones which might be part of the culprit where the neighbor's issue is concerned.

 

 

 

Hi John

1st priority was sorting as much leakage as possible, taming the room comes next.   
 

PA is QSC K12s left and right and a KS118 sub

Doing some Room acoustics engineering would be ideal, initial queries showed it to be too expensive - they’re working with a budget of a couple grand - this is a smallish but popular centre run by volunteers that mostly runs in the red.

Do you have access to acoustic design software or point me to where to access it  ? Ill go and measure It up if so 

regards

Thank you both. Yes helping to affirm current plan - clarify couple things

11 hours ago, John Blankenship said:

Forgive me as I become pedantic for a moment -- and then, hopefully helpful. Not disagreeing with anyone else, just adding to the info pool:

 

"Soundproofing" is a term this is often misunderstood and even more often misused, although applied here it's closer to its real meaning. "Soundproof" is similar to the term "waterproof." Few things are absolutely waterproof as it depends upon so many qualifying factors, be it amount of immersion, pressure, exposure duration, etc.

 

What we're talking about here is sound attenuation, and not unlike the more appropriate analogy "water resistance" it's a matter of degrees.

 

Sound reflection, sound absorption, and sound dispersion are an entirely different matter (although still related) that deals with how frequencies bounce around within a room and interact with each other. Quite often, when someone asks about "soundproofing" these internal acoustic characteristics are actually what the person is talking about -- however, not is this case.

 

To attenuate low frequencies the two prime principles are mass and decoupling -- ideally, both. For high frequencies it's blocking air flow. All the frequencies in between those extremes are on a continually sliding scale. 

 

In a case like this it's often low frequencies that tend to make its way through structures, the frequency range of offense rising appreciably through windows (lacking the mass). Yes, you need to have mass in your church to help solve this issue (ohh -- bad pun alert... too late!).

 

Decoupling is requiring the offending frequencies to pass through one surface with a given type of attenuation and then through another surface with a different one. Think: thick wall / air space / another thick wall.

 

So here: thick panel / air space / thick panel -- sealed from any air flow.

 

Maybe this helps.

 

 

Thanks John. Yes diffusion and trapping is stage 2.  This is rough design I did - scale is bit out

Thanks Peter

Yes, it all needs to be removable on the daily 

To clarify on my post - I’m trying to optimise what we’ve got - 

cheers

I’m helping out some friends that have a worship space - They recently converted the big rear room into a yoga studio / devotional music space which gets loud - There used to be a big shrine type arrangement blocking the rear windows but that has moved and the neighbours are complaining.

we need to build some plugs to go into the 2 large window cavities.  They can be 200mm deep ( not ideal ) but this also will make them more manageable.  The plan is 3 plugs - 1200mm wide by 1200 high that fit in each window space .   I’m looking for advice on the composition   Currently looking at ( with materials to hand ) From inside room to window. 18mm ply to 70mm Audex foam Then airgap then foam then another layer ply, to make them 200mm deep,  and boxing around outside to hold together.  Do folk think this is best layering for sound proofing? Was considering long thin slots in front ply to help act as traps / diffusers.  Any opinions on whether slots would compromise proofing over benefits it may provide?

thanks for your time and help 
 

will also be building baffles and getting some carpet but the plugs are needed asap 

there is a pretty limited budget but some handy folk there

JAS