Jump to content

Werner Althaus

Members
  • Posts

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Werner Althaus

  1. I also turn subtitles on for everything I watch and my hearing is still good. Part of it is the speakers facing down or backwards in modern flatscreen TVs. I do not turn dynamic range control on since it only makes the problem worse IMO. A very dynamic mix with a cheesy AGC or some other "dynamic range control" on it sounds worse to my ears than turning the volume up and down. I have a dim/ mute switch on my remote that drops the volume to half, then full mute, dialog is always full volume, action scenes are at half, works like a charm. And on home TVs the dynamic range isn't more extreme, it just seems that way because in general people watch TV at lower levels than movie-goers do it the cinema and lower level dialog quickly disappears into the general domestic noise floor since the overall listening volume is much lower to begin with. Properly understood, better S/N ratios and additional headroom in digital delivery systems are there to do away with sound-degrading artifacts (noise floors, compression and limiting artifacts, etc) when recording and reproducing sounds at various levels, they are not for shifting loudness to more extremes on either end, that's just counterproductive.
  2. I think it's not as simple as that. Certain pre amps play well with certain microphones. With mic inputs we're looking for impedance bridging so a ratio of >10:1 is considered ideal. A Shure SM 57 wants to see at least 1.5KOhm and increasing/ decreasing the input impedance will alter the response. I'm unable to get impedance specs on the Zaxcom but some of the SoundDevices pres have input impedances of up to 4 KOhm brining them closer to certain studio preamps like Millennia or even specific Ribbon micpres that go up to 18KOhm or higher. With most modern mics it doesn't matter but without knowing what mic you base your opinion on it is hard to follow along.
  3. It might help to first understand that Ambisonic B-Format is basically Stereo Mid-Side times 3 ( since it's along 3 axis, left to right, front to back and up to down).and just like MS Stereo it is very compatible with both up and down mixing.Hence my comment that it can be safe. But does it sound good? I think you misunderstood my comment about plug-ins and phase. Someone will have to use either a plug-in or hardware to first convert A-Format to B-Format and then to create the desired channel based configuration for the mic. On our Calrec MK-4 the hardware controller converts A Format to B-Format and it can generate various patterns from Omni to figure 8 in stereo ( No 5.1 with the old hardware controller) and everything in between, as well as rotate the mic along the horizontal and vertical plane. However, the analog circuitry involved creates phase issues and the digital plug ins do a much better job at this math but if pushed to extremes you can still get phase artifacts, at least to my ears. Other problems arise from the correction filters in the plug in not matching the mic's physical distances between the capsules. If you have a specific mic in mind ( the Rode) and use the Rode plug in to generate the channel based output ( 5.1 for example) you'll be fine, if you send raw A-format and the post house uses something else to convert to B-Format and then to channel based audio you might have issues. Remember that A-format is basically useless before conversion to B-Format.
  4. I think it can be "safe" but I don't think it's a particularly good choice. The spatial resolution and soundstage of FOA isn't very good except at close range , the sweetspot is very small. Converting to channel based formats ( mono,stereo,5.1, etc) requires a matching plug-in with the appropriate correction for that particular microphone's set of capsules only being "somewhat coincident", so you'd use the Sennheiser Ambeo plug for the Sennheiser Ambeo mic but that plug-in doesn't do conversion to channelbased audio, it only converts A to B format and steers the mic's 0 axis. It's strictly for 360/ VR. I've used the Harpex for Ambeo and Soundfield mics. The soundfield plugin sounds better with the Soundfield mic, however, for the Ambeo mic the Harpex sounds better than the soundfield/ Rode plug-in. And while somewhat coincident you can certainly create phase issues with the plug-in decoding to channelbased formats. I can't imagine anyone mixing for theatrical release being too thrilled to be handed B-format audio but I could be wrong about that.
  5. My understanding is that both start with A2D conversion and limit the bandwidth but while "regular" data compression algorithms ( mp3, etc) rely on psychoacoustics and bandwidth limitations, in cellphones they use LPC (linear predictive coding) which starts with hard bandlimiting ( <3KHz, just like POTS) but then removes those elements of speech which it can express/ transmit in a much reduced dataset, sending only the residual audio (plosives, sibilance, consonants etc) as actual digital audio. On the receiving end the residue and the data about the formants are synthesized into speech. The engine driving speech production is represented as an acoustic tube and a buzzer and can be regenerated at the other end if the modifiers (throat shape, etc) are known. I apologize for this sketchy, limited explanation but I'm trying to wrap my mind around this as well. It kind of reminds me of generating room tones using IR. I do this in post a lot when roomtone isn't available for one reason or another .I use a little snippet of dead space between words of a clip of dialogue to generate an impulse response and then feed white noise into that IR loaded into an IR reverb. The white noise is the engine driving the synthesis of room tone and wouldn't need to be transmitted, it could just be generated during reproduction so 1 hr of roomtone could be expressed with very little data, the IR and the metadata describing the level of white noise. I hope this makes sense.
  6. I have very little knowledge about this but I've heard that with cellphones the voice you hear is modeled in 10 ms increments . A quick search revealed this statement from a research paper that makes the point rather well. It seems logical that music reproduction would suffer a great deal in this scenario.
  7. Just out of curiosity, are you saying if someone delivered B-Format room tone to you, you'd swear....OR...anything captured with an Ambisonics mic and decoded as , mono, coincidental stereo, 5.1 or whatever would make you swear? I'm only asking because, while I've never used an Ambisonic mic for roomtone, I have used Ambisonics mics extensively to decode in post as needed, mostly for music recording. I find the decoding options of a Soundfield mic to be very useful, kind of like MS, only times three ( which is exactly what it is.)
  8. Nadir is the lowest point from the observer, the camera. If you look straight down in 360 videos you'll most likely see a logo, bug or other graphic to cover up the area where the tripod and sound bag would be. High end choice for Ambisonic mics would be the Soundfield mic.I believe that Rode bought the company a few years ago but I doubt that their current offering ( NT-SF1) can compete with the Original Soundfield product line. I use a Calrec Soundfield MK-IV and a Sennheiser Ambeo. The Calrec is absolutely amazing sounding while the Ambeo sounds like a cheap condenser that happens to be ambisonic. To my knowledge "Ambisonics" is a generic term. It's important to remember that Ambisonics wasn't created to accommodate VR, 360 videos, or anything like that. It just happens to be the perfect format for distributing 360 / VR audio. Here's a nice article from 1979 to fill you in on it's history. https://www.ambisonic.net/sfexp.html
  9. We filled the position but due to a staff member leaving we have another opening. https://employment.unl.edu/postings/68334
  10. I have removed various elements of applause with RX 5 but I'm skeptical about removing the entire applause. In my case I had some video of an unveiling event at National Statuary Hall and a few people must have been standing very close to the mic during the applause. I was able to completely isolate and remove those "offending" claps from the track using various passes of de-click. But in general applause is fairly broadband and ambient so removing it will undoubtedly negatively affect the audio you want to preserve. One thing that I'd try is MS decoding. It is entirely possible that the majority of the applause resides within the Side signal but there's no guarantees, it really depends on the recording. If it does then you could turn down the side signal vs the mid signal during the problem spots. You could also try to add ( sample accurate, please) an inverted and band passed track to the problem spots ( try to zero in on the most prominent frequencies of the applause), You might be able to null out a good amount of the most noticeable components of the applause. maybe try that on the side signal only. None of this is guaranteed to work but it might be worth a try. Good luck
  11. In that situation I always use an overhead mic ( Schoeps MK 41) on a boom, either fixed or handheld, depending on the movements of the talent. Lavs are useful when an overhead isn't feasible due to external noise, bad room acoustics, talent is in motion while talking, etc. If the situation requires use of lavs I try to not hide them unless someone insists that I do. If I have to hide the lav then I try to keep the mic capsule exposed or at least away from layers of fabric.
  12. The consistent difference I can tell between our mid 80's Schoeps and newer ones is the improved RF shielding. All in all we own a dozen or more and in a difficult RF environment the old ones are more susceptible to interference. I don't know if this is due to preamp design, the capsule or both. Beyond that I'd say that each of the old capsules now sounds slightly different due to different exposure to the elements, handling, abuse during traveling, etc, while all the newer ones sound identical.
  13. If your 7506s sound too bright it might be time to replace them. That's my main problem with these, they do not age well and age they do fast ( a couple of years). It creeps up on you very gradually but I force my co-workers to check their old 7506's against a fresh pair on a regular basis and it's always shocking to them how the low end and low mids are just gone after a few years of use. I don't know what it is that makes them age so poorly but when new they're great and for the run and gun style shooting we do they are perfect because you can still move safely without being too isolated from the outside world.
  14. I had to use RX 5 a few times to deal with those AC generated harmonics and if the dedicated module didn't get it, spectral repair surely did, but I see no need to argue about it. Whatever gets results is the correct choice.. I agree about FabFilter BTW. We're only talking about this because the OP's initial recordings of the 40 and 50 sounded gutted in the low end. I think we all agree on that.
  15. you mean on movie sets or in general? I don't hear a problem in the flat recording of the 435 provided here. RX 5 (or 6 or 7) does a good job with those harmonics if they are a problem but if hi-passing it works for you that's all that matters. I should clarify my earlier remarks regarding HPFs and ADCs for the benefit of the OP because they read like a contradiction to me now. Sorry if I'm repeating myself. If the HPF is a digital filter ( I believe the Zoom H6 or F8 recorders are like that) then I wouldn't bother with it because anything applied in the digital domain can be done in post as well. If low end is a problem I'd prefer to use the built-in lo-cut of the mic or some inline analog HPF. If you actually mix on location then use them if necessary to achieve a good mix . But many times a recorder just records ISOs so why bother committing to a digital HPF at 80 if you can do it just as well in post. If the filter is before the ADC then the capture of ISOs as well as the mix can of course benefit from a good HPF because if the low frequency energy is excessive ( windy outdoors or in proximity of heavy machinery or whatnot) then the headroom at the ADC is affected. Limiters will also not work too well if confronted with a ton of unnecessary low frequency content. But on a recording like the examples provided by the OP ( typical low end rumble of HVAC) I don't think the ADC is affected by the low frequency energy. here I'd rather get full range recordings because not all HPFs are created the same with regards to phase shift, ringing, overshoot, etc. The recording of the 435 flat proves this in my mind. It just sounds best when recorded flat, inebriated subject notwithstanding. If it's not needed in the field I'd prefer to do it in post. But other microphones behave differently, Our Calrec Soundfield MK IV flat will turn even moderate HVAC rumble into earthshaking low end, given a capable playback system. In this case you'd really want to record with HPF, although not at 80Hz.
  16. Thanks for the response. My question is less about using RADAR studio as DAW for Post and more about abandoning AVID HDX and possibly even Media Composer/ Video satellite in favor of Protools Videotracks or running HDX and media Composer/ Video Satelitte with limited capabilities, for example no HD Sync to reference to house black. I'm assuming it's not an issue due to a filebased workflow but I'm concerned about missing something. I just need a second set of eyes on this "workaround" Thanks again.
  17. I posted this in the computer section also, I hope that's okay, if not, please delete. I have a question for the post production / computer experts here. Our facility runs two ProTools HDX suites for audio post for Television. We mix in stereo only. The audio systems used to be synched to house black with an AVID Sync HD and the video satellite (AVID Media Composer with Mojo DX I/O) is also synched to house black . Since our workflow is entirely file based now I’m not sure if I still need to use the Sync HD and here’s the reason why I’m asking. We bought an IZ Technologies RADAR Studio for our A suite about 2 years ago. It replaced an old MacPro. That machine is a high end 24 channel Multitrack in addition to a DAW workstation. In a nutshell, the system runs FANTASTIC, eight I-7 processors and 32 GB of RAM, SSDs, stripped down windows 8.1, it’s so fast and stable it’s amazing. I installed the HDX card in it and it works perfectly but truth be told, it runs equally good or better using the built-in ASIO I/O and run everything native off the CPU. I put massive sessions on this system with hundreds of instances of various plug-in in addition to using the Protools video track ( instead of the Video Satellite) in order to see if I can get it to choke but it handles everything with utmost ease, the system usage display in protools barely registers any activity, even less than using the HDX DSP accelerator. Being so impressed with this system we bought a second RADAR Studio a year ago and it has been a bit more problematic. When I installed the HDX card in the open PCIe slot the computer couldn’t see it at all. I had to change the PCIe slot order to get the computer to even recognize it but now the RADAR side of things ( this is a dual boot machine, windows or RADAR mode) doesn’t work properly anymore. We contacted IZ technologies, even shipped the unit back, HDX card included for a complete overhaul and motherboard replacement and that helped somewhat but it’s still not working properly. The slot order they used to make the computer see the HDX card doen’t match the other machine we own and, according to them the motherboards have been revised and processors have been upgraded ( from 3.6 MHz I-7 to 4MHz I-7). The way it currently sits here the RADAR side of things works perfectly but the DAW/ windows side doesn’t. It fails parts of the DigiTest ( before the overhaul it didn’t see the card at all, when installed in this slot). As a result Protools can’t see the AVID sync HD unit ( which is connected via serial port ) and certain Plug-Ins ( McDSP ) can’t be run as DSP plug-ins. They won’t pass audio that way so I use them native. We have discussed this at great length with the vendor and manufacturer and we are at a point where we need to decide whether to seek a full replacement ProTools system built around a new MacPro as a refund or if we can keep and use the RADAR Studio as is without shooting ourselves in the foot. I mixed a couple of shows on it as is and it does work great. I use media composer as video satellite without synching either one to house black. It doesn’t seem to matter since no linear audio transfers are happening between machines, only file based audio is pushed back and forth. My concern is that I’m missing something here. What are the negative consequences of running a post audio mixing suite without Sync reference and without DSP accelerators? What else am I going to find out later that would have influenced my decision whether to keep going with a new RADAR Studio running on less than all cylinders vs getting a mac based system. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks
  18. I'm posting this in the "post" section as well, I hope that's okay I have a question for the post production / computer experts here. Our facility runs two ProTools HDX suites for audio post for Television. We mix in stereo only. The audio systems used to be synched to house black with an AVID Sync HD and the video satellite (AVID Media Composer with Mojo DX I/O) is also synched to house black . Since our workflow is entirely file based now I’m not sure if I still need to use the Sync HD and here’s the reason why I’m asking. We bought an IZ Technologies RADAR Studio for our A suite about 2 years ago. It replaced an old MacPro. That machine is a high end 24 channel Multitrack in addition to a DAW workstation. In a nutshell, the system runs FANTASTIC, eight I-7 processors and 32 GB of RAM, SSDs, stripped down windows 8.1, it’s so fast and stable it’s amazing. I installed the HDX card in it and it works perfectly but truth be told, it runs equally good or better using the built-in ASIO I/O and run everything native off the CPU. I put massive sessions on this system with hundreds of instances of various plug-in in addition to using the Protools video track ( instead of the Video Satellite) in order to see if I can get it to choke but it handles everything with utmost ease, the system usage display in protools barely registers any activity, even less than using the HDX DSP accelerator. Being so impressed with this system we bought a second RADAR Studio a year ago and it has been a bit more problematic. When I installed the HDX card in the open PCIe slot the computer couldn’t see it at all. I had to change the PCIe slot order to get the computer to even recognize it but now the RADAR side of things ( this is a dual boot machine, windows or RADAR mode) doesn’t work properly anymore. We contacted IZ technologies, even shipped the unit back, HDX card included for a complete overhaul and motherboard replacement and that helped somewhat but it’s still not working properly. The slot order they used to make the computer see the HDX card doen’t match the other machine we own and, according to them the motherboards have been revised and processors have been upgraded ( from 3.6 MHz I-7 to 4MHz I-7). The way it currently sits here the RADAR side of things works perfectly but the DAW/ windows side doesn’t. It fails parts of the DigiTest ( before the overhaul it didn’t see the card at all, when installed in this slot). As a result Protools can’t see the AVID sync HD unit ( which is connected via serial port ) and certain Plug-Ins ( McDSP ) can’t be run as DSP plug-ins. They won’t pass audio that way so I use them native. We have discussed this at great length with the vendor and manufacturer and we are at a point where we need to decide whether to seek a full replacement ProTools system built around a new MacPro as a refund or if we can keep and use the RADAR Studio as is without shooting ourselves in the foot. I mixed a couple of shows on it as is and it does work great. I use media composer as video satellite without synching either one to house black. It doesn’t seem to matter since no linear audio transfers are happening between machines, only file based audio is pushed back and forth. My concern is that I’m missing something here. What are the negative consequences of running a post audio mixing suite without Sync reference and without DSP accelerators? What else am I going to find out later that would have influenced my decision whether to keep going with a new RADAR Studio running on less than all cylinders vs getting a mac based system. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks
  19. Amazing what 23 beers will do to the quality of your voice. Regarding straining the AD converter, there's hardly anything in indoor dialog recording ( other than standing in front of a fan or an open window on a windy day) that would "strain" the ADC. unprotected Large Diaphragm Condensers at close range , yes, but not an SDC mic on a boom (unless it's unprotected and swung wildly). Regular HVAC rumble, while audible, does not affect the ADC's performance, outdoor windblasts on insufficiently protected mics do, they become the dominant part of the electrical signal, clobbering the ADC and killing headroom. That's why high end digital consoles come with HPFs on the analog front end as well as the digital domain. If you did another test with the 80Hz HPF turned off we might actually get a sense of what the 435 really sounds like. Just my 2 cents.
  20. Not to sidetrack completely, I think use of the 80Hz HPF really depends on whether it's a digital filter after the AD converter or an analog filter before the AD converter. If it's analog then by all means, it'll help the AD converter out a lot not to have to deal with all that unwanted low end rumble ( even though I'd prefer a lower -3dB point for male voices, 60 Hz would be great) but if it's in the digital domain ( Zoom F8 ???) then I'd prefer to just capture flat.
  21. I second that, using the 40 and 50's lo-cut ( -3dB point around 150 Hz if I read the graph correctly) in addition to the 80 Hz HPF on the mixer really hurts the 40 and 50 in this comparison, otherwise I believe the 40 would have fared better than all the other ones. The 416 sounds decent, the 435 sounds thin but useable. A Schoeps MK 4 or MK 41 would have slain them all as far as off-axis response is concerned.
  22. Location sound, A1, A2, post, etc. https://employment.unl.edu/postings/66882
  23. I liked the tiny desk series when they'd only use one single 418.
  24. sarcasm? I have to ask being from Germany too.
  25. IIRC NPR tiny desk uses MKH 418 stereo MS shotgun mics ( 416 mid with some evolution series figure 8 for the side in one housing) but you'll see all kinds of mics in there , like the Coles ribbon 4038 on the horns.
×
×
  • Create New...