Jump to content

KenLac

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KenLac

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Boston
  • About
    I do this.
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I can't seem to find a Terms of Service or other user agreement type posting anywhere here, so I thought I'd ask directly: What is the view about contacting a JW member directly, using the e-mail address posted publicly on his/her profile? I have a longstanding tech issue, and the manufacturer's tech support has not been able to lead me to any useful solution. I have a feeling this person might be able to help me, but I don't wish to violate any rules.
  2. There's a plug-in for that now.
  3. KenLac

    UCR 200 D

    Ah, something I have (a) some experience with and (b) problems with I am trying to resolve. Yes, you can put a more modern transmitter into 200 mode and the UCR 200 D ought to be able to pick it up. However, here's my experience with mixing 400 series transmitters with 200 series receivers: Being cash poor, I cobbled together a kit out of some used gear. One pair involved a UM400 Tx (which one can run in "200 mode") and and a UCR 211 Rx. The UM400 always sounded somewhat fuzzy and occasionally distorted compared to the sound of a UM200C running into the same model receiver. I had the UM400 serviced, and while it did sound much better (much less distortion) it still had subtle fuzzy quality -- not at all the same clarity as the straight-up 200 pair I was running side-by-side with the mismatched pair. So I decided to abandon the UM400 and get another transmitter -- a used SMa. After some months I've come to stop denying that the SMa has the same subtle fuzzy behavior as the UM400. To the best of my ability to hear, both these "problematic" 400 series transmitters sound perfectly fine when running in 400 mode and paired with a 400 series receiver, whenever I've had the luxury of having a 400 series Rx available to me. But since I don't own a 400 series receiver I've never been able to torture test it. So I figure it's GOT to be something about how the 400 series boards emulate 200 (despite the assurance from Lectro). This problem is subtle -- one may might not notice it unless they were hearing it directly along side another channel. If I weren't constantly scraping bottom cash-wise (new car, new roof, new teeth...) I'd just get the hell out of 200 world altogether, but if wishes were fishes....
  4. KenLac

    SRa: sandtraps?

    I'm thinking of picking up a used Lectro SRa receiver to pair up with my older 400 series transmitters. Anything to watch out for? (Such as missing features compared to later models, known bugs, etc.)
  5. if you cover over the holes, then basically you have an omni mic at the end of a tube. If you like the way things sound coming through a tube then that's pretty cool. I have a feeling you don't. ;-) I suspect the sound you don't like from the 416 is because you're not hitting your target square-on. This is the problem with shotgun mics (as opposed to hyper-cardiods). If you're slightly off then you end up putting a table or the floor or a wall in the mic's sweet spot, instead of your desired dialog. Also keep in mind that interference-tube microphones ("shotgun" mics) have strange frequency responses off-axis. Look at the polar patters for the typical shotgun and they resemble EKG readings. This is another reason people prefer super-cardiods (such as the ubiquitous Schoeps MK41) for controlled dialog situations instead of a shotgun: the off-axis response is smoother and more natural sounding, while still having a good amount of directional characteristics. Miss your target with a super-cardiod and you're not too bad off. Miss it with a shotgun and you start to get strange colors and coffee-cup frequencies. I would say the MKH 40 has too wide a pattern for me to want to attempt to do film dialog with it, and it would definitely not have any immediacy at 5 feet. I've tried the MK 8050 and while it wasn't bad it did not turn out to be the cost-effective Schoeps substitute I'd hoped for. I've done boom work on scripted films with shotgun mics, and while it's worked out I would not recommend it. Shotguns are for noisy situations or times when you can't get as close to (or perhaps anywhere near) your subject as you'd like.
  6. I don't have any experience with the G4s. I have a LOT of experience with the G3s. If the G4s are like the G3s, then expect range issues and lots of hits. (Based on only pictures, it would seem the G4s still do not have true diversity in the receiver.) Also, the companding in the G3s was a lot more evident to my ears than Lectro. I think you're going to be much much happier with the Lectro 400 series than you would have with the G4s. Just be prepared to use a lot more batteries!
  7. Sometimes I *wish* I were a marketer or a product rep -- my legs wouldn't hurt nearly as much! **************************** Thanks everyone for the input! Great opinions, and aren't we lucky to have so many options? Based on general feedback, I went with the JB-1s, as it sounded like the best fit for my situation, and based on the first shoot I *adore* them. * Much smaller than I imagined * I really like having a display for confidence * I *really really* like not needing any kind of app or external device to configure. As a test I have left the pair I bought running for four straight days now -- they have drifted no more than perhaps half a frame from each other, and the battery indicator hasn't dropped even a pixel yet! I do realize that for more complicated productions and workflows the other options have some significan advantages, but the JB-1s seem to be exactly the right combination of, small, simple and bullet-proof for the kinds of situations I find myself in day-to-day. Again, thanks much for the help!
  8. "Low" is a subjective term. Let's break this down: * What software are you using to analyze the levels? Do the meters in that software indicate digital full-scale or some other kind of reference? * Have you tried running test tone into the recorder? * Are you talking about iso tracks, mix buss tracks, or both? * Do you have your iso tracks set up for pre-fader or post-fader? * When looking at the meters set up for RMS, where does your average level hit? I usually aim for a healthy 0 on the meters (-20FS), let the peaks go into the red, and allow the limiters to light gently at times. For dialog the limiters in the 633 are nearly clip-proof when run this way. Keep in mind that "0" on the 633's meters corresponds to -20 digital full-scale ("-20dB FS") When the 664 was first released it had significant metering bugs that were worked out in early firmware revisions. It's unlikely the same behavior would be evident in the 633, no matter how obsolete the firmware. When reducing the overall level of mix buss tracks, the reduction does not affect the test tone on the meters. In other words, reducing the mix bus level by -10 will have no effect on where the internally generated tone shows up on the meters. If you have the tone set up to hit "0" on the 633 meters, it will show up at 0 no matter how much the bus is reduced. (Perhaps this has nothing to do with your problem, but it can trip people up if they don't know.) I suggest the following: - Run *external* test tone into one input and have it hit "0" on the 633's meters (a sine wave will hit the same point on the meters in either RMS or peak) - Record it, both to an iso track and a mix bus set for no reduction - Analyze the resultant recording in software that indicates level in full-scale (FS). It should read -20dB FS nearly exactly.
  9. I'm planning on purchasing a couple of bare-bones timecode "lock-it" style boxes. I'm looking for opinions about the best choice between... * Denecke JB-1 * Ambient NanoLockit * ...Or something else? Bullet-proof is more important to me than features. I don't need GenLock. I'm paring these up with a Sound Devices 664 as the timecode master. The cameras I'd be sticking them on could be darn-near anything. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...