Fernando

Charlie, it looks very cool. Sort of a Doctor Who's tool! (and that's cool in my book) saludos!

The Deva/Fusion uses sequential file naming. FFFFSSSS.wav (F=folder name, S=segment number) When Deva III, IV and V was being developed, I insisted a lot in having scene and take in the sound file names because I thought it was the logical way to do it. With experience and use, I find sequential naming of files the very best option! The less confusing and the less prone to errors! Re-write a file's name is dangerous. Metadata edit can be dangerous if not very carefully done. Fortunately, Zaxcom did this right from the start. In your sound report you relate the given segment number to a take. And the metadata can be corrected without any danger for the file's and directory integrity. And any correction in the sound report is easily done. Segment 32 IS the sound file for that take, no matter if it was slated wrongly. Also you can send the segment number to the slate (Denecke slates) and some cameras to further reinforce the link between your sound file and the camera take. I know only a few do it but it's a feature I love and that has helped solve some misslabeled slates on set, sync and post. What I do is to set the user bits with shoot day and segment number (which equals sound file name) in the form Dd:dd:Ff:ff, as in D021F007 for shoot day 21 segment/file 7. The Deva can increment the user bits for each take so you can send to your slate and some cameras that useful info (if you use a wireless for timecode, of course) If I'd be the God of filmmaking I'd make this a standard procedure! LOL! A very strong link, since you have timecode, shoot day and sound file displayed on the (Denecke) slate and sent to camera (Red, Alexa, etc) And this can only be done using sequential sound file naming, so here's one more reason to use it. >But my clients got used to see scene and take on the file name... Sound recordist must have the necessary authority to tell clients how to proceed. If you know there's a better way, explain them, don't let them take decisions that should be taken by your department! Work with post and establish the right way of working, do not accept passively something that can be done more efficiently.

So, what I said: it should be implemented a way of blocking other devices completely. Maybe making the CL-wifi invisible once you have paired it to your iPad/iPhone/iPod Also, I would never consider the CL-wifi a safe controller of your recording; just a tool that can let you see levels, edit metadata, edit routing, etc. in a more comfortable way (which is already great!) Microwaves are very prone to interruption just by someone walking between tx and rx unless you put a lot of transmitting power, which is very unhealthy for any life form. My dream is that manufacturers of pro audio equipment would use low frequency devices for control (let's say under 400 MHz) so we'd have a decent range with much less power and be far away from the crowded portion of the spectrum. All consumer products are using 2.4 GHz bands now! Another solution would be using a cable! I mean take your iPad away and store configurations, check with script person, etc. and then connect it by cable to your recorder when you are back to the sound cart to have a safe and responsive touch screen for full control... Sort of a Deva with a cabled remote screen, as I dreamed once .

No, no, no. Not during recording! Sorry if I confused you. No idea if it will be implemented. It would make the Deva/Fusion less safe, so I hope they don't implement that kind of changes *while* recording. I'd say, don't hold your breath on this, because it would mean to re-write all Deva/Fusion software. Again, *I'd say*... What I meant is that originally there was an inputs/tracks matrix inputs/outputs matrix and an inputs/headphones matrix and then in playback, tracks went to their logical output (track 1 to output 1 and so on) Then, recently, a new matrix has been implemented to route tracks to outputs, so you can decide the routing when playing back (tracks/outputs matrix) Anyway, why can't you do that by mixing inputs to outputs? You can do that while recording using the onboard faders... And, if there is a need of mixing two different programs to two distant cameras, why they don't hire a second sound team??? .

( farroutpro said: "Read the FAQ" http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/recorders/cl-wifi-faq/ ) Scott, from the FAQ: "Multiple devices can establish a WiFi connection to the CL-WIFI access point, but their CL-WiFi apps won’t be able to connect." So I was suggesting to block other devices from establishing a WiFi connection or even trying to

>> I have a strange feeling that the reason the CL-WiFi was dropping out all the time was that most of the crew were using 3g and because there was no service their phones kept trying to hook into the CL-Wifi. >> Good point. I think the CL-WiFi should block others from trying to connect once the allowed control device is linked. Sets are full of iPhones this days...

Alan, any MKH will have way less inherent noise than a NTG3 A very sensitive and isolating shotgun (hypercardioid with interference tube) will have a greater "reach" but a cardioid will be less sensitive on the rear (hyperc., shotgun or not, have a rear lobe) As a side note, the Sanken CS3e isolates more than a MKH60 but is a tad noisier.

The tracks to outputs matrix was implemented some time ago. I don't have my Deva with me right now so can't tell you how to access it, but it's there. I was asking for this feature for a long time and it was implemented finally.

LOL! great

and the RF noise from all those iPhones and/or iPads on set downloading...!

Some find the 8040 has a more similar pickup pattern to the Schoeps 41 than the 8050. Do you think the same way? Or is the 8040 a bit too wide? And, is it's sensitivity adequate for dialog or you are using the attenuator often? I use Schoeps CCM41 (and have CCM5s too) but thinking about 8000 for humid climates and for atmos and fx, since it goes much lower in it's freq response and has a lower noise floor and higher sensitivity. But, of course, I'm very concerned about handling issues. I'd like to use Rycote Lyres, I'm not a fan of Cinela mounts, so I wonder

If you are going to have one mic for a while I'd get a Sanken CS3e. It has adequate sensitivity, excellent isolation and is practically the only shotgun usable in interiors (CMIT apart). It is very versatile. And has an amazing reach. Later you can buy an Sennheiser MKH50 or 8000 series or Schoeps CMIT, 41, etc. dep. on your needs and taste. (Schoeps, Oktavas and Neumann mics will be more vulnerable if fog, rain and humidity is usual. Sennheiser MKH series are the best for humid climate no idea about 8000 series) Suspension/windshield is vital. I'd get a Rycote size 4 (it incl. a lyres suspension, a zeppelin and a furry cover) plus the special high-wind cover for it. Boom, key too. When I work alone for docus I use a 20 years old VdB boom (no lacquered first section please!), the lightest I ever used, at the edge of being short sometimes but ideal length/weight ratio for me. It is just 2,50 meters IIRC. If I'd be shopping for a docu boom today I'd get either a light Ambient 3 meter max (like QX565, 2.60 m/535 gr) or maybe a Loon (like the 8', 2.44 m/474 gr or the 10', 3.05 m/536 gr), which I read are good too or a K-Tek (like K102, 8'9''/1.01 lb or 2.66 m /458 gr) Then you will need a second, longer and more rigid boom for certain scenes or drama. An Ambient QX5100 (4.20 m/745 gr) would be adequate for a one man band. Longer would be too much using a bag for me... (too much already for this man, I'd use the old short VdB if I'm alone The 14' Loon is 4.27 m/665 gr so a pretty competitive option too. Maybe the one to consider if you get just one boom because is pretty light for the length, but I never tested it so no idea how it behaves fully extended. A too-long boom is dangerous (also literally, LOL) without experience, more if o-the-s Cable! I use Canare StarQuad. Rugged and very well shielded. But lately I've been thinking about trying the non-coiled Loon cables (or other brands) made for cabled booms for my over-the-shoulder work. It may make my boom ops happy too if they are light enough but still properly shielded and behave well mechanically. So it might be a good option if you work alone (I assume this kind of cable will be lighter than a StarQuad or similar but still well shielded, etc. Maybe just a bit less rugged) But didn't test them yet on a non-cabled boom. Can't advise about behavior of Canare StarQuad or Loon or other cables in extreme cold. Ask around because some cables get brittle in that conditions. The Cantar is too heavy for over-the-shoulder -imho (peace please:)- and on the more expensive side too. I'd go for an SX R-4 (if more docu oriented or simply want to go really light and low power), 788 or Fusion. The 744T would be a great option but it's pretty RF noisy so not adequate if you are working with a bag. I think Fusion has the lower real-life power consumption (about 6 hours with a single 65 Wh NP-1 battery). So Deva IV or V would be an excellent option too (about 5-6 hours) Remember power req. is related to weight. Now that I think, the 788 may be the best option since you can use a CL-2 fader in your boom for fine control of the recording level and start/stop the recording. Extremely important if you are really working alone AND use a full length boom. For docus you can work with a shorter boom and one hand/arm most of the time, so any of the other recorders will be a great option too. But please do all you can to educate your indie directors and producers! You really should be at least two in your department for drama (for anything except simple docus and industrials, actually) Harness, belt and bags are very important in this case too. Petrols are good and rugged but too heavy imo. I never used Kata for this duty but would like to try. I use PortaBrace bag for my Deva and the light harness and belt from portabrace. My Deva V interiors remain immaculate and it always lived in this bag, even in the sound cart. I don't have any special sympathy for PortaBrace products but the truth is that it kept my Deva (and before my PD-4) very well protected. But I'd like to try Kata bags or make my own to cut even more on weight and have a better way of holding the wireless, I don't like the wireless pouch from PortaBrace, or better said how it is connected to the bag (should I say "unconnected"? A larger harness will let you work with heavier bags but be more heavy itself and too warm for certain climates. That's why I'm happy with the light PortaBrace harness and belt it's just enough for my occasional over-the-shoulder and fresh enough in the summer. If you get a light weight recorder and G3 receivers it should be enough. For a larger type I guess the new versions of the VersaFlex are the good ones (?) BTOH, Petrol and Kata have their own harnesses too.

Lectro sharkfins are excellent and with versatile mounting options. There's one that is lighter and stands better against the wind because of the vent perforations (ALP620, it's what I use now plus Lectro SNA600 dipoles) Get a good low loss 50 ohm cable for more than a couple of meters

I've been using MS (manly for docus) for many years. I use Schoeps CCM (CCM8 and CCM41 or CCM5) Would like to have a 1 body MS mic but find the 418 too noisy and the CSS5 too heavy and weird to mount in a standard Rycote suspesion (yes, the CSS5 is not officially MS and it's output is LR, but I'm "almost sure" it's approach is MS-based given it's shape and size... I mean there's sides pickup and front pickup, even if the front pickup is made out of more than one diaphragm. I'd like to dematrix it's output to confirm my suspects) Anyway, using a shotgun for the M channel is not always advisable (too abrupt center to sides imaging), only for difficult dialog pickup where the sides are still "target" or of any interest. I mean when I use MS, the surrounding sound "can" also be the target, so in most occasions I can use a CCM41 or wider for M. But in some situations I miss the isolation and reach of a CS3 for M to improve inteligibility while still recording the rest of the soundscape, hence the use of MS... I still don't understand why FCP don't support MS. I know most USA mixers don't like it except for FX but in Europe is widely used for docus and some films. I would also like to see support within WaveAgent, so you can listen to dematrixed MS pairs of channels when inspecting files. So I would like to see full support of MS in all the main audio and video editing software. The Deva has a very elegant way of dealing with MS (and B-format!) : You can decode MS anywhere with extreme simplicity: at the input (to record dematrixed to LR), to the headphones, to the outputs... You simply send M and S to two channels but invert the phase of the S going to the R channel. Impossible to do in a simpler and more elegant way. This way you can matrix, dematrix, rematrix any moment. No need to "declare an MS pair" If you need to use the suspension upside-down you just invert the phase of the other (going to L) S copy! They (Zaxcom) just understood what's MS about and implemented it. It would be so easy for any audio or video edit software to implement! I just can't get why they don't...! They just need to implement phase inversion!!!! Please!!!!! Ahem, back to the original question and based on specs and experience with other Sony and AT mics, I'd go with the AT BP4029 or find a Sanken CSS5 second hand... Or use a good condenser M mic (shotgun or not) plus an Ambient Emesser (new version) for S; so the S mic will be still an electret but your M will be better. I think this can be a great alternative for maybe a bit more than the AT...

I use an Ambient mic bar on a cheap (Rode) pole. And a Sennheiser swivel accesory so I can put the bar vertical for transport etc (black cone between bar and pole) You can insert extra 3/8 threads in it (I use 4) and slide them to any position in the bar. I use two Lectro dipoles in it's extremes (or Lectro shark finns when needed) plus two Schoeps CCM5 (or other mics) in ORTF or AB when it worths.

I still deliver written reports (unless it's an over-the-shoulder small job, where I can't write while recording. In that case I'm starting to send electronic reports by e-mail) I'd like to generate electronic reports from the recorder (I use a Deva V) but it still needs to evolve imho. For instance, many usual notes should exist as a standard flag in the iXML so we can use notes just as notes. And, very important imo, there should be an automated way widely accepted in the industry so we could supply both the contents of the report and a custom template containing all the graphic contents, structure, etc. Or, ideally, this could be done within the recorder... but no hope for that in a near future... the recorder should accept our template including graphics and all customization, insert the data and generate a nice report on a PDF file. Again, ideally, but that's what would make me stop doing written reports... Deva can write the data which can be inserted later in a spreadsheet but I won't ask post to do it or take a computer with me on location just for that. WaveAgent can generate reports but are not very customizable... What about the Cantar report?

it looks nice Phil! Do you fill the spreadsheet with data from the recorder? Do you use a Deva?

happy to hope it will sound great

the sensitivity of both the 8060 and 8070 is outstanding! 63mV/Pa and 112mV/Pa sad to hear that the tone it's not so nice

Thank you, The diagram doesn't specify for which model of OST mic is... (!) Comparing that diagram to current Lectro wiring document it looks like fig.2 "4V positive bias 2 wire" So it +might+ be a "compatible" wiring for the OST TL-40, since it is not a TRAM-like wiring at all, which seems to be the right wiring for the OST 801 and 802 (fig.4 for "compatible" wiring and fig.10 for "servo bias input" wiring) based on Marc Wielage advise I told OST to send samples to Lectrosonics so they can establish the best wiring possible in both "compatible" and "servo" modes but no idea if they will send them... .

There is also the new AT BP4073 shotgun, I wonder how it compares to the NTG3, as I guess it is in a similar league budget-wise... It is pretty sensitive (35.5 mV/Pa) and the inherent noise and SNR is similar to a Schoeps (13 dB / 81 dB). No idea about how it sounds, sensitivity to interference and moisture, etc

Derek, maybe there are products of intermodulation that are within blk 26

thanks a lot And the TL-40, should be wired as a "2V pos. bias 2 wire" (B6) or as a "4V pos. bias 3 wire" (COS11) ? .

the same as a negative BIAS Tram? (shield to pin 2 and audio to pins 3 and 5 - for servo input Lectros)

wich model of Ultrasone do you use? what's the origin of the mic attached? I tried my best with Ultrasone for location sound and could not use them for more than an hour (too big and heavy compared to HD25) plus I was really scared of their bass response (a too realistic representation of the noisy environment we live in, it felt like a nightmare in exteriors For me they were great for music recording and certain atmos and "effects" but again, would like to know which model you are happy with and try again in case I can see the light