borjam

I'm not sure about the original Blimp, but maybe this hack is compatible. Maybe they reused the basket and rail.

The Rode Blimp 2 is a vast improvement over the first version. They upgraded it to adopt the Lyre suspension by Rycote, which is orders of magnutude better than the old traditional rubber ring suspension. Alas, it seems to be a half baked product and so far they haven't shown much interest on it. Two important flaws are: 1- The built in Lyres are too soft. Rycote manufacturers Lyres with several grades of stiffness. The possibility of using different lyres would be great. Sadly Rode decided to manufacture a sort of standard Lyre but with a built in adapter for the Rode rail, in a single piece. This makes it difficult to adapt Rycote spare Lyres. 2- Despite selling a long shotgun microphone, and a pretty good one at least for nature recordings, the NTG-8, they sell an extension kit which they say is only compatible with the first version of the Blimp. Turns out it's perfectly compatible with the second version, but the suspension Lyres are not stiff enough to support a long shotgun. See flaw #1. Fortunately it's not that hard to solve the problem. I purchased some spare Lyres from Audiosense (Belgium). I had no idea which variants to order, and they have modular and pre modular options. Pre modulars seem to be intended to upgrade older systems. The good news is, the pre modular is a modular Lyre with an additional adapter piece you can remove. To the left, a Rycote spare (in this case a Duo Lyre 72) and, to the right the built in Lyres from Rode. The Rode Lyre looks like a Rycote one but with the adaptor it would be molded in the same piece. It's possible to make such an adaptor (and I am measuring it and drawing it so that it can be 3D printed) but I wanted a quick test. After some minutes with a Dremel (don't forget your safety googles!) and a couple of plastic pipe attachments for 15/16 mm pipe I could finally make a couple of kludgy but functional Lyre adapters. (The not exactly precision cut grey plastic piece). Almost any rectangular piece of plastic with a hole in the middle will do, but there is one tricky problem: It needs to be within a certain heigth range, or the screw that links the Lyre and the bottom rail won't hold properly. The screw, the plastic adaptor and a bottom piece form a locking mechanism thanks to the pressure on the rail. About 10 mm is just right. I will complete a drawing of a possible adapter and, if possible, make a 3D model for printing. So how is it with the new Lyres? I would say it's much better. The Blimp is still very front heavy thanks to the long microphone and extension and using it on a boom pole for movie dialog would be considered serious mobbing on the boom operator. But it works fine for nature recording. I dare to say Rode chose the wrong "shore" for the Lyres. The 82 shore will support shotgun microphones much better.

With a Mac it won't be much of a problem if you act wisely. Apple uses a really effective packaging system for program libraries, which means that there is not a chaotic system directory like "WINDOWS/SYSTEM" where everything is mixed up and the results can depend on the order in which you installed several applications. There have been idiots developing software for Mac OS X, like Logitech installing a silly "application enhancer" library in the System folders and rendeding the system unbootable when updating to Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) but I think Apple slapped them properly and it's more unlikely to see an incident like that again. As for system updates which can be important for security yet detrimental for fragile software like ProTools, I always recommend to use a different web browser (which is the riskiest application in the system) that you can update without fear of affecting ProTools; its code is separated from that of the operating system. Between Firefox and Chrome I would say Firefox. Google has the bad habit of installing invisible auto updaters and, besides, Chrome has a couple of system extensions functionality that I consider potential suicidal stuff (Native Code, etc). So, install Firefox.

Just try not to stick them together. It's better to keep some distance between them, roughly speaking more than half a wavelength or a wavelength. A metal element too close to an antenna can detune it and degrade its performance. It would be most noticeable if you are using specialized antennas (like the "hatchet" shaped log periodics). Also, it's better to arrange them vertically. If they are arranged in diversity pairs you can try to add two "masts" to the cart, with each member of a diversity pair attached to a different mast. And for the masts you can use some non conductive stuff. Fiberglass, PVC... I have found a thread about cart attached antenna masts in this same forum (surprising!): Other than that, unless the preamplifiers in the "boosted" antennas radiate any spurious signals (I guess they will be properly designed!) it should work.

Not to talk about the huge privacy problems. However be careful what you wish for

Yes, attenuators are really useful tools. I missed that feature. Touché!

Sorry I wasn't explicit enough. It would help you explain apparently paranormal phenomena like interference even to wired microphones. Also, depending on what wireless equipment you are using you may have overload issues in the presence of strong off frequency signals.

True, and guaranteed compatibility with Vantage, the spectrum analyzer software. By the way, I always recommend buying the input limiter/6 dB attenuator unit they sell. Otherwise strong RF might damage the input stage.

Inexpensive and quite effective: RF Explorer. https://www.gothamsound.com/search?result=rf explorer Although the 6G combo model is overkill for users of wireless microphones. I would rather recommend the much cheaper WSUB1G model which covers the 240 MHz to 960 MHz range, or even the ISM Combo (240 MHz - 960 MHz plus an additional 2350 MHz to 2550 MHz to hunt for rogue 2.4 GHz stuff). The WSUB1G+ (note the plus sign) has a downwards extended frequency response reaching 50 KHz, which can help locate troublesome VHF or even HF/LF signals. The latter can have hefty transmission powers.

You would be amazed at the experiments being made with contact microphones, though. There is a new unchartered territory being explored by wildlife recordists and sound designers now. Moreover it's inexpensive to explore, JRF's contact microphones and hydrophones are not expensive at all. That said, you can hear curious and wrong theories. Some time ago I heard a recording of curious underwater sounds recorded with a hydrophone and someone suggested it might be "photosynthesis" (like the tiny bubbles that you can sometimes see on the surface of aquatic plants, bursting). It didn't make sense because the crackles were periodic. Most likely it was some underwater insect.

I was about to mention the excellent David Attenborough's "Life of Plants" which showed actual behaviors by using accelerated takes. Maybe with contact microphones it would be possible to achieve some results? However, the NY Times article is quite confusing and certainly lacks rigor. This paragraph triggered my alarm: Sound has also influenced interactions between plants and animals. For instance, only the vibrating buzz of a particular bee will trigger some plants to release pollen. Pitcher plants even create their own bat call to attract bats. And indeed, following the link, one can see that a pitcher plant has evolved to reflect the calls of bats, but it doesn't produce any sound by itself. The evolution of such a device is impressive enough, of course. That said, I have a plant at home that can make real noises. If you skip a watering or two its stems will tend to get flaccid. If that happens, when watered the stems can stiffen in a matter of an hour or so. If a leaf gets entangled with another one while the stems were flaccid, the increasing stiffness can make it get released like a spring, actually making noise. But of course it's not a noise making mechanism, but an accidental effect.

I understand that the Deity S Mic 2 is not RF biased but a conventional DC biased design. https://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/2018/09/deity-s-mic-2-shotgun-microphone-third.html Rode has two RF biased models, however: NTG-3 and NTG-8.

Comparable to the AKG ULS Series (11 dBA, but with 3 dB less sensitivity). Anyway, I guess that the only way to compare to a Shoeps or a DPA is to go and record an actual orchestra. Off axis response variations will make the biggest difference.

I forgot, the test was especially evil. I connected the Rode NTG8 to channel 3 while channels 1 and 2 (muted) had unterminated 3 m cables connected. Despite being muted the cables could have conducted interference. Seems that the MixPre is a real "RF bunker".

So I was wrong about the ARM processor (although I guess that will eventually happen!). As for the machine it's real overkill for most. My live jazz recordings use less than 16 tracks and of course I don't work with virtual instruments. A friend who composes soundtracks for movies and commercials will love it, though.

I'll try the digital HT this evening anyway. Given that it transmits TDM pulses instead of a continuous FM modulated carrier it should be nastier. It's 2.5 W, not 5 W, on the same band as the analog one I tried (440 MHz).

I tried. I didn't have the digital handheld here (which uses time division digital transmission, which makes it nastier, as LarryF explained). But I have tried with a 5 W FM handheld a few cm away from the recorder. Just pressing the transmission button (PTT) repeteadly I could hear some interference using an AKG Blue Line (CK93 capsule). However, I switched to a microphone with a good RF rejection (Rode NTG8(*), I read somewhere that it is really well protected)) and it withstood it without any problems. Not even maxing out the gain I could hear any kind of interference. Being a RF biased microphone it might be more susceptible to that. Of course I tried an iPhone running a speed test to my local network (it was transmitting like 250 Mbps) and nothing came out either. If the MixPre 3 has resisted 5 W with the antenna almost touching the unit, also close to the cable and microphone (the cable is a 1 m long thin star-quad from Canare) I really doubt that a transmitter such as the Deity Connect receiver can affect it. But it may depend on the microphone. If the microphone cable somewhat conducted interference to the microphone I am pretty sure that a ferrite core or two should help. I can try with the HF transmitter but of course I won't get so close, if I touch the loop antenna by accident while transmitting I can get a painful shock. Anyway, 5 W so close to the unit is a real torture (*) Nice mic, I am using it to try and record some birds. Although the strong metal tube used for transportation could get me arrested if I tried to board a plane with it.

It depends on the application. Of course, in music applications microphones are usually close to a loud source. Except, for example, when recording an orchestra with distant miking techniques. In that case microphone self noise matters. And for applications in which microphone self noise is a limiting factor like some fx recordings, foley, or soundscapes, it matters. That's why the Rode NT-1A is popular for such kind of applications. I would rather say than the limiting noise problem is application *and* location based. For many applications equipment self noise doesn't matter. But for others it can be really noticeable. For example, at the jazz club I can't even think about self noise. My real concern is the bleed of a drum kit 60 cm away from a piano 😓 and a double bass with the microphone right below a cymbal. I must even engage the attenuators on the microphones.

QAM?

It's a pity I didn't hear of it, I would have crowfunded it. Now I'm pestering Filmin, a Spanish online platform specializing on independent movies, so that they add it to their catalog.

I know it's a topic of more interest for post people, but I am really wondering wether they will finally release the modular Mac Pro they announced long ago. I am a happy user of a 2010 Mac Pro (I replaced the processor and I installed an improved graphics card) but so far the thing is kinking ass. But anyway wondering. It's quite puzzling why they took such a long time to design a new modular computer given that it's not rocket science. Well, good desing is always rocket science but making it large and easy to upgrade is much easier than tiny, which has been their focus lately. There are two possible reasons I can imagine for such a long delay. 1) They were waiting for some new Intel processor series (or even AMD) they knew about in advance. I imagine they have a peek at their product roadmaps much earlier than us, common people. 2) Given that it's not so hard and it could offer enormous advantages, maybe they will announce a switch to their own ARM processors. So, why ARM processors? There are several good reasons. 1) Apple are control freaks. And they have been bitten several times by their reliance on CPU manufacturers (Motorola, IBM and Intel). The last big switching, Power PC G5 to Intel, was motivated by the PowerPC platform being stagnated both on raw computing power and, critically, power/energy consumption ratio. 2) Intel's security track record has been a real disgrace. From a hidden computer running an obsolete version of Minix inside their control chips to serious design flaws in their processors. 3) They made huge investments on boutique processor design companies. It has paid off years ago with the excellent results obtained in the processors used in the iThings. Maybe it's time for the next leap. 4) It could even offer a cost advantage. Intel's processors (especially the high end ones) have been grossly overpriced because they hold a virtual monopoly. I guess these price reduction could be passed on to the customer. I know that some people will think that writing "their own ARM processors" is quite an overstatement, but it's not. ARM is an architecture for which Apple has a license enabling they to design their own processors based on it. And yes, Apple outsources chip manufacturing to foundries like Samsung and TSMC (it's been known recently that they approached Intel before launching the iPhone) but the designs are their own. Apple's A10, etc, are not Samsung or TSMC products. Claiming the contrary would be like saying that "1984" was written by Penguin Books Except for Intel, Samsung and a bunch of other chip manufacturers, most are what is known as "fabless" firms. Well, time for the guesswork before Monday!

Anyway it's better to make a distinction between the file format and the actual amount of information it contains. The actual amount of information stored by the recorder is determined by the properties of the A/D converters and the analog circuitry (and the microphone obviously) and it is much smaller than the total dynamic range that can be represented in 32 bit floating point. As @INARI pointed out, around 140 dB would be a very good value. So why 32 bit FP? It's a common sample format, you don't need to create a custom, say, 26 bit fixed point format. And floating point eliminates the need to adjust values in order to fit the more limited precision of fixed point. It's also much easier to handle when doing calculations (gain adjustments, etc). Of course it also offers a marketing benefit. Some readers will assume that being 32 bit FP it will have an almost infinite dynamic range.

The limiters are analog and in that case the limiter parameters are governed by actual components (good old resistors and capacitors). So no firmware update can correct that unless the software defined electronics part allows some changes to circuit topology/components. Anyway, consider this. If the limiters were digital (like in the Zoom F8) you will achieve the same results by lowering microphone gain leaving more headroom and, if some dynamics correction is required, some post processing after recording. The result will be equivalent. I have never recorded shots but I guess it won’t be necessary to disable the limiters, just give it more headroom so that the limiter acts just on the highest peaks. The pres are so clean I doubt it will be an issue. Maybe a bit less convenient, though.

The AKG modular ULS system (it has been mentioned here sometimes) could be a good choice. @ramallo has experience with them at least for live sound. The body is the c480b and you have different available capsules: ck61 (cardioid), ck62 (omni), ck63 (hyper) and ck69 (short and long shotgun). The noise specs are spectacular. https://www.akg.com/Microphones/modular-microphones-components/CK61ULS.html?dwvar_CK61ULS_color=Black-GLOBAL-Current I am not sure how long are these units going to be available. Since Samsung bought Harman Group I consider all the AKG products at risk of extinction.

Surprisingly, I saw this piece on the Spanish newspaper “El País” (which is maybe the Spanish equivalent of The NY Times or The Guardian). https://elpais.com/cultura/2019/05/18/actualidad/1558186557_831686.html I haven’t heard of this movie, and I would have supported the Kickstarter campaign had I know. http://www.makingwavesmovie.com/trailer-and-other-links-2 Anyway, sounds really interesting. Hope to be able to watch it soon! Filmin, the Spanish platform specializing on non-blockbusters should carry it, they already have The Conversation and Apocalypse Now, it would even be possible to build a playlist about cinema sound.