Jump to content

TomBoisseau

Members
  • Content Count

    533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About TomBoisseau

  • Rank
    Hero Member
  • Birthday January 1

Profile Information

  • Location
    Atlanta, GA
  • Interests
    Sound, Genealogy
  • About
    Location Sound, Live Sound, Broadcast
  • 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 have used a Sennheiser 100 G3 transmitter on the camera and an G3 ENG receiver in my bag with good results. Of course it's just mono, but it's a very cost effective solution and reasonably small. Tom
  2. Well... it's expensive, but it works with any Bluetooth enabled phone and you don't have to worry about having any specialized cables or specialized adapters. I own one and use it occationally. I like it! Both XLR and mini plug inputs and outputs. The JK Audio Daptor Three. https://www.jkaudio.com/daptor3.htm
  3. No. Standard RG58 will NOT be adequate, especially for a 50m run! Even the heavy stuff that's about as big a round as a garden hose would be questionable at that distance. Unless you can somehow digitize it all and then "decode it at your end (I've never heard of that being done) you're not going to be able to send an RF signal work and have it "well" at that sort of distance. Tom
  4. Of course you'd still need the proper "adaptor cable", but many years ago both Shure and Electrovoice offered a "line level" stick microphone. They required a battery and essentially had a mic pre built into the handle. The EV mic was a model RE34. I have one! It can be quite handy especially for testing purposes. The Shure was a model SM82 and they may have had another one as well, I can't remember. I'm not really suggesting that OP consider using one of the above, just pointing out that such items do, or at least did, exist. Tom
  5. Ah! I remember those. My brother (a former sound guy) used to have a pair of A7's in his living room for his stereo speakers.
  6. Well, I have two "favorites". Here is the first; I'll share the second one latter. I love this little guy. I purchased this Etek MA400 powered mixer used off of ebay well after the product had been discontinued. they still show up every now and then. It was intended to resemble the "laptop" computers" from the late 1980's. Frankly some of the laptops back then really were this big (and almost as heavy). It has 6 XLR mic inputs as well as stereo RCA inputs and outputs. I actually played a very small gig with this unit, and it did okay. It has a 2 channel x 190 watt amplifier (although I question that rating) a selection of 100 different effects, 3 aux sends, and is switchable 120/240 volts. While it survived the 2 time I used it, from reports I've read elsewhere, it appears it had a father high failure rate (note the speaker outputs are labeled "minimum 8 ohm"). While admittedly it's been nearly 20 years since I've used it, I think the design is so unique and almost "symbolic" of the future and of marketing, I doubt I'll ever part with it! Tom
  7. We used this very technique about 10 years ago for a couple seasons of "Swift Justice With Nancy Grace", however we used a Countryman B6, which fits quite nicely under a button, and we pointed the element down to minimize air blasts. We secured the mic under the button using "Joe's Sticky Stuff". Given her outfit (at the time it was similar to the blue Delta flight attendant outfits with the "vests" that they used to wear) and the fact that they continued to heavy starch her shirt, it was the only thing we could come up with that worked. Tom
  8. I have a couple different versions of the RF Explorer. Personally I've found that the center of frequencies that appear in it's "scan" can be off by as much as 5Mhz. For that reason I don't trust the specific frequency numbers that it displays. However it is helpful for showing "relative" frequencies especially when you see two on top of each other, but only one is coming from you! I'd rather trust the scan on the Lectro receiver, in spite of the limited info that it provides. Tom
  9. I suppose I'm that last to know, but I was shocked today when browsing Sound Devices website that the 688 has been discontinued... (they've put it in the "legacy" category) but they still have the 664! Amazing! And the 664 now sells for $5000! Was that bumped up? I thought is was a fair bit less. Why would you buy a 664 when for only another grand you can get (they still are available on some sites) a 688? I was thinking about picking up a second 688. For my needs, the 688 is more than adequate, although I will admit I'd love to (although I don't need it) the Dante capabilities of the new Scorpio and the 888. Tom
  10. I've had some varying good results, assuming I'm running the FOH PA on a decent digital console and recording through the same, by putting the ambient mics on a compressor with a sidechain being that of the talent's main microphone(s). This way, the audience response quickly and "automatically" opens up the moment the talent pauses for a reaction, and quickly is pushed down when the talent begins talking again thereby also greatly reducing the "hollowness" normally associated with recording and a live PA. Tom
  11. Frankly, there are a number of applications I'd love to use the 688 / CL12 for, but I'm fearful that it will lock up on me or have the dreaded "power issue". For instance, I do regular live events for CSPAN where I'm recording continuously for 3 hours or more! There is no opportunity for a "take 2". I have another "live event" client that tends to run even longer. Sadly, it seems I can not trust this combo for anything that does not permit a second take. So sad. I agree with the poster above. THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED!! I'm tired of excuses and "work a rounds". For what we pay for this gear, it should be far more reliable than this! Tom
  12. I still have a few clients that prefer "record run". I usually use my G3's to feed timecode wirelessly to the my Sound Devices. Tom
  13. Someone here, a long time ago, said they were using what was considered a technically slightly oversized Pelican case for "carry on" and said they had neve been stopped. I'm curious what model that might be. Many cloth carry on bags when "stuffed" often do exceed the posted dimensions, but I've never seen anyone stopped for that. Tom
  14. I'd be more than happy to go with Zaxcom and, yes, they do have a number of additional features that I would really like to have such as encryption and a built in recorder. The only serious objection I have is that I don't believe they offer a true discrete 2 channel "Super-Slot" receiver. Do they? Right now with my current configuration using Sound Devices recorders, and the need to frequently pull the receivers out of my bag and repurpose them for live sound events and webcasts, the "Super-Slot" issue (believe it or not) is probably a higher priority. Tom
×
×
  • Create New...