John Blankenship

INT. MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON - DAY Three grizzled CONVICTS lounge about a dingy cell. CONVICT #1 (TO CONVICT #2) What're you in here for? CONVICT #2 I counterfeited twenty dollar bills and distributed them over a fifteen state area. What're you in for? CONVICT #1 Ran a string of hookers, a protection racket, numbers... the usual. (TO CONVICT #3) You? CONVICT #3 I murdered my wife and her parents. What's it to ya?! CONVICT #1 (TO CONVICT #4) How 'bout you, newcomer? CONVICT #4 Sound mixing. The other three shrink back in fear. FADE TO BLACK.

Wow! It seems like all the postings in this topic are right down party lines. JB

I found myself wondering if this was intentional. No offense meant to anyone here. I'm guessing most of us have had an experience or three that would merit that spelling. I'm quick to add, however, that I think most of us have had the opposite experience with boom ops who were the gold standard. They make us look (sound) good and are too often under-appreciated. JB

I hope this isn't too off-topic since the header is "CAT 5 distribution setups," but a lot of the discussion seems to concern the audio sent to video assist. Unless I need an extra wireless rig, I typically hand the video assist person a Lectro 205 receiver, power supply, and an output cable with adapters for whatever input he needs to run into. It's one less cable to run, he gets a good quality feed, and I don't have any concerns over ground loops. JB

My thought was that you could take an SDI feed to the cart and convert there. BTW, one company on ebay lists the aforementioned adapter for $415 + $15 shipping and includes a power adapter. B&H sells a power adapter for $39.95. I also recently ran across an SDI via Cat 5 system, but I don't recall exactly where. JB

If you need to convert from HD-SDI, the least expensive way might be to use an HD-SDI converter ($449.95) such as: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=aja+hi5&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=product.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t This one goes to HDMI and is cheaper than the ones that convert to HD-Component. Buy a small HDTV with HDMI input -- a couple hundred bucks, or less -- and you're set. You're even monitoring in HD! I bought a couple of 15" HDTVs on sale and they rock. They have both HD-component and HDMI inputs as well as composite and S-video. I bought them to use primarily with my Panasonic HVX200 via HD-component connections so I'd have HD monitoring. I made component breakaway cables for both the camera end and the monitor ends to make moving setups fast and easy. However, I've used the monitors just as much for sound cart use. So far, when shooting with HD, there's been a down converter on set that I've taken a feed from. I don't have an SDI converter yet -- thus far I haven't needed one. JB

If we're still discussing the signal level going into the transmitter, you're talking apples and oranges. You should be using the correct cable going into the transmitter to properly modulate the transmitter. Using a mic or line level into the transmitter doesn't determine what level the receiver will be operating at. You send the correct level to the transmitter to properly modulate it (which means the signal will push the transmitter to just below where it would cause the signal to overmodulate. Since it's an FCC no-no to overmodulate a transmitter, the transmitter's brick wall limiter kicks in and prevents this from happening. However, that limiter doesn't sound nearly as good as one on the mixer, so it's desirable to rarely hit the transmitter's limiter -- if at all. With a properly modulated transmitter, the Lecto receiver will unmodulate the signal and amplify the signal to a normal line level. You then choose what level the receiver's output is by using its output level controls. On a Lectro receiver, this output control is simply a passive resistor network that pads the signal down to the level you choose. If you're going line level into the camera, I suggest using the highest output from the tranmitter since you're not pushing the transmitter circuits any harder, you're simply not attenuating the signal as much. I hope this helps clarify it a bit. JB

Just to be clear, I'm not saying my way is better for everyone or that I have any franchise on the best way to do things. We're all "fighting the good fight." What I'm offering is my approach and my rationale for that approach. It's about different approaches to achieve the same goal of good audio while maintaining a modicum of sanity. Granted, sanity's overrated, but a bit of it once in a while comes in handy. My thinking is, it's very much about gain management. If my mixer has 20dB headroom and the camera has 20dB of headroom, I don't see any point in giving the camera more headroom. There's little to be gained and the aforementioned downsides to be lost. Sending a signal to a Betacam SP, there's less camera headroom. However, in both cases, I prefer to let my lightning quick reflexes (okay, when I'm not napping), and even more realistically, the mixer's nice limiters, keep me out of trouble for those unexpected screams. Unless, of course, the screams are coming from the sound crew. JB

I disagree (partially) with one thing: when sending duplicate signals to camera, the practice of lowering one channel for protection. Although there is a place for this, I don't do it in general practice for several reasons. A local sound mixer I know does this, but let's examine what his results are. He's coming out of a Shure FP33 mixer with a maximum headroom of about 15dB and going into a digital camera with max headroom of 20dB and turning the right channel on the camera down by about 6dB. The mixer's output will distort long before the lower camera level on channel two will protect him. The only thing he gains is more noise on the second channel. One of the biggest problems with this practice is that we, as sound mixers, are making a dangerous assumption: that everyone else in the chain cares as much about sound as we do. I hate to have to be the one bearing this news, but that just isn't the case. With analog cameras, when sound and picture are captured, ideally, someone lines up the sound levels via tone. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen; they often just use, "standard levels." With digital transfer, it's worse, since what you get is what you got -- there is no level tweaking during capture. A typical scenario in post is that once the sound and picture are captured and the editor goes to work, aware that he/she is probably already behind the ridiculous schedule that management has given him/her, time is of the essence and all they care about sound is that it's there. If there are two channels of sound, the nonlinear editing system will automatically pan one left and one right. The editor finishes the job and it airs -- with the right channel at a lower level than the left channel. All too often, there's little time to tweak audio the way us soundies would. In the fast and furious video world, sound is frequently used just the way it comes in. Another reason I seldom do the "split-level" thing, is that I consider it my job to get the levels right. If I know what I'm doing, and I do it well, there's no reason for "split-levels" to CMA. I would much rather have a good limiter on the mixer protect me than to anticipate that post will unexpectedly begin to care more about sound. I also consider wireless to camera a compromise and mis-adjusting levels makes this compromise worse IMHO. Just one person's opinion; I'm interested in what others think of this practice. JB

Jason, When I say adjust for the highest peaks, that's exactly what I mean -- the screams, etc. Simulate what you think you might encounter and adjust so those screams, etc. either don't engage the transmitter's limiter, or just rarely catches it on the wildest peaks. In my experience, you're typically better to have your mixer catch errant peaks than to hit the transmitter's limiter with them. Be careful what you scream, though. The wrong incantation could give you webbed feet. From your description, it doesn't sound to me like you got cables wired for line level. Try using the same cable with either a tape out or the mic out and see what the results are. Run the transmitter between 9:00pm and 12:00 - ideally, between 10:00 and 12:00. JB

Jason, Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. When you say "0" gain on your UM400, how is the input level control set? Do you mean the knob is at 12:00? If so, you can turn it down to get the proper level. If the UM400 gain structure is similar to the UM200 there is a buffer amplifier stage prior to the gain control but it will handle pretty high levels prior to overloading -- about 1.5v IIRC. From what Larry Fisher told me, even at the 9:00 (pointing left) position, with the transmitter modulating correctly, you shouldn't be too concerned that the signal's so hot that it's overloading the input stage. Again, that was with the UM200C. Do some testing and see how it sounds. If it is overloading, it's not too difficult to rewire the connector for a different gain structure. You could even throw a little resistor in series with the hot input lead inside the TA connector to tame it a bit (you need a tiny resistor and careful hands). I forget what values I used but I made two different sets of line level cables, one for the line out on a 302 (0dB) and another for the tape out (about -15dB). IIRC, there are three different gain structures you can wire the input connectors for and then I used a padding resistor into the one for 0dB because I thought it was a tad too hot. Maybe 3.9K ohm but I could be wrong about that value. It's been more than two years back since I wired them. To adjust the levels into the transmitter, I'd recommend being more concerned about when you hit the limiter than what your 0dB level tone does. In other words, set up the mixer the way you're going to use it and then talk into a mic and set the mixer levels to where you would normally adjust them and see how your levels are going into the UM400. Adjust them so that you only hit the transmitter's limiter on rare occasions, or, even better, to a level just below where the transmitter would engage the limiters on your highest peaks. JB

The only thing I'd add is, see if you can have post import your test files to confirm that they get the same results. There's nothing that compares to checking the whole "chain." JB

Philip is an excellent person to listen to. 1) He's knowledgeable. 2) He does both location sound and post production. The question you're asking is all about the interfacing of location sound and post production. (Of course, there are numerous others here who are also eminently qualified.) JB

My nearest to that was one time when I had a mic taped to a woman's chest. For most of the shoot, no problem. Toward the end of the day, the lady was talking about something rather emotional. The basement was quiet... there was little background noise... and the more she talked... the more emotional she got... the louder it got -- thumpa, thumpa, thumpa! With the pronounced low end of 7506s, it was truly a "heartfelt" moment. JB

Didn't mean to tell you something you already know -- sorry. I've found many people don't know this, so I thought I'd offer it here. I run Lectro receivers wide open unless there's a reason to do otherwise. There's plenty of gain on the line inputs to Sound Devices mixers -- never had a problem with that. I also always run into the line inputs when rigged as a camera hop. I adjust the limiters on the SD mixer based on how much headroom I need -- about 10-12dB on Betacams and 16dB on pro digital. I then adjust the modulation on the Lectro transmitters to push them as hard as I can without hitting their limiters. SD's limiters sound much better than the Lecro ones. When mixing, I adjust mixer levels to prevent limiting except on infrequent peaks. This gives me clean sound and the levels I need into the line inputs on most cameras. JB

Lectro receivers operate internally at full gain. Their output level is then set by way of a passive attenuation network. Therefore, you'd want to use your mixer's line input and set the Lectros to the highest level your mixer can handle properly (sufficient internal headroom, etc.). JB

Philip, The closer the shoot date is without the issue being resolved, the less chance they have of finding someone else who will jump through their hoops. <grin> Strangely, the one company that asked me for a cert. of ins. did so after the shoot was over, done, and paid. It probably came from an accounting department that was trying to cover their butt. I threw their letter into my todo stack and it promptly got buried. Does this mean they'll never hire me again? I have no idea but I'm becoming less patient with companies who don't bother to have their act together and expect me to jump through the aforementioned hoops because of it. JB

Pretty much the same as Eric on the B6. I match the cap color and hide it in plain sight under a button. I typically don't put the B6 under clothing since the main reason I'll switch to a B6 (from COS-11) is that I can "hide" the B6 in plain sight. For under clothing I generally use the COS-11 with "StickIt" dots or TopStick (they both hold better than the Rycote dots) and the Rycote Overcovers. I usually get less clothes rubbing noise with Overcovers under the clothing than I do with Undercovers. The Overcovers have the advantage that they're reusuable. Naturally, I have a number of other tricks, but these are usually my starting points. JB

Maybe take an R-09 instead. It'll give you double system without time code, but could still save your bacon, if needed, and is little cost and almost no weight. Just a thought. JB

A PDF spec sheet. http://www.jenton.co.uk/toolflex/tooflexspec.pdf JB

Okay, I'm puzzled, how do your prospective clients know you "don't have as much experience"? Is that what you're telling them up front? If I read your earlier post right, you've worked in audio in the neighborhood of twenty-plus years and in location sound for more than four. Are you like, a super slow learner? "No, no, Jason, THIS is the knob you use to make the nice people louder. Let's go through it one more time..." From the way I read it, YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE! Sure you haven't worked as many location gigs as some, but please, quit making your lack of experience a major selling point! No wonder you get lowballing jobs. And if you price yourself as a beginner, people will think of you as a beginner. Think as a professional, price yourself as a professional, and be a professional. As far as the Discovery gig (or any other) holding fast on a low rate, we all run into that. Keep in mind that the Discovery Channel buys programs from a large number of independent production companies. It's the production company that is lowballing you -- you'll find that on occasion, but there are others who understand the market and don't want to fight price with every mixer they use -- they'd rather focus on getting a good show. Let me offer some advice (and again please forgive my preaching) -- set your price to where it should be and work on being worth that price. If a gig comes along that offers less (like the reality thing you mentioned) you'll still have the option of taking it, but you'll find that more and more work will come your way that is willing to pay a reasonable rate for a job well done. If your rate is $350, a show that is used to paying $500 will automatically think that you are less experienced. If your rate is higher than they are willing to pay they'll still want someone of your caliber -- the rest is just negotiating price. Before long, you'll get more work, you'll like the work better, and you'll be able to buy more toys. JB

Jason, 1) I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time) 2) I don't know your market but... Having worked a LOT of gigs with out of town producers (Discovery, HG, ESPN, NBA, national spots, docs, whatever), I feel I have some inkling what they're typically paying in most markets. Having said that, I seriously doubt that you're at the top of your market price-wise. I'll bet you a dollar to a donut (with inflation, that phrase doesn't quite mean what it used to) that there are people in your market pulling down probably in the upper hundreds to a grand, doing double system commercials. For ENG/EFP style work I would bet that there are several making maybe $450-$500/10. Have you talked to the most established sound mixers in your area? It's in their interest -- and yours -- that you're not low-balling. Get listed in the film book (Texas or Austin -- whoever has one) and let these other mixers know you'd appreciate a referral for calls they get on days they're already booked. But, here's the rub. They're not going to refer you at your rate! If they're good at what they do and they make $500 -- who in their right mind would refer a client to a competitor who is also good at what they do and only charges $350! No way! I wouldn't and anyone else with a brain wouldn't. It's tough enough getting what we should be without showing our client base that they could do it cheaper. The point is, by lowballing your rate you are hurting yourself, as well as everyone else, and at the same time, limiting your opportunities. Price yourself in the mud and you'll play in the mud. The good clients know why they don't want a cheapie mixer -- they've been down that road and they want a pro. At your rate you'll attract mostly the poorer clients (pun intended). Forgive my preaching -- just trying to help. JB

I'd rather be the same as, or more than, my nearest competition. With rate comes perception. A number of years ago someone conducted a now famous marketing test. They doubled the price of a certain brand of whisky and the company sold something like twice to four times as much. I'm not saying that tracks exactly with our line of work -- we're usually not seen as a prestige item -- but it's still true that people tend to value what they get by how much they pay for it. Even with equipment, if you're just a tad above someone else the lowballers with go with the cheaper package, the clients who want quality will tend to go with the slightly higher one. The latter clients are usually better to work with and more often pay on time. The lowballers are often more difficult to deal with, often have unrealistic expectations, and too often require you to chase them down to get paid. Then, sometimes, they'll try to talk down the price some more before paying you. Cater to lowballers and that's who most of your clients will be. Cater to quality and you'll get more of the better clients. These are things I keep reminding myself when confronted with the lowballers and I'm thinking about bills coming due. It's not easy to turn down any potential client when you really need the money, but the times I have, I've usually ended up being glad I did. I'm generally pretty flexible, but if I perceive I'm dealing with a lowballer, I've learned to be less so. Like most anything in life, there are exceptions. I have a couple of clients who typically pay below what they should. They keep coming back and I like working with these people so I take that into account. That doesn't mean I don't try to work the rate upword, though. My .02 -- FWIW. JB

I haven't tried them but I know a mixer who uses the Bose and likes them. BTW, I have a like-new set of the Etymotic for sale. If anyone's interested I'll post them in "For Sale." They weren't my cup of tea but they might be someone else's. JB

I've had good success, wind-wise, with both Overcovers and Microcats. I've been using mostly the Overcovers these days both on the outside and under clothing. Depending upon the clothing color the Overcovers are sometimes less obvious than a naked mic. In one case the talent was doing walk-n-talk standups on an extremely windy hill overlooking a lake. I put a Sanken just inside of the front flap of the shirt with an Overcover in place. One of the grips held a 4x4 floppy to the side to help diminish the wind, however since it was a really wide shot that only helped a tad. Everyone (including me, I might add) was surprised how clean the sound was in almost gale conditions. One caveat when placing the mic inside the flap of a shirt is that if the wind is coming from a direction that the flap "scoops" the wind, it'll make the wind noise worse. John Blankenship