Jaymz

It's the A-Weighted Dynamic Range of the A/D conversion that matters. Zoom don't publish that spec for the H4N, so it's probably not very good.

Same advantage/disadvantage as doing it with any mixer/recorder.

Lots of post houses prefer getting their iso's pre-fader. Post-fader has advantages though. All to be decided between the production mixer and post.

This is Axle Rose in the days before "I'm a celebrity" when "welcome to the jungle" was a rock anthem rather than the announcement that you have type 4 career cancer.

- Frankie Boyle (while showing the video for "Welcome To The Jungle" on NMTB)

Tom Visser would probably know.

the "Clinton Gun Ban", or any of the state gun bans currently around...

None of which come close my suggestions.

" They're a neutered version of a weapon "

and thus, not assault weapons, but sporting versions.

Receiver, barrel, trigger assembly, intermediate cartridge, magazine system....all from an assault rifle designed for killing/wounding soldiers on the battlefield. Trivial modifications don't change any of this.

" Anything with an AR15/AK receiver "

way too easy to circumvent, and what about Kalashnikov's ?

Re-read what I said, anything with an AR15/AK receiver. On top of the other criteria I listed, I was quite specific.

" Any semi-automatic rifle that fires an intermediate or heavier cartridge and is magazine fed more than 10 rounds "

still easy to circumvent...

Elaborate then. If it is, then apply more rules until it isn't.

" that was made for a soldier to kill/wound another soldier "

those are assault weapons, and they are fully automatic. semi-automatic versions are not actually assault weapons!

This absolute bollucks is what was wrong with the last ban. Semi-automatic versions use the same receiver and cartridge. They're a neutered version of a weapon designed to kill/wound soldiers on the field of battle and are a pathetic attempt to legitimize them being in the hands of a civilian (despite them still maintaining ruthless amounts of killing efficiency).

It's also an American's responsibility to recognize when laws are improper and unjust and change them. You know, like that whole slavery thing. There's an excellent case for amending the 2nd Amendment to bring it in line with real life in the modern world.

And until this is realized by the vast majority of Americans, the problem will persist.

If it is a banned weapon, why would it be allowed at a firing range?

I haven't suggested banning them that way, read what I posted a few pages back.

How do you to begin to make an assumption of where America might be now without the second amendment?

I didn't. I only stated the fact that the US has such severe gun violence issues because of the 2nd amendment, it's what allowed so many firearms to go in circulation over the years. It was a law of it's time, it doesn't fit today's society and needs to be heavily modified so that it does. It already has been for 50+ years btw, "shall not be infringed" has been null and void for a long time...and rightfully so (it it wasn't, anyone could own any type of firearm they want).

That type of ban would make most guns illegal.

It would make weapons that were designed to win wars illegal.

AR-15's use a .223 bullet which is about the same diameter of a 22 cal bullet.

Indeed. It was also designed to kill/wound a Soviet/NVA soldier and allow US troops to carry more ammo. No place for it in the hands of a civilian outside of a firing range.

It is considered too small in Nebraska to hunt deer. In Nebraska, ammo has to be .250 or large. The .223 is considered a varmint round.

A very sensible law. Also considering the controversy over whether or not the bullet "tumbles" as is claimed (whole other discussion though).

To ban all semi-automatic rifles would leave only bolt and lever action rifles. Where does the line get drawn? Size of bullet, type of action or size of magazine?

There are tons of semi-auto hunting rifles that use rotary and/or can use 10 round or less straight magazines.

When I hear "assault rifle", I think machine gun, like a fully automatic weapon or sub machine gun. A don't look at a semi-automatic weapon as an assault rifle, but again, the definition is nebulous, and can be interpreted different ways be different people.

When I think of an "assault rifle", I think of anything with an AR15 or AK style receiver (or any equivalents, SA80, G36 etc). Any semi-automatic rifle that fires an intermediate or heavier cartridge and is magazine fed more than 10 rounds (this would include battle rifles, G3 etc).

Anything reaching the above criteria (that was made for a soldier to kill/wound another soldier) has no place in the hands of a civilian outside of a firing range.

There are too many guns already in circulation, not to mention the guns in this country illegally that nobody really knows about. The genie is out of the bottle, and it can't get put back in.

It's very true that the moment the constitution was drafted and they wrote the second amendment, the damage was done....the US has the issues it has now with gun violence purely because of that. But of course, I don't blame them. It was a different time and they were oblivious as to the way things would be. The western world has since gone through a bit of enlightenment, negating one of the main reasons the 2nd amendment was written (fighting against an oppressive government*).

Yet firearms themselves have become vastly more lethal. Again, the maximum firerate for a smallarm when the US constitution was drafted was 4-5rpm.

In summary, I completely agree that the previous assaults weapons ban would be worthless. But I'm of the opinion that something much stricter needs to come into place, at least something close to what Australia did in the 90's.

*There may be exceptions to this, the US is not one of them.

fully automatic weapons (aka machine guns) are specially licensed, and severely regulated

As they should be.

what is difficult is the exact (legal) definition of 'assault rifles', and 'etc.'

Anything with an AR15/AK receiver should fall under the classification and have the same restrictions as machineguns (as well as rifle magazines over 10 rounds). All this dancing around with "bayonet rungs" and "stock type" is ridiculous and why the assault weapons ban of 94 is far too lenient.

Just let the kids bring them to school, just make sure they have all the proper training and keep their weapons secured in a safe.. Hell why not. Firearms could be a subject just like Maths and English. Every school could have a shooting range, NRA could fund it,, then all our children will be armed and ready for the the worst.

There are no words....unless that's sarcasm

What crap.

If it's such a "gun free zone" how do you explain the fact that all of the shooters weapons were legally purchased and owned by his mother?

It's referring to the actual places the attacks occurred being labelled "gun free zones" (schools etc).

Still.....dancing around the point that assault rifles have no place in a civilian home.

Fun fact of the day;

When the second amendment was written, the fastest rate of fire achievable with a smallarm was 4-6 rounds per minute (for rifles, around 2-3. Bar the Ferguson).

"That is the law I wish were passed. "

what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand ?

In that case, why are there any rules? Any civilian should be allowed to own anything falling under the classification "firearm" by this logic. That would make a lovely society wouldn't it?

Tell me, what kind of small-arms were available when the constitution was written? Certainly not ones capable of any of the mass murders this country has endured over the last 20 years. In fact, production of semi-automatic rifles didn't even occur until roughly 100 years after the US constitution was written. Those that wrote the constitution couldn't even imagine the firepower available on the civilian market today.

This blatant disregard of how things were as opposed to how things are is a huge problem.

That article above sums up my feelings. I honestly thought the country would be more galvanized than it currently is to come into the 21st century in regards to gun control. That offensive statement by the NRA on Friday and various comments by my American friends on facebook have me doubting things....

=I can reveal that there is indeed a mini camera receiver on its way - this will satisfy everyone's desire for a smaller camera mounted unit in the FREERUN single and multicam setups.

Will buy on day 1. Cheers!

Well, we certainly are awash in fear --- from multiple directions and multiple sources, real and imagined. I believe that fear in our society is one of the prime determinants for so many of our problems, as a nation, as a species. The problem with conjuring up Thomas Jefferson's statement "when the government fears the people, there is liberty" in the context of this guns discussion, is that the "government" (however broadly you define this) will ALWAYS be able to OUT GUN the people. I am totally onboard with the concept that the government needs to be "reminded" that it is there to serve the people, and fostering the element of fear, fear that the government should have for its people, is very important. However, it is very clear to me that trying to acquire an arsenal sufficient to go up against our military is foolish and at the very least totally unrealistic.

Indeed. This is why I ask what the limit is on what "the people" can have. Who decided that semi-auto assault rifles are ok? They clearly shouldn't be. The argument about keeping the government in check doesn't make sense in this day and age. It if did, then I guess every other western democracy is a complete slave to it's government and only the US is doing it right....

The assault weapons ban they want to reinstate is useless, far too lenient. Here is how I wish it were'

Pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns (pump-action only) = legal to own and keep at home (concealed carry still available for pistols)

Semi-auto shotguns, semi-auto assault rifles, anything fully auto = illegal to keep at home except for certified gunsmiths. Must be stored at qualified ranges for use there (all current owners must abide by this law).

That is the law I wish were passed. But unfortunately, the US just isn't ready for this change. Too many people cling onto the idea that the 2nd amendment applies to weapons that weren't even invented during the time it was written.

-For the purposes of the second amendment, this is exactly what should be in the hands of civilains. A well armed militia wouldn't be very well armed if the weapons of the standing army are that much more advanced.

So civilians with assault rifles are well armed vs multi-role fighter/bombers, guided munitions, tanks with thermal imaging and fire control systems, drones, nuclear submarines, satellite surveillance systems and a bag full of DARPA goodies currently in development?

If the U.S went all Big Brother, I think we'd have a little more to worry about than making sure assault rifles are available to the people.

This might be the most disturbing thing I've read on here. So now we need a new constitution?

No, I'm only referring to the second amendment being archaic. I think very highly of the US constitution as a whole.

The need to keep the government in the service of the people and not the alternative still remains of paramount importance.

I couldn't agree more. Yet assault rifles have absolutely nothing to do with that in a modern-day developed nation.

You assume

http://en.m.wikipedi...mbria_shootings

Shotgun and a bolt action rifle you know hunting gear 13 dead, imagine if he walked into a school what damage he could have done

That went on for a few hours. Imagine if he had an assault rifle....

So care to defend that statement then?

Openly available statistics of gun violence in the US do that for him.

Clearly anyone shot in the head with an assault rifle would be just as dead as someone shot with a hunting rifle, or a pistol, or a muzzle loading musket. Controlling what specific types of firearms the public is allowed to carry won’t change this fact

So is anyone stabbed in the brain, posined, run over at 150mph, decapitated by a diamond-edged buzz saw. So what's the difference? I'll tell you....it's in the effectiveness of the weapon to kill/wound multiple targets quickly and efficiently.

An assault rifle is designed for combat, for soldiers to kill/wound other soldiers, to engage multiple targets in quick succession. It has no place in the hands of a civilian.

I'm talking solely about semi-automatic assault rifles (as in the pic). Not handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns which cover the areas of self-defense, hunting, sport etc.

nor is it what the founding fathers had in mind when they put the second amendment in the bill of rights.

Gun control only serves to disarm the peaceful law abiding citizen.

Criminals will find a way regardless of what some piece of legislation says.

Not talking about disarming people in the U.S, just about banning assault weapons.

If criminals will find a way to get these weapons regardless, then force them to.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


-Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

Again, only talking about assault weapons. Not about disarming people entirely.

In 1995 Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people, including 19 children with some fertilizer and a bit of Diesel fuel. Weapons control would not have changed this.

On September 11, 2001 heartless and cowardly murderers ended 2,977 human lives along with their own employing commercial jetliners. They were armed only with box cutters. Perhaps if some of the passengers or the flight crews were allowed to carry firearms none of the planes would have reached their targets.

You're grossly oversimplifying things. These are cases of high-profile terrorism. Look at the work that both McVeigh and Al-Qaeda had to do in preparation for their attacks.

The alternate use of the assault rifle is this. These type of weapons are at least some small type of deterrent against a tyrannical government . It seems that so many people these days in the US are completely missing the primary purpose of the second amendment. It is not for hunters. It is not for sports shooters. It is an essential component to maintaining our basic liberties. The very same liberties that made this nation a magnet to such a wide range of immigrants last century. The purpose is to prevent the government from ever again becoming a force of tyranny against it’s own people. If you don’t think it could happen, think again.

And it is this purpose of the second amendment that is completely archaic and of no use in the modern U.S. Paranoia and fear of Big Brother enslaving the populace for it's own agenda. Fear that things will be like they were, that history should be taken as formula. I'm more of a Huxley over Orwell kind of person when it comes to the possibility of these things....

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

-George Mason

If those that drafted the second amendment could see the way things are.....

If we could show those that made the second amendment the way things are today....

It was something made in 1791, it doesn't apply anymore. The same steps that Australia took in the 90's should now be taken in the US. Assault weapons should be banned.

This is actually not the case. In certain areas of the country you need a gun. Like I said, the ranchers down on the border have protected their homes and their lives with guns. I have an uncle that works for the state of NY game (as in animals) department. Sometimes he needs a high powered rifle to take down a bear or other large animal that is a nuisance. Oh, he also hunts for his food. He hunts with both rifles and bows, but prefers the rifle. I have a high school buddy up in Alaska doing graduate work and they need to have guns to protect themselves from big bears. It's my feeling that it is not up to us to tell these people what kinds of guns they can and cannot own, as each situation is different.

I do not own a gun. If a burglar or rapist comes into my house while my family is here, and that person has a gun, I am defenseless against them. My wife and children are at risk. You don't need a gun until you do, and if that time comes that you need a gun and you don't have one, you are going to be powerless to deal with someone wishing to do you or your family harm if they have a gun. And if I am in that situation where I need a gun, it isn't up to anyone but me to decide what type of gun I need, how much ammunition I need to have, and how big the magazine in the gun is.

I agree. But none of these cases require an assault weapon. An assault weapon is made for one thing, killing people as efficiently as possible. Sure, there's hobbyists that are big into practicing their groupings with an AK-47. They should be forced to have their rifles stored for them at gun ranges, away from the public.

Off topic but what would give you overall better performance (taking into account range, mW, diversity, etc.) a G3 Tx with a G2 Rx, or a G2 Tx with a G3 Rx?

I'd use the G3 as the Receiver, better scan capability. Though the G3 Tx does have move precise input sensitivity.....

For SFX recording, lavs are great for getting places no other mics can (like Justins example). But in terms of ambience recording lavs have limited use imo, due to their inherently higher self-noise.

Actually this has completely pragmatic uses. Video games have the characters moving in nexpected ways, it would be nice to have different sounds each time they moved.

Exactly. Currently, games use fixed audio files with mediocre sounding pitch randomization to keep small effects (footsteps, cloth etc) fresh. This would be a very cool approach for that. But the larger sound effects, especially ones that require realism, will likely keep the current method.

What is the specific application you need the piece of gear for? What exactly will you be doing? I think getting that info will allow people to suggest things better.