Jay Rose

That same union went bonkers just a few years ago, at the idea of big broadway musicals using keyboard samplers instead of multiple acoustic players.

Regarding post... this always amazes me: People (outside our biz) have no problem understanding that movies are shot in short pieces, just a couple of lines at a time, morning and evening over a matter of weeks... and yet they can't imagine that we have to do anything in order to make all those separate pieces believable as continuous action.

Try explaining to friends what "audio post" does... "Oh, you write the music?"

Bondelev, 1/25: Bondelev, 2/9: ...so this QC guy didn't like the pix and checked off low audio level on the wrong form? I see a great future for them as a producer...

FWIW, my state's Film Bureau accepts any kind of TIN for rebate/withholding/reporting (including "04-" numbers, the usual format for Employer Identification, even of proprietorships). Likewise, my CPA has told me 04- numbers are absolutely legal for Federal W9 and 1099 reporting, and in 20 years I've never had a problem with anyone accepting it. One or two client bookkeepers grumbled, but then accepted my 04 with no trouble. -- (20 years ago I had a corporation and paid myself a salary. Taxes and reporting on a proprietorship are a heck of a lot easier. Just don't forget proprietorships are also responsible for Federal and State estimated payments during the year.)

Noise reduction almost never does. It just hides it.

Rent a car and go see Red Rock Canyon at sunset. (It's the perfect anodyne for the Strip.)

Well, they would.... if the legislators would set aside money for it. But then they'd also have to set aside money to fix the cracks those inspections reveal. So much easier to kick the problem down to the next session... Bloomberg News, 1/26/12, prompted by Obama's wanting to fast-track critical bridge repairs: 1960... Gee... wasn't that about 50 years ago? Full article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/hurry-up-on-tappan-zee-shows-growing-focus-on-risk-from-18-000-old-bridges.html

Gaffer tape.

That could be, Marc; if so, I stand corrected. However... this is directly from the link you posted: Even worst case - that somebody, somewhere is paying $850 for a phone that cost Apple about one-quarter to manufacture - what makes you think that's Apple's profit? There are a long line of people with their hands out before a product gets to the consumer: it has to be packaged and shipped halfway across the world, cover the jobber's and retailer's costs (including advertising, paying us to make commercials and other people to run them), make profits for everybody concerned, and still be able to be sold by someone else for $199 after cell company's rebates. In fact, your article just says 75% is "according to one [unidentified] analyst". Not the guy quoted, and not backed up by anything other than the writer's claim of an $850 sale price. I just checked Amazon, and it looks like those 8 GB phones Whitmore analyzed are selling for about $500 without requiring a 2-year cell contract. Okay, so maybe it's only 40% profit? Not quite... we're still comparing manufacturing cost, FOB China, with the final price to the consumer in the US. And that's just manufacturing: Whitmore isn't looking at Apple's considerable cost to design the thing, test it, develop the software, and everything else they risked before unit #1 was sold. -- My guesses on Apple's profit might have been low. I based them on my knowledge of other consumer electronic products, and Apple certainly gets economies of scale. I think yours are a bit high.

I wish John and Marc luck, but am having a hard time with the math. Right now, iPhone is holding their own against the competition. If the price went up, more people would buy other brands of smart phones instead... ...which means iPhone's manufacturing would have to slow down, losing some economies of scale. That would happen no matter where they were built. So either the price would have to go up again, or the quality would have to go down to compensate, further cutting into sales... and the cycle would repeat. -- So let's say Apple raises the cost of production but keeps the cost the same, eating the difference. Sales aren't affected, so quantities stay up and economies of scale aren't lost. (Other than the economies lost when they raised the cost of production.) It's a win-win, right? What are we asking Apple to eat? $10 per phone? Except the margins are paper-thin. I would be amazed if Apple's manufacturing profit was any more than 4%. That's leaving the factory, before wholesalers and retailers and cell companies add their costs, make their markup and take their cut. A phone that sells for $400 probably gives Apple less than $250. If my guess of 4% is right, their profit is $10. Let's say you're an Apple middle manager and you propose spending only $5 more to make each phone. "Hey boss! Let's cut our profit by 50%!" Or say you convince management to actually make the change... care to stick around for the stockholder lawsuit? --- Things are different with the equipment we use in our jobs, because the quantities aren't as big. There are a lot fewer Devas than iPhones, so the margin on each unit has to be a lot bigger to pay for development and keep Zaxcom in business. But when you move from specialty- to consumer- goods, the numbers start behaving very differently. This is true even for products with very little manufacturing cost per unit, like FCP software... which may suggest why Apple made so many changes in Final Cut X, going after the much bigger consumer/prosumer market instead of the Hollywood pros who were cutting features in FCP 9.

Interesting Paul Krugman piece in today's NYTimes. It's about Apple and GM, but relates to our industry as well... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/opinion/krugman-jobs-jobs-and-cars.html The film industry might have started in LA because of weather (and distance from New York patent holders), but when it began getting big, and more specialty companies and craftspeople located there... and soon it was the most efficient place to make movies. Despite state tax rebates and runaway shooting, it's still where the business and most post happens. The explosion in high-tech consumer goods needed a similar support. Silicon Valley and Route 128 had lots of developers and designers, but China saw an opportunity to build a specialized manufacturing infrastructure, with all the necessary suppliers nearby. It's ironic that it took a communist, totalitarian regime to dictate the conditions necessary for such a capitalist success...

Um, I contributed to the Mackie manuals. There were other folks, I'm sure. Mackie's Ron Kohliha was The Man who set the tone for the projects... and their packaging and ads, as well. (You can blame me exclusively for the manuals for AKG/Orban DAWs, Telos ZephyrExpress, and 25-Seven's current time manipulators. They're possibly cute* in places, but a lot more detailed and not as funny as the Mackie stuff.) (*The Orban manual includes a legitimate index entry for "Lox". And it's not referring to liquid oxygen or to smoked salmon.)

IIRC, the double-pair technique was invented by British Telcom in the 30s, to improve long distance connections.

I'll work on something with my soundie's brain engaged, aware of the overall meaning but concentrating on specific elements. Then, when I get to see the piece outside of my studio, I'll watch for emotion and involvement. If we've all done our jobs right, nothing 'takes me out of the movie'. That's when it hits me.

I did some funny-manual writing for Mackie back in the early 90s. For one, I wanted a pix of their assembly line to go with copy about how the units were built in the US. They said it might be a problem... where they were, most of the Americans who did electronic assembly looked Asian!

Ah... so it's just a matter of choice that I don't have offices in foreign countries, a foundation, or a retinue of lawyers and accountants. I thought it had to do something with available cash. The way I see it, it takes money to make money. Unfortunately, the equation isn't linear: until you have a certain minimum investment -- much more than most individuals I've heard of -- proportionally more of your money has to go into taxes, necessities, and unequal fees than into better-paying things. As they say, "the first million is always the hardest". If it were a totally level playing field, each million would be equally easy. In fact, just having a spare dollar would eventually get you a fortune. (FWIW, I've created maybe two dozen jobs over my career. While I haven't given away millions to worthwhile causes - that requires having at least hundreds of millions to spare - I've certainly given away a percentage of my cash and time each year that's equal to what a megacorporation would. But this isn't about me. Is it about you?)

I stand corrected: those loopholes are available to ordinary people like you and me. So... are your wholly owned subsidiaries in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the Grand Caymans doing much mixing lately? Actually, they don't really have to mix or do anything other than be a mailing address where you can shuttle assets. And the accelerated depreciation on your $100 million recorder... you're taking advantage of that also, no? How about the deductions for your R&D lab, where you can even get government grants to research new methods of recording that you can then patent exclusively and manufacture off-shore? The accountants and lawyers who set these up for you, and negotiated advance rulings from the IRS: you're deducting their fees as well, right?

Very good point. How about a transparent overlay for the screen that has a little bump between channel strips. Just enough so your finger knows if it's straying, without stopping you from swiping horizontally when you want to slide between fader banks.

I've run a corporation. The current corp tax rate for a small company making, say, $50k PROFIT that year - after paying its executives whatever it wants, and deducting every possible expense including interest - is 15%. Bigger company? Make $100k and you pay all of 22%. That's a lot less than real people pay on an income of 100K. The only time you hit that nominal top rate of 35% -- the one politicians love to complain about -- is when your corporation makes more than $18,333,333.00 in profits. At which point you can hire enough accountants and lawyers to exploit existing loopholes, and support enough candidates that you'll be able to create new ones...

So how can a company like GE make enormous profits and yet pay no tax? High tax rates on a chart are one thing... having lots of loopholes to legal avoid them, unfortunately, is the same thing. Corporations use them, and the bottom line is that government doesn't get the money to maintain roads, police, air traffic control, post office, and all the other things that keep those corporations running. It's a bit like a presidential candidate complaining that millionaire's tax rates are too high, and then confessing he personally pays "about 15%".

That is quite beautiful. ... and the first time I could see a future for using virtual faders on a dub stage as well! (Obviously, I wouldn't want to mix a film with this particular Mackie... the guy didn't even mention automation. But I'd love to see it lead to a new approach for larger format virtual consoles and DAW controllers. Imagine: a touch screen right under individual fingers where you can use it while mixing tracks!)

Doubtful. Those are Apple's direct employees: programmers, designers, marketeers, lawyers, and bean-counters. The near-slaves at Foxcom are supplier's employees. Their miserable salaries are considered part of the hardware cost, just as the plastic and copper are. (Apple probably also has a few direct-hire drivers, janitors, or other low-level employees. But often they aren't company employees either; rather, they work for a contract supplier who cleans/distributes/whatever for a fixed price.)

I'm sure you know the difference, but for the benefit of casual readers: Shielding isn't what makes the difference in Star Quad. Balancing does, or more precisely SQ's better ability to pick up noise equally on both sides of a balanced connection, so the CMNR of the input circuit can reject it. This can make a big difference, particularly in situations where there's high-frequency hash like the kind you get from lamp dimmers. Belden's Steve Lampen has done a lot of good work showing the relative effectiveness of balancing vs shielding in controlling noise pickup. What made me a believer (and is relevant to a thread about custom, expensive cables in consumer setups): I had to extend the output of an iPod about 100' to get to a hifi amplifier: stereo, unbalanced, probably somewhere around 1/4 volt. I didn't want to spend the money on 200' of good shielded cable since I knew the results would still be noisy. So I picked up a couple of $10 car-audio stereo iso transformers, and ran 100' of Cat5 between them. (Cat5 isn't Star Quad, but each pair is made to stricter twisting standards than most mic cables. It also costs only about 5 cents a foot... and contains 4 pair.) No audible noise, despite dimmers and other junk in the room! (A tiny bit more distortion through the transformers, perhaps - these were cheapies, with a few passive components to help flatten the response - but hey: it's an iPod...)

If you've got some extra holes: - Wire a few mults... you can even set up (for example) 8 patch points both as two 4-mults and one 7-mult, with a half-normal in between. - Wire a couple of 600:600 iso transformers.