Jump to content

sdgrothe

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sdgrothe

  • Birthday 06/11/1968

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    sdgrothe@aol.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
  • About
    Feature, Television, and Commercial Mixer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was refering to consumer digital monitors/tuners receiving an analog signal. On older monitors, you could simply cap the output to teminate the monitor. The monitors I've played with don't have outputs on them. The digital pro monitors are so sidiculously expensive right now, I was just wondering if anyone had any tricks for the consumer monitors. - Steven
  2. This is a tech question (I know it belongs in the equipment section), but the conversations are more lively over here. My experience is that most of the new Digital Video Monitors aren't properly terminated and wreck havoc when you hard line them to Video Assist. I've always used analog Marshall's with tuners for maximum flexibility. Anyhow, a Digital Marshall Monitor with a tuner isn't an option, so I wanted to ask... Would sending the signal through a balun (i.e. MuxLab 500012) rectify the termination issue. I've been chomping at the bit to get on board the Cat 5 bandwagon, and thought this might be a possible solution. I haven't really researched the transmission technology, but I am wondering if the termination issue is solved when the balun transmitter converts the signal to unbalanced CAT 5. These new digital monitors don't really have thru outs on them that can be capped, so I'm looking for a clever way to get around the degraded picture they invariably cause. - Steven Grothe, CAS
  3. I use the Sony MDR-7506 refitted with Beyerdynamic DT250/DT280 replacement pads. The velour pads fit the 7506's perfectly and offer a noticeably better and quieter seal around the ears. Not to mention they are much more comfortable to wear. I like the HN-7506 for extreme situations, because they reject all surrounding noise and allow you to monitor at much more reasonable levels, but they also limit you from hearing potentially important information disseminated around you. I also prefer to monitor my recordings at a lower level, a level I would expect to hear the conversation to likely be played back at. However, during all rehearsals and select random takes, I listen considerably higher to allow me to hone in on potential problems. Once I've gotten a fuller understanding of the noise floor and made any adjustments on set, I turn my headphones right back down again. My primary concern is ear damage. During a 30 to 40 year career wearing headphones, it's not a question of if you'll get tinnitus, but how long you can prolong the onset of tinnitus and minimize the overall damage. Many mixers in this thread talk about setting levels that aren't uncomfortably loud for our ears, but, it's all relative. We all have different degrees of hearing damage. All of us! I used to worry that I set my levels too loud for me, because my ears would consistently fatigue at the end of every day. But as I filled in for Mixer after Mixer, I realized that most other Mixers listen at a considerably higher level that is painful for me. The most common reason given is because they are listening for background noise during the take. We all listen for background noise, it's part of our job, but it seems that loud volume can often over emphasis background noises and present them out of context. T When I crank my headphones, I find that all I can focus on is the background noise and nothing else. I lose all context of how those sounds relate to the dialogue. I subscribe to RVD's style of mixing. I monitor the dialogue at a level I would speak at. Loud noises should sound loud. It seems to me that any background noise that is indistinguishable at a reasonable volume isn't a pressing concern. When working out sound issues, loud monitoring is a valuable tool to quickly isolate a issue, but unnecessary and harmful on a sustained basis. Tinnitus and hearing loss doesn't start at 60, it just becomes unbearable by then. It starts very early on and slowly gets worse. Before I started taking care of my ears, I would get the worst ear fatigue at night and some ringing. I was constantly reminded of the damage I was doing to my ears I turned on my car every morning. The radio settings from the night before were always headache loud. It was painful to my fresh ears. Just because the music was set at a volume I was comfortable with on my ride home, I was clearly contributing to the long term destruction of my ears. We all do it and we all ignore the signs. Your car radio is the best diagnostic sound meter you own. You shouldn't have to turn the volume on your radio up at night. If you can't hear the radio when you drive home at night and feel the need to turn it up, you should turn it off and give your ears a rest...
  4. I wasn't trying to be "harsh", I was just using sarcasm to try to illustrate how silly this all is. But, instead of beating around the bush, I will address the topic directly. And I don't feel like I missed the point, either. This is about Emmy envy. But, for the sake of the argument, I will address only the reclassification issue. The Local hasn't selectively inforced this rule, they have consistently turned a blind eye to the issue. They graceously choose to look the other way with a form of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. If you ask them, they are going to say no, if you don't ask them, they will leave you alone. I happen to know that Robert did, in fact, mix when he was still classified as a Y7a. The Local never came after him for it or arbitrarily singled him out. Just as they haven't gone after Juan or the plethora of other Y7a's and Y8's that mix from time to time. It wasn't the Local, but Disney and the show's 1st Unit Mixer that told Robert he would have to reclassify if he wanted to work the show. Robert could have turned down the show, but, at the time, he felt it was in his best interests to take the show and reclassify. I have great sympathy because I too have been jerked around by Disney on several occasions. I think we all have at some point. It was an unfortunate position that Robert was put in. I have had to make many tough choices, myself, over the years. No doubt, Juan, and others like him, will have to make different, but equally tough and unfair choices over the years. But, my feeling is that we should all be trying to help each other avoid the obstacles we faced instead of trying to steer others right into those same obstacles. The bulk of my work is 2nd Units, so I have a lot of the same feelings most of you have. No, I don't want more competition. Yes I get bummed when I can't get a 2nd Unit because the Y7a is mixing it. Am I jealous that I never had that opportunity when I Boomed, of course. But is it unfair? No. I want to reiterate something John Coffey said. Turning a blind eye to Y7a's and Y8's mixing from time to time may benefit all of us by keeping the pool of superb Y7a and Y8's satisfied. If we force them all to become Y1's, then we'll have even more competition and less qualified support crew. This is also an issue that can be handled at the grassroots level. Nothing is stopping anyone of us from visiting with these 1st Unit Mixers, gettting to know them, and asking them to give us a try on their next 2nd Unit. The whole point of this site is to help each other, share knowledge, not to ensure that others have to suffer the same injustices we faced. The Local rules are outdated, but I think they know that too, that's why they don't enforce them all that strictly. So the question is, Do we need to change the rules or leave them the way they are? It's great that we start the discussion here, but it's an issue that is best resolved at a Local 695 meeting.
  5. WHAT?!!! Outrageous!!! What's next, are they going to start asking for the right to vote. Soon they're going to start expecting healthcare. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Y7a's, but do you really want one living next to you? An important point is being overlooked here. The practices we are discussing here are widely known in our sound community. The only reason we are having this "discussion" now is because Emmy's statues are involved. A simple fact: 'House' won the Emmy for sound. If you didn't have anything to do with 'House', guess what, you aren't getting an Emmy in that category. But, no matter what happened, Von was getting an Emmy. Has anyone stopped to think why Von / 'House' chose to spread the wealth? There are some Mixers that would never dream of sharing the credit for the success of their accomplishments. They've paid their dues, they've worked hard, they deserve the credit. There are other Mixers that believe the whole sound department should be recognized and share the credit as a team. There is also a small sub-set of Mixers that just don't want to have to sit alone at the awards ceremony. I think it's admirable that some Mixers want to share the nomination with as many contributors to the effort as possible. There is nothing wrong with a Von or a Dave Yaffe (among others) including a 2nd Unit Mixer in the nomination, just like there is nothing wrong with a Mixer feeling like they were the sole contributing factor their sound excellence. Isn't it their individual prerogative to determine who deserves credit? Why only one production mixer per nomination? Frequently, there are two or three post mixers lumped into the same nomination. Is that fair? Is it fair that a Mixer can be nominated one year, then never get nominated again (did his work suddenly become bad)? Is it fair that some marginal Mixers get Emmy's because they are on a popular show with phenomenal post? Is it fair that highly gifted Mixers on lame shows will never get nominated? And what about Juan? When he wasn't mixing 2nd Unit, wasn't he also working on 1st Unit with Von. And did he really take a job away from the Local when he mixed 2nd Unit ( I assume he had to replace himself with another union member on 1st Unit)? And what about Von? How do we really know that Von wasn't drunk the whole time, and that Kenny Strain selflessly mixed the episode uncredited while Juan Boomed? Yhe reality is that Von is a hard working Mixer? If a kitten died every time an Emmy was awarded, I might be a little more outraged, but the reality is, none of this matters. In Robert's case, Disney (not the Local 695) forced him to reclassify for a job. He had the option to take that job or turn it down. In my experience, the Local looks the other way when members are in a transition period, which sometimes can take months or years. As long as you make a good faith effort to adhere to the spirit of the by-laws, the Local with leave you alone. We all know Y8's and Y7a's that mix from time to time. Some will become Mixers, others will try and fail, some are content to Boom the rest of their lives but like the chance to mix from time to time. Sure we can create more barriers to entry if we want to. But, it's also important to remember that every single Mixer in Local 695, at one point, was on the outside trying to get in. I'd understand if we were talking about Canadiens taking our jobs, but were talking about our own members. One of the tricks a lot of Mixers use to get work around here is be be really good at what they do and make friends with people. I encourage everyone to try it (I personally chose a different approach). And finally, there are many ways to get Emmys. It's not really that hard. For example, I know for a fact that both Jon Ailetcher and Steve Morantz keep the keys to their house under their front door mat. When I finally feel I'm ready to accept an Emmy, I know where I'm getting mine.
  6. All the numbers on our membership are there in the files! Someone inside needs to run a report detailing exactly how many members would be affected if the 400 hour rule was in effect this qualifying period. Are we talking a handful of people, or are we talking hundreds and hundreds? The union leadership already knows what the expected attrition rate would be. Why can't we get access to that information? If it's a small amount, then no worries, we work harder (only said for emphasis). But, if it is a large amount, over 10% - 15% or higher, then this information is being kept from us for a reason. It would be devastating! Our leadership works for us, so why can't we, as the union, demand to know what the projected total fallout would be from raising the qualification to 400 hours? It's a reasonable request. I SUSPECT THE NUMBERS ARE UGLY! I SUSPECT THE MEMBERSHIP WOULD REVOLT! - Steven Grothe, CAS
  7. All the numbers on our membership are there in the files! Someone inside needs to run a report detailing exactly how many members would be affected if the 400 hour rule was in effect this qualifying period. Are we talking a handful of people, or are we talking hundreds and hundreds? The union leadership already knows what the expected attrition rate would be. Why can't we get access to that information? If it's a small amount, then no worries, we work harder (only said for emphasis). But, if it is a large amount, over 10% - 15% or higher, then this information is being kept from us for a reason. It would be devastating! Our leadership works for us, so why can't we, as the union, demand to know what the projected total fallout would be from raising the qualification to 400 hours? It's a reasonable request. I SUSPECT THE NUMBERS ARE UGLY! I SUSPECT THE MEMBERSHIP WOULD REVOLT! - Steven Grothe, CAS
×
×
  • Create New...