Noiz2

Kind of old topic but I thought "and find the signal/noise ratio, let alone the community/bile ratio, to be pretty bottom heavy." Pretty much sums up why it's nice to have a forum that is not so full of non professionals. DVXUser is a good place to ask basic questions and get help if you are not a sound professional or just have really basic questions. I spend a fair amount of time trying to help folks out there. I will even give a question a try now and again because there are some pretty experienced folks there also. But generally if I am asking the question and it's about recording this is the place I'm likely to get an answer. I do mostly post and DUC's post section is pretty good but most of the other sections are close to the quote above.

Maybe on some TV shows but feature films don't generally do this. Mostly because as I mentioned the sound of the space your shooting in is almost never the sound of the space the story takes place in. So boom/ lav mix to give a more natural tone is done but using "ambience" from the set is almost never done. Now in music yes that makes sense since the "story" is the same location as the "set". I could also see it for documentary shoots being maybe useful. So it depends, as most things do, on what you are shooting. On a narrative post I'm not even going to listen to "ambience" tracks as a rule. Maybe if the location has a unique sound to it. But realistically IF the director wants to use sound from the location they should have brought on an FX recordist to do the location, when there is no crew around so you can get a clean version. I have often gone to locations after the production crew is long gone to cover the ambiences of the location, as opposed to the sound of the set.

Have to say as a post person, mostly, there is an extremely small chance I would use anything from this track. But maybe a video editor on some slam it on the air show might find it useful? The reasons are that as others have pointed out it will be useless for Noise Reduction, or Room Tone and it is not going to sound like the location of the story. A lot of folks think that you can record ambiences on the set, but as a rule that is not any use to post. The set is hardly ever in the location, or world, that the story is taking place in so it does not sound right. Mostly it sounds like a movie set so unless your story takes place ON a movie set the only thing I will use from production is the dialog. Room Tone is not to provide "ambience" it is to provide filler for places where non dialog sounds have been cut out of the production tracks. On even a small budgeted film the dialog editors will cut out anything that is not dialog. They will in most cases put things like door closes etc. on a PFX (production FX) track. But that is used only for reference. With very rare exceptions everything except the dialog will be added by the sound post team.

One reason PluralEyes can be better than TC in todays file based systems is that it is a continuous sync check. Unless you are recording LTC on an audio track on all the devices you are only getting a starting time stamp with TC. It's great for getting your start's lined up but it's basically useless for running sync. With matching guide tracks post can tell if there is drift in an instant and how much that drift is. So you get positional sync AND running sync. Post places that did mostly video and worked with tape should be familiar with TC. Sound post back in the 90's when I worked at a number of big post facilities in the Bay Area, of the big three only one actually had a TC reading DAT player. Every one else transferred based on slates and had assistants "phase in" the production sound. Even the one that did use TC still had assistants Phase everything. We all used TC all the time because picture was on tape and you needed to sync ProTools to the tape deck. And PT used TC to sync to the stage, etc. But hardly anybody was using TC for syncing production tracks. As I understand it the reverse was mostly the case with all video workflows for TV etc. Having worked both ways, and really loving watching analog machines chase sync (a really fascinating mechanical ballet) I would recommend TC in only a few situations and none of those would involve DSLR's. A bunch of cameras (that are built for TC) where you have short turnaround and slates are not practical would be one. With file based systems you can get rough positional sync by just getting all the clocks to be the same. Then something like PluralEyes will do the fine work and you don't run a chance of having the TC get wonked for some reason and leave you trying to visually sync everything, or having the TC bleed on to your audio tracks. The later should not really be a possibility with digital but I have heard it bleed across on a interleaved stereo track on rare occasions.

Actually no. Warm air holds more moisture than cold so going from warm to cold creates condensation. Think of the outside of a glass filled with ice water. The cold glass is condensing the water out of the air. Or the ice inside your freezer (if you don't have a no frost one.

Somehow I missed posting on this thread. I do see the reasons for anonymity. Companies like Apple and I assume everyone else in the tech industry comb forums constantly for any post by anyone ever associated with the company and if they think you have talked out of school then you get a big brother email. Out of school in their book basically means saying anything about Apple. I don't mean to pick on them because I'm sure it's common practice with all of the bigger players. My general opinion is that I like to know who's saying what because it gives me some way to evaluate how likely the info is to be useful. It's no guarantee and IF you read enough posts by XXZZYY then you also have a feeling for the quality of info. I have opinions and I own them. People may disagree but that is fine. The anonymous nature of a lot of forums ups the "violence" level, IMHO, a lot. I tend to use the same moniker everywhere so it really doesn't matter that much. I was moderating a forum what did distribution trees (old radio shows) and we wanted to have people put their phone numbers in the membership list because when the tree would break down it was sometimes very hard to track things down and a phone call would have been quick and easy. It was a private members only list so it wasn't out in the public, but most of the membership was too paranoid about privacy. As a test me and another member volunteered to do a test and we gave each other 24 hours to find out as much as possible about each other. Neither of us had ever met and we couldn't use any paid services. We both came back with full names, addresses and phone numbers. She managed to get a bunch of photos of me I only fount a few of her (and her children). I found all her elementary and high schools and when and where she graduated from college. And two or three of her employers including current and where her husband worked. She found a bio work history (the non film parts were a bit harder to get then) and my schools and five or six prior residences and that I was married. The point is that we didn't know what we were doing and we got huge results in 24 hours. There is very little privacy on the web IF someone wants to find out who you are. A moniker is not a firewall, it wont keep you anonymous from someone who is determined. And the chief argument for it is that it will keep you anonymous from folks who are trying to find out who you are. Nobody has expressed any great worries that Jeff know who they are. It's those big companies and other organizations. Well here's the scoop IF they want to know who you are they already DO. So relax, kick back and have a homebrew. Don't waste energy trying to protect something you lost when you got a social Security card, and for many of you that was the day you were born.

AS an update they are back in stock. http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1064

Philip, I was sending the same thing to 72 different files. 14 is the most number of inputs I've used. Multiple devices would probably add a bunch of overhead so that should knock down the track count. The most I've done in a real situation was 14 inputs individually to two different drives plus three "stereo" crash down mixes. So 28 mono and 3 stereo files. The discussion may be moot though since BR is no longer available for sale. The developer is too busy with other projects and has closed the store. It's not "dead" yet and he hopes to have the time to get back to developing it but at least at the moment you can buy it.

This is from a few years ago. I was recording feeds from the stage and two translators for the teachings. And then RnG at the public talk and various audiences. And more recently a big venue that despite many emails was not prepared for our arrival, the board they rented had no direct outs and well didn't work at all so two boards later they actually got one that was functional with enough ways to cheat. I was recording 10 -12 feeds including two translators and doing crash down mixes of the three versions (English, Chinese, and Spanish). I'm actually backing up in the shot (Chronosync)

Well you could set BR to auto and it will start recording when it sees valid TC coming in and will stop when the TC does. The manual says there is a slight delay but you can set the pre record buffer to compensate so it's essentially an instant on.

I haven't used MC so I can only talk about BR. I have used BR on a number of concert/ doc situations where I was recording 10 - 14 inputs often with mirrored files (so 20 -28 files) for takes up to two hours with never a hiccup, to a buss powered USB2 drive no less. I did a test to see how many tracks I could record simultaneously to the drive before using it live. I was able to record 72 tracks 48/24 with out having a buffer overrun. I only ran that for 10 min. but I knew I was never going to get anywhere close to that in real life. Talking to the developer about drives FW and USB2 were preferred over eSATA. The USB2 drive also has an eSATA port and that is what I had planned to used but apparently eSATA isn't a particularly smart protocol and so wasn't a first choice because it doesn't talk back to the app. On the last Dalai Lama gig I had 14 lines in going to 14 discrete files plus three different stereo crash down "mixes" (for different translations), and mirrored those to a second drive. So 40 files being written. The teachings were 2-3 hours long each so VERY long takes. No issues at all. It would be nice to drop TC marked notes but you can take notes while recording and type in the TC, not frame accurate but close enough for what I have been doing. And you could if you wanted split the recording and mark it that way. BR has user settable pre and post roll so if you split a file on the fly you have overlap if you need to phase them in later. You get very nice sound reports after with hyperlinks to the files. MBP first gen with 2gigs of ram

This is the only reason that makes any sense. And despite a post above it does work better in stretching and manipulating and it is not unusual for FX recordists to record at 96. I don't, well very rarely but a number do regularly. THis is pretty much B.S. Just because you have more bits doesn't give you more error correction. Component and design quality count a lot more. And there is also some evidence that not pushing the converters lets them be "more accurate" so that would argue against 96 et all. Higher bit rate doesn't give you more headroom, it gives you higher frequency response. Well yes that would seal the deal. You can also record with a wire recorder. I'm mostly in post and the first thing I would do with your 96k files is SRC down to 48k. 96k FX files are used in design sessions and bounced down to 48 for editing and mixing. From a post perspective 96 makes no sense unless someone demands it.

No, I tried. But you can disable tracks (not on the fly) in the patch bay and you end up with extremely small placeholder files which is very handy when the active tracks keep changing (live events concerts etc.).

I just did a quick test and with my record drive not attached opening BR and going into record throws an appropriate error. I would check for a corrupt file in one of BR paths.

I just had something similar happen. I inadvertently trashed a folder that I had one set of files pointed at. Going into record caused a freeze and a sudden quit. After that even recreating the folder didn't stop the sudden quit at launch. What I had to do was delete the files that had been created in the in the first record session. Explanation... I had discrete tracks going to one folder and three crash down mixes going to three other folders. BR had already created files in the existing directories before it locked up trying to write to the nonexistent fourth directory. I don't think I would have had a problem if I had not gone into record and created the corrupt files. I'm pretty sure that BR has handled bad paths better in the past but? Anyway I emailed Take also so I'm sure a fix will be forth coming.