The Documentary Sound Guy

My numbers come directly from Schoeps and Zaxcom, because that is the equipment you say you want to use. Why are you so hung up on the MZD8000? If you want to use that ... buy a used one and do it that way. But don't equate it to the CMD42, which has published specs. Yes, SuperCMIT uses more power. 170mA according to Schoeps. It has a second capsule and a whole bunch more DSP, so no surprise there. And the MZD8000 is rated at 160mA, so on paper the CMD42 will be better than both. But all three are power hogs compared to analogue. Yes, I'm using AAs with the 745. So what? Battery life will be drop commensurately no matter how it is powered.

Maybe "digital" doesn't, but the CMD42 does. The CMD42 manual specifically warns about it, and the published specs reflect that. As does my experience with the SuperCMIT ... it cuts battery life on the TRX745 by a bit more than a third. As for whether it's worth it ... that's subjective ... I don't think it is. And I think it does matter in the recorder. Zaxcom specs the Nova at 1A @ 12V with 8 channels of Rx, which is 12W. The MRX414 modules each consume 300mA @ 13V, or 3.9W each. That means the recorder itself consumes 12 - (2 x 3.9) = 4.2W on its own. That means a CMD42 will increase the power consumption of the Nova by almost 30%, whereas a CMC6 will increase it by less than 5%. I agree, let's wait for real world performance tests, but, on paper, the CMD42 will noticeably decrease battery life however it is powered.

Yup. And the CMC6 is 4mA @ 48V. Which is 6.25x less power than AES42, not 3x more. Like I said, analogue phantom uses way less power.

I agree, I don't like the CMIT (or any shotgun) indoors. SuperCMIT sounds even worse. I guess if you are willing to forego using any shotgun mics, your plan makes more sense. That's not a limitation I'd consider ... I need the additional reach of a shotgun mic in outdoor situations.

Which paper? The numbers I cited from Schoeps directly contradict this. But yes, it would be worth measuring in actual use. And, yes, I realize that the analogue circuitry in the Nova consumes power ... this is why I said your plan was shifting power consumption, not reducing it. In theory at least, they can be turned off (though I think that option doesn't do anything at the moment). Unfortunately, Schoeps doesn't offer the new capsule for the SuperCMIT. I asked. So, old tech or not, the only digital shotgun mic that I'm aware of has some issues ... I think it has its place, but it's not something I want to use as my daily mic. Do you imagine not using a shotgun mic at all in your setup? Which shotgun are you planning to use?

Details on the CMD42 power consumption from here: https://schoeps.de/en/knowledge/manual/cmd-42.html The actual specs say 120mA @ 10V, which is 1.2W. Compare that to the CMC6: 4mA @ 48V (0.192W) or 8mA @ 12V (0.096W). I can't speak for the discontinued Sennheiser or Neumann amps, but this additional power consumption is in line with my experience with the SuperCMIT, which also consumes a large amount of power. Speaking of the SuperCMIT, it definitely does not eliminate the chance of RF interference. I get a 2KHz tone in the noise floor when the TRX745 is too close (and this is true even though I use a filtered input cable). The RF gets into the analogue stage before conversion to digital. By contrast, RF bleed into my StarQuad analogue cables is simply not a problem that shows up. I know it's theoretically possible, but in the <10m cable runs that are all I commonly use, it's simply not an issue. Heavier than what? And does that include the added weight of your L-Series batteries?

Thanks, that makes sense.

I disagree heartily. Not to say that digital mics don't have a place, but you are writing as though the digital parts of the signal never fail. You aren't making the system less complex. You are simply moving the complexity into the microphones and requiring a whole bunch of functionality to be duplicated in every microphone instead of implementing it once in the recorder. That has pros and cons, and your post only really lists the pros. Pros: Shorter analogue path means less susceptibility to analogue distortions. Duplication of input signal circuitry provides redundancy: If it fails, only one microphone has failed, not the recorder. Less analogue circuitry in the recorder means less weight and power consumption in the recorder. Cons: Removes compatibility with analogue microphones and other devices and / or requires outboard pre-amps and A/D converters for every analogue device I need. Increases weight and power consumption in every microphone (meaning: a heavier boom and way less battery life for the boom Tx). Makes troubleshooting slower and more difficult because now there are more places where settings can be misconfigured, and more points of failure in the microphone. Using a wireless Tx for the boom introduces all the reliability issues of a wireless transmitter ... sure it's digital, but that doesn't avoid interference, drop-outs and battery issues. Longer digital path means more ways for digital transmission to go wrong. Practically speaking your approach locks you into a single microphone vendor. Schoeps is great, but it's not the correct choice in every situation. I want to be able to use specialized instrument mics, hydrophones, geophones, exotic pre-amps, and all the $100K+ of analogue accessories in my existing sound kit. I want to know I can easily patch into a house sound system, or plug in a microphone that someone has handed me as their "favourite mic". The CMD42 requires an order of magnitude more power than a phantom microphone. That means worse battery management for boom transmitters, or a significant increase in recorder power consumption if hardwired. I get less than 2 hours of runtime on my TRX745 when powering my AES42 SuperCMIT. That can work for a dramatic show where I have a boom op to baby-sit it, but it wouldn't work for long interviews. Your approach doesn't reduce power consumption for the whole system, it just moves it around. In my opinion, focussing on gear and signal-chain as a path to better audio only goes so far. In day-to-day operation, simplicity, resistance to user error, and ease-of-workflow have a greater effect on audio quality than keeping the analogue path as short as possible. The change you are suggesting trades workflow advantages for signal-chain advantages that are mostly minor or theoretical. These are the workflow disadvantages that I see: Eliminating analogue inputs hugely restricts my workflow by limiting which tools I can use. Access to the right tool for the situation is hugely important for keeping workflows simple. Pushing input processing into the microphone means I no longer have instant access to those settings in the recorder. I can't instantly see what settings are enabled, and to change them, I have to pull out a phone and get physically close to the mic (because settings are changed by dweedle tones). Yes, there are circumstances where the input processing really does need to be very early in the chain, but 95% of the time it doesn't matter and its easier, quicker, and more reliable to make the change at the recorder. Using a boom transmitter means another devices to manage batteries for, and the high power consumption of the CMD42 means I need to track this fairly closely. I can't just change batteries once a day at lunch. I can see a place for a recorder with all-digital inputs for simple jobs (say, an interview kit) where I could bring a single-purpose kit and know that the job will fit within the confines of that single purpose. But it couldn't be my only recorder ... I need a recorder with analogue inputs for a general purpose kit because of the flexibility it gives me. Maybe that will change in the future. If enough other manufacturers adopt digital, I'd feel less need to rely on analogue gear. If the recorder (in conjunction with the boom Tx) implements the AES control protocols well enough that I don't need to whip out my phone to adjust settings in the microphone, that would address my concern about putting those settings there. Maybe other manufacturers will produce digital PSUs that are less power hungry and the concerns about battery life go away. But right now, with the equipment and workflows that are available, I see far more downsides than upsides.

Thanks, this is useful. I know they are both dipoles, but it's nice to have confirmation that the real world performance matches the theory. To be clear, are you just co-locating the MTP40 with the Miracle Whip, or did you somehow manage to feed the Miracle Whip from the MTP40?

Have you compared the Miracle Whip with the Mini Mite? I have to think that whenever I've had excellent Comtek range on another mixer's setup, that is the most common antenna I've seen. Also, what Tx did you use for the Wisy IFB? I tried to test that as well, but the only Tx we had was an MTP60, and we didn't have the adapter we needed to plug in a proper antenna. 1-pin Lemo isn't the most common connector in the world...

I believe you can custom order the VRX1 in 72MHz. I did think there was an improvement in reception quality within normal range. It seemed less prone to dropouts and bursts of interference, though it wasn't totally immune. It's a pretty subjective call though.

All of it was borrowed, so yeah, maintenance / cable could have been an issue. Yes, it was a BST75 216. Antenna was "Miracle Whip" — a Remote Audio-modified SNA600a. I haven't used it before so I have no point of reference. It's another suspect point for me, but the person I borrowed from swears by it. Like I said, I don't fully trust the result I got, but I do trust the A/B vs. the Comtek because they were running off the same transmitter. Hopefully I'll be able to say something more helpful after a followup.

Petrol was merged into Sachtler, so you can still find a few of their legacy products under that brand. They still make the original Petrol bags, which I like because they aren't as rigid and heavy as KTek and Orca. I have no idea if that includes the harness ... probably not would be my guess. I use a short-bag Versa-Flex (BHS3) because I have the same preference you do: High on my body and strapped tight. I find this position gives me the greatest range of motion, and I can run with it if necessary. I kind of doubt it will save your shoulders. It's a pretty basic design. I also suspect that having it pulled tight may be part of the issue with shoulders ... with the bag up high, it will pull your shoulders forward more than wearing it lower, and that can take its toll. I'm also too lazy to loosen the shoulders when I wear it over rain gear, and I find my shoulders hurt more in that situation because the added layers make for a tighter fit.

I think web forums are the future This site is way better than any social media ... but I guess that's why I'm here and not there.

Sounds way better than Comtek. Range is comparable ... Comtek may technically go farther, but not in a way you'd want to listen to ... Comtek audio will disappear into white static noise, whereas the VRX1 will simply cut out once the noise floor gets high enough. In terms of distance where you'd get listenable audio, they were comparable. VRX1 seemed to drop out a bit less as long as it had adequate SNR, and it wasn't nearly as susceptible RF distortion on the peaks. I'm quite confused about how both the VRX1 and Comteks performed vs. the UHF IFBs I tested ... 216MHz (both VRX1 and Comtek) had noticeably less range in my test and I can't figure out why. I feel like I need to test a different antenna to be sure. I feel like I've had way better range from Comteks in the past, so I don't trust my test at the moment.