The Immoral Mr Teas

Dan's already said it but, Zoom F4 = 4 mic pres, 6 isos, stereo mix 2x DR680 = 12 (I think?) mic pres, 14 (I think) isos, stereo mix Just "my two percent" With Dalton too here - interested, but not interested enough to get hip with the usergroup. And codyman, my second recorder is the R4 Pro - massive for a piece of plastic, all the switches in the wrong place (didn't think of the bag), BUT tc (ok maybe not the best), AES io, and I've just thought this could be BRILLIANT for speed draining AAs for recharge ... why didn't I think of it before? Ha, cheers! I think the F8 (not the DR70/701, nor F4, nor SDMP6) was the 'last' game changer - and still wonder why the 'regression' of (none) AES io has happened and persists with the two main players - the one function that would make 'a spare recorder' a real asset. True, I may be missing the convenience/simplicity of HDMI but once again haven't given it much thought. Jez

Wow, so there might not have been any hardware changes at all in: i. A headphone amp system ii. A power distribution system that allows a switched off machine (without a second dedicated battery) to keep on powering a TC clock. Impressive. But still possible (i: the noise may have been a software problem which was identified and resolved; ii: the machine now has a 'sleep' mode which keeps the TC clock going). I haven't read any manuals or updates before posting this so forgive any abruptness. Still, it would be good to hear from Zoom Official (hopefully listening here) what the actual situation might be. If the F8n was improved in hardware and the F8 ironed out in software I would be impressed and gladdened to be told it so. The F8 I believe was a game changer for lower cost quality semi pro gear (I think more than the DR680 and the Roland R44 - although both still hold the AES io advantage). Jez

Is that "beautiful 'sound color'", Marc? J

Damn - lost my post and it DIDN'T reappear! So in short: thanks Dan, Albert new to me, knew Schoeps (quad ORTF, MSM etc) but they used stereo rycote (AE,AF) bodies, as I have with same rycotes with K&M bars fitted. all use existing (or 'too small') shields and have v expensive mic shortening solutions inside (DIY = cheaper mic shortening solutions, like dodgy XLRs) was thinking to go bigger windshield for more air. Maybe in two semicircle halves which could be joined into a circle or backed by a plate then have relevant windjammer options. Main thing, (like the Albert) have variable bar system within to not be constrained on recording choices. but - maybe too niche? As I said, I have plenty of ideas based on my DIY crap. ...hope this posts... j Since that posted ok I'll mention my own rigs include a 2x AF for quad eg IRT and a 2x AF + smaller Rycote(s) for 5.0/5.1 (C/sub)

Cheers Trey, forgot that one - relatively recent if I remember? Yep, that pretty much does what the MKH in-builts does (+ several other LCF on several mics). Just loved the variable cut of the Cut 1/2s (and always hoped that MKH would come up with a similar style gadget with extreme LCF and variable higher LCF for the 80xx series, specifically for dialogue but embracing musical instruments etc. Just liked the idea of the lower spectrum graph of the LC2 although I accept it to be more specialised. Old folk here will remember the multi-stepped EQ options on the Nagra 4 models, designed to cope for film and music possibilities (recorder cut I know, but an interesting blast from the past for completism). And Cheers Derek - online timing! J Edit - addendum! Forgot to mention I've never looked into the variable Cuts 1/2 possibly adding a tiny bit of noise which perhaps the Cut 60 or other fixed cuts wouldn't. Maybe they don't but I've often thought they might. Nevertheless, the variability is a feature I love about the Cut 1 and wanted for my other mics.

Curious with all the Schoeps regulars here. I have a Cut 1 and find it indispensable but have since liked the 'look' of the Cut 2 more. Use my Schoeps so little to warrant any change but always been curious as I say if anyone doing production/dialogues here uses both or the 2 over the 1? I also like the option of cutting at the mic and for that reason like both the Cut 1 and my MKH 40 over the 8040s for much stuff, including boom. And with the excellent (Cut 1 Cut 2 LPF etc) modular accessories already in the Schoeps canon I wonder why a shotgun 'capsule' never appeared - always a single unit. (I have mics by both, and love both - but don't use them in production sound as per OP post - so apologies for more questions, no answers!) Cheers, Jez

What's the graph, Ramallo? An ambient recording? It looks strangely like a good old fashioned 6dB/octave LF magnetic curve but expect it isn't. And there's two almost as disturbing peaks (or actually much worse, excepting their musical position) at c. 70 and 20k Hz? What are they?? Cheers, J

Hmm, Rycote was a small company (much like Cinela) who grew from innovation, quality and (IMO excellent) customer service. There were some bad words spoken when they bought Lightwave but I think it was a more than decently intentioned buyout - if anything, as an owner of some Lightwave camera windshields, I'm sorry that Rycote didn't make (to me obvious) improvements to them. Apart from that, being 'first there', constantly listening and improving, and really very friendly and helpful I think actually set the standard that anyone else had to address. And probably did anyway through good nature, but quality against quality is always the best battle. I'm still quite surprised that nobody has properly developed a true (ie bigger) windshield for stereo, LCR, quad ... beyond fixed angles (ie ORTF) - I'm happy to help with my own ideas if any of the major players wanted to go down this route. Jez Adamson

By low level you mean 'quiet' I take it? I work quiet all the time (atmos fx etc) and had heard of the good preamps. A sine wave (?) at 1490Hz over quiet atmos would be awful. First I'd heard of it. Hardware or software problem I wonder? Cheers, Jez

Can't disagree - but since the PD and along the same lines the HHB 2000 were such high spec and functional they both may have at least one new lease of life as decent quality mic preamps feeding AES inputs on a cart. That is - if you have one (and have this need). J

Hey, Blue, it would be good to know in what circumstances (extreme?) - I would assume all mics are somewhat challenged by humidity but having lived and worked in the 'tropics' (HK, Thailand, Philippines) I have trusted my MKH, Bruel and Kjaer, and DPA to survive and function. Cheers, Jez And having just noticed New Brunswick maybe it's an extreme cold humidity? So is that the case?

I'm more than happy about using ambisonics as a tool, as and when. I would hate to see it becoming a 'specified' recording technique for 'almost everything' (or specifically FX), much like the similar (thankfully short-lived) situation in the 80s where several broadcasters specified MS across the board (which has been spoken about on JW before). Why? Because it's a technique that doesn't work for a lot of things. Especially in theatrical film (and including car passes and phasey broadband atmos). But I've nothing against recording ALSO in ambisonics where time and track count allow - there may well be a future situation where I'd be using such recordings a lot in a more ambisonic-mix-friendly environment. Maybe I didn't make my point clear ( - maybe I still haven't). I've always found it an interesting technique - enough to have invested in a very expensive tool - and I'm interested in the renaissance and evolution of the technique. Jez

... And exactly what I was hoping to make a point AGAINST, Jose! I'm trying to say it ISN'T a magic formula that can just be reencoded to anything you want. If you could record and then perfectly reencoded an effect like this then what makes that any different from dialogue? A noise in the end is no different than an actor's crafted performance. Only when we throw away the 'magic beans' wrapper can we start using this technique in ways and situations that will give great - not mediocre or problematic - results. Jez

Sad and a shock. Condolences to his family and all his friends. Jez Adamson

WXYZ was standard Soundfield order (and why would it be other than alphabetical) for as long as I know. Autocorrect??? Jose, re- "ambisonics the way in post" and Dan, "successfully model the polar pattern" - Jose, I know you use Ambisonics regularly and have far more experience than me - but I think it's to an end (VR from where I've followed your posts) where the technique works. I'm going to throw out the gauntlet once again and say in many areas it can be problematic. And theatrical film, under Dolby Digital for instance, is one: both for the mixing side of the signal and the presentation side of the theatre. I'm pretty certain that with the expansion of VR and renaissance of ambisonics with it that cinema, in tech and presentation, will probably finally move to incorporate it (and maybe this is already easier with Atmos and Auro3D for instance but not enough to mix with older formats in mind). Please - if any theatrical mixers are reading please chip in here. What really has to be understood by all is that Ambisonics is not a magic formula. It has been around a long time and has been useful and not-so-useful many times over that time. Any capsule is going to be receptive of the higher frequencies only on its axis - diffuse field applications might accentuate or compensate to achieve otherwise. Ignoring the magical tetrahedral capsule head Ambisonics is a simple extension of MS, except that the M is not fixed but a potential derived from an (hopefully decent enough) omni signal and however many side signals as one has. So the first point to bear in mind is that the mic really has to be in the 'right' place (it is a single point mic) to be good - or often of any use whatsoever. Since Soundfield was a music mic for two decades before its first comeback in stereo tv this was something understood in its placement. In VR (and the design of the Zoom) it is obviously in the right place because it's on axis with camera. The second point is that in the maths of Ambisonics the directional characteristic comes from an in/out phase possibility of summation from omni (W) to figure of eight (any of the others) and no more. Even with HOA and a great deal of further development this is hardly going to replace the age-old "put it in the right place and point it in the right direction." I AM an advocate of recording ambisonically in addition to the technique chosen as best decided if enough channels are available. I just know that, currently, it's going to be less use than other techniques I might choose (for my work or end use). I have to stress that I don't advocate using any fixed technique nor position (such as ORTF or binaural for instance) above choosing techniques/positions for each setup - and crucially the format the recording is heading for. But I do understand that it is not obvious (in a frankly difficult technical area) where recording techniques might present problems down the line. The solution is in communication which we're hopefully doing here. Jez