The Immoral Mr Teas

The cable is the only thing I like about my 7506's. I may be missing Glen's joke but I've often thought of rewiring my DT150 with one. I pack my 7506 folded, upside down and chuck the cable over the top - the only time the cable was wrapped around the phones was when I lent them to a friend (who wanted to experience for himself just how bloody horrible they sound). J

Hear Hear! It was infuriating as an Audiovision user (as well as other early era systems) HOPING that standard Audiovision features might be adopted elsewhere, and especially onto Protools over many years and updates. I pity two poor US PT reps stuck taking a lift with myself and editor colleagues several years back at Shepperton - initially happy that we were cutting on Protools then mistakingly asking what we'd like to see added or changed. I'm still waiting for bins - sadly, now trying to explain to anyone even in the industry what a 'bin' is or was is already almost resigned to failure. (Wait - they still have them IN BLOODY AVID !?!) As an aside, I met two Proctor and Gamble folk on an international trip the other day and being on my way back from my own trip had my own Gillette razor in my bag - a perfectly serviceable 1950s model which they said they'd only come across in their 'Gillette museum'. Jez

Glen ... are YOU the Deathcat? That steely gaze ... I just thought ... ? Jez

One of many things I fail to see as an invention. Bell Labs, Harvey Fletcher and the like demonstrated in the 20s (in the USA) the pluses and minuses of two channel versus three channel sound for stereo sound ... and decided pretty adamantly upon 3 channel for film. Yet with some admirable exceptions and a renaissance in the 50s and 60s film sound stuck with mono. Stereo eventually came about (as a two channel stereo) in vinyl and tape. So I think in film production the first multitrack recorder was probably the Nagra IV-S in 1971 ish? There were of course multitrack recorders in areas other than film production ( possibly including broadcast ) ... music, data acquisition, even before the portable two channel stereo. So not an invention in my book - bringing a 3+ channel recorder on the market another matter. But only just. Sorry for being a twat, just wanted to point out a lack of invention. Jez and just to be a bigger twat, the stereo Nagras are all essentially three channel machines, just not designed to be readily so for production recording, yet it was always a possibility.

Daniel, from a quick look at the latest posts I would say look again to the posts of Dan and Mike. You are doing a low budget shoot which should be an OPPORTUNITY to communicate and work with Wardrobe (especially), Make-Up, Camera Dept and Production Design for ALL parties to learn from each other and get a better result from minimal resources. I posted a (good) low budget shoot fairly recently which my friend (the composer, director's friend) got me on to. Low budget, extended shoot, when possible, with three distinct sound recordists available when they were. Each recordist had a different style or workflow, so the tracks were different, but that was OK- they all did a pretty good job (often a vg job) to cope with their circumstances. What was a MAJOR issue for sound was that one of the two principles had an 'unmikable' noisy dress which (in a low budget scenario) SHOULD have been addressed BY SOUND beforehand. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a DPA 4060/1, COS 11 or whatever: the fault was in the preproduction - make the most use of preproduction in your 'low budget' status. Everybody learns. Talk to the director, get the phone numbers of the folks doing costume, makeup, figuring locations or doing sets - and make friends all around. In post we know how hard it is to shoot. It's hard in post too. It's only upsetting when we recognise when some major issue might have been avoided, such as "I won't be seeing outfits before Day 1" ... why the hell not? Have you seen a script? Sorry for being an ass ... Best, Jez

James, Mike, Veit: Common practice in post to take a boom (master), pull the lav into precise sync and phase, then mix according to available elements. Thus getting a general balance across scenes which have both the 'omph' of the close lav and the 'ahh' of the natural boom. Outside of narrative (ie daytime tv style) I'm well aware of blending to get a similar result (especially where lavs = the bulk of the sound) but this is something which is fairly easy to achieve (and importantly not FU the tracks permanently) in post with the boom mic ON AXIS. I wouldn't be surprised if folk (especially folk used to mixing fast turnaround tv) are blending, but I would say it's a trick made obsolete by today's narrative ISO delivery for a careful post balance. Jez

English, 1980s ... they just might be Hebdon Sound? Cardioid and possibly hyper - not shotguns. Jez

Thanks sarcanon for the post .... I'm damn well going to enjoy the rest of that interview ... I'm just deciding on what to loosen my mind with before diving in! Calrec are (were) a pretty well known and respected mic - before my time but it's quite possible they were used in radio and/or broadcast - but certainly in music. Some crazy powering AFAIR but then so was everything pre 1970. And of course some of their people developed and manufactured the Soundfield soon afterwards. Coles, as well as the lip mic, made the famous ribbon 4038 (perhaps still used on Desert Island Discs? I heard rumours) Whilst I like to imagine a calrec cardioid and a Coles ribbon on the end of the poles I imagine those secret British mics to be 815s, KMR 81/2 or possibly the (Scottish?) Sony C76/74 ... And I just hate it when you run out of sound ... last page of the script, run out of words, next thing the actors have run out of speech, all that warmth, all that room tone - gone! But then the spools start whizzing round really fast and I've forgotten I've run out of sound and I'm happy all over again! Jez

Dr Green, I'm also a sound editor with two 8040s and an MKH40. Had I been a production mixer I would have the MKH50 at the top of my list (with probably a 416 second) : I own neither but like yourself have 'very near' options and experience with others. It's very hard to tell without knowing what beyond an 8040 you might have need for. A short shotgun or a tighter hyper? As it goes I would probably audition (if you don't already know them) the 50, the 60 and the DPA 4017, the latter being quite tempting for myself as someone with a similar arsenal to yourself. Best, Jez

Sorry John, I cannot help on the battery front ... BUT I did want to mention you made my night! I love measurement in all its guises, and that's the best for a while! Best, Jez (Uming and ahring between Saint Jack and Edge of Darkness before bedtime ...)

Re SHOULDERS, or in other words the linearity of the frequency response beyond the front axis? I seem to remember that both Schoeps and DPA as companies seem to be the most vocal of all 'our' contenders at proclaiming this for their cardioid and later hypercardioid capsules (why indeed it took a while for DPA to release it's hyper and why it took decades for Schoeps to develop an interference tube). Sorry Jim if I'm wrong, or indeed for any further hijack!? (Especially since I have used neither on the end of a boom to capture dialogue!)

Right, I held off firstly because I had no idea of the job, the size or type of audience or reason or whatever. Secondly, I had no idea whether the 3 mic plan Alex had was intended as LCR or to combine to LR. And I still don't. Thirdly, because Nick pretty much summed up everything I had to say so well. Now, I have unexpected time on my hands as after a day of flooding, plummer out, unexpectedly attending an RTS (Royal TV Society) meeting, a few beers ... And now the TV doesn't work so I'm pressing ON OFF every few such and so's and happily typing this between clicks. So here's my take, based on Bruel & Kjaer / DPA experience: Three omni, spaced minimum 'Decca' but let's go as wide as you can - so several metres apart. If LCR then random incident nose cones. If a LR sum from 3 mics then either the above or free-field panned LR (for the specifics Nick was warning against) with a random incident centre to smooth the specific detail. Hung high enough to get the auditorium ambience and minimise the irritating individuals. Nick's comments are very much worth studying. Simon's suggestions too, obviously based on experience. And at the end of the day, because it's for ART, Ramallo might be right ... a simple solution which always impresses ... Ambisonics ... phase as far as you can throw ... ? Damn telly still not working - occasional sound but no picture as yet! Could be an early night. Going to see Mel Brooks' 'Young Frankenstein' tomorrow, last night pre West End run. Looking forward to an afternoon in the theatre! Jez

Hey James, good luck! And don't worry, you're right to go with what you're ready and happy to do. DO keep the isos there for post to use ( preferably at a decent level rather than a super-safe level but a little lower is fine), be consistent, clear and keep hold of your poly tracks after delivery. Focus on the words, clarity, story and performance - try not to overthink technicalities. Filming in London or elsewhere? Best, Jez

Hi Mark, answering your question (which for other's reference was aimed at my M1 M2 suggestion, not at other points raised), I would probably treat a hard wired dialogue plant as a third boom in this case and stick it on the M1 boom mix. But ... ha ha ... if plants were a mixture of wired and wireless I might find it preferable to lump them together on M2 instead whenever they were used. So, a good question! What would be important would be to be consistent, not jump between the two, and be clear about what has what. Another perfectly acceptable request from an editor (or editing director) would be to have two mix tracks with say, 'on' characters and (as far as is practical) 'off characters' for instance (or at least 'main stuff' and 'guide/other stuff). It's up to the project and people's working methods - keeping the main creative force happy is important. This of course could be near impossible for a sound mixer in many circumstances and it's up to him to point out why if so. In fact, supplying (or routing) more than a mono mix might be problematic or just impossible. But for editing programs it's now much easier than it used to be for handling and editing stereo tracks with the picture - in fact this is almost always what I find is done with low-budget/less experienced folks editing on their fcp etc (and you can always show the editor or director how to pan the replay to the middle if they are annoyed by daft ping pong stereo). But I have to point out (hopefully without confusing James, the OP) I am a fan of simplicity and thus of a mono mix. Both as an editor (though I am pretty forgiving and ready to work with whatever in this role) and indeed in sound post. What I absolutely would not like to happen would be a mix to appear which (inevitably) favoured the hot lavs in volume/waveform, then a sound media / metadata breakdown in editorial, leaving a sound post situation where a mix guide track which favours the phase and timing of the lav rather than the boom (or indeed jumps between the two) is the only guide to a long arduous tracklay from scratch. In a big budget situation there would not be any hypothetical 'media/meta breakdown in editorial' and we could easily build a full tracklay as usual from the polyfile isos (in perfect sync to the polyfile mix track), then proceed to build our own 'boom track master' for the rest. In a low budget situation however, having a mix which didn't blend or jump between the boom(s) / lavs, could end up stopping one's most-embarrassing off the cuff mix for that scene with every mic competing phase and all the clothes rustling at once from ending up in the final film ... It IS down to all the parties to agree though. The best way to avoid blame is for everything to be right for everybody. J

Pleasure, James! If I were doing post, and asked, I would say, "we will get the best possible sound at the end of the day from decent isos", so firstly, whilst you might be 'proud' of your mix track ending up in the final film, this might well not because you did better on set than it was possible to do (with all the iso elements in place, to a finished edited sequence, with proper monitoring, with better tools and with music, atmos, effects ready) in the final mix - carefully balancing all the sounds to the dynamic of the story and the emotional performances of the scene. It would be more likely because for some reason the isos were unusable (distorted, ridiculously underrecorded or just unrecorded) or impossible to find and track lay in time. Times have changed, go with the flow and what's best for the final product. If the boom is nicely recorded, the lavs intelligible, clothing silent and tracks neatly delivered, post will be singing your praises to the producer. For all this, I would avoid blending altogether. We don't (on feature drama) dig into isos anymore, we construct the entire tracklay from them, starting with a boom track, combining second boom or plants (watching for phase discrepancies) and aligning all the lavs IN SYNC AND IN PHASE to this. Then we can edit, and then we can mix - making decisions all the way. And we can work to avoid the phase problems (and very many other problems or issues) you cannot. However, if your editor or director must have a blended mix (they can only work with mono, or need it HOT) we at post can deal with it. But we'd prefer it sorted out how to do it beforehand. If the tracks are in good order, and metadata is handled well in (picture) editorial, we can probably grab and sort the boom and radio etc isos from the polyfile. (Right click, select, as easy as that). But if there is no understanding or experience of the production-editorial-post track workflow and problems occur (eg in a low budget scenario) then a well thought out system could save days, weeks, or an entire soundtrack. There are many ways to work, I know. I've given a preferred workflow (good isos, boom mix and lav mix) which would hopefully simplify post and avoid mishap - but it has to work for editorial, their needs and their abilities, as well. Best, Jez

I like the simplicity of a front covering that simply pulls off. I wonder if 4 small magnets, on or near the corners, might do a similar trick? Assuming the frame is aluminium and there's nothing too magnetic in the immediate vicinity, one could have four 'fix' magnets on the front and similar either below or somehow to the side slightly extruded (etc) to pop the cover when in use. Jez

John, cheers, good to know about SoundPro. New to me, must attend one some time. Adie, whilst Plasa is geared more toward live sound and lighting it's a pleasant thing to attend and there could be some interesting talks - Gareth Fry this year talking about the sound for his NT show about the photographer in the Amazon for instance. I would normally try to attend but doubt I'll make it this time around. Sadly we don't ever have anything with the sheer scope of NAB in the UK ... and not sure when the next AES will make it here. But they can all be fun to attend, and very often interesting outside the immediate sound aspect. Free beer from rycote for example! Jez

Hi James, first off, welcome to JWS and good luck with shooting when you start - it sounds like you are making good use of the low budget situation by putting together a strong sound team with preparation and support, which will be a bonus to all and to the film when it comes to shooting. I'll keep things very brief here but try to give my first thoughts as a dialogue editor (and past dubbing mixer) - I've done super low budget things with friends and a good mixture of decent to high budget. Firstly (as a dubbing mixer) I prefer the sound of a boom and I'll second Christian's note to use a second boom whenever a scene would benefit - from tricky moves down to just having one for an off-character to allow optimum placement and avoid unnecessary moves. That said, simplicity is always key, so take it out when it's not of use and allow the simple single mic to get clean lines. It is of course extremely important that the sticks are loved by the director and the fellow crew members, so work towards 'boom awareness or a boom plan' (... I truly hope I haven't accidentally coined yet another meaningless term there ...) in planning with production and with crew. In particular, you say you have a great boom op and a (presumably less experienced) Utility ... so talk it over with the boom op and see what they think - if necessary perhaps have Boom give Utility advance lessons or give Boom the shout to ask for second Boom ... things like that. Lavs can of course be useful, so try to make them useful all the time (by making sure well in advance they work with costume especially) and recognise when they are essential and make sure they are doing the job. Since you're in the UK it might be worth getting hold of at least one of the little tascam DR10 recorders for any especially problematic situation (ie no boom and bad range). My personal preference would probably be to mix booms on M1, mix lavs on M2 and have consistent ISO tracks (say B1 B2 L1 L2 L3 Xtra ... ) ... discuss this with director, whoever is editing and if someone comes on board for sound obviously with them. You're welcome to give me a call if you want to talk in more detail. I think that these days a two-channel mix of 'booms/lavs' is both easy and convenient for editorial to cut with and have a good idea what the isos will be, but people have different ideas. I wouldn't 'blend' boom into lav or vice versa, but keep the mic types separate - you're not doing a fast delivery show where this can be an advantage, and it should be easy enough for Edit to work with non- blended mix tracks: the benefit down the line is that the boom isos can be confidently and easily laid to a boom mix, lav isos can be pulled into sync/ phase with the boom and the dubbing mixer can make far better decisions on the mixing of elements both generally and specifically for trouble spots. That's my own 'post opinion', and the overall watchwords are consistency and simplicity. With the latter in mind, stay well away from an 'ambient' mic - if you feel a scene or setup might actually need or benefit from an ambient perspective by all means set a plant (label its intention) and roll, but I would expect in a dialogue situation it will be just a 'seemed a good idea' thing ( I have come across / edited similar .... ). But do not mix it into anything else - problems problems problems .... ATMOS tracks, totally different: go for it - nice to have even if not used, especially for interesting and unusual sounds - just never at the expense of getting the dialogue. FX likewise. Room tone again - good set practice particularly on a low budget shoot to get director ( thus crew) and actors to allow a few seconds ambience at take start (before 'action') for those little handles ... A low budget luxury. And wild lines, asap after you know they're needed - for the performance sake - if possible on set (... if wild lines are filmed as wild lines then the camera crew are working with the team and no-one's waiting on sound ...) or if not then asap in a 'no extra noise from crew' situation. That's my new pound coin of tuppence worth! Best of luck, Jez Adamson

Isn't Plaza on in a week or so? just looked: 17-19 sept, London plasashow.com

A tantalising glimpse, Mike! Now at some point I'll look to see if Nasa has uploaded all that Mercury stuff as pdfs. Cheers Mono!

Whilst you're at it, Vin, try and find a copy of Graham Lock's book on Anthony Braxton, Forces in Motion. Another crazy good read. J

Music recording. You have to be sure what the Nagramaster is doing to the high frequencies. Personally I was never sure how the Nagramaster setting related to my CCIR machine ... certainly it's a setting on its own so no matter, but am I right in thinking it's based on NAB standards transposed?

I can only say I can't wait - I've been recently reading the 1986 National Geographic reports on MIR and others, and they took me back to the NG74 reports on Skylab. The Soviet tech was obviously secret often beyond needs (tho' they admitted the pencil) but it is hopefully nowadays ok for all to reveal what is not 'importantly' secret. In the UK we had a splendid documentary a year or two ago, Knocking On Heaven's Door, about the preamble to the Soviet space programme from it's origins in Cosmism. As a general fan of industrial archeology I always hope for new info from folks who may have well signed the equivalent of our 'Official Secrets Act' which is now far from secret, important, or whatever - but who would nevertheless still hold off from saying they were using such and such helicopter or submarine comms in the (eg) USSR space programme. Why the US decided to, or ended up, providing such minor info I'm not sure. Both the US and USSR programmes had their requirement to reach out and publicise details to the public. The USSR perhaps even went further in some ways than the US to reach out as such. Both had secrets, both were forced to be 'unsecret'. Maybe even it's just a question of asking?

With a great boom op, the capsule will be further away from the talent - or with a hyper perhaps angled brilliantly away from the worst reflection. But there are also occasions out of doors where a hyper might do a better job than a short shotgun. Sure, it's physics, but it's also plain mic technique.

Brilliant! I also hope someone can (and hopefully does). I would presume dynamic, consider crystal ... but I can only here offer my enthusiasm, not experience ... I know only what I like, and as Chuck Barris once said, " I like botchalism " Jez