Jump to content

The Immoral Mr Teas

Members
  • Posts

    752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by The Immoral Mr Teas

  1. Well, with the title, "2 sides 1 mid ..." I completely got the wrong end of the stick ... I thought you were talking about the (multi) M/S method (which is the basis of ambisonic M/S) ... but you weren't! From what you ask, I would concur to focus on mono for the most part to hone your craft recording "mostly close proximity, focused sounds that I can process in post and experiment." So your single 8040 will do you nicely for what you currently 'mostly' want to do. For the future ... under controlled close recording conditions you shouldn't get any real difference using a cardioid or hypercardioid (nor, beyond intentional proximity effect, from the two outer extremes of omni and on-axis figure 8...) - such mic choice is far more necessary when dealing with 'less controlled' recording conditions .... more distant FX out in the field, more unwanted ambient spill, or indeed capturing dialogue on a shitty drama set. Personally my next purchase would be a second 8040 - so you can start recording 2 channel 'spread soundstage' FX, music, ambiences etc with a nice cardioid pair. The most useful reading to understand relationships of 2 channel recording (coincident to spaced, including properly explaining the 'regulars' like ORTF, and across the spread of microphone pattern) is Michael Williams' The Stereophonic Zoom, available from Rycote 'support' https://rycote-support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/6758019347485-The-Stereophonic-Zoom-Archived (If you can't get the link to work, follow rycote support through its archived documentation until you find the pdf download). Williams also wrote another very useful article expanding this to multichannel setups, although confined to cardioid mic pattern, although this doesn't seem to be available from rycote. If I find a current link I'll post it. It basically 'groups' the 360 degree recording area into interconnected sets of stereo pairs (so, 5 x 72 degree pairs; or 4 x 90 degree pairs etc) ... which would be a fine introduction/explanation of much of your original question of using a 3 channel LCR recording rig (which I've done a fair amount of, often specific to picture/scene) ... the maths works perfectly well for multichannel recording areas (or 'angles') of less than 360 degrees. Jez Adamson
  2. Again Roland, thank you, a very useful write up. Jez
  3. I can't speak for Vasi but I took his 3 mic setup to be probably a fixed stationary one where usually the 2 channel (ortf) of the 8040s was recorded/used/chosen and occasionally the mono forward facing channel 8050 if there was something interesting in front. Rather than a 3-channel ambience. But my interpretation is no doubt mistaken!! Thank you Ron And thank you again from post!! Jez
  4. Ron, I think you may have detailed your tripod in the past but could you tell us again here what it is? cheers! So, Vasi, have you a single cable 7 pin running or a 3+5 or 3+3+3? Presently in Corfu by the way and might well fly back via Athens in a couple of weeks. Must try to meet up if that's the case!! Being a post sound person I like to have a clear idea when MS is being used and how: whether separate M and S tracks (generally preferable) or matrixed. If the former, and I understand one's workflow (of 'sometimes' MS), I would be perfectly happy to receive tracks where the M track was always present and the S track was often mute or blank: that's easy to understand and work with. Jez Adamson
  5. Interesting, thanks Eve. I'll look out. In 2008 I spent several months in Himalayas and Qinghai Tibetan Plateau recording silent areas - a year or so later I met a bloke from Australia who recorded silences too and we traded. Ha thanks Phil, I realise I stood corrected back in 2017 and 5 years later had forgotten and reverted to my original bad memory (on the Nagra Stories thread). Jez
  6. Wonderful condition DT48s there too. A very lucky find. Jez
  7. Not a joke: you might find a pair of very old t powered MKH805s or even 815s which are more directional than the 416 for that money or even less; but beware, when they stop working they cannot be serviced by sennheiser any more. (And Daniel, my dear friend, no t-jokes from you either please!!) Jez
  8. Likewise working fine on windows 10 - B or whatever i am on. I know it's not 11. In fact, remembering the original post a couple of years ago I had already had another look. Jez
  9. The only tractors I lust after these days are the Lambourginis. Miserable in every other respect too Jeff! Long live JWS as it is and unfortunate RAMPS fell to google. For me (and I am post not production but nevertheless) it was a Rycote I craved as a teenager and even later as a dubbing mixer as I had no real professional need for the expense. Now I have several - and 3 beautiful Nagras: two of which, he IV-S and IV-SJ are still ready to serve particular effects recording duties. Jez
  10. I KNEW they must be useful for something! Jez
  11. Yeah, I got most of the way through his SN 'spy collection' too, but realise why I (can) spend very little of my time watching internet stuff. But it looks like there's probably a lot of interesting objects and equipment shown and talked about up there. If you're watching us watching you, Adam, that's a very nice looking 1973 IV-S you have, and if you cleaned and polished it to make it so you did a fabulous job. '73 is pretty early (I think the first were '71?) And I believe from memory that the Nagra smuggled in to record on Diva was the smaller mono Nagra E ? C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres tres precis! Jez
  12. Both I guess, Jason. At best, I would go out and record specific to the picture (try to find a location and set mics up to match what's up on the screen), particularly with 3+ channels. It's good when you 'clinch' it. Although a good recording usually has a life well beyond its original. Most recording however has focused on getting the necessary - stuff where library / 2nd unit recordings aren't good enough or simply don't exist - and a lot of this can be mono, let alone less than multichannel. Though I have recorded specifically multichannel FX, foley and ambience on occasion. And, like you said, I've gone back (and colleagues have) and 'created' 4.0 / 5.0 beds out of 2.0 recordings. The best and most satisfying way to source is to go out and record tho' - although it can be an expensive prospect (for production or oneself). Jez Adamson
  13. I just have to like (or likeTM?) what Doug has said 'cos it's so simple yet still can happen (...after 1931...) I'm not a PSM but a post soundie but I'm happy to report when 'guiding' actors for on set ADR they have been very responsive to exactly the same guidance - might have well been the lack of stress when the camera isn't rolling (often very much not the case when camera stops either I'm well aware) - or I might just have been luckily blessed with talented talent ha, Doug, I just noticed you wrote, "Now principals..." J
  14. No? It's completely additive (or reductive...) - assuming a 'slope' run off (12dB/octave @80Hz; or 6dB @100Hz, or 18dB @40Hz ...) the freq reduction at the output of the mic will be just that: any further filtering will give another (eg 6dB @100Hz) reduction to whatever signal arrives. If the 'microphone stage' filter was a brick wall (ie severe) filter then further filtering (of such frequencies) would be redundant, but then I don't know of any mic stage brick wall filters ... 18dB/octave seems about the maximum (which fair enough is a lot) for the 'add ons' (cut 1) and many on-mic filters. (Of course virtually all non-instrumentation mics are designed to completely eliminate the very low freqs, below say 3 to 10Hz). All that said however, if insufficient filtering from the mic means that the mic amp is being battered any further filtering at the 'too late' stage isn't going to help a fig. Jez
  15. Check if they're actually planning a silent film? Maybe they just want you to record a scratch track to help the editor before they prepare the title cards. Or rescind your services?
  16. Timecode doesn't keep anything phase-aligned, no matter what other factors are in play. (It makes 'synching up' two or more items that are ALREADY IN SYNC considerably easier as well as providing other potential editorial / workflow benefits). If you were referring to Sebi's post, that's not what he was saying. If you're sure to stick to 23 tracks or less, a recorder that can handle 24 tracks would be the kindest option for post. This could be one of the newer 'big boys' (assuming they go that far yet?), or a JoeCo (if you can source one of those in BC???) or a reliable computer system. Three rental 788t with all the proper control/sync cabling might still be a do-able option (for rental where you are...) and should work perfectly well. Note that Sebi's "no big deal" was for manually phase aligning "an additional MixPre-6" worth of tracks (non-synched to the 788t tracks but as a batch perfectly in synch to each other) to aforementioned 788t 'master tracks' ... FOR ONE SCENE. No big deal as he said. I would check with whomever is going to collate, 'synch up' and potentially phase align your 23 tracks of multiple short takes how much of a deal it will be if they are provided as a large TC jammed polyfile / linked WC synched (and TC stamped) polyfiles or a host of TC stamped files with what might best be described as 'variable and non-predictable sync' ... All I really mean to say here is that 'sync' may not be your biggest problem after the job, but the editorial's workflow and time spent sorting out (essentially unnecessary) chaos. Just to reiterate, timecode does not provide a means of synchronisation: it provides a workflow that can exploit synchronisation for edit (provided it has been properly synchronised itself first). Of course, your post people might only be used to non-synched systems and files, and be both used to and happy to sort and stick it all together with something like 'Auto Align' ... but make sure it comes from them, don't presume anything! Best, Jez
  17. Also probably too expensive / too good, but maybe a little less so (of the former), the Sennheiser MKH 80XX series have an in-line swivel adapter. I'm afraid I don't know of any others and Oktava might be your best bet ... I'd look also for MBHO and SE Electronics though as they have done several SDCs so who knows? Jez
  18. Hi Mat, This is absolutely where to start and the best thing you could have done. ... but this shows the point I was trying to make wasn't understood properly. Maybe Documentary Sound Guy explained it better in his post above (certainly he elaborates on what I meant and I agree with it all). Basically, whilst it was a perfectly decent thought (and question) about polar patterns and lobes etc granting you better sound against the 'problem sounds' of the camera in practice it is already an irrelevance - because the sound you don't want is (in this case far) closer to the microphone capsule than the sound you do want. What you do want to think about when choosing your camera mic is what kind of sound you want or need from this source: will you require the general focus to suit the image that a standard short shotgun or hyper might provide or did you want a wider ambient catch or a cardioid (like Patrick's M-S rig)? Unlike Patrick and DSG above I'm not qualified to talk about RED (or many other) cameras as I am not at all familiar with them: doing what you could with the fan noise was as I said the right thing to do. I'm sure there have been more specific discussions here on JWS about camera fans: have a search through old posts, particularly in the 'Cameras' section. Is it possible to turn off a fan during takes then turn it back on immediately afterwards ?? (I presume not but you've already gone in and replaced the hardware in your unit so thought it worth asking the question ... I'm obviously aware of why the fan's there in the first place and the dangers in halting or restricting its use!) The two 'obvious' starting points for avoiding capturing handling noise are, i. some kind of suspension or dampening (anything from the rubber gasket on sony camcorders through lyres and perhaps beyond) : have a look through Patrick's previous posts on his rig (often found under discussions of Sonosax) as he has been brave enough to mount a schoeps M-S combo on his camera!! ii. judicious EQ ... Again, I don't know your camera but I would try to get the sound on the image track (on videotape in old-speak!) rather than a (non-synchronised) double system. That way it's there, and in sync. When recording 'proper' double system (with a recordist - onto their recorder) make sure it's synched and timecoded (by whatever ordinary modern method you choose). Oh and I have no issues with putting mics on cameras - posh or cheap! And I was being diplomatic with my 90/10 ratio ... since you've had none of the unfavourable cries I anticipated I'm happy to let that drop to, say, 75/25 ?? Best, Jez
  19. Let's see if I'm first to 'help' here Mat! Just to warn you you're probably going to get a whole host of responses along the lines of, "hire a soundman" and "hire someone who knows how sound works" (the latter especially to help you choose which of the high priced and excellent quality mics listed might get the nicest sounding unusable camera sound). The unhappy answer to your question is that it doesn't matter - every one of the mics listed, whilst guaranteed to provide a quality recording, cannot differentiate between the nice ambient sound you seek and the camera fan and hand noises you hope to reject: no matter what their pick up pattern may be. Quite simply the microphone which selectively hears does not exist (and never will). You do mention that this will not be the only way you'll catch sound (by which I take it you were preempting the "hire a soundman" advice) and you also pick out microphones which would require a decent budget to buy (although the mention of a DR40 rather than something like a high quality preamp or interface is worrying). But if you are indeed ONLY looking for the 10% solution of getting useable sound (when for 90% of the time you will be getting excellent sound from your dedicated sound recordist who will be concerting their efforts on actually getting the desired sound rather than avoiding the noise of crew/equipment) it is necessary first to accept that you are not going to overcome the problem you describe simply by choosing to buy any one of the great mics listed over any of the others. In your 10% case, ask advice (principally from your regular sound recordist/s but also here) on cutting down (or managing) fan noise, finding a solution to handling noise for a camera mounted mic, and which mic might they recommend for the final sound capturing purposes despite these concerns. Hope this helps more than it might at first sound ... Jez
  20. You've said it already, Fred, but - microphones and the Nagra. I had my Nagra IV-S stored at my friend's dad's place when I went from Hong Kong to China and ended up working in London. When I finally got back to pick it up a year or two later I was staying with another friend and left it on his sideboard: while I was out the washing machine repair man came round and apparently was infatuated with it. Similarly, taking the ferry into Guangzhou a week later the customs were also enamoured of it and I had trouble pointing out the serial number and trying to explain it was from 1979 and no longer my professional gear. When I finally got it back to Heathrow my mate came to greet me at the airport and asked if he could help with any any luggage: specifically the Nagra in its tasty leather case! Jez
  21. Not a comment on the utube vid posted by Mono above, but the same Zoe Laughlin did a BBC programme a couple of years back on 'How to build ... Headphones' (one of a short series of different objects, her being a product designer. Most sadly it turned out to be 'how to build a pair of headphones with no attempt to make them sound good.' The actual drivers (obviously what I was looking to see engineered, built and tailored) came off the shelf ... yep, how to build your own pair of beetroots! Jez
  22. Following on from (without quoting) Ian's question and Constantin's most useful reply: Thanks Constantin, I've just downloaded the Schoeps plug in which looks a simple to use tailored EQ for parabolic recordings in general - I think it would probably be used more as a 'how does it sound if I slide the slider this way?' as 'how far away? was it a diffuse field?' (and maybe even 'was it recorded with a cardioid or omni?' if listening to unknown recordings...). But as I said it looks a useful levelling out EQ tool to have for these kinds of sounds/recordings. I have a Telinga dish (and Rycote hi wind cover) without any of the extra Telinga microphones or accessories - and constructed my own (somewhat Heath Robinson) handle / suspension unit to use it with a choice of my existing cardioid or omni microphones. Although I wouldn't recommend the bother of going down the DIY path if you have a suitable job that's going to pay for the system. That Schoeps system certainly looks nice (and I think for your purpose it would be a serious consideration Ian). The internal dish Rycote blimp/mic holding sponge looks a change from the older/original Telinga 'dish/handle only' package (and may indeed facilitate the ability to choose between omni, cardioid and sub-cardioid capsules? - the original design may have been restricted to forward facing omni mics?). Certainly it looks a very simple 'field ready' package now, especially compared to sports models (though they're designed to be 'stands ready' rather than 'field ready' anyway) ... the ability of the Telinga to wrap into a carriable package is certainly useful even if I have generally been rather nervous of doing so too often. I would say you'd need the (optional) Rycote high wind cover - although this completely counters the ability to sight through a transparent dish! Similar fabric or sponge on the back of the dish might be welcome too in windy enough conditions to warrant the hi-wind cover. (A future project for me is to make a felt cover for the back of the dish with a central upper sighting window then experiment with more transparent nylon for the front in place of the opaque Rycote ... but I'll have to completely redesign my internal suspension and handle system too so I'm in no hurry)! What I would say to anyone looking to start doing parabolic recordings is to try to read up on both the physics and field practicalities beforehand. The best introduction I ever found (which interested me enough to get myself a dish to experiment) was in a 1977 book, Wildlife Sound Recording by John B Fisher, published in GB by Pelham Books Ltd ISBN 0 7207 1017 0. Its (single) chapter on 'Reflectors' quotes and owes much to an earlier magazine article (or 2?), Microphone Reflectors by G N Patchett, in June 1973 Wireless World, and Journal of Wildlife Sound Recording Society Vol 1 No 6. You might be lucky enough to find a copy of the book or be able to track down one or both articles but there's doubtless similar more recent stuff available on nature/wildlife recording platforms. Fisher's chapter discusses basic principles then outlines the effects of different parabola dimensions, focal depths and use of cardioid or omni capsules on the response curve (including any dip, shelf or peak away from the obvious response). It is of course looking out for any real world use reports from said nature platforms. There's probably some reading material in the Schoeps site, though I haven't looked hard. You'll want to do a bit of reading before deciding on forking out on any expensive new capsule regardless! My final 'advice' however is to also take a fully blimped shotgun too, whether long like an MKH 8070 or 70 or 816 or something shorter, and not have to rely on the new toy when conditions in the field suddenly go askew. Good luck! Jez
  23. Hi Timeforest, 5k is a decent budget for a stereo rig that many even here might wish for. Personally I bought my 8040 pair as soon as they came out and I have no issues with them (my fig 8 Schoeps being more susceptible to handling). In fact, after a DPA 4060 pair, they are what I use most for stereo FX and ambience recording. Once in a decent mount there is no problem with the low end / handling. The MKH series in general are pretty much 'bulletproof' in the field against bad conditions, especially humidity. The only thing I might throw into the arena apart from commending your choice is considering omni mics against cardioid for "an acoustic ecology project" but if I was going to purchase a 'general purpose' high quality pair of mics I would (and did) opt for the cardioids. Jez Adamson
  24. Just PM'd you James! All the best, Jez
×
×
  • Create New...