Jump to content

The Immoral Mr Teas

Members
  • Content Count

    713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by The Immoral Mr Teas

  1. I agree this is a really great thread with some good information (not to mention pics too)! To some extent I don't think it is the broadcast rerecording mixer who is to blame for the excessive dynamic range (although sometimes it most definitely is). It is usually the 'direct employer' of said mixer (who indeed may employ said mixer because they have a mutual understanding what dynamic range ought to be on a TV show)!? Have loudness standards really improved the intelligibility of dialogue ... ? Next, Izen Ears, "Those were the days" ... they're still with us in part: for every unconcerned team there's a concerned team; for every lousy location there's an ideal location; for every star who alternates SHOUTS and (whispers) there is an old stalwart who provides the same performance take after take... Hell, if it wasn't fun why the hell do it? Interesting thread from the same question we periodically ask ourselves! The stage pictures and RCA ribbons are a delight for me, thank you! Jez
  2. Hi Dan, to answer your question to me first, as dialogue editor I would be looking for mono fill for the dialogue track(s) - being the 'fill' track which may have been recorded by the PSM specifically to help me with the edit. Of course there is nothing to stop me just using one leg of a stereo track if room tone has been recorded in stereo. If I'm handling the ATMOS tracks (which I might well do as a dialogue or effects editor on a job with a few editors) as well as the fill I would most usually put a couple of tracks of stereo room tone, although if I had a good track which fit the scene of a 4.0 or 5.0 I might use that (those). Although this really does depend on the film how we decide to prepare the tracks. Note that I am talking here about "bland" room tone, NOT a detailed ambient recording. Two stereo tracks is often sufficient to be blended and panned multichannel and fill out the mix (remember that the dialogue tracks and more characterful Atmos tracks are also present). In fact an added difficulty of recording a 'plain air' track in 4 or 5 channels rather than 2 is that attention-grabbing little sounds or areas become far more noticeable. Of course this 'difficulty' becomes an asset when recording an ambience (like a country or city scape) where you want to breath life into the sound and to some extent draw the audience attention toward it. I have recorded room tones (as opposed to atmos) in multichannel but it is only when conditions are very good (location acoustic) that you will get tracks suitable for this purpose. Again, if the conditions, and thus sound, was more characteristic, bingo, you are recording not a room tone but an interior and there is nothing to stop an editor using two legs of a blandish multichannel interior to reduce the stereo perception. You probably weren't asking me for a differentiation between room tone and atmos but you did use the term so got my answer thus. Back to the issue of ambisonics. I avoid it in film generally (search elsewhere why). For recording multichannel ambiences I actually favour a 4.0 approach but often go 5.0 (or am asked to) amusingly for its 'resale' value perception (people [think they] know what 5.1 is and it is surely superior to four point ... whatever it is you just did)! I often go for spaced omnis for all types of film effects but would push people to consider IRT recording. So a brief look back to your original post (which I'm afraid I can't be much help with either). For 1 and 2, I would say the first mics to buy for film making are a hyper and a shotgun. Perhaps you already have these, perhaps you have no intention to record dialogue but ONLY find jobs where you record effects and atmospheres. I'm not sure what your position is so couldn't think to give advice. For recording effects and field recording in general I would suggest a pair of cardioids or a pair of omnis, or both pairs. For multichannel that's 4 of either or of both. For 3, I have no experience so wouldn't have commented, but I notice that many are using ambisonics so that's very probably the route to go down. Again (2 again) if you want to sell ambisonic recordings then get an ambisonic mic: I am not in the marketplace for such recordings however. Personally I had several other mics before I bought my Soundfield or put together my first MS rigs. I use neither generally for film fx recording generally though but they both have other uses. My principal mics for fx are cardioids and omnis although others get a lot of use. My inkling, especially if '3' is really a plan, is to buy, hire or indeed build(?) an ambisonic mic and start experimenting with it. I must say I hadn't realised but am much impressed by your proposed intention to build an ambisonic mic, and a second order one at that! Me, I'm scared to solder a hirose .... Best, Jez Addendum for Werner - are you talking about post for broadcast or for feature film? It is the latter I do not like ambisonics (nor indeed MS) for. I also worked (over the decades) in TV, radio, music where I consider such phase related techniques an asset rather than an issue to manage.
  3. Hi Dan, I wasn't planning on commenting on your original post simply because I have no experience (nor knowledge of for many) the mics you mention, nor really the understanding of what you really plan to do with ambisonic mic technique - but As a dialogue editor, if confronted with room tone recorded on an ambisonic mic, I would: 1. swear 2. listen to decide if it was any good ... 3. if, as expected, it was no good, swear again, then laugh, then find something in my library 4. if it actually seemed useful, say "oh ok" (possibly swear again whilst laughing) and either choose (if possible) or randomly select a single channel of the 4 (to NINE?!?) available and delete the rest. Although I would expect '3' to be the final stage and if pressed for time just '1'. Different recording techniques for different purposes. Different media even. Buy the mic that suits what you REALLY want to do ... 1 x hyper, or 2 x cardioid, or 1 x ambisonic ... none of these options (for instance) can be a desirable replacement for any of the others. Jez Adamson
  4. I think MS is an excellent technique for many, generally 2 channel, systems or purposes: the two obvious being radio (taking advantage of the inherent mono compatibility) and vinyl (it was rare for me to encounter a tracking or mixing session where MS didn't come up somewhere). I would add any (2 channel) scenario where the sound in front is 'documentary' essential and the sound around it is 'a beautification' which could be the case for radio documentary, podcast ditto and Alan Lomax/David Lewiston/Harry Smith style folk song collection. It does of course also work in multichannel formats (re ambisonics) but I have personally found that the side signal just becomes a complication in the 5.1 etc formats of film - both in itself within the LCR soundscape and in the encoding to eg Dolby Digital. I'm afraid I cannot comment regarding Dolby Atmos or other more recent systems, perhaps things have moved on. But in my experience 'phase tricks' never worked easily in a film theatre. (Indeed in some ways they don't with vinyl either but there has been many decades of knowing what does work in this field). I would be interested to hear if there are indeed problems associated with ambisonics in 3D VR production since this is where (after sports broadcasting) the more recent boom in the technique seems to have come from. I have a Soundfield and as mentioned several MS / MSM combo possibilities- I just don't use them for film effects. In fact for film I like the opportunity to go to the opposite extreme from coincident to spaced techniques - although I probably go for the middle ground of semi spaced (such as ORTF) most of the time. Absolutely - a perfectly perceived XY sound angle at least. I can only wonder why they never came out with the expected if not promised MKH8030 ... was it expected relative low sales (yet they gave us the 8090) or would they have needed to make it slightly fatter or longer (who would really care)? A mystery. Personally I would prefer to keep the side capsule vertically coincident hence piggy backed but it's not a bad idea at all - particularly for double MS in a blimp. [edit addendum] - actually when I think about it I would probably prefer such a module over a standard mono MKH8030 purely for the added usefulness even if you didn't intend to screw another 80 capsule in front. There would also be the possibility of screwing a second 8030 capsule in front at 90 degrees (admittedly some fine manufacturing needed here) for a sweet blumlein mic (like a midget SM69 or that nice old Schoeps model) or as part of a WXY array. Jez
  5. Well you could always try to deaden the room when shooting video, although perhaps the clients being seen to wouldn't like the visual change in ambience. Carpet on the floor out of shot, certainly below the mic stands, and some thick curtains or padding on the (out of shot) walls, particularly behind the mics if they're not intended to be seen. The entire Sennheiser MKH 8020-90 range is pretty much the most sensitive and quietest mic you can get beyond extreme specialisation so it's a case of working out a way of improving the acoustics of the room. Once that is addressed I would even consider the 8020 omni mic (up as close as possible out of frame) or the less common wide cardioid (8090 I think). The point Sennheiser are making with cardioids is to have a decent 'null' at the back of the mic (to point to a problem area often) as opposed to more directional mics (8050, 60, 70) where the back of the mic or tube characteristic of the mic picks up more unwanted reflection from the room. As I said before, if you want 'nice', rather than merely documentary, sound the thing to do is to look seriously into changing the acoustic properties of the room itself for the video shoots. Having sound edited similar scenes you might indeed consider, if duration is not long (ie promo videos) getting an editor to do 'foley' sound editing, similar to the 'super up close' sound of natural history documentaries, although I would only recommend this if you went with suitably skilled people and / or quality studios ... Although getting the acoustic deadened and recording the real thing close is the best first step anyway. Where in Poland are you anyway? Warsaw and Lodz are both central for tv/radio/film and there are theatre based studios elsewhere. I would highly recommend finding a local sound engineer to guide you. Best, Jez (I worked in Poland at TVP and elsewhere so I know what my name means to you)!
  6. Are you talking about a small single channel mic pre? Sound Devices have made two such models in the past and Fostex I think made one more recently. There's probably an older one by Shure too? If nobody chimes in have a search for these three. Best, Jez If you're thinking of something you see regularly when a boom op is working with a production mixer and the second person is feeding the camera (or recording double system) however it could be several other things you're thinking about. Zaxcom is another brand to search for the gadget you're searching for. Obvious thing is to reach out to one of the folks you've worked with you remember wearing such a thing ...
  7. I like the way the Albino Rat makes up for his presumed social disadvantage by his deep voice (yes I know ...). But thank you Jason - an excellent contribution to probably THE most important topic on JW just now .... now if I could just figure out a way to juxtapose these animals with the instruments of the orchestra I could ... make a piece of art! Jez (actually I will remember to print a copy out of this, cheers!) and (further edit) I've just realised what the 'C's are down at the bottom ... so more musical than scientific the original compiler ...?
  8. Fred, thank you, that was a great write up. I was also briefly stagier in 1994 to Laurent Quaglio who did films with Ruh (and didn't mess his sound up in post)! I am particularly fond (for Ruh) of Saint Jack (Bogdanovich - Corman - Hefner!!) which is one of the most incredible rostra of actors/ production / tech I can think of and doesn't disappoint. Sadly I never met Ruh but it was a name even in international (meaning non-French here) films when you generally knew you would be in for a good soundtrack. Cheers, Jez
  9. "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"? - "Yes, you're ugly" - "See that woman over there, I'd really like [...]" - "Should I continue or are you going to start asking me some questions"? (Remembered from a Steven Wright gig sometime in the last century ...)
  10. And just to add my useless tuppence per bag I've seen Dan 'snood-up' regularly way before the current situation to kid himself he's protecting himself from London's fumes! As it is, if there are two things I hope to see at the end of all of this it is i. All the twats who started cycling about with no regard for anyone (indeed, "like there was no tomorrow"!...) put their Mountains and their Cromptons and their Framptons back in their garages and forget they were ever there ii. We all go off-li
  11. You have inspired me to start shouting at the jumping salmon of the River Wear. More fun for lockdown, thanks! J
  12. Dan, mine too! Although I always thought of this one as an in-joke: it was a relentless take the piss of film sound (and in my mind should be what sound students should be studying rather than Apocalypse Now and The Conversation heh heh - hope De Palma is listening). Jez Note - there is some part of me that still after decades thinks that there are even MORE sound jokes in there that relate to Blow Up that I haven't been clever enough to spot. Yes, I truly rate this movie up there with greats of the time (and it is a time I consider great).
  13. We've been there for years ... Adjust the skills so we are still needed, and then ... BINGO! folks need quality again, for whatever reason. Just noticed my 700th post (whey hey!) coincides with Philip's 10,001! (This was the edit). J
  14. Brightnight, after the last post and very useful detail (= camera records PCM 48k 16bit) I would strongly suggest looking not for a recorder but a "low power PREAMP with XLR in and 3.5 mini jack consumer level output" ... with your extra skills I would consider if it could be externally battery powered and turned on and off with the same switching circuit that turns the camera to record. Perhaps even the same battery unit could power camera and preamp (+ mic)? Unless you have a spectacular scientific need for going over 48k and 16 bit (better than a CD ... if you remember them) I see no great benefit of going double system (which is what we call separate but synched sound and picture). With your two issues of massive power duration and potential (auto) edit/resync of hundreds of clips I would at least firstly focus on a camera based solution for recording which would just mean 'how to power a decent mic into a decent preamp and send to camera'. Recorders generally (as I gather) are far more power hungry than preamps / mixers - even though this has deliberately been addressed on the recorder front in recent years. If you look at 'yesteryear's' preamps/mixers from SQN, Sound Devices etc they are already designed for say a day of activity on a set of alkaline batteries, far better in consumption than any recorder. They are also generally more 'bullet proof' than any recorder, especially one on the consumer or semi pro level. I would look carefully at a few options (please anyone else chime in if they think of similar) such as SQN (possibly even the obsolete SQN 3 if only mono) and from Sound Devices the 302 or the (original) MixPre or (again if mono) one of the early mono preamps. All for the simple reason all these units are extremely reliable in poor conditions. It would then come down to working out if a triggered power feed worked (probably say half a minute for a P48 mic I would guess). I am assuming that all your quality mic candidates are P48 powered. Then just have a feed to the camera (calibrated as best you can, shouldn't be a problem). If you were insistent about the recorder route I would look at both the Zoom F6 and the Series 2 Sound Devices Mix Pre recorders for their 32 bit function: unmonitored recording is surely the best reason for this feature. Personally again I would STILL be looking at a solid mic/preamp front end to camera and potentially a second feed to a separate recorder. My ideas so far. Again, interested to see where this goes and whether either wildlife folk or manufacturers here see this and chime in. I am also very interested in a more detailed description of your existing powering and triggering system for camera as it stands (especially if self built). You probably know that most audio options run around 12volt dc, often 6-18, sometimes wider, although many do not have such great leeway. Jez
  15. Hi miker71, I wonder if you still have this file in higher resolution knocking about to post up? The link has of course gone the way of all things world wide web...! Or anyone else got these spec sheets they can post up to see? Cheers, Jez EDIT I'm an idiot! I just had to click on the small image and it comes up hi-res! Doh! Thanks for posting this all those years ago! J
  16. NOT what I meant! I meant that the side mic of say an RSM or Sanken could be used yet one could change the Mid mic to another type, say omni or whatever! I find ambisonics an excellent potential solution for gallery work (so long as the sound can handle the format, ie phase and abandonment of local definition). When the visuals are the key thing and sound is the poor cousin sometimes it's actually nice to take advantage and allow the sound to show off when it isn't constrained by factors like precise audience localisation (and often sync)... Ambisonics is MS, too, in the manner that there are two mids (omni and fig8) and two sides (both fig8) ... or is that three? and one mid? or three mids? ughhh! But my point is that MS can be a good recording companion for an Ambisonic replay ... but it will not be automatically straightforward without a mix. Excellent point from a regular MS recordist, that the side mic can pick up unwanted stuff (actually Mungo, it won't be from behind, ha ha, sorry for being the pedant)! Though I should point out that this is not the reason I avoid (the S from) MS for film effects - it is just because the inherent phase replay of MS doesn't sit nicely with multiple tracks in either LCR + surround nor with the encoding of multichannel film systems. I HAVE recorded Blumlein (crossed Figure8) and there are occasions where phase techniques can be used to good effect but it is a complicated situation in film that the rerecording mixer needs to know what is there and judge how it will work with both the coexisting sounds and the replay format. Too often it is just more shit to deal with, and often mute out. Jez
  17. Brightnight, firstly welcome to JWS - it is an intriguing question. I don't believe such a thing exists, it will certainly have to be created or modified from whatever. My first thought is to find a camera that works both with trigger recording and has a sound input, then either (easiest) connect a microphone which is powered by the camera (and its battery system) or have a low consumption battery (probably electret) or battery - preamp unit (as Rick suggests, running constantly with an external battery) connected which doesn't need to be triggered. Hopefully somebody here who currently does wildlife (I did many years ago) may chime in on current systems and ideas but I wouldn't be too surprised if it's a choice between, i. keep close and change the battery / check the results; and ii. silent Very interested here on everyone's ideas Jez
  18. Hi Al, and welcome to JWS You may well end up here with a dozen or so testimonies from people saying they get great results with their Schoeps pair, their MKH pair, their Sanken, their RSM, shotgun front end, omni front end, etc etc etc. It's a wide and variable question to advise on and most opinions are going to be valid in their way - so good luck in advance! Hey, here I am! Personally my MS / MSM rig is variable based around a Schoeps Fig 8 constant (purely because that's what I have) and I concur with haifai that you should leave yourself the choice for variation. Even if you did pick up an 'in one' MS mic like the RSM there is nothing to stop you strapping a different front capsule atop the fig 8 position whenever you wanted to. For ambience type recordings a subcardioid capsule is often popular, as it can be for musical applications. Halfway between the benefits of omni and cardioid. For fx recording of a 'specific subject' rather than soundscape anything from cardioid to short shotgun. As a sound effects editor I rarely use the side aspect of a MS recording for film tracklay however and even more rarely would record fx in MS: I would just dematrix it if necessary and use the mono front end. Broadcast, radio, podcast, music etc as well as ambisonics is a different thing though. I have to think though that as a starting off point for a general MS rig you cannot go wrong with 'cardioid front, fig 8 side' but the best advice is already in the reply above mine - try a few out and decide what suits your needs best Jez Adamson
  19. Had the (X1) Cantar been around in the 1970s we'd all (in England anyway) be making copies out of toilet rolls following Blue Peter instructions ... that was my first thought. (Got to say I was/am impressed by the build quality and design of the F8 however and the F6 looks good for many applications. The ambisonics thing, if everything else works well, could well be a winner for them).
  20. IMO, (the only O which matters!), foley stage acoustics matter far more than any other factor in this scenario. Though I am not sure quite how helpful my O is in this case! Jez
  21. From what you've said I can't object to your choice of the CO-100K : although I've never used one it's been on my 'would like to try' list of mics since it came out. Further 'off grid' recommendations would be a pair of DPA 6060s or 4060s : they are just so useful (and for FX use I recommend the standard microdot termination with DAD XLR adapter and perhaps microdot extension cables. I also like the MKH series for their dependability in adverse conditions (particularly humid) although they're not alone from other choices here. I would definitely go for the newer series of MixPre if going that route (and be mindful of all IronFilm said). Personally, although the size of the 3 is very nice I think the 4 preamps of the 6 would be better (even now that the series II all do 192 as remarked). When you're onto your SECOND pair of CO-100K and want to record quad atmos in Kashmir with the Kashmir preamps ... (or even just the 'budget' kit of 4 DPA6060s ...) Everything else that was said I find quite decent. Although if you have regular sound folk I would run over options for a "lo-no basic kit based around your new FX / music package" for value and compatibility ... Jez
  22. I'd probably keep the F myself ... Jez
  23. Tyler, hi! Everyone else - I think he made it clear that he wants basic kit to dabble with projects yet still hire his regular folk. On the other hand, Tyler, have you asked your regular folk what they think you should get as basic kit / back up? They are by far going to be the best people to recommend what you could use yourself and what they could use beyond their own package to avoid the uncertainty of external hire. I took notice that you are thinking of buying two very expensive and specialised Sanken CO-100K. I've never had the opportunity to use this mic but know what it is ... I probably wouldn't bother recording below 192 with these! But is there any great reason you're looking at this route? I'm a big fan of spaced omni for film atmos myself, and like omnis for many other reasons. But at this level of investment I would be looking at more than two of them probably...! I can see the CO-100K being used for music and very particular effects applications but for a first fx pair? For that money surely you could buy a new pair of more generally useful MKH8040 cardioids and a new pair of DPA 6060s (all of which would have extra life as top quality spares for main shoots...) I would need to know precisely what you're planning to record fx wise before either criticising your choice or recommending an alternative. You have set the bar high for a first purchase ... Jez
  24. If money is no problem just go ahead and get a pair of DPA (Danish Pro Audio - although they're known generally as DPA) omni lavaliers model 4060 - or if you prefer go for the tinier 6060 new model. Many of us have used 4060s as first choice general car ambience mics for many years. There are lower sensitivity / higher 'max SPL' (can take louder sounds) models which are often used for recording more 'car' (especially muscle cars) against ambience - ie located by exhausts, engines etc ... the 4061 is the next model (up or down so to speak). The least sensitive / highest SPL model is the 4062 which is commonly used by those recording Formula One cars etc. For ambience go for the 4060 ... it is more suited to the medium sound levels around the car and is unlikely to overload, although the 4061 for such a purpose wouldn't be out of place either. The main thing is placement and this will take a fair bit of experimentation (even more so for a non recordist). First try packing the mics in a largish mic foam windshield, much larger than the mic itself - up to 'tennis ball' if possible. Put that in a nylon sock. Try behind the wing mirrors. Try on the roof ... try left right roof aerials. If there's too much wind you might have to go for fur windshielding. Although mini fur windshielding (DPA's own or Rycote or Bubblebee) may well work fine (or better). It all depends on conditions. So go ahead and search for past discussions - there is more out there (and here). (Although much is focused on specifics like close miking and particular sounds there will be ideas there for ambient setups). Good luck, Jez
×
×
  • Create New...