Jump to content

The Immoral Mr Teas

Members
  • Content Count

    658
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by The Immoral Mr Teas

  1. Jim, a decade or so ago I cut a few templates out of approx 1/8" board to accommodate a few commonly used stereo positions: basically worked out to where the diaphragm would sit at the correct angle/distance cut for whichever mics you are using (in my case my then-new 8040s). Keeping the mic clips just off-tight on the bar slip the template over the mic ends and then tighten and remove. I principally thought of it for quick adjustments 2 at a time (plus a triple) of trickier surround setups - IRT and 5.0 at 72* - but I came up with a multi pattern stereo strip for ORTF, IRT and maybe a couple of others. Intended way back to get a colleague to bring out with me the latter design on a 3D printed strip, with ruler and angle markings for adjustments and quick custom setups but never got 'round to it - patented the idea across America's states first though (oh, damn it! forgot to send the patent!) (... intended also to come up with an adjustable length/rotational angle marked version too but that never happened either ...) Have a go - it wasn't hard to plot or cut and made setting regular patterns very quick. ps, they're around somewhere but no chance I'm afraid of digging them out in the near future to photo ... just various 2" width strips of thick mount board with various 20mm angled notches along it though ... Jez Adamson (proud father to a litter of K&M stereo bars)
  2. Like several of us away from checking the group and when we do to be confronted with this very sad news. And like many here I am sure although we never met in person we did so many times in conversation, collaboration and spirit. My dearest regards go to his friends and family who might not realise how much he meant to us here and very probably elsewhere, his other industry families. Jez x
  3. One other feature I really liked on a cart posted (maybe in Carts but probably in DIY) a year or so ago was a removable panel (possibly/potentially magnetic but maybe more secured, although it could be both) in order to protect the equipment, connectors and feel safe all was secure as Philip suggested. I liked the flat panels that the poster came up with (a Cantar cart I believe) but a suitably sturdy fabric & rain cover (assuming the edge extrusion in place for protection) could perhaps do it as some compromise on weight against strength. Jez
  4. Nat, you really have to listen to the 7506 if you haven't already. You'll love the experience! As a carpenter have a look back for a previous recentish post (4 months at a guess) with some lovely wooden cans ... Jez
  5. Original question ... I would always prefer to have something reliable and easy to use as a preamp and those early mini SD/Shure boxes are exactly that. I can't see myself ever getting rid of my 302 as it is just so useful, reliable and easy to use. Canada is a big place! If you're near Trona you certainly have rental options, many places more chance of renting huskies! But having the chance to rent proper microphones with windshields like MKH50s or whatever will show just how much a difference there is between them and cheaper options. Although some cheaper options can still be quite ok under decent and forgiving conditions. Decent and forgiving conditions on a cooking show though?!? I used to marvel at a British cooking programme Ready Steady Cook for its beautifully recorded - and I presume carefully planned - sound. It was almost like every shot was the director issuing a personal challenge to the sound team (blenders turned on over dialogue etc) and both clarity and mix were always perfect (the blender would be LOUD and you would hear every word). Did two very different cookery shows myself, both in the last century. As TV dubbing mixer a 'cookery dating game show' (again very well recorded, my job was more filling in the gaps and smoothing edits than repairing and balancing was easy), and I did an excellent radio series with the late great Keith Floyd which was a sheer pleasure and technically akin to working in 'golden age' conditions. Good luck with it! Jez
  6. Alidav, you have identified perfectly the problems and differences so you know (from either end) what the issues are. I would personally (assuming time being not an extreme issue where it might be in television) ask that everything is recorded clean so that it can be corrected and perfected in post. Recording a separate processed track for the editor is another matter. The absolute best solution is to know in advance the supervising sound editor (and hence the dialogue editor if different) and the rerecording mixer, to discuss their preferences, anticipate problems etc all in advance. There will always however be the case that what is the best action for one team is the worst action for another so this is where either relationships or advance communication is generally the best circumstance for tackling a job. Jez Although I was assuming you meant 'recording-mixing' rather than 'post-mixing' so I hope I have understood the question right?
  7. .. dear me, posted that and it comes across a bit arrogant. I didn't mean it such (and you probably had no idea of my references). Chris' advice is good (start out with good equipment) - beyond that I would actually say to pursuade the team to budget to rent the first few times over (at least mic and perhaps mixer/recorder and certainly any other expensive items) as this will at least give you some initial experience in the equipment and in doing the job with the best equipment you can get access to. (Although I have advised people to buy too...) J
  8. Hi Gum, not sure amateurish should be the adjective: old fashioned or stylised might be nearer. Most of my favourite films have sound you describe and several got Oscars for their efforts! Your actual question though is fine: I'm suggesting 'no' although ex rental equipment or stuff bought on ebay etc may indeed be not up to par. On the other hand - using the best you have access to is always the best option (I do post so I am somewhat desirous of decently recorded production dialogue). Use the best you can. As regards the creative team, I too (and I recall similar here on jw recently coming up with an equipment set) love the idea - - or more so the opportunity - - of one day doing a feature with a Nagra and an 805 ... as an old post stalwart however I am perfectly aware that I would give myself a greater chance of achieving my eventual 'balance - eq' aim with a bigger set of modern tools. Although - having said all that - I also want to give it a go, so: damn good luck and please tell us how it goes. If you get a chance to try this with help with someone with more experience it could be a lot of fun for all. So good luck - get a mic - a good one - and get it in the right place: shot after shot after shot without worrying about how the creatives are dealing with not being too creative in their "this is deliberately like this" way. Best, Jez
  9. Am I the only one here who hates cases with wheels because they have changed the soundscape of scenes (for me editing, for you recording) we have to deal with? More specifically of course just gathering sound for fx/atmos ... Production could always plan a huge scene without any nasty irritating wheely cases! (But that still leaves me with the mos scene to cut sound to). Jez
  10. I might suggest the question was wrong! It is certainly easier to record the practical mic (to multitrack) without on set amplification, from a post point of view. Aside from problems of matching between positions/cuts there is the high probability that the reverb chosen may be somewhat enhanced or stylised, at the very least to draw attention to it being 'different' to (the also enhanced...) ordinary dialogue, although extra stylisation is often decided upon. Adding such reverb to the 'compromised recording situation' resulting from on-set sound for picture and post has suddenly got many extra problems to deal with ... chances are they might resort to salvaging close dialogue from lavs or decide on adr in the worst circumstances. For such reasons any talk of sweeps for convolution reverbs become totally irrelevant. They won't help in repair or in creative choice of enhanced reverb for storytelling. (Where they do help is for the latter especially as reference since they might come up with something idiosyncratic yet realistic). Although if the director wants it then one has no choice but to do it. Then let post do their stuff! Having said all that when I worked in radio drama all the effects (including voices) were in fact routed back to set playback for the actors' benefit as you suggested. And it was this amplified sound which went into the mix, not a clean feed. But it was a controlled and consistent set: playback at correctly set volume over Rogers speakers; without the differences in perspective brought by positions or cuts one has in film; and crucially in a sound recording (rather than picture recording) environment that allowed this control. Jez
  11. That is just weird Nick! Real industry insight. Only Life In Hell as far as I saw was close like that and obviously Groening went on to give us The Simpsons and the rest. Then again - how many directors (etc) started as comic people? Winsor Macay is an early one ... ... actually there are very very many when I start to tot them up Jez
  12. Jan, first of all I thank you for bringing a difficult topic up, and doing it with courage and humour is clearly appreciated by all of us. The replies have been just as inspirational. Secondly (I couldn't manage to put the quote box in the right place - hopefully it's a tonight thing) my little comments on the box: Curriculum - millions? Hmm - education has been discussed recently and many times before here. I think it's as simple as coming down to 'looking, listening, understanding' - everyone in the industry has real understanding when compromises from the 'it works' are made and why. And with this understanding we are able to come up with situations when it could work better. Education should teach the first bit, but it really seems to me to want to churn out 'stars' in the order; auteur, director, producer, DP, then maybe the lesser ones they might eventually claim as alumni. We all know this is not the reality of industry and that the film industry, despite it's faults, carries on (and is enjoyable let alone survivable) because it is an industry, not the celebrity group of 'celeb-techs' that education pretends. Being another who managed to work in pretty serious radio early on in my career (and my love is split equally between 'broadcast' and 'film' which in my experience have been very separate worlds) ... we have been told that we are in a new golden era of television (personally I don't see it - I still look back to far better periods of both television and film throughout the world) I'm encouraged by Olle's words about radio (/sound only broadcast). If there's a new generation of listeners (after 'starers') this might be a good shift and Jan I'm sure you would be an excellent teacher of storytelling, emphasis and technical know how. For what it's worth, the all time best radio for me (above War of the Worlds, Glenn Gould and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ...) was the BBC series of Lord of the Rings in 1980. (Best as original 26 half hour episodes but still excellent in the 13x one hour release - ruined when they reedited it to follow the book losing the potboiler drama aspect). My second favourite is also 1980s The Tree of Strife. What I mean to say is ... Jan - teach !! But if film, tv, radio etc is indeed unteachable (I'm being unintentionally unkind to excellent people who did once teach me here...) enjoy retirement, your legacy, inspiration to others and the fun I am sure you have had. All the best, Jez Adamson
  13. Everybody thank you - it actually looks like a very good blimp, size and proportion. Cheers, J
  14. a* le**s th**y** tr*ing ... what? AT LEAST THEY ARE TRYING !!
  15. Rack width? (19 inches) Or do you mean depth? (Available space backwards for big rack equipment). Jez (guessing)
  16. Starquad Dab O'Solder with the Cannons New Trix XXY
  17. Yep OK, Codyman (and Jeff!) - I also subscribed (in theory, since an occasional sound recordist but not a PSM) to Daniel's ideas years ago to keep the heavy stuff on the back and the control - as light as possible - on the front. The Nova looks to achieve this very nicely. Personally I would also want in fx recording to have notebook and a few gadgets up front yet I don't tend to see many extras in Show Me Your Bag pictures. Actually my preference goes against most of what I tend to see: I would rather have a large and particularly wide (against fat) bag in front but try to keep the weight way down and up against the body. When I needed to chuck extra stuff in (notes, mics or fix units up like a Soundfield box I have room - likewise for headphones). I don't much like the look of any of the compact narrow bags which extend forward - although I grant that wireless receivers are lighter and the weight is still to the back (ie the stomach). It's just that in the modern world of the frame bag I would like to have space up front (but would still advocate putting weight on the back or around the hips). Best, Jez
  18. I thought the point was that there ARE no extras - battery at the back, transmitters built in? Although I'm not sure what the Nova actually can do, I could be wrong. Otherwise - extras elsewhere
  19. Of course, when the entire Blumlein family fall out and refuse to work together (or get mixed up with devil worshippers) we are left with The Blumlein Pair What though do all these band names have in common? They are all bands who I would not pay to go and see! J x
  20. Jim, the Sennheisers are already such a step up (at least for your kid's use) that he's probably already experiencing ecstasy! After a while remind him to come back to the thread and try out open (or semi open) HP for better response and comfort over hours if he's in such a position to need such long use. Personally I'm grateful to Fred for the mini review of the DT880Pro since I love my DT550s and know they will have to be replaced eventually and the considered appraisal helps me already. Best all, Jez
  21. Jim, I'm quoting TVPS not because I know either the 300 or 600 but because he's answering as a headphone user who usually 'critically moniters' in a space with speakers. I ended up using 7506 cans frequently (I am not a production sound recordist) because they're extremely comfortable and I bought a level limited set and care about my ears. I have always thought they sound dreadful but accepted that they perhaps accentuate 'production sound problems' and are therefore useful. In the end, I have got used to their weird response (and lack of isolation) for fx recording and the comfort and limiting protection (and size) have meant I still use them often. In music however the venerable BeyerDynamic DT 100 have always sounded great and are bulletproof - and in my lifetime were the studio staples. I have DT150s which I would recommend as a starting point. When I need to edit or even mix / premix on headphones the difference of using open headphones is enormous. In such cases I edit with DT 550s ... I think 990s are the modern version. So here's my answer ... actually maybe Sennheiser HD25 or SP if he's comfortable with the supraaural thing (and needs closed); open headphones (DT990 etc, many other choices) are to my mind the best bet for comfort against ear fatigue; in ears - Etymotic Research ER6 (I have the pricier 4) for excellent sounding low profile earbuds that permit low listening levels so not blasting out deafening volumes. Or - two pairs - DT 990 and 150 for when the outside noise kicks in. Best, Jez
  22. As far as I can recall the only wide cardioids I currently own are in my ambisonic soundfield- although as I principally use omnis (Bruel & Kjaer and DPA) and cardioids (Sennheiser and Schoeps etc) for ambience I would also eventually like to pick up at least a stereo pair if not a stereo quad or more. I've looked at several cheaper options but in the end it is a question of how much you want to spend on a 'not so versatile' mic or mic set, especially in my case when I already have an excellent set of omnis and a pair (+ extras) of quality cardioids. For ambience there is a lot to be said for them though - a certain 'directionality' especially in stereo use whilst preserving some of the benefits of omnis. You already know the benefits of the type/pattern though as regards classical recording - for atmos there is no difference there. For orchestral stuff I would even be considering three mics, for a Decca like arrangement. Outside of music and ambience of course a single wide cardioid is sometimes advantageous as a centre MS mic and perhaps in plant situations (though I doubt over an omni for the latter). I realise I haven't helped much there but probably backed up your own thoughts! But if you're recording music and atmos enough you will probably never be upset with having a quality specialist pair in your kit. Jez
  23. Hi Thielle, no-one would want to teach a potential apprentice by the 'copy method' -alas I believe many schools don't understand this basic fact. I was taught (when in the industry) by "here's the scene, here are some sounds; I'll come back and hear what you've come up with". Several of my friends worked on many of the Potters (I attempted to get work on the first!) - everybody's work was different and interesting and mutually appreciated as far as I ever saw. I remember one editor being asked to present his finished tracks to a film school - which he declined (because of what I said previously rather than some abstract idea of secrecy). In fact everyone I'm thinking of here have been most happy to share their successes (and failures) in editing with anyone who really knows what they're asking. Just to reiterate- don't learn by (direct) copying, learn by trial and error (although copying by trying to recognise and understand is indeed good practice). Learn by listening and trying to understand: and don't focus on "sound design" - focus on storytelling - - can I hear the dialogue? did I miss anything because I couldn't hear the dialogue? - did I lose track of what was going on because I was too interested in the sound? The bread and butter of sound editing is like everything else in filmmaking - making the unreal completely believable - and it is essential that this is understood. 90% of what we do is ordinary, often even boring, not spectacular. Dialogue has to be clear, things have to sound how they look like. Before adding the cherries the cake has to be made. Don't start with 'sound design' start with storytelling. After that of course you can change anything and everything. Two food metaphors already, so I'll spare you the pizza made from above ... I had 'sound bibles' when I was starting out, and they weren't Apocalypse Now etc - they were films which told stories well with totally different approaches to sound, some direct, some subtle (in no cases were the soundtrack considered paramount over other departments). Tell the story, and as a good learning tip try to do so without drawing attention to your sound. Best of luck, Jez Adamson
  24. I haven't looked into what the port is capable of so please be generous to my ignorance/laziness, but a general top unit utilising several functions even if not all possible to function at once might well be a good idea. (If Allan was pointing the input backwards to become an output I appreciated that joke). Jez
×
×
  • Create New...