Jump to content

The Immoral Mr Teas

Members
  • Content Count

    646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by The Immoral Mr Teas

  1. Hi John, As you know I'm in the post production world and so ident tone variants are nothing new to me. From the old simple EBU then BBC LR tone with one intermittant channel (2 alternating for BBC GLITS = Graham's Line up Tone Ident System after Graham Haines who developed it from the EBU standard) there are now I think several systems about, some custom designed, for various setups. When Martin Black and Keith Lane at Sky set up their 5.1 surround workflow ten years ago they came up with their own, BLITS: they too based their tones on the musical 440Hz = A and readily identified musically related differences to it. The tones are; L and R 440Hz C 1320Hz LFE 82.5Hz Ls Rs 660Hz (followed by sequences at 1kHz and 2kHz, and their tone system addresses not only 5.1 but identifies it as such within a 2 channel stereo folddown). This is one example that had a very thorough write up in Line Up (Journal of the Institute of Broadcast Sound) back in Feb/March 2007. Of course the problem then becomes so many fingers, so many pies, accepted solutions drafted onto new problems and confusion abounds! Best, Jez
  2. Forgot to mention another factor I thought of afterwards but haven't done yet. The different levels in tone are recorded at different frequencies (corresponding to say C G D A E being a viola player ...) to make it obvious which you're dealing with without looking. (And having the sequence of tones descend in volume hopefully prevents accidental ear abrasion). Jez
  3. Thanks Sully - interesting, especially the multi-level settings for tone out. The BH page also offered alternatives which I'll have a look through. FWIW, my solution so far has been having a few tones recorded at 'mic' levels (-20, -30, -35, -40, etc) on a CF card to play out of a microtrack or similar. Obviously one needs to know the level structure of everything around the tones, but when simply matching gain across inputs is the goal without any need for calibration it does the trick. (Now how about manufacturers building comprehensive gain matching into their recorders, hmm?) I'll check this one out and a few others meanwhile so thanks for the link again (and for the writeups everyone on the VCP) Jez
  4. Hi again Sully, Could you tell me what "Swiss Army Knife tone generator" you're using here? The best I've come up with as a DIY tool (outside of outputting from a SD302 or similar) is recording long bursts of tone on a mini recorder (at mic levels, so low enough to batch set groups of uncalibrated preamps to say +30 or +40 dB). Are you using some kind of plug in XLR unit - and if so can the tone out level be set to a low figure? Cheers, Jez Adamson
  5. Cool. Space for the head between the camera and mic leads too! j
  6. Suzhou girls sound quite different from Pest girls, Michael, but could you send me some recordings for my library anyway? And I wasn't even going to get involved with this thread ... Jez Adamson (not afraid to put my name to filth)
  7. Could be of some use on top of a DSLR though? ... ha ha sorry, Jez
  8. Hmm, might be the time I finally upgrade. Anyone want to buy a Nagra / MKH805 combo? j x
  9. Point 8 - Trim gain I must admit I'm unpleasantly surprised if this is the case, so thanks for pointing it out. For my own purpose (multichannel array recording) I'll say it's very important to be able to quickly and easily match gains across combinations of tracks and anything that makes that job easier gets my vote. I've already been critical on v1 of the 633 being able to gang only tracks 1+2 and 5+6. I would suggest a software upgrade to allow (if actually possible) ganging of any or all combination of channels; ganging of trim levels; ganging of fader levels; ganging of both trim and fader levels; offsets possible within any of these combinations - that should allow for any possible and probable stereo setups and types of mic, matched or unmatched. But (like my 302 and other analogue SD pres) maybe an accurate control or indication of the main(trim) gain is simply not possible? Jez
  10. Sonosax R4 - 4 lovely, matched, gangable preamps. Stick with a centre (mono) directed feed, presumably the mic you're already using. As for stereo, are you doing radio, television or film? Does it need to be mono compatible? If not, there's little point in using MS, and there's little point in recording binaural in either case. Use three of your four channels - one for the mono central image and two others for either an additional/alternative LR stereo or together with the C as part of a LCR spread (though only as a fixed position atmos/fx setup, not a 'stereo' component to a swinging boom). As Mike says, you're using an expensive quality recorder - why skimp on mics? And if you buy two quality cardioid or hyper mics (schoeps CCM, Sennheiser 80 series, DPA ... or various cheaper alternatives) you need not be restricted to an ORTF setup with them - choose your recording angle depending on the situation. Have a look at The Stereophonic Zoom by Michael Williams and his multichannel papers to see what ORTF and other standard stereo and surround mic setups are achieving - I would recommend two cardioids, a K&M stereo bar and some experimentation with a rycote, but two hypers (or one more if you are already using one) could get you similar results to capture 2 channel stereo recording angles if you prefer to go that way. And if you decide to record some binaural stuff then by all means try out the soundman, but it wouldn't be my first choice for stereo recording into that beautiful recorder. By the way, just picked up an ex library copy of Richard Brody's Godard bio, Everything Is Cinema, today - looking forward to ploughing through its 700 pages but interesting that only two chapters (75 of those pages) deal with perhaps my 'favourite period', the 1970s - so no "British Sounds" .... Jez Adamson
  11. Reply to all - the box looks big enough for XLRs, at least heightwise (and it would be a case of millimetres if it needed enlarging for them) - but whilst I can see a reason for having the outputs on TA3M since most users will be going into Sound Devices machines I see no (good) reason for having the mic inputs as anything but XLR ... it just means having to have three adapter cables always there. (Personally I would prefer also having the outputs on XLR too, since if one is using this as a Sound Devices addition you'll need 3 cables there anyway and they might as well be XLR3F-TA3F than TA3 hops, and you could then use it more easily in other scenarios, ie without there needing to be adapter cables when dealing with the common XLR format). Aesthetically, the use of TA3s matches the abundance of such connectors on Sound Devices products - but is that a great reason? Whilst I am not in the market for this it does, as I say, interest me (enough to ask questions, albeit ones partly answered, and make comments). If I owned a 633 I would almost certainly be in the market for one - and it's made me look again at the 633 - despite my surprise at the decision to use TA3s as mic inputs and hence the permanent requirement to have three cables which I consider unnecessary. They're not the first to deviate from the common XLR for reasons of space or otherwise and they surely won't be the last but in this case, at least as far as the inputs go, I believe they made the wrong decision. I found only one mention so far on 'net (excepting Sully's) of the mic preamps, from a bloke in Berlin who says they're good. My "business" with recorders is FX etc recording (rather than production mixing) so another particular interest is in (quick and simple) gain matching and ganging. Despite there being several other contenders out at least for 2 channel small boxes to up the mic input of the 633 (the SD mixpre etc and the older sonosax pre) some which perhaps address my 'needs' slightly better I do really like the look of this unit - particularly in its (I expect) primary intention as a piggy back unit for the 633. Certainly more discrete than carrying a mixpre(D) or 302. Thanks Sully (and Malcolm and others having now looked through other posts) for pointing it out and I look forward to any reports to come. (I also look forward to the sudden and unexpected job which would throw me in the market for one after all but meanwhile I look on in interest). Jez x
  12. Wait, are those the inputs - on TA3 - on the RIGHT side? Where's the logic in that, using TA3s and not XLRs for mic ins (and putting them on the right ...) I'm looking at the photos for the two channel version ... Or am I completely mistaken? Jez
  13. Can anyone help me find a link to a manual (or more details) for this unit ... my german is too rusty beyond asking for a beer to navigate the site, but even a manual in german would do if it had pictures ... I guess from the 3 photos that the 'Mikrofon IN' must be round the back (somewhat surprising given its expected use as a +3 for the 633) and that the 'Pegelsteller' are on the right hand side whatever they might be??? How are the preamps? How much gain (and how do they sound next to the 633)? I would have perhaps preferred stepped and marked gain (for easy gain matching) but realise I would be vastly outvoted on that count by everyone else just wanting nice easy faders - and could I suppose set a fixed gain of say 30dB and tape knobs in place. I'm not in the market for one of these but it does look interesting and depending on the quality seems a reasonable price for 633 (or 744 etc) owners. Jez KORTWICH Mikrofon Vorverstärker 3x Mikrofon IN 3x PH 48V ON/OFF 3x OUT für z.B. SD 633 Line IN 3x Pegelsteller 2x Hirose DC IN und OUT 598 € netto
  14. Sounds excellent on paper - not only addressed my concerns and wishes following the existing model but exceeded them in many ways : New battery (though I hope it CAN still work off AAs, especially alkaline, as a middle-of-nowhere emergency option) - as well as a 12V output (I wonder if I could power any Nagra accessories such as my David Lane 3rd mic input from this??) Same 4+2 preamp setup as former, BUT also AES42, 16 track capability at (I think) up to 192kHz, and perhaps best of all an optional, same footprint, +8 channel mic preamp box to extend the R4 to 12 matched mic inputs ( ... I wonder how many people asked Pierre for such a 4 channel box for the earlier model?) The preamp box will function either from the R4 or by itself. I hope, but don't know, if it functions better as a mixer than the previous model, but preamps are labelled as minus infinity to +20 : not sure on output options or returns for monitoring. Whilst there's not much more info up there yet, this looks so darn close to my "perfect FX recorder" that I'm not even going to whine about powering my 805Ts ha ha ha. Look forward to seeing more in coming weeks. Jez Adamson
  15. Make sure you don't accidentally end up with a Hong Kong triad drama ... or a Kinder Egg advert ... or ...
  16. Anyone on this side of the pond remember the excellent West Heath Yard starring Edwyn Collins with several great guests? I think it only aired twice (10 x 20-odd minute episodes) around 97-2000 and in the far corners of the night - it was before Collins' almost tragic brain damage (he's thankfully made some recovery). A wonderful and very real mockery of the music biz and studio scene. I also enjoyed Sound City by the way which aired here on BBC4 - I hope the series does turn out good and find an extra home over here soon. Jez Adamson
  17. Elliot, it's a lovely idea (and sensible option) for the (supervising) dialogue editor to be involved at the production stage, whether just on an advisory capacity between production and post before the shoot or involvement on or off set during shooting. Don't imagine however that it is a standard scenario to have a dialogue editor (or any supervising sound editor) involved or employed at or by the production stage. To have a 'post' person on set is quite rare and often as a result of certain circumstances (encouraging the production for instance to pay for it) - in my own case I have been on set on location as 'ADR recordist' (when a large cast from a variety of countries could have proved extra problematic to reach for post) but also to sort (last minute) workflow and instigate location post production services. There usually has to be a good reason for production to bring anyone in for more weeks or months than they think normal. It could happen that a production has an agreement with a post production house as early as pre-production, and have some contact with them during the shoot (whilst the super/dial editor is probably cutting something else) but don't assume this always happens - also, different size budgets can have totally different working methods: a low budget film may well have a post rep involved or out on set but not getting paid; the high budget Harry Potter had an ADR booth and recordist throughout production to record ASAP after shooting scenes for child actor availability, performance and breaking voices. But in short, a supervising (or non-supervising) dialogue editor's responsibility is cutting production sound, ADR and getting the final track to sound as good as possible re quality and performance and director's wishes. Production may expect or require more than that which they're welcome to discuss and pay for! I'm not sure what you're getting at re workflow, but if there IS a sound post-super person involved at preproduction stage for an actual production you're getting involved in, workflow(s) 'should' be worked out between not only sound (prod and post) but editorial ... camera ... (and I hope I don't open a huge 'responsibility' can or worms with such a vague simplification ... I just want to point out earlier rather than later that Elliot's 'understanding' could tragically turn out to be a 'misunderstanding'). Jez Adamson
  18. STOP, LOOK and LISTEN ... in case Darth Vader isn't there when I cross the road
  19. A new day, a new screensaver. Dziekuje, Jez (Polish for 'hedgehog')
  20. I carry an MKH40 in a Peli 1040 - with plenty of room for a square clip AND two more MKH8040s (in their 85x60x30mm cardboard box which has been their home nearly since I bought them). It slightly flattens the 40's foam head if I decided to carry that in the same case. Jez
  21. I'm also very interested in these new softies, especially with 'rough' and lightweight travelling in mind for FX recording - the thing I'm waiting to see is will (or can) they develop any very short ones to suit MKH 80x0 series and similar sized mics ... when I looked they seemed to only be shotgun lengths (and with talk of "the right shape" as well as the materials I wonder if rycote need the length to make the system work) - I'll certainly be keeping an eye on them, and thanks Steve, Brennan and all for comments meanwhile. Czesc, Jez ('hedgehog' in Polish)
  22. Radio Times (the BBC's official listings magazine here in the UK) now continues to take the piss (whether against itself or a perceived hierarchy within the auntieship ...?) ... in the 'what's on highlights' section before each day's listings they've started adding an info balloon named MUMBLE WATCH warning the viewer (listener) about such things as Yorkshire accents (today), bellowing music (last Sunday) and tomorrow one actress' performance ... described as "a kind of Nnnng sound" in the UK/US series Episodes ... Jez
  23. PARABOLIC RECORDING I too have a Telinga parabolic dish (and made my own suspension front end for it rather than using any of their various options). And no, I haven't used it for dialogue - excepting the birdie variety. Many here have spoken about the lack of bottom end - and its relationship to the diameter of the dish. Far more important to understand is that the frequency response characteristic is a steeply rising slope once it's hit its LF starting point (up to its HF cutoff). Using an omni capsule instead of a cardioid brings back some shelf of low end (of direct sound, albeit with some possible phase relationship between that and reflected). But regardless, that's why parabolics sound bright (up to a cutoff that is which could be anywhere between a paltry 5kHz but doubtfully much above 10kHz) ... "suitable" for birdsong - although it's perhaps scientifically less useful if one were trying to capture extreme HF content of same - but the freq response is a million miles away from the flat (or flat + HF boost) you might want for 'natural' dialogue (as opposed to surveillance clarity - which I'd lump NFL in with). It does have its uses - aside from baritone birdies, it sounds great on violins and children's choirs! If anyone's interested, there's a very good chapter (basic physics; omni vs card with different size dish and focal length examples; DIY make your own equipment) in the 1977 UK book 'Wildlife Sound Recording" by John B Fisher (which might be found secondhand or in a library) Pelham Books, ISBN 0 7207 1017 0 Jez Adamson
  24. Perhaps a bit late to respond - but I've just read the thread. Excellent write up, thanks, John. I have an ST250 (on loan to recordist friend and his local choir) and have been using VVMic - but have just downloaded the free Harpex player to listen to a few old recordings with. Interesting reading matter from their website too. Out of interest, since you've obviously had an interest in ambisonics for a while (and you mention double MS) - have you ever experimented with 3 channel omni and crossed fig 8 (for W X Y direct recording) ? cheers, Jez Adamson
×
×
  • Create New...