Jump to content

The Immoral Mr Teas

Members
  • Posts

    841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by The Immoral Mr Teas

  1. The issue there Jason is that the OP, soundtown, is trying to get away without using the blimp, just a softie, so the front lyre is in the way. I think we’re all agreed that using a shotgun outside on a pole requires a full zepp, and that allows proper balance as well as suspension dampening and full shielding: bite the bullet and you won’t look back. Putting a softie on a long mic I can only really recommend for fixed stand use (sit down interviews or plants) and I would choose a rigid clip not a suspension clip. If one must compromise with softie and pole try dampening with eg a Floater not lyre system and experiment with a counterweight at the xlr. J
  2. Pretty much repeating what Jon just said. I have an 816 and also the long 816 softie ... longer and heavier than the 70 granted but similar physics. The only suitable ‘tail end’ grip I ever found for the 816 (thus allowing use of the softie) is the original MZS 3inch tube thing - which provides ‘enough’ ‘top grip’ to somewhat counter the droop effect. Better for stand use than boom (unless combine with eg Ambient Floater). I have however seen a rycote lyre that must have been designed principally for the 70: it was maybe a double grip combined with a triple lyre system? If you wanted to DIY I would look at making a counterbalance at the suspension end of the mic just by the xlr. This would obviously significantly increase the overall weight but lessen the droop (and include the softie weight into the balance if you do this). But for boom movement use with a shotgun nothing substitutes the long zep. Being able to have a balancing lyre/hoop towards the front makes so much difference. And getting a Rycote WS8 or 7 modular and an additional jammer WJ4 to the WJ8/7 makes an all round great flexible kit for shorter shotguns when just having to choose between. Jez Addendum: re reading your OP I expect the Invision 7 HG Mk III was what I’ve seen: if so, attempting a counterweight or upgrading to zeppelin (dougal in my language) are your options!
  3. You're wrong there Paul - as in, that is a very funny bit of trivia I'm very happy you let us know. I wonder if she recorded 'Goodbye Jeremy' ? Jez
  4. Could I borrow the "II" Joseph ? I'm looking for a quality wind up to take up Everest. Cheers, Jez
  5. The Sound-lady, Daphne Oram, in 1960 with her Nagra III as seen on Rank Organisation's series Look At Life (yesterday on Talking Pictures TV - https://www.tptvencore.co.uk) 'Calling the Tune' I noticed the BMT first (in an earlier shot) - I hadn't realised the accessory was made so early for the III.
  6. I always thought that '1kHz + 10kHz' was average for voices ... at least that's the average for the voices of my Nagras ... Jez
  7. Worthy of consideration, simply due to pedigree of SQN, the SQN-QSC raw cable listed on their website pricelist: Raw Cable: SQN-TSC Double twin screened audio cable plus 2 unscreened leads. Black PVC, 6mm dia, Length up to 100m - price per metre. 2.75 SQN-QSC Quad twin screened audio cable plus 3 unscreened leads. Black PVC, 7mm dia. Length up to 100m - price per metre. 3.85 E&OE Carriage and Insurance Extra. Prices in the U.K. are subject to VAT at 20%
  8. I have no 3 channel cables, Fred (aside from a handful of stray ends I did nothing with). Virtually all my cabling is Mogami 5ish mm quad. I have a couple or so 5pin leads, the main (nicest) being a Schoeps original. I was fairly interested at Ambient's stereo curled cable - I have a couple of Ambient poles - but am in no immediate hurry to fork out the cash for something I don't need (as an editor who sometimes records effects). Though I'd be interested in any results of tests on different multichannel cables for the future ... thinner 2-4 channel and/or thicker 4-8 channel - for flexibility, handling noise, ease of soldering, interference rejection etc (though probably separately in Equipment, Discussion or DIY rather than here?) Best, Jez
  9. Well many apologies Seamus, I retrieved my IV-S manuals but couldn't find mention of the differences between the QSV and QSV2 ... I remember (badly) reading somewhere though what those differences were. Probably in a 70s or 80s book or leaflet ... (one such I've just looked at simply says, for the 4.2, "the Variateur de Vitesse is different and therefore has been supplied with a different plug so that no mistake can be made". If I do find what I was looking for I will post it here as planned, but much of that kind of literature is in storage. Hopefully someone here who does know (there should be a few ...) will notice and explain. (Note my expected result in my first post). Try searching elsewhere here (our longest Nagra thread is within Images of Interest) for other mentions of QSV or QSV2 or Nagra Speed Varier etc Jez
  10. Yep, still sad. And Rycote didn't make an appearance a couple of weeks ago at the Muppet Show at Olympia, London, which they may have found awkward - or even unnecessary with their new business plans ... - but still a bit of a shame after releasing a range of microphones and continuing to make and develop products for our industry. These guys (and gals) did however, so it will be interesting over the next year or so to see what they manage to create: www.radiuswindshields.com Jez
  11. Neither a must nor useless for me Fred - or rather I'm inclined to agree somewhat with your comment, "I found the C useful for proximity stereo recordings" and am sympathetic to, "but for wide ambient I do not see the point". I agree wholeheartedly with, "it depends how you choose to record the space you want to hear" (or rather; how you wish to hear the space you need to record). I have recorded much specific multichannel FX for features and there are certainly many instances I have gone for LCR when I'm trying to give a realistic and high clarity acoustic image particularly when fitting or matching to picture. My general preference and starting point would be spaced omnis for this sort of thing. For multichannel ambiences I would (following your reasoning) often plot a simple 4.0 quad against setting up some kind of 5.0 or 5.1 rig, although in some situations the C of a 5 point recording could be beneficial or even necessary if there is some strong frontal information to convey. (Again, I like spaced omnis but have a lot of time for crossed cardioids - an IRT Cross - for general 4.0 multichannel ambiences). Often one is asked specifically for 5 channel, sometimes I was asked just to cover particular sounds and ambiences ('sounds' very often being mono). We have got used to thinking of stereo as a 2 channel thing, largely because of music which, when played reproduced rather than live, would more often than not be played in a relatively small space. Film theatres, at least in the glory days, were grand auditoria. Stereo records were (/are) a particular (rather ingenious) medium and as a result gave rise to many other previously mono media such as radio and television moving from one to two channels. When stereo film sound was in its infancy however experiments were done from the very beginning on different numbers of channels for auditory perspective and localisation (eg Steinberg, Snow and Fletcher all at Bell Labs, and others elsewhere) and it was generally agreed that 3 channels were noticeably better than 2 but after that improvements to perception dropped rapidly. So 2 channel reproduction (or recording) never had a look in for the large screen when stereo (and its high cost) was eventually embraced: of course (... and a while after Fantasia and its multichannel system designed for presentation of the music rather than dialogue driven narrative ... ) by the 1950s film stereo went hand in hand with super wide screens too to compete for audiences (so more channels sometimes across the front as well as rear and side). So its probably best to remember, despite the usefulness and quality of results of various 2 channel recording techniques, that they were generally born out of recording angles designed for 2 channel music reproduction. Jez
  12. Hi Seamus, welcome to JWS If you can wait a couple of days I can answer you decisively, when I'm back with my nagras and manuals. I will say 'NO', the QSV changed quite importantly between models. Sadly (extremely sadly) my QSV2 went astray: I have a III, IV-S and IV-SJ There are many differences from especially the III and IV/4 etc as concerns voltage vs current drive for the accessories, ... there might be a chance that the QSV units might work with simple pin reassignments but I wouldn't hold my breath. In the meantime hold onto the QSV2 as you are more than likely able to find a simple swap for someone wanting a QSV2 who has a QSV ... Jez
  13. Joseph, the thread 'Nagra IV-S input chain issues' can be found on the group under 'Equipment' and if he posts it there it will snap back as a recent thread, so I reckon it's better there (there being other Nagra related technical questions and answers elsewhere throughout the site) where folks with similar issues will find it easier than on this 'general Nagra apreciation' thread. Jez
  14. quote: The story is that I carried my nagra iv-stc, microphones and cables, walked for a mile, and then used it to record a chamber piece with me (viola) and pianist and soprano (it took place in the atrium of the school and you could hear people walking around) nice to see - and hear - another IV-St owner viola player, and despite what you say a far better one than me! the music is right up my street but sadly i don't recognise it - i first thought Berg, then maybe much later Boulez?? But no idea ... for viola solo I like Scelsi and Xenakis very much, but you don't hear it very much!! Jez
  15. thanks for the info and review Roland. It doesn't seem to compete with the MKH30 still but is considerably cheaper ( ... less expensive!?) ... maybe the Emesser is a better comparison. Personally I prefer the idea of a single 'pressure gradient' capsule creating a fig8 pattern but, hey, I don't design mics and Calrec (later Soundfield) made a perfectly good fig8 from 4 capsules ... Curious how well this will sell - be embraced - be admired now it's out ... good for them for bringing it out Curious also what will happen to Rycote the company in the near future, certainly one of the most significant and personal ones for myself over my own professional life cheers, Jez
  16. New to me, and interesting! thank you! I still have my WMD6C from the 80s and a D3 Joseph, that 'Sony' III is beautiful, and I know that money is money but I think you got yourself a bargain ... if it looks that good only after you polished it up good job and give me some tips so I can do the same to my own III Jez
  17. Not a joke, my first suggestion is turn the LFE omni down in relation to the others ... if that's clipping and the others (possibly with HPFs?) aren't then it's simply too loud? Pick a value within the safe non-clipping range at a fixed attenuation, say 6db or 10 or 20 whatever works, and gang the others. That way you have your own reference (but it still doesn't mean you have to turn it back up that far). Second, I agree with a 'fixed platform' if you can get it to work. I built a 5.0 one around some rubber suspensions (like soft car ones: very old Rycote stuff and DIY equivalents used to use such) on a roughly 8x8inch frame. The Ambient floater might work as a central balanced stand isolator if the weight and spread of the mics above aren't too great. Good luck and yes, please post results (my own stuff is buried in storage at present so I'm afraid I can't put together my own try from years ago). Jez Adamson
  18. I can't say I 'know', as I'm just an end user, not a manufacturer, but I would say: 1. Common sense: Health and Safety - so my ear drums (and, of lesser importance, monitors) aren't blown away by the idiot wanting to play me something 2. Losing years worth of good workflow practice of proper gain staging. In sound NLEs at least there should always be a way of cranking gain up beyond the chosen limit (normalise a copied clip to a chosen threshold for instance) which is preferable to something which can be done easily either in ignorance or by mistake. Jez
  19. I'm responding to Jim just above and Marc at the top so apologies if I'm repeating anyone by accident. The question really is - "one or two cues?" - ie trying to save the day, or has everything been recorded 'off mic' ? Sadly there have been several technological shifts and advances which have been misunderstood, 32 (or even 24) bit being one, ambisonics being another, and at the end of the day it hasn't been (hopefully) our fault, as the experts, nor even the (generally disappointed) user/producer's fault, who have just been told something. It has always been the over enthusiastic marketing or promotion of an application, technique or (cheapness-driven) improvement in standard which has been the culprit. Perhaps it is time for us (and technicians in other fields) to be more vocal, less supportive but more explaining of slight shifts when they arrive. A case in point: 16 bit was decided as the first standard (at least in our field) for bit depth when Nagra and Akai and Sony etc etc were producing 18 and 20 bit products. Rather than have a new 'next standard' of 20 bit, 24 bit was decided upon. A good choice in my opinion, even though for years the actual converters providing a 24 bit end result were not necessarily 24 bit. And consoles have been beyond the 'new consumer heaven' of 32 bit for as long as I've been pushing P&Gs. Jez
  20. Reflexion Filters - sE Electronics https://seelectronics.com/product-cat/reflexion-filters/ A reflection filter, SE Electronics do a few models, some other companies also. Helps a little, especially if you don't have a proper recording studio, like a project studio setup or just recording in the bedroom. Jez
  21. Great, thanks again. Certainly one to look into in the future. I've been using his patterns / calculations for years and am interested in anything new he has to offer. Jez
  22. Just looked at the specs on (a seller's site, not Siriu) and it says "extendable and removable centre column" so unless they're wrong it should come out (it just wouldn't be classed as a monopod when removed). I may have just been lucky with my (pretty old fashioned) Gitzo tripod legs and boompoles, as the larger fits the second largest section of my Avalon aluminium boom and the smaller my (mark one or two) Canford carbon fibre perfectly. The Avalon I use purely with the heavy Gitso as 'cathedral stand' setup - it is heavy, stable and goes quite high with the boom. The Canford I just pull off the rubber end cap and use it with tripod when desired. Thanks again for pointing out the 5C, it looks pretty good all round for size, weight and price. Roland, also, yes I had already seen how you mount a boom to a tripod (I've read quite a few reviews and things on your site recently and I would recommend others to look through it), so if the Siriu wasn't a good fit for any of my booms I might fashion something similar. I still like the idea of being able to (temporarily but easily) fix a super-small and light-ish tripod to a small/medium pole for FX gathering - even just for being able to stand it up relatively safely when doing some other thing ... the weight (860g or even less without centre section) isn't even an issue as I prefer a 'hodges' counterweight anyway. Jez
  23. No I haven't, but my earlier reply concerning 6060s to 4060s should apply just the same as 6061s to 4061s. I would trust DPA's specs.
  24. Yes, thank you for bringing this model to our attention. It looks to be of quite decent quality at a welcome price (and it's good to have a recommendation from somebody using it for sound and not picture). My heavy/sturdy setups are based on Gitso legs with boompoles and my light/travel tripods are stripped/modified cheap aluminium creations - this seems a very interesting, relatively hardwearing, middle way without being of the price of the top level carbon fiber 'travellers'. Does the middle 'boom' section easily remove? And is the diameter sufficient for any smallish boompole to replace it? For FX gathering I'd rather like to find a set of 'occasional legs' to keep attached to the bottom end of a medium boom and these look like they might provide that possibility. Jez
  25. Could you give us more information? The 089130 seems to be a Small Cyclone, available now and considerably more expensive than a BBG. Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...