The Immoral Mr Teas

Thanks for the write up, Richard! Jez

"Thank you for supporting film history - by watching Talking Pictures TV!" This is a phrase I've been hearing regularly over the past several weeks thanks to the new Channel 81 on UK TV, Talking Pictures TV. Several wonderful and crazy gems from the British film industry have had airings and given a new lease of life. Often I'll find myself checking something out based just on a title as there's not much information to go on. A couple of days ago the familiar phrase "starring Robin Askwith" prompted me to set the reminder for the film "Cool It, Carol!". Before I started watching I didn't really expect to make it far into the film or beyond the first adverts break. That was to change when the titles announced it was a Pete Walker production. My fate for the next 100 minutes was sealed when I read the name Nick Flowers amongst the crew. What a film Nick! It starts cheekily much as I'd expect from a Robin Askwith vehicle, albeit with already a hint of the surreal. But soon the comedy gives way to a descent into the sordid underbelly of swinging London that made me wonder how low this tale could reach and what else could possibly happen to our couple? How low? Why, straight back to its absurd cheeky starting point of course! The character David Thing should have had a film to himself - I hope I come across him again. If not I might have to have a go at penning my own script, or campaigning to get him written into an Austin Powers sequel. The British Film Institute (BFI) has recently celebrated Pete Walker amongst several other talented but neglected filmmakers in their DVD/BluRay series "BFI Flipside". Decent production values married to very VERY leftfield stories. This one was terrific. Did you work on any other Pete Walker films Nick? Any happy memories? Best, Jez

Donald, I guess you must have been right after all, not 'sync', but 'foley/fx' it is, just on location. I presume you have a relaxed enough schedule and an accomodating talent who's enjoying being a foley artist as well as actor? At first I was confused and thinking the shooting was being interrupted for foley ... or that there were maybe dialogue-less scenes that you were looking at recording differently somehow?? Whatever, the MKH40 is a great mic for voice and for spot FX, and presumably much quieter + hotter than the boom (ME66 or 80 perhaps?) so if you're doing location foley and spots by all means use the 40. Even the low noise floor will benefit, aside from the nicer sound. The one thing I would advise, looking at the original post, is to upgrade your monitoring chain somehow, as its obviously not doing its job at enabling you to make the necessary recording decisions. A more closed headphone perhaps or a better headphone amp (which probably = better mixer or recorder)? Although its 'not about the arrows', monitoring is as much about understanding what you're hearing (which is why so many favour the horrible sound and appalling isolation of the MDR 7506!) Jez

My last Himalayan trip was several months spread out over the summer of 2008, with Bruel & Kjaer omnis, on the Chinese side (and I recorded the solar eclipse in Gansu / Inner Mongolia just before that and the Olympics). Qinghai, west Sichuan and Tibetan Nujiang valley. At one point I didn't speak any English in three weeks. I did it for my library, not science, but got some amazing ambience recordings (which have found themselves in dozens of films since). If I have a win on the lottery I'll come along - if not, enjoy yourself! I've long wanted to do a similar trip in the Indian Himalayas and combine it with my other interests in nearby Assam and Darjeeling. Best of luck, and update us on kit, plans and results! Jez Adamson (stuck in UK as I write).

The Tinyurl link points to New Scientist - an article from 4th April 1974, and the paragraph talking of the recorder mentions Evershed and Vignoles as the makers of the T704 - a quick google on the London based company http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Evershed_and_Vignoles points out that it it was an Acton area based company established 1895 and employing 500 people in the 1920s and over 1500 by the 1960s. Makers of instrumentation and electrical equipment including naval and defence so well suited for the espionage side ... there may be some interesting other threads to this story ... the T704 may have some notable brothers and sisters (thinking along the lines of the SN's extended family and the Crevette). From 1971 and the era of the T704 much of the company was sold to Thorn EMI (very much connected to the British film industry - and much of the rest of British industry) and "mainly involved in making defence electronic equipment at Acton Lane" before moving to Vauxhall along the road from MI6 (or some of it) in 1986. 1987 name changed to Megger Instruments Limited. Megger Ltd now based in Kent. All just from the above link. Thanks as always for the enjoyable story, photos and another source of industrial history!! Best, Jez

It's not "fx/foley", it's "sync" ... and yes, whilst the dialogue is dominant (or favoured?) over the rest of the ambient sound (be it background atmos or specific noises of actions seen on screen) it forms a part of the dialogue/sync edit which is the basis of the sound edit tracks. How much the ratio of non-dialogue sync is recorded or left in the edit will be a judgement call for everyone based on several factors (and sometimes that judgement will be to try to omit it completely ... as many who have shot space opera in giant sheds under Heathrow may testify). On the plus side, just as sync dialogue generally sounds 'better' than adr, the actual sound of a physical event may have a ring of naturalness about it which could surprise and be considered desirable. We will often pull out sounds from production tracks for the FX library. On the negative side there could be dozens of factors in play that you choose to minimise non-dialogue sound: intelligibility (combined with naturalness or timbre) being the most obvious. You don't want odd noises obscuring the words, you don't want clarity reduced by too great a background level, you don't want to be distracted from the dialogue by strange or irrelevant noises. Sometimes the 'real' sound in a set situation may not be the desired sound for the story - aside from the obvious background atmos situations (planes in 18th Century), objects/shoes/clothing may require a completely different sound from their actual sound. Often also there is the situation where even when the 'real' sound would be correct it will have to be recorded 'clean' and subsequently recreated artificially in post so that it can be timed around the dialogue. I don't think this is such a bad question actually Donald - I was discussing the very same thing just the other week with a (current major UK TV credit) production recordist (I'm a dialogue editor myself). A 'natural' modern day drama may have a lot more leeway than a more stylised production, and my tracks may have a good deal more ambience and spot noises within them. It is (very) rare and generally undesirable to 'focus' on the sync sounds - it is definitely your job to record the words. You will probably not be criticised by post (or production for that matter) for erring on the side of the dialogue, and the dialogue editor and the dialogue mixers continue the process of bringing the best out of the dialogue within the sync. It's really a case of understanding the aims of the film and the problems of the locations and to make your decisions ... then to be ready to further sort out individual problems as they come up. So if I understand the question right, the 'sync' will form 'a' basis of the dialogue track, but in a widely varying way, depending on the show being shot - BUT - it is not 'the' basis, the dialogue is. I (as post production) would rarely be brought to completely remove the non-dialogue portion of a production track, but I would hope and expect that I would have few or no problems from the non-dialogue sync sound to deal with. At least, not the same problems on a repeated basis! Best, Jez

Thanks and welcome from me as well, John! Links to pdf of any decent informative magazine articles (I remember the days of learning the odd thing from Audio Media and even Sound On Sound ...) would be welcome if you get the chance. I've downloaded the AES papers to read through. None of my mics are digital, nor preamps/recorders at this point, but I'm interested in progress. Cheers again, Jez Adamson

But it will have the most extreme phase issue possible - 180 degrees. If phase is not an issue, so be it, but if it is an issue then splitting a mono signal and panning it either side with a phase reversal into one channel is just about the worst thing that could be done! You can add 'air' just by adding some air. Adding that air in and out of phase will produce problems where such extremes of phase are a problem. Often a mixer will 'solve' this problem by deleting one of the legs and panning it central (or either side). Bang goes the stereo image, but then it wasn't really there in the first place, just a diffusion … of air. Handy only if you're dealing with a format which accepts extremes of phase without problems. Sometimes its not so much a problem as an annoyance. Essential to understand however if you're dealing with a format such as a vinyl stereo disc which allows such extremes of phase only within carefully controlled limits. Well, an effect is either useful for one's purpose or not, and it will rarely be ideal for many different purposes. I might choose one sound effect precisely because the way it was recorded results in a stereophonic image which perfectly suits the psychoacoustic effect I'm after and the technical format of its reproduction - and I might reject another for the reason it doesn't. I would never complain about an effect's phase make-up (unless I specifically asked for something and was given the opposite of what I asked for). If something wasn't suitable (for that purpose) I simply wouldn't use it. And usually a sound is 'semi-useful' - if it fits what I'm looking for then I'll cut, pan, EQ it or whatever to make it work in its new context. A shame, because I'll often take the (useful) mono element of an MS recording and discard the side element: it saves me some time-consuming processing if I can simply grab the mono leg (and sometimes if pushed for time I might just take one channel of the encoded effect if the sound is clear enough without bothering with decoding). Even if I was editing something 'in MS' I would most likely decode the channels to allow my own decision on side information. I have decoded a certain amount of my FX library's encoded MS cues to have quicker access to the more commonly used 'front mono' sounds, but its a pain. On the other hand, its a very easy pain to decode: ambisonics is another kettle of fish entirely!! Well, it often doesn't matter, and its rare indeed to find a library effect that might exactly match a picture without a certain amount of work being done to alter or augment it. But in the case of an MS encoded cue it's very simple indeed - in fact I don't even have to listen to it: I can tell what it is just by looking at the waveform. Best, Jez xy

Hi again Donald, I'll try to give my opinion on much that's been discussed without quoting (my ol' browser still struggles with JWS so I'm writing and pasting this in) and I'll save my anti-MS rant for the other thread if I can be bothered (heh heh). Actually, unlike Itaru, you mention 'field recording' (art? nature sounds?) rather than film FX as your prime concern so MS might well be an area that serves you well. Its certainly interesting and fun. Its worth pointing out that MS is a technique rather than just a recording system, and you'll get to know and understand it best in the studio - experimenting with relative levels and played back over speakers (rather than headphones) - than you will recording in the field. Damn, I'll jump straight into the **** and state that it doesn't even need a figure 8 mic … just two channels of audio (related but not identical) and some analogue or DAW system of applying the maths. What I do think is that you might regret blowing over half your budget on a one-trick pony. Whilst you probably wouldn't have any regrets in the long term investing in any of MKH 40, MKH 50, MKH80xx ditto, CMC41 … you might just think what you could have bought with that MKH30 money. On the other hand, except for the two Schoeps capsules MK8 and MK6 there's not really a substitute for the MKH30 for convenience / field work, although there are a great many more choices of Figure 8 studio size mics. The two most obvious alternatives I know of are the AKG CK94 capsule for Blue Line and the Ambient ATE208 Emesser (neither of which I have any experience of). The Octava do a capsule, but it being back to back cardioids I don't know how or if they apply phase reverse to one … not that it matters that much but if it doesn't it will have less cancellation at the axis that a true fig 8 naturally creates. (Is this important to your needs?) However, I'm not sure how much cheaper the Ambient or AKG will work out than Schoeps or Sennheiser, so if your heart is set on an MS rig for constant use I'd give both of those the thumbs up. Looking for budget budget options for Figure 8 I came across the Studio Projects B3, the discontinued C3 and the twin capsule LSD2 (I like the latter's name). They're all side address 3 pattern mics (om, car, 8), round but fat, but not so big they couldn't do a fat rycote. The B3 is only $160 in the US, so if you're just wanting to experiment with a side channel it might be a decent first figure 8 (and your first suicide mic when you upgrade). The LSD2 ($500) is like a cheap SM69, and would allow semi-variable MS (but no hyper or wide cardioid) or blumlein pair, or even the XY of Ambisonic WXY(Z) if you wanted to start experimenting further in that direction (when you get a 4+ channel recorder) … taping your DPA on top. I have no idea how good or bad they actually are, but a B3 or a second hand C3 might just do the job of starting you off on MS and deciding if this is the right technique for you. Personally speaking, an interest in two channel MS will probably lead to experiments in Double MS and WXY(Z) techniques before long so you'll want that second cardioid mic after all. Mid mics for MS: your decision - everything from omni to another figure 8 has its place. (As does shotgun, as the RSM191, MKH418 and several documentary blimps can testify to). Turn twin fig 8 MS by 45 degrees and you've got a Blumlein pair. A wide cardioid will give a 'forgiving' centre and a hyper will be much tighter. Cardioid in the middle of the two. If you don't 'need' the tight hyper for dialogue it doesn't really matter what you choose, soundstage-wise; they all have a place and any one doesn't tower over the others. Your choices. What will you be pointing at? "It depends". My choice for Friday = cardioid. I kind of wish when I bought my own first mics that the current cheap options were about, and I'd seriously consider the cheaper options like Oktavas, SE Electronics and Rode for a stereo pair (preferably with interchangable capsules) for a starter kit - it will become your surround channels when you first upgrade and your suicide mics after that, so its not necessarily a bad investment. (Also check out previous recommendations of other mics like the Line Audio etc etc). A serviceable stereo kit might come to an eighth of your budget for two mics. Although I've said you shouldn't regret buying a Schoeps or Sennheiser, you might regret not getting a matching pair if you're looking to record a lot of stereo, which I assume you are. My vote for quality/price is a pair of MKH 8040s, though I prefer the versatility of the MKH40 for dialogue (since we still don't have a bass cut module that comes anywhere close to the Cut 1 & 2 of Schoeps). Those two new Rode micro boompoles look interesting for field work, although I'm not sure a big zep would sit well on them. I intend experimenting with both with lightweight (cheap) tripod bases for fieldwork and travel. As the bigger zeps go, I'd say the AE is my optimum size, although you might need the longer one if you end up with a longer mic. The shorter rycote egg is cute and convenient, but I ended up adapting the base so it had two tightening screws rather than just one plus a peg. Although I often forego full rycotes and just use softies in the field especially if travelling lightish (I'm not 'fighting the elements' to get dialogue and if there's wind its often just 'bad recording conditions' for what I'm after so I don't record!) Much easier to sort an MS rig with a rycote though. You might even squeeze one into a slimmer (normal) rycote by having an extra ring of foam and nylon around the mic elements inside - seen this done with the slimmer RSM191 single body. The more air the better of course, but if there's that much wind do you really want the recording? A slimmer body is sturdier and easier to deal with. Still, a fat rycote will give you more options, especially if you end up squeezing 8040s or CCMs into stereo angles within (tricky but do-able). So to summarise: I think in your position you shouldn't restrict yourself to a two-mic MS setup (although I concur that might suit your needs perfectly). Rather than an expensive side mic and a 'cheap mid option' I would consider an expensive mid mic (or pair thereof) and experimenting at first with a cheaper side option. Before making any decision play about (on Reaper or another DAW) with MS encoding, decoding and variation, using standard LR recordings as well as MS recordings made by other people. Download from the Rycote website 'The Stereophonic Zoom' by Michael Williams and study the range of techniques therein with angling(?) and spacing omni, cardioid and hyper mics (including ORTF etc) Best, Jez

I'd intended to join in a few days ago and say just this - assuming you're going to be away from 'hire civilisation' for big chunks of time. Such that at least one 416 - one new and one secondhand? - the most bulletproof mic out there; one or two wired lav mics; a couple of lengths of cable that will withstand extreme frost ... And less than the 302 even I was going to suggest a used mix pre or mp2 - just a solid analogue can't-go-wrong preamp into camera (and a backup hop to a flash recorder). Even the single channel SD mic pre would be a good BU except you are looking to do stereo or MS where possible. Aside from that, with MS or even LR stereo intended I'd be looking to have a solid yet lightweight mic stand: I don't know of anything that already exists, but perhaps Gitzo or Manfrotto do something suitable. You'll prob want something far lighter than the 'standard' light stand plus boom arm attachment (with sandbags) used for interview setups: your task is to keep the stereo image stable rather than squeeze a mic into an awkward position. But you might end up having to construct something yourself: both the new 'micro' poles by rode look an interesting starting point for lightweight vertical stands if you found something light but fairly solid as a tripod base (and you could always use snow or rocks as ballast using elastic or netting). As well as Mike's seat, a foldable or roll of (silent) waterproof sports matting either for your own bum or equipment, whichever is more valuable at any particular moment. And search the archives here and Ramps for excellent advice on all things snow and ice with equipment, clothing and staying alive. Jez

I've just requested my demonstration. They're coming round after lunch on Christmas Eve if anyone wants to attend. And yes, there WILL be a Super Softie available by BVE. Jez

With your low-budget lighting rig! Ha ha, sorry ... J x

I'll be really brief, Itaro. The two 8040s ... two cardioids. Now I'll be my usual rambling self. Since you mentioned FX recording (presuming film and/or TV) ... and not radio broadcast. I own a Soundfield and a Schoeps fig 8 for M/S and other uses, and granted its a much easier combo to squeeze into one windshield, but really I have found the usefulness (as a sound editor) of MS recordings (or their stereo aspect) quite limiting. I like recording techniques, I'm a fan of Blumlein (the man and the method) and the whole history of the Ambisonic scene, but for me, for FX recording ... very rarely MS, and when I do, it's for a reason: I'd rather record mono and just know I've captured a really good ideal on-axis frontal image! The several reasons I'm interested in MS include: music ensembles, interior or round-the-mic; docu coverage for musical subjects; stereo radio coverage of musical or ambient situations requiring no-nasty-surprises folddown; custom multichannel reproduction situations such as gallery audio or AV art. (I'll thank John here for having previously pointed me to Ambisonics developments made by Harpex B). But MS is usually less useful than many expect for film FX (aside from the mono on-axis bit ... but that's mono, not the 'stereo' component). What I would NEVER recommend, and my real answer to your question, is to choose one quite specific and limited stereo technique over another (quite specific and limited etc etc). If you know that you are going to be required to record MS then by all means the tools of your trade are going to be an MS rig. If you know you're needing to record ORTF, then two cardioids and a crossbar (or a fixed mount if you know you'll be recording ORFT an awful lot over other twin cardioid patterns: personally, I don't like to restrict my stereo angle and the 'on/off axis sweet/sour spots' of my mics to 110 degrees or 170 mm when 120 degrees and 140 mm might be better). I WOULD recommend to try to put together a small palette of mics for a range of applications. Out of all of my mics, my pair of MKH 8040s and two of my DPA 4060s get used the most, so within that kind of budget I'd heartily recommend both those models (I presume you know the DPAs are small lavalier mics, omni and good sounding: they're incredibly useful for all sorts of FX situations). If you need to record 'stereo' with a clear defined central channel you'll need to either go two channel MS with a figure 8 and your choice of mid mic, or plump with three mics, LCR, and a recorder to accommodate: my experience is that a multichannel LCR recording is far more commonly required in film FX than an MS. Then again, what is often required is simply either a mono recording of an object or a (recording-angle assessed and chosen) LR stereo recording of an event or ambience. So, back to the beginning, briefly: 1. Two cardioids = very useful general all round tools for mono or LR stereo 2. A K&M stereo bar - costing nearly nothing and allowing virtually all cardioid LR positions, not just ORTF 3. Ingenuity for fitting said bar into big fat rycote (or just use furry balls) 4. A figure of 8 capsule once the desire for MS reaches the demand, and when its cost is justified above all additional patterns in the arsenal such as hypercardioid, shotgun or omni ... Depending on what you end up recording lots of, the figure 8 might indeed be more useful than any of these and a very useful third microphone to buy - I'm not knocking it, just the idea that (film fx recording in mind) M-S could be considered to be a SUBSTITUTE for two cardioids rather than a technique chosen for a particular situation or result. I expect the excellent null characteristics of the veritable figure of eight might now prove useful to repel the barrage of verbal abuse from our many fans of Mid Side here, so please just wait as I turn myself ninety degrees ... Best, Jez x

Well worth looking at his Wanted List too since it includes some very interesting manufacturers as well as models which are not represented in his actual collection. I wonder Nick if you can find a collection of instrumentation data recorders and 'in situ' control room photos? Presently listening on Radio 4 Extra to a radio play of Thatcher's last days in power I am reminded that that week in 1990 I managed to sneak into a very fine such room with racks of spinning 120ips upright machines in a government building in Ulam Batar. I still haven't had the time to make my way through the BBC Tech pdfs you pointed me to but I'll thank you for them in this thread and encourage others here to have a look back through recent weeks on (I think) General Discussion for the link. Best, Jez Adamson

Sounds like you've moved from 'Dating' into 'Marriage' - at this rate, I would just wait for the divorce to come through Monday or Tuesday. Try to have a nice weekend! Jez xxx

I was interested in doing this one but I'm already shooting a film about a group of girls just released from prism who discover an app which makes them rech.

Reckon that "Collage Kid" must be both inside and outside at the same time. Jez

Personally, I would like to hear Danny De Vito read these out to me. Then wait to hear what '5' is. J

Those two SM57s suggest to me that those harmoniums in questions may be very very loud! Which brings one question: is the 'dialogue' to be recorded supposed to be natural-sounding, normal level (as if heard by the other members of the group) or amplified and somewhat distorted as through the PA (as might be heard by an audience in a concert situation)? If (either way) you're dealing with a concert scene but its not an actual concert with an audience you might consider filming/recording WITHOUT the actual PA outputting anything (but mic'd up for music, recorded sync to picture, then 'processed' in post ... possibly replayed through suitable PA in same or suitable space and re-recorded rater than messing about with post tools for 'distortion/reverb') As Christian rightly pointed out unamplified harmoniums, tabla and voices are not particularly outside the range of speech. Maybe lavs on musicians (for dialogue) if need to keep distant frame (and not have 'unrealistic' dialogue mics in shot alongside the Shures)? What mics can be in shot (seen for the story being told) is a main question for production. Of course I may have completely misinterpreted and there may (need) to be a full PA blaring? If not, though, it could be a case of working with production on the setup then getting musicians to understand that a (genuine heartfelt) performance could be recorded without the live PA output but played back in sync afterward for the full 'concert' effect. They'll be used to practicing and jamming together 'unplugged' so its a case of getting them to understand the process and try to give an unrestrained performance. Jez

Belated thanks for this Richard. Look forward to each and every update on this machine. Wondering now how the XLR5 / Dante-Ravenna choices might present themselves when the 8-box arrives: multiple outputs through two XLR 5s separately configured or one XLR5 running alongside Dante (assuming running the units linked obviously) ... or will it be either/or, or both (option) outputs running the same? Time will tell, but a nice solution for the XLR5 in the meantime. Jez

Hey Nick, racier even than close-ups of the SX-R4+ ... it's certainly gone on my bedside reading pile! As a sucker for any technical periodical from the 1970s may I ask if there are any more where that came from? Best, Jez

Hi, I sped through all the replies to this, and I'm being quick about my own post (for a welcome change), so apologies if I end up repeating other replies or ask questions here (the not-needing-an-answer type) that have been explained. A few thoughts - first, check up the Rycote website for a link somewhere for the Williams papers on 2 and 5 channel recording: especially The Stereophonic Zoom, which is an excellent primer on 2 channel stereo recording (omni through to fig8) but also the Multichannel paper, essentially an expansion of 'zoom', dealing only with the cardioid pattern (and focus on the front three and ignore the back two channels for basic theory). Second - are you asked or restricted to 2 channels, and is mono an expected requirement? Might be worth attempting to place either an 'integrated' or separate mono mic. Like Glen, but perhaps when younger, I grew up playing in orchestras, and I assisted in the recording of many when older, and every situation can have its differences. And I like mono, 2 channel and 3 channel setups ... If recording 2 channel especially, but also relevant to 3 channel (Decca or 3 cardioid or 2 cardioid with omni centre) assess the 'recording angle' based on the size and layout of the ensemble and the size of the hall. Listen, as you seem to be for shortcomings, especially the middl and sides. If recording 2 cardioids then The Stereophonic Zoom ought to point you in the right direction. Lastly remember that you can always (hopefully) reposition the ensemble to address any issues such as holes or indefinition for central or outlying players, or even move sections of the orchestra about - swap the 2nd violins with cellos; centralise or split back sections ... Best of luck, and enjoy, Jez Adamson

But Abe, Jon and Marc, he has a budget of around $650 ... which won't go far on rental for any of the top machines (leaving him with some hands on experience but no mixer/recorder) and its obvious it will be years before he can afford such a thing. Meanwhile, he's probably shooting no/lo budget dramas and corporates on cameras costing about the same and with no synchable abilities. There are several recorders available catering for these first steps, all with pros and cons (which admittedly should be weighed up according to the type of work expected) any of which would be useful if owned both as a potential source of (low budget) income and continued experience through use. I like many started out using (other people's) Nagra recorders and SQN mixers, both astronomically expensive 20+ years ago and even then would have loved to have had my own Teac/Tascam non-TC portable dat ... far more expensive than $650 when they came out and capable of less than even the cheapest of the 4 machines quoted - but nevertheless a 'good investment' if used regularly. As it was I was relatively lucky to work out of studios where I could often borrow equipment before eventually gathering things over the years. Its very true, and worth informing him, that pro dealers will usually act very kindly and guide us through needs budgets and could rent and offset rental against purchase but its probably going to be a few years yet before he can afford a Maxx, 552 or whatever completely professional yet 'entry level' machine he decides is right for him. Meanwhile pdastoor (sorry, I don't know your name!), I'm now going to agree somewhat with Jon, Marc and Abe were actually saying (without wanting to discourage you). There are machines available - those you list and others including a 'middle ground' of machines such as the Roland R88 which do many people a good service in lower budget corporate etc work. You need to ask yourself if you will need timecode, whether timecode input would do or if generation etc needed, and if you need more than two channels. That will already narrow your choice right down. Other factors are outputs - level options; number; digital or not etc. Mixing capability. At the end of the day there's probably no machine out there that does everything you'll (eventually) want of it (though the Cantar x3 probably comes close). So its up to you to assess what machine does what (on paper) and what you might be expected to do with it. You can always choose a recorder to buy and then hire a more capable unit when needed (as I do with 788t and Cantar). I bought a Roland R4 Pro second hand for around $500. Four tracks, TC in out jam, AES EBU digi IO. Awkward to use in certain ways: some internal mixing possible but 'not really'. Preamps OK but not great. Investment? I'll get my $500 worth out of it, so yes. And I wanted 'something' to handle 4 tracks on a similar budget to your's when it came up. I chose that at that price for the first three things I stated - 4 tracks, TC, Digi IO - against other things around. So its worth looking second hand ... PD6 perhaps? A second hand SD552 might be considered a bit more of an investment as it may be more resellable: con = TC in only, many pros incl multi digi out ... And keep an eye out for that new zoom F8. Over your budget - and it does far from everything - but it promises a lot. Sorry for browning any noses! You know I love you really ... Jez

Exactly like that, only, as Jeff says, more extreme. Much more! Less than half that size ... a third even. And I'm currently editing on a computer that only rarely goes online for installations (to prevent mis-installations etc) so my old macbook (with its old settings and old software) is my daily email (apart from the damn tellyphone of course) ... my only post G4 mac that hasn't blown - though I'm sure that G4 and the G3 laptop still do what they can OK. Anyway Jeff, I'm pretty sure its just the older browser and OS I'm still using, so I'll probably sign in to post then sign out to read until I get things sorted. And atop that ramble I've just here managed to ascertain that the multiquote seems to be working great again - and also the window stays wide whilst writing / replying to posts so I'm happy there. Never got around to saying I like the air force blue palette, so there we are! Cheers VAS and Jeff, Jez

Maybe its worth letting zoom (assuming they're listening here as well as more obvious music recording / lobo film forums) what we think in the month before v1 software is finalised and units are shipped? For myself, I am like others far more impressed than I expected to be - spec, feature and build wise. It's in fact the first zoom product that I've looked at quite seriously of being of use (to me - mostly FX recording, surround, very portable, AA battery built in option - TC gen also welcome). (Its also more expensive - at the 'prosumer' level - giving one hope for quality of components etc). What I can't see in preliminary notes is CHANNEL GANGING ABILITY - this is the one absolutely crucial feature (for quick accurate stereo and multichannel music and effect recording) that I hope can be implemented and will be implemented by v1 software: ideally any combination of selected tracks to be controlled by one fader; even better if more than one fader group could be chosen (so, a five channel group on fader 1, tracks 1-5, and a second 3 channel group on fader 6, tracks 6-8). The minimum usefulness for me would be the ability to group FOUR tracks on one fader. It's a little upsetting that the TRS deals only with line in and the XLR with mic in. Despite the obvious impedances quoted it might be workable to switch off phantom and use an XLR as line in ... at a minimum +10 gain boost though? What I cannot quite figure is if the line in is +4 or -10: the specs quote the former (High quality mic preamps with up to 75dB gain, less than -127dBu EIN, and +4dB line inputs) whereas the photos suggest a -20 ?? input level? Shame also that output at -10 and not +4, although -40 option is good. Things I do like are big HP socket, hirose and AA etc powering, use as soundcard interface, and delays on IP/OP. I doubt that any hardware can or will be changed - and don't really care ... its something that MAY be of use to me or may not - but software implementation is another thing. Ganging? I really cannot see why this isn't in EVERY new machine, and comprehensive in all the professional gear. Stereo and multichannel have after all been with us in music and film for about a century now ... Jez