The Immoral Mr Teas

Thanks for the write-up Alex. The only internally cabled boom I ever had I ended up pulling the cable out of (which I still use as a boom cable!) ... I know that it is possible to Do It Yourself but I kind of wish that I could easily buy cable lengths that were partially coiled with LONG straight ends (and preferably a wider coil for external use). Still, it was obvious that spaced sponge grommets along an internal boom cable should probably be a decent solution. By the way, I bought a Rode Micro Pro boom which I hoped would work as a solid ‘extra top length’ section (I mean just one of the three sections) for a travel pole. Sadly, whilst it works great as designed it was too ‘rattley’ atop my favourite old faithful short Canford pole - I would be curious if anyone has tried the same with other poles as it would provide a substantial occasional extension for travel poles. Cheers, Jez

Actually I’ve never used an MKH 435 but just judging from what Werther has said I presume it is the same capsule/electronics ‘guts’ (or at least very similar) to the MKH 416 (or 415 or even 406) in a body that creates a cardioid or hyper-cardioid pattern. It might be just the very ‘sound’ you’re looking for, so might be worth looking for one on eBay or consignment... Covering up the slots in front of the capsule of a 416 will render it somewhat like a cardioid with a tube in front of it. Covering also the slots behind the capsule will make it back into a curiously focused omni. Neither would sound great across its frequency range. I’ve never taken apart an MKH 416 but I have mutilated an MKH 805 ... and as such I found out that the ACTUAL interference tube was not the fancy upper slots (in the case of the old 805) but a series of holes along the top. No idea how interference tubes have changed or advanced over the years ... Viscount, I would follow Werther’s suggestion I think and have a listen to the 435 if you can find one. Best, Jez

As far as I recall it was (probably) just an application rather than a system as such. Just a digital feed that allowed data rather than audio to be put to a dat tape ... and it most likely followed all the existing archiving formats (DLT etc) in time - just being a cheap “this will do it” alternative. It just needed a digital in into a dat recorder. It screamed in at full scale so best not to monitor! I now remember I have some of my personal stuff archived such. From Akai DD8? Not too sure how I could retrieve it though the actual audio (rather than the auxiliary data) should be simple enough. Jez

Rick has pretty much said it in brief. Word clock is a sync device - and is used EXTENSIVELY in post to sync several machines together. As Rick says, time code is not a provider of sync but, reliant on machines being synced, is a reference. A digital feed (AES3, AES42, SPDIF etc) has an embedded sync which can be used to sync machines together. Word clock however is simpler (being only the sync) and thus more foolproof if you are dealing with multiple units (in post this will be a dedicated Master unit and several Slaves). Hard to really elaborate beyond that ... look for a general write up on sync (post 1980?). Word clock on (eg) Sound Devices 7 series machines was put there for a good reason - to ensure a trouble free connection - even though clocking through AES would work well enough (albeit losing 2 channels). Jez

Regarding archiving - the last few threads (my fault!) - I have a vague memory of actually archiving to DAT back in the early/mid nineties ... called something like D-DAT perhaps (for data). That said, I don’t remember any of my post houses using it as a main thing. We in post having the same shit with DAT as our fellows in the field! We did use the (also cartridge based) DLT (short for for Dave Lee Travis, a BBC World Service DJ who kept the pop beacon alight for the short lived democratic renaissance of Burma). DLT seemed to work, at least I haven’t heard the bad stories. Beyond that, however, recording to open reel digital, and archiving to open reel digital, seem to be still accepted as trustworthy, and the latter preferred to disk or even solid state. Been a while since I talked to a data archivist though! Jez

Still used (and reliably) in archiving tho, Crew? (Certainly not DAT however! ...) J

Oball activity toy - cheers Dan - photos of mine on a stereo bar with 8040s on a previous post (last page) work great! best, Jez

Well so far I have only looked at the pictures (but it is after all essentially a visual industry - !@#?) but my desire for a nice pair of vintage DT48s has now been superseded by “anything made from wood”! Can’t, ahem, sound much worse than my sonies I expect ... ! Cheers, Jez

Thanks for the orig brochure, and great to hear Jeff’s testimonial. Although not in the same daily ballgame as the rest of the postees and growing up with really the HHB as the only pro option I had access to, I had memories of the alternatives generally being less bulletproof - the PD2 and the “desirable” Stelladat. Actually got through my (admittedly small amount of) experience with the HHB on and off over the years without trouble. My one major DAT catastrophe (no backup, but miraculously it all turned out ok since nothing on that tape was needed on selected takes!) was with a mini sony in a cave ... and I don’t actually now remember if the tape flipped in machine or afterwards in post. I did however have this tape unravelled on a huge sheet of cartridge paper trying to mend the chaos as cleanly as I could - tho it never ‘error corrected’ like an X80 tape would ... and I never trusted the format again, although in theory I still don’t know if it is down to transport, tape, recording system, replay system or error correction ability (after all I had early assistant experience with DASH, X80 and the Betamax PCM things). Still, I would probably choose DAT over ADAT ha ha! Cheers! Jez

Jay, if it's still troubling you, I'd do what you probably want to do all along - do a strong balanced mono mix and bleed sound to the left and right. If it's really 96% I would even force that other 4% into a (consider it temporary, but do it as good as possible) mono "best" signal. There is absolutely no reason to 'show off' the stereo to the detriment of balance and storytelling. Still, the imperative thing is of course to run all this by the director, it's their choice after all. But you know it's a case of storytelling: many of my favourite films were mixed in mono, though some in different aspects of stereo, some had a great story, great performances, some cool costumes, nice hats or ties (Cassevetes, Sinatra), sets I wished were my house ... (But secretly you probably have already realised my end gameplan: BACK TO MONO! heh heh) Best, and enjoy (hopefully the vintage mono is of excellent quality), Jez (What WOULD turn me off would be wild abandon of aspect ratio but we've been there!)

Couldn’t find Dan’s orig posts or links but I will chase him up if he doesn’t reply before. Anyway, a few pics of a near-ortf setup ....

Left, portside, red. Right, starboard, green. As per the Nagra IV-S as the easiest to find example. Or stereo PPM meters. Yep, that was it! BTW, my friend Daniel Rosen gave me two blimp like toys for Christmas, with grommets which happen to fit both my MKH 40 and 8040s, which were dirt cheap. He wrote about it (either in DIY or Equipment) sometime since then. I've used them with success both with nylon girls socks and windjammer and will try to find the link for Dan's original source. Like my Babyball, I had to cover the rest of the 8040 body with some cycle handlebar foam to cut wind across the mic body. What I would really like to see some 3D-er have a go at would be a large blimp for a multichannel rig, accommodating at the least an IRT quad and preferably slightly bigger to handle variable 5.0 etc rigs ... obviously the second step would be to construct the inside suspension (though that for me could still use existing K&M and Rycote parts ... albeit not commercially). Actually wouldn't mind Rycote or others coming up with such themselves, if they could keep it to a non-specialist price ... Still interested what you come up with, pro's and cons, and especially if you look to develop it along multichannel lines. Best, Jez

... And stop waiting for the 8030 ... ?!

Janik, have these photos been flipped somewhere down the line or are you being deliberately perverse with your channel markings? Jez

Hey Philip, good for both of them. I will try to check it out here. Thank you! Jez Adamson

Well, after the mix of a friend's short in Paris a couple of years ago we were invited to a themed party, the theme being "Great Gatsby" or the like. Being similar in build (or so I thought) to my producer I tried to squeeze into her "flapper" dress but alas it wasn't to be - I did however manage to get my butt into a more flexible number. So, the three of us - myself (sound editor), director and producer, get to the party, actually around the corner from where I used to live (in an attic...) in Boulevard Courcelles, Ferraris and Lambourginis parked outside, it's a posh area. Obviously we were the only three who bothered to turn up dressed up, and as the only man in a dress I made an immediate friend with a chap who's opening line was, "Do you like Fassbinder?" Jez

Yosuke, welcome! And I am glad that Jan was quick to reply. I would say that cold calling is probably quite normal for many of us and as such quite a welcome route. We all did it (and really still do) so we are accepting of other brave souls! BTW did some shoots at Shinjuku a few years back when my friend was directing. You've made the first move (here). Absolutely just make the effort to make friends in the industry where you are. I cannot imagine any other way! Best, Jez

The DP's equipment / rental ... why did they not deal with their equipment their self? Or at least provide the necessary phone+app? J

Where did you find it, Kishor? The specifications that is? It might well be a DPA 4060 excepting it doesn't actually need the 48v but that would be an expensive answer if the specs were for something much cheaper. Jez

Missed your main concern! I presume you already have this Apollo? Do you have a (hopefully nice) recording space (ie studio ... and hence editing space too) then Andrew? In a studio situation there is absolutely nothing to suggest recording to 'studio gear' is any worse than recording into location gear - in many ways it is preferable, mainly in cutting out an unnecessary transfer and dealing only with one system for the entire process (record, edit, mix, output format). Obviously you can't record indies on it and except for occasional possibilities you can't (or would be pushed to) record interviews and the like outside the studio - so, I would probably personally set up to record into the computer (so long as computer noise: fans, drives etc - are taken care of in a separate room or box or some form of soundproofing) when in the studio and use a portable recorder outside. If you have a room though I would seriously advocate monitors, even if fairly budget. Jez

Aghhhhhh! I inadvertently morphed the topic into a cable preferences thread! Well to add a touch of irony I'll have to chime in that my general DIY mic cables are indeed Mogami 2893, which are thin, far less bulky as a result, still 'coil' perfectly after many years of use (my tape-op / music training ...) and remain in great shape. I tend to record FX, field stuff, multichannel and they don't get the rough treatment or hurried use they might in a production environment (heck, I wouldn't even put them away at night without wiping any mud off them) but it gets my seal of approval. I like my canare just as much though. But back to the topic - my sincerest apologies, I'm truly most terribly sorry! Jez

Couple of comments after a quick skim through question and replies: Cables? Who cares? Well Mogami make very good cable so it's a perfectly decent choice (presuming these aren't budget-breakers) I have no experience at all with the Neumann headphones mentioned but if you are editing on 'phones rather than monitors you'll be astonished at the change in comfort by switching to open back (from closed). Of course it helps to have a niceish sounding room with half decent soundproofing against outside noise in which to work, but even if not they might help a lot (and switch back to closed for specific checks and problem solving). Nevertheless I would still look at getting a pair of decent budget monitors to start off with ... Fostex PM1 / 0.5 / 0.4 for instance could be great for the little money, or KRKs or something if you want to spend a little more. (I'm assuming you were thinking using the Neumanns not the Sonys for post mixing ... the latter are ridiculously coloured so I wouldn't go near them for such a task). Also, I'm (these days) a Protools / Nuendo user - tho' having never actually used it myself I would also suggest to have a look at Reaper as a bargain possibility. Anyone here with any experience of Harrison Mixbus btw - any use for picture?? I assume you are also in a position to hire for radio mics / hypers & alternate shotguns etc (ie for those indie shoots)? It's not obvious to me whether you already own certain equipment or are thinking of buying (new or used). Best of luck, Jez

Not sure I would want to put KM184s ... LET ALONE an MKH50, a CMC641 or CMIT5U ... anywhere near a racing car exhaust - not without comprehensive insurance anyway. An omni anyway is better (basically) for lack of proximity effect and low frequency roll off. There are other possibilities to try (look through the archives) but a DPA lav has become the de facto standard for many including myself. Keep those three beautiful hypers for capturing clean dialogue!! Jez

Hi Simon, interesting question for the group. Like you, I am very fond of spaced mics, specifically spaced omnis. I also have friends in the conservation / environment industries and have talked over similar possibilities for sound so I think I have SOME idea where you're coming from. The chances are extremely high that there is no 'end format' in anyone's mind here and moreover that it is somewhat expected that you yourself might come up with the several possibilities of presentation since you are the 'sound expert' - and they would be right, enjoy the chance and discuss it with them! End formats could be (limited bandwidth) podcasts, full bandwidth stereo either on headphones or speakers, simple (quad) speaker arrays or OTT multiple speaker arrays. Or gadgets like VR headsets. So, without freaking your friends out with the differences or the 'possibilities', I would subtly try to ask what main end format is usual or expected, then take that as a starting point. (Maybe you've already done this re original question). What I would be most interested in as a recordist is what scientific or documentary angle they're looking at to involve you in the first place ('cause I've been through this too in hypothetical stages but not yet gone beyond). It could be they are just looking for an exhibition situation to point (known) stuff out to the public or a client. They could however be looking for something which could be measured and analysed and archived. It is the end formats probably which will answer your original question (or help you make your own decision) but the actual aim is the more interesting technical challenge! For a similar situation, not knowing either (end format / aim) up front, my gut reaction would be to go for: a 'perfect' mono omni (... for scientific use in the future if not immediately envisioned) plus an IRT plus an ambisonic. If I was limited to 8 tracks there I would possibly lose the Z of the WXYZ to allow a (coincident but better mic) omni to make up the channel. One last but important thing - you work in music so I assume you are familiar with Mid - Side in recording and mixing? (I must have worked in some degree with MS every single day I worked on music stuff, far far more so than I had to in broadcast or film). It is important to understand since you have no direct ambisonic experience that ambisonics is an MS technique, so your existing knowledge of the various techniques, problems and benefits of MS also will be those of ambisonics ... so it might help you in working out if ambisonics may be the better or worse choice at least to pursue. Good luck and have fun - wish I was doing this one! Jez "I love spaced omnis ... hundreds of them!" Adamson

I am a dialogue editor and started out (like many here) when recorders only had one or two tracks to record to so whilst I can understand Derek's team's fast turnaround reality request what Philip and Constantin point out - that you can get carried away with track counts (and trying to be helpful) - rings true for me. In fact it is the (rerecording) mixer who at the end of the day needs tracks in an order which makes good sense for his/herself and I would try to make sure my edited tracks are either exactly what the mixer expects or sensibly and consistently ordered. Some mixers like to do things differently to others so it is best for me to try to find out what is expected, particularly if working on a new type of production (like moving to a daily reality show from a narrative drama for instance). By all means communicate if possible to the sound post team as they may have specific requirements which could make their life easier and which might not be obvious (or just might be the opposite of what made life easy for the last team). Aside from that, using common sense, being consistent and good labelling / notes are what we editors hope for aside from the obvious. Jez Adamson