Constantin

Because once they switch to a non-SMTPE rate the TC display does whatever the hell it wants to. So it can suddenly be off by 3 hours. It’s irregular. I‘m always on ToD normally

In most of Europe block 26 is still legal

Ah ok, I think I get it now. You don’t want to use the FP8, instead you want to control everything with Nomad‘s 6 dials and then 4 more. And 7-10 would got to your mixer first then to Nomad? What are you going to control with the faders? Presumably post-fade levels going to the mix, right? How is that going to work with an external device? Is this similar to your needs? https://m.thomann.de/gb/rolls_mx_42.htm

You are basically looking for an analog 4-channel line mixer, right?

If it isn’t a small transmitter for the duet we need to have a stern talk with your r&d people. Especially the r part

Ah ok, I see, that makes sense. Most directors I‘ve met want the agency feed silent between takes, but theirs either always on, or always off, but of course they’re all different. Somewhat...

You could also send the director the feed from the Main L/R out, right?

By using this brilliant merge software: https://www.videotoolshed.com/product/bwfmerge/ This even allows you to not include selected channels from a poly wav, so you could leave out the sub mix from the slave recorders.

It‘s what I did as I described earlier in this thread. To be honest, when I really thought I needed to solo something mid-take I would re-plug my headphones. Between takes I could do it with the faders. On another project with a similar setup, I actually routed the headphone output from 2 into recorder 1 in addition to the regular mix output. I didn’t need all the tracks on that one. I only routed the headphone mix into the X1/X2R (which is what I listened to), but didn’t record its iso. With the mix feed I routed that into L/R and an iso. Now I could solo every track with one or two button pushes.

It does, doesn’t it? You and the others are probably right, though, just coincidence. (I‘m very well, Vin, thanks! Rebuilding my cart at the moment, which is always fun. How are you?

And that’s not the same one who started this topic?

Yes, I find those recordings tend to create nicer results. Nicer on speakers that is. Dummy head recordings only really work when listening on headphones, where they can sound spectacular. But on speakers... not so much.

That demonstrates nothing. Something needs to be connected for any meaningful test

Ok, that seems to indicate that the DPA C preamp is noisier with the HM than the B preamp

I am also reminded of the sound-room and maybe others who test and handpick the Oktava mics they sell. I don’t know if they sell them for a bit more, but still... As Oktavas qc was abysmal this testing process was very welcome. I think, anyway. Never bought one myself.

That seems to make so much sense! That noise it made certainly sounds like it could be due to phantom power. So, when you say „fixed“ is the C preamp still noisier than the B version, but has lost that strange noise? That’s how mine is now... But I wish that more regular noise were gone, too

Oh that’s good to know. Aside from anything, WrineX builds a really great multibay charger for NP-50 style batteries. Anyone in the market for one should contact him. And me for real world experience, if needed

Hi Bouke, what I meant was that I could edit the filename itself. Not necessarily in the metadata. Although there could be an option (like on SD's WaveAgent) to rename the file following the name field in the metadata. Recorders will often name files according to their own convention, like 33528-20192401_001. The 001 part being the takename. It'd be useful if I could rename the first file as for example: Sc23-car_001. The program would rename all following files like that, but keep the take counter. (thanks for the trial, I hope I'll find some time in the next few days to try it out).

I had pretty much exactly the same issue with my C Preamp. I had to send it to DPA for them to check. They returned it and said they checked it and everything was fine. Still had the same issue. Sent it to DPA again, this time accompanied by the recording of the noise and this time they sent me a new C Preamp. To be honest (even though I absolutely love the 4017) this is still noisier than the B preamp, but it's only hiss, and not this weird crackling sound. Still, I will now only use the C preamp when I really have to for more space. It's a shame though, because on paper it's the better preamp. I tried this with 5 different transmitters, including a HM and a HMa. It would only occur with both the Lectro tx, even though they were years apart. Very strange occurence.

You think you can’t hear it because it’s so quiet or because it’s so high? What happens when you pitch down?

I think it comes down to what Glenn said: it’s probably worth it to get a Zaxcom setup for this if you can use it on about 100 days per year (although it really depends on your negotiating skills if you‘ll really get the extra rental). Although you‘ll get two additional channels of wireless if you need it If you have much less days for this, like afewmoreyears, it’s probably not worth the extra cost. As you probably already own some form of wireless gear which you could then use with whatever recorder. I think that would be the smarter choice, and out of those other options the PDR is possibly one of the best

I rarely work with such recorders, but when I do I really really don’t like entering any form of Metadata on the recorder, so for me it would be a cool option if your program could - let me enter the channel names of one track and then it will automatically do that on the other tracks (as an option) - allow me to either rename one file and then automatically renames all other tracks the same but adding a suffix or alternatively add a custom pre- or suffix to every takename. Since most will use these recorders in a „press record once and let it roll all day“ scenario (or so I assume), these would be luxury feature and are non-essential

So you mean that you would prefer going analog out of e.g. the Zaxcom receivers?

No no, I got that. I didn’t think you were suggesting that. I was referring to you first comment without quoting it (which was perhaps stupid). I don’t know the context of that discussion, but it’s always a stupid statement to be honest, because it’s never true whatever the context. I know you were using that as a jumping board and I did find it interesting, because I hadn’t considered that the SRC might be just as detrimental and latent to the signal as the a-d converter. But I don’t know that and haven’t run any tests and without knowing how the manufacturer implemented the SRC it’s difficult for uscto know. Some SRCs convert to analog and then resample. If that were the case here it really wouldn’t matter anymore

Now that doesn’t make any sense. I mean the original statement that it wouldn’t matter in the real world, because the SRC would bring it up to 48k. In terms of frequency content it would still be a 32k signal. But you‘re right that is an interesting question and I‘d be curious to hear if anyone has any insight. With an existing 48k signal coming out of the receiver I would guess that the SRC would be less detrimental to the signal than da/ad conversion, since it’s only 48k - 48k.. But with the 32k signal blown up to 48 who knows? My hunch is that it‘d be better to stay digital, but I don’t know