Constantin

Oh, I didn’t realize he was in Switzerland. Somehow thought he was in the US. Of course, I would also be happy to help...

Alright, even better.

It doesn’t actually say „body worn“, I just inferred that. But to me the description I quoted above is pretty unambiguous. And it doesn’t matter, because Zaxcom has been known to bring to their competitors attention that they might be infringing on Zaxcom‘s patent, so I‘m pretty certain if that were the case here, Zaxcom would do so again. But apparently they are not. Or they are and Sound Devices has decided to ignore it. Either way, that’s probably all I can say about this

Yes, I think outside the US the transmitters can always record audio. In the patent it stated that “each performer is equipped with a local audio device capable of locally recording the respective performer's audio while also transmitting it to a master recorder.“ I‘m no patent lawyer and I haven’t even read the rest of it, but this does sound to me like the patent only refers to body-worn mics and transmitters. I‘m sure Audio Ltd. and now Sound Devices have raised this with their lawyers and feel sure enough to proceed. As far as I know Zaxcom also haven’t challenged this.

I don’t think a makes a difference whatsoever. In the digital mic the low cut happens in the DSP once the signal has been digitized. In the recorder this would probably be the same. It might be different if it happened in the analog part of a mic, mostly to protect the limiter, which might engage upon infrasound, so a low cut on the mic is probably most effective, but other than that, I don’t see a significant difference.

I believe it depends on the source connected. If a lav mic is connected it won’t record, but it will if a boom mic or something else is connected - IIRC

Definitely filter! For me it has solved a range of issues, most importantly strong interference from walkies. Don’t know if they help increase range.

Yes, I think the manufacturers were kind if unimpressed by these digital microphones. Sennheiser support theirs poorly, and it’s not a great product to begin with, Schoeps have even discontinued theirs, DPA have never tried (afaik). Only Neumann have really been keeping at it. The Sennheiser digital module had appalling specs (no better or worse than the analog counterpart), so that really didn’t help. This is strange. When I bought my Neumann mics, the dealer asked me which sample rate I wanted them set at. As I also bought a DMI-2 it didn’t matter much to me. So you don’t have to buy the DMI-2, just find someone who owns one. The thing is though, it won’t help with your noise issue, even if the samplerate converter is the cause (which I doubt). Even a 48k signal will be re-sampled at 48k in an unclocked system. Since you can’t clock the mics without the DMI-2, there’s not much you can do. Except, you can try with one mic, set your recorder to 44.1 and let it clock itself to the AES input, which some recorders will do. That way, your system will be locked to the mic‘s clock and there won’t be an SRC in play and you can find out if the sound improves. If it does, find a DMI-2 to change the samplerate of the mic and then always lock to your digital mic. However, if you use more than one digital mic, the second one will be going through the SRC again. You can ask any dealer who sells these mics to do this for You On short cable runs, a 110 Ohm cable is not required.

Well I always arrange them in the order of the role number, but if a character is not in the scene, I don’t keep their track open. Otherwise I might need 68 tracks or more. I am not aware of a metadata function to achieve this without actually recording tracks. Yes, you can label the track name with any number, but inside the polywav they still get new channel assignments and will get sorted into the DAW according to that. The sound editor will have to move them to the proper track manually, if they want to

You are probably confusing JWSoundgroup with Facebook. This here is not Facebook, indeed it’s very very different. To my knowledge there are no trolls here and Jim certainly isn’t one if them. In fact he is one if the most knowledgeable and respected members here. A general thought: if you post in a discussion group, such as this is, you are going to have to accept that people are going to have a discussion with you, and you can’t expect everyone to always love you or even just agree with you. So people will disagree and contradict you and others may agree with you, and not everyone of both factions will even post their opinion. But very often having both here leads to more profound discussions with usually a better understanding what it all was about than after just reading the first post. For the group as a whole that’s very beneficial. However this is totally going against the idea of an open discussion forum and in fact totally negates it. If everyone were following that route, this would be the dullest forum ever and likely wouldn’t exist anymore

You don’t need the DMI-2. What you get (but only with Neumann mics, others have been less successful with their digital mics, Schoeps have even stopped making them) is increased specs relating to self noise and dynamic range and peak SPL and a built in peak limiter. That’s it. Absolutely none. No, it‘s due to the mic not the a/d converter. And I don’t even agree with the assessment, at least when comparing my KM184 to my KM184D.

I‘ve had a pair of the digital Neumann KM184D for at least 12 or so years, so it’s not new. Neumann gradually expanded the range to include more and more mics, but the basics are unchanged. The advantage of the mics is indeed that they don’t require a regular external preamp. They do not Instead they use a gain-ranging technology, similar to Zaxcom‘s NeverClip, but they did so way before Zaxcom. In fact this happens after the amplifier inside the microphone. This greatly increases the usable dynamic range of the microphone, to around 130dB. As I mentioned above, this can be directly recorded by most current recorders, which provide AES42. I find the increase in dynamic range to be of limited interest just like the improved noise figures, because the improvement is only small. Although I should mention that in the case of the analog mic the figures would need to be considered in conjunction with the recorder (preamp and a/d) figures, which will increase noise and decrease dynamic range. Most standard recorders only have a dynamic range of 110-120dB, so being able to increase that to 130dB or more is not insignificant. Most importantly to me though, is the fact that the mics have a peak limiter built into them. And a particularly transparent one, too. To me, that is pretty cool. In the end, though, it’s still a Neumann mic and I personally prefer other mics. Two years ago I worked on a job which involved traumatized dogs in a very special setting. Don’t want to waste too much time with the details about this, but this couldn‘t be boomed, so all actors wore lavs, but the dogs couldn’t, they were really really aggressive. And they would bark really really loudly at any moment without any warning whatsoever. But the next moment it would be really quiet again and people whispering. I used the KMD184 as ambience mics for this, as they had the limiter built in and since they were mounted somewhere difficult to access, I could change their output gain (if I wanted to) via the DMI-2 interface. And the whole system was clocked to my recorder. So that was quite useful. But since they are a pair of cardioids I have not used them in many other situations, except maybe some ambiences here and there. But I do not find them noticeably quieter on quiet sounds, so didn’t bother

Yes, I am well aware of the requirements for AES42 and also of todays needs to go wireless in many if not most situations. Many recorders (like the 788T and almost all newer ones) offer native AES42 inputs... I‘m not really sure what your original post is all about? Digital mics have been around for a long time and most of us here are more or less familiar with them.

Did you try it with a digital transmitter? In my experience Neumann mics are unsuitable for those, especially digital transmitters. Although I have never tried digital mics

I think with right angle BNCs and low profile XLRs it should be easy enough to install in a bag. Like in an Orca bag, where you can easily change the height position if equipment

In these situations I‘ll put another transmitter on the output of the monitor. That way I don’t need to worry about rf issues as there will be sound if there is picture, and the video op will deal with the picture. So they can be wireless in the village. That feed comes from a transmitter in my bag (or on cart) to camera. I have a second transmitter for anyone who wants to listen on set. Like Matthias said, with the 1039 receiver they can easily switch between the two feeds, but it rarely happens in my world that anyone switches from one to the other

Oh I see! Yes, you are right. Well in that case... yes converting mics to MicroDot makes a lot of sense. Sorry, I‘ll just get out of here

I‘m not all that familiar with how it works in the States (or where you are based), but over here in the EU I would insist that the production company replace all my gear that got damaged. I do that even for small items. They insisted to keep working so they broke your gear. They also have to pay the deductible if there is any, and they have to go through the hassle of the paperwork. How I do it is I talk it over with the production company, armed with a quote for full repair. Had that with a transmitter recently that got dropped into a toilet. They replaced all internal components. Still cheaper than getting a new one. I also needed pictures of everything. Lectro or Zax or whatever can do that when they‘ve got the tx. I then add the repair cost to my invoice or write a separate invoice with just the repair AND my time getting it organized and p&p etc. Production can then argue with their insurance company, that’s not something I care about. Sometimes I know that they don’t bother and just pay it

Doesn’t the ZMT also have a Lemo input? Why do you need to re-wire them?

While I‘m not the greatest Zoom fan, it’s not a consumer tool. The op mentioned 7 years of „experience“ which didn’t earn him any money, except for one recent project, which must have been very low budget. So I‘m very reluctant to call him a professional, yet.

I think given the budget restraints the Zoom F8n with its controller is a very sane choice. I don’t understand why so many here offer advice on recorders costing many times more than your budget and that doesn‘t even include the mic. Regarding the ambisonic mic: do you really need that? In 98% of the times I have not even been asked to provide stereo ambiences, let alone anything requiring more capsules. Ambisonic mics can be great, if and when you really need them. If you don’t, you could spend that much more on your recorder, and get (for example) a Sound Devices 633 or the Maxx

What about the one from the UK? And the other one from Germany? Or do you disqualify their respective methods of remote control?

I think this is a wrong assumption. It may very well be the reverse when you suddenly have have top notch gear, but haven’t taken the time to learn it, or in the heat of the moment you forget how to operate it. To put it bluntly, after one movie, I don’t think you really know how to do the job - and that’s fine, it’s not unusual and you grow from your experiences. But when the heat of the moment arrives you don’t want to be fumbling around with your gear. To start with, keep it simple and know the gear inside out. And understand what it can do and what it can’t do

Baby wipes. There are oily and non-oily types. Try the the non-oily first

True. Which would be fine as well, I guesss