Constantin

Yes, and as far as I know, it's only an issue with the modular series (Colette). But it does semm to have spoiled Schoeps' reputation when it comes to humidity.

Vaselios, I wasn't addressing you with this. You know your market and your own situation best, and you have to decide what's best for you. I was merely offering a different point of view in this thread which appeared to generally agree that no job is better than an unpaid job.

Talking about gain here and not, say, EQ

Somehow I doubt that this device will be used on a commercial shoot with a famous actress. But stranger things have happened. Nonetheless, Min vs Off is a bit subtle. All the way to the left should always be Off. But doesn't this have an AGC defeat function?

I have to admit, I did work on a couple of movies with defered payment. I never thought "wow great, I'll get all this money someday", instead I always treated them as no-budget films. They served me well. I didn't have much else to do in my earlier days and I needed and wanted the experience and the networking. The region I lived at then was virtually devoid of any film-making, so I took on every opportunity I could get. Defered/No-budget were the only "jobs" I could get at first. But I met a lot of people who have given me work later on. Plus the experience. And I had a few movies in my list, and later employers often look for that, before they hire you on a movie. And I made sure I always got a decent rental for my own gear, whatever I had at first. Upfront. Then I moved to another region, which is much better in terms of a film/TV industry. Many of the acquaintances from those no-budget projects were here, too and they sometimes recommended me to others and this led to actual, paying jobs. I'm certainly not one the top-tier mixers here in Germany, but I make a decent living now. I'm not saying this is because of the no-budget movies, but they didn't hurt, either. Plus, I have to stress: Experience. It depends on where you are on your career, but money shouldn't be the only consideration. One thing I really do agree with, though: Defered payment should always be standard rates, at least.

Sure, it's the golfer. Who here would disagree? But if your oft-mentioned Tiger Woods hits the hole, no-one cares about the tools. Nobody would say "wow, great shot, but I bet it would have been better with his more expensive clubs". It's different for us. Sure, we may be able to make something sound good with a cheapo mic, but to make it sound great, we need a great mic. Even if the audience won't know the difference. Or to use a sports analogy, which you seem to prefer: you can drive fast with a Mercedes, but to win the race you need a Ferrari. (Insert your preferred car maker). And yes, you also need a highly skilled driver

That is so true. I used to try out mics by connecting them to a mixer, putting on headphones and then speaking into the mic. Frequently I thought, well this doesn't sound too bad. And it didn't. But then I learned that a mic must be tested on set in real conditions. The handling, off-axis response, reaction to moisture and so on are all important factors. And surprisingly enough the MK41 is supposed to suck at most of these. But still I smile when I take off my headphones on set after a good take. Because it sounds so sweet

Yes, that's true, I suppose. I always thought that even with long takes, you'd have one long picture file and one long sound file and you just sync them up one. You can just look at the picture to find out when a new take comnences. Although the beeps in the audio file may be an even quicker way

As I understood it NeverClip is exactly for the very quiet sounds. The point being that with any other recorder (except for the Cantar, by the way, which has been using a triple A/D converter for many years) you would probably boost the gain for the very quiet scenes. Then there's an unexpected shout and this may hit the limiter or clip. With NeverClip this is less likely to happen while still retaining full fidelity on the quiet and loud parts. And since there's no gain change, the background doesn't either, making it that little bit easier for post

Sure, EQ is very inportant. Almost always in post. But why should the director need to know? The Postie on this film knowing should suffice

You know what, Senator? I agree.

No, I didn't know, but thanks for sharing. Nothing wrong with it, though. If you are (relatively) happy, then there's no problem. I'm a bit confused, though, why the director should know about EQ

And there could be even more to be sold. Yeah, thanks for teaching us about our niche so frequently. It's not about us in this case, though, it's about anyone who Senn aims this system at. They'd all benefit from a better mic

Yes, exactly, it's about exchanging opinions and experiences. You seem to be forgetting that in so many threads. I think if Sennheiser improved on the ME-2 (without increasing the price too much) they would drastically improve the reputation of the G3 system and subsequently sell more units (perhaps). As it is now, many people sneer at the G3s, unfairly I think. OTOH if you can make a ME-2 sound good, you can probably make most lavs sound good. So for schools, this mic is a must

So I was right: you are older than your avatar. You certainly look older than three.

Including a low cost mic is fine, including a bad sounding mic is not. The notion that this mic is suitable for the target market is your opinion only

Sorry, I was going by your avatar. Apparently you're somewhat older than it. And before you get all crazy-literal: yes, everyone here is older than their avatar

That would be highly unlikely as Sennheiser are a mic maker themselves. I think one or two guys here have used one of their microphones. Why would they include a competitor's mic? They use a cheap mic to go with their cheap wireless system, while offering several upgrade options. I think it kind of makes sense - if including a below-par mic could ever make sense.

+1 It sounds quite good. Better at handling wind than a regular foam. Like all things Schoeps, it's pricey

Thanks for the information, Glenn. Sounds like an exciting product. I only recently aquired a couple of Zaxcom wireless channels and IFB and so far I'm very impressed. If you have the time, Glenn, I'd be interested to know why you chose a compressor in the TX rather than a fixed gain reduction?

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="soundslikejustin" data-cid="199362" data-time="1367715699"> So if this is correct then NeverClip on a TX is nothing special - except for the dual A/D. Using a compressor to bring the signal below 0dBfs (and leaving aside for a minute that a digital signal will always be below 0) implies a constantly varying level as the compressor will only engage once the level passes a set threshold. That's as bad as or worse than a regular limiter. Why not apply a constant gain reduction?

Don't know what one has got to do with the other

If it really is a compressor than it's not NeverClip. The way Rich did describe it, it sounded like any other system, which almost always use a compressor of some sort. What's the advantage then of NeverClip?

I would think that NeverClip is actually quite usefull on a tx. If I remember NeverClip correctly there is no compression, but attenuation which is a big difference. This happens after the converter has a/d'd the full dynamic range of the program. So attenuating at the tx and gaining again at the receiver happens all in the digital domain and should not degrade the signal. Simply turning the gain down is of no help, as you're usually late. That's kind of the whole point with NeverClip. However, I've read in a different thread that NeverClip is implemented quite differently in the plug-on tx so it may be similar to the LA's NeverClip

Senator, if I may ask, just how old are you?