Jump to content

Constantin

Members
  • Posts

    4,696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Everything posted by Constantin

  1. Maybe so, but it's the first time I'm reading it and I'm enjoying it. Learning something new every day here at JWSound. Or maybe something old, in this case. I voice-slate, too, but only in those cases, where the AC (or whoever dors it) calls out the wrong take. Or tail-sticks get missed by the camera. That happens a lot. Over here in Germany, it seems to be common practice for the clappers to announce every take with their full name (except for roll number), scene and shot number. Some will even call out the project's name every single time. I don't think those few extra seconds matter much over the course of a whole shoot day. No, I disagree. I think it's very good practice, not empty at all, and should definitely be kept alive. Although I don't know what a chrotchet is in this context. I only know it from music theory, but that doesn't seem to fit in this case. It's just wise to make sure your gear works before the first take. I also check my comteks, radio mics and all to avoid failure in the first take. To record all that info as the first file of the day, seems to be very useful, too. Before I got to be a PSM, I worked in a recording studio, recording local bands using large reel-to-reel machines. There too, I would always make a verbal announcement on the tape to describe who/what/when/how was being recorded. Years later a sound report might have been lost, but the verbal announcement will always be there.
  2. Ah yes, I have heard those rings on behind-the-scenes shows. While I could imagine what they were for, I never related it to the beeps. Thanks guys, for the explanation
  3. So, without meaning to step on anyone's toes (which I seem to be doing enough of in other threads), what's the point of doing the head/tail beeping today? I am like Den, having found out about the beeping just prior to this thread and wondering about its purpose. So aside from the reason of holding over from the tape days, why do it today? Should I start doing it? On the 788T at least it changes on all attached drives. I rename after the fact frequently.
  4. You still do the mix, you just don't record it. You simply disarm the LR tracks.
  5. By turning the wheel on the right hand side of the recorder you can choose the headphone mode. Choosing L,R or LR,LR (Mono) enables you to listen post fader. You can also set a favourite mode for recording and another one for listening. There are a few menu items for setting up headphone preferences. And, RTFM
  6. So you guys who voice-slate every take, do you do that always or only in those cases where the 2nd AC or whoever does the slating isn't calling out the scene/take number? Marc, I wonder with regards to the catastrophic failure of timecode and metadata, wouldn't you still have the name of the file to help you find the right take? And my last question, if I may, what is the actual purpose of the head and tail beeps? Just a leftover from the tape days? What was the purpose in the tape days? Just to mark the end of the take? Unfortunately, I only got into this business when the tape days were already pretty much over...
  7. Yes, I suppose you could add in the Hi-boost in post, but it helps on those occasion where there is no post. It's not really a presence boost, or what I think a presence boost is. It's much higher. This also relates to the question whether we should eq on set or not.
  8. Yes, that's what I was trying to say, but your's is the more elegant and more precise way
  9. Oh no, I knew I forgot something. I was already on the phone with them for almost 30 minutes. So I don't know. But you could instead use an active cable on a colette capsule and then put a digital preamp on that, but that's of course not the same, especially when trying to put it in a zeppelin. I did talk to him about using an analogue fig.8 mic on the SuperCMIT for M/S, though. He said that the preset 1 has a pretty steady delay so if you delay the S channel accordingly it should be fine. With preset 2 he was less sure, as its processing delay varies depending on the actual DNR it's doing. Sometimes this may even vary between frequencies. He also said that this is only strictly speaking, when following the M/S rules by the letter. You will still get "some room" even if you don't know the precise delay values.
  10. Isn't that also what, in essence and dumbed down, dither does, too? Inject a steady noise floor, so we won't here the irregular noise below?
  11. I just got off the phone with Schoeps. Nice guys! Tom, you are pretty much correct. They did pull the CMD2, because they weren't entirely happy with it anymore. They felt it didn't perform well enough on quiet sources in particular. Also it wasn't perceived well by the buyers, and they didn't sell a lot of units. They still have some units left, which they are selling off, but they don't want to advertise for it anymore. So if anyone is interested you can buy one from them directly. They come pre-configured with a 30dB boost, but you can ask them to set it to a different level. They are working on a successor, but haven't yet set a release date, but it will be sometime this year. It will be a mode 2 model, with various options, that they haven't yet decided on. I suppose if anyone's got a great idea, now would be the time to tell them about it. The guy on the phone said to me (once I 'd told him that I do mostly film stuff) that he would strongly recommend holding out for the new model, it will be far more versatile.
  12. Thanks Larry, that's very interesting. I will experiment with it more.
  13. Or just use a standard mono adapter, which is what I'm currently doing
  14. Just to add one more point: the CMIT has got a very handy Hi-boost to help with a dulled sound in a zep with windjammer. Also in some rooms this helps, too. But I don't know if the CS3e has got that as well
  15. I don't know about the Neumann, but the quoted self noise for any Schoeps Colette is 15dBA vs 13dBA for the 8000 series. Doesn't sound like much of a difference, but sensitivity is important, too, as you were saying. I think a lot of factors are influencing the noise that actually comes down the wire. So as Dan was saying above, the 8000 series is probably a good bet. Funnily enough, I would really like to try and build a DMS or other surround rig based on really quiet LDCs. For use on a stand, not on a boom. I'm not sure about wind protection though, but it should sound awesome, especially on really quiet sources. And here I woudn't be concerned about colour. Microtech Gefell build an LDC surround rig for indoors, but I haven't heard of one for outdoors. Has anyone tried that? Yes, I had the same idea. Actually, I would quite like to see one! Oh, ok, I somehow thought you were using the high setting. Sorry, my bad. I use the nornal one, too, but have not yet dared using the high setting. Maybe I should?
  16. Yes of course, and I think we all agree about the self-noise. But sometimes threads get side-tracked. I remember reading one in particular where suddenly everyone was talking about cloth diapers. I enjoyed it, but it was far off-topic.
  17. Yes, they do colour the sound, yes, in a big space, too, and yes, I have used them much. And you agree that all mics colour the sound, so LDCs do too, and I agree that people use them because of their colour, not in spite of it. What I'm saying is that they are colouring sound more than SDCs. There are many reasons for this, one of them is their size, the way the sound waves bend around them. I often love the way LDCs alter the sound. I am very happy with my 1968 U87, love the mic, but it's not neutral. Sure those guys in the old days knew what they were doing, at least with regards to what was available to them then. I don't know when SDCs were invented, but it was much later than the LDCs and they initially weren't received well. But if you argue that because they used them so they must be good, I would counter, as an example, that Schoeps refuses to build LDCs, because they find that they colour the sound too much. Surely they know what they are doing? Or that any large music hall that could afford any microphone will almost always have many SDCs pre-installed, or for radio broadcasts, CD recordings, or whatever - at least in Europe. And, not to forget the film industry. Measurement mics, too (where neutrality is very important) are always SDCs, very small ones even. But does all that matter? Not really. Each mic does have its application, and rightly so. And SDCs are more neutral sounding than LDCs across their entire spectrum, they have a better transient response (due to the smaller capsule which is easier to move), and more even sensitivity. But of course you may not always want that and then use an LDC. Which are definitely quieter, I wouldn't disagree. Oh, and I wouldn't want to put an interference tube in front of an LDC. This discussion of LDC vs SDC is really very old. There can't be a winner. It depends on what you are looking for in a mic and then make your choice.
  18. Yes you're right, in those instances and of course others LDCs may be better. Using Lavs for quiet foleys is probably not such a good idea, as they tend to be noisier even than SDCs. Unless you'd use them wireless, but that may introduce more noise into the system. Or not, it depends, I guess. (By the way, the Senator's been unusually quiet recently). Anyway, I'm not sure about using NR on wireless mics. I'm always worried about losing to much of the signal. I think NR is best left up to post. Christian, have you ever heard back from post about this? Is everyone else using NR on their wireless mics? I guess this should really be a new topic
  19. I don't think we are taking the LDC seriously as a boom mic. I'm quite sure they wouldn't have the reach and they would be unwieldy on a boom. And, a lot if them are built (or tuned) to a achieve a certain sound. That's partly why the Neumann LDCs (as an example) are so popular for many applications, but they will usually colour the sound. Except for the digital D-01 which is very neutral, but also prohibitively expensive. But they are quiet. I'm also not sure about their use for foley. I have heard that on foley sessions usually SDC are used. The proximity effect gets used as an effect sometimes. With regards to Lavs, most lavs are noisy by the spec, but quiet in practical use, as Christian said, they are so close to the voice that self-noise is rarely an issue. Unless maybe if wiring is an issue like in the posts above. I would think that the quality of the TX/RX plays a much greater role
  20. 15dBA is pretty low for a small diaphragm, but I was talking about sensitivity. It's producing 50mV where others produce 10-19. that means less gain needs to be applied and thus less noise. But I also hadn't considered the three capsules which may be the reason for ghe high output, but which may also create more noise.
  21. If the choice is now between a KMR81 and an NTG-3, I would choose the 81, too. Although buying a used mic could be risky. Buying a new NTG-3 will still be cheaper than a used 81. so you'll have money to spend on a got windjammer, etc. With regards to the DPAs clipping, that serms highly unlikeky, even with the 4060. there must have been something wrong with your setup. Wrong setting, wrong adapter, faulty cable, faulty mic. Whatever, there are many possibilities
  22. Just out of interest and because it fits into this thread: Shouldn't the CSe3 be really quiet, too? I have never used one, but it's got a pretty high sensitivity rating
  23. That's weird, because if you check out the diagrams on Sanken's own website you will see very distinct rear lobes on the CS1 and 2. It's all freq dependent of course, but the same applies to any normal shotgun. The SuperCMIT does have a rear lobe in preset 1, but it's considerably smaller than without it. I'm not all that concerned about rear lobes, to be honest. Most of the time the butt of the mic points up towards the ceiling. Not much noise to be expected there. Except planes and reverb, but it is important to remember there is a rear lobe. Usually.
  24. What do you mean by mode 2? AES42 mode?
×
×
  • Create New...