Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About ninjafreddan

  • Birthday 02/09/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Music and my kids
  • About
    Working with ENG-sound for run and gun TV-productions, commercials and documentaries using a Sound Devices 664, TCBuddy, DPA 4017 shotgun mic, digital Sony DWX wireless systems, DPA lav mics and a bunch of Sennheiser and Shure systems as well.

    My motto: Travel lite and work fast. :-)
  • Interested in Sound for Picture

Recent Profile Visitors

3,110 profile views
  1. Interesting! I've bought a Zoom F6 to be able to record a couple of lavs when filming with my camera, but I haven't used it much yet. Please let us know when they have fixed the audio jump bug. I plan to slave the F6 with a Tentacle Sync E and not use the internal sync generator unless I really need to. Cheers Frederick
  2. Thanks Kevin I picked one up on eBay after reading your post and listening to the few sound clips available on the Internet. Like you say, it's a really good stereo microphone AND shotgun microphone - very quiet, smooth and natural frequency response, very directional (in a good way) and with smart functionality. It's an interesting experience recording stereo ambience with a shotgun M/S-microphone, because it has better "reach" and can better capture soft sync sounds in the stereo ambience. Agree, the off-axis response of the shotgun microphone capture room ambience in a natural way, making it less obtrusive in the recording. Yesterday, I used it as a stereo audience microphone positioned 20cm under a Meyer E9 speaker on a stick - and it sounded really good. Very little speaker spill into the microphone because the figure-8 "side" capsule having a more or less null at 90 degree vertical angle and the shotgun interference tube "mid" signal also having great (and uncolored) attenuation at 90 degree. What I like the most about the microphone is the low noise level and the smooth frequency response with very little resonance. With a pair of good micpre amps, it just produces a believable stereo sound without sounding like a "recording". The noise level is less than 20dB SPL and definitely low enough for most recordings. The Sennheiser MKH mics have an even lower noise floor, but arguably doesn't sound as natural. Also, the Sony ECM680S weights 105 gram and is 25 cm long - I use it as camera microphone on my Sony A7S iii camera, and it works great! Definitely! I'm so glad I stumbled on it, googling for a good stereo camera microphone. I wish you all a great and relaxing weekend! Frederick
  3. I'm resurrecting this thread. Thanks for the information! I've kind of gone a bit over to the dark side - camera department - and bought myself a nice Sony camera, and now I'm considering adding a stereo shotgun microphone on top of it. Thing is, that the Sony ECM XM-1 mono shotgun microphone provided with the hot-shoe mic input section, sound rather good. And most of all, it performs really well in run'n'gun situations. So, that's why I'm considering the Sony ECM 680 stereo shotgun mic. I think it looks great to be able to choose between shotgun mono sound and stereo sound (already M/S-transformed to stereo). So, four years later, how does the microphone work for you? And, how directional is the M-signal in the stereo sound, if MS-transformed back to mono? As directional as in "mono-mode"? Thanks in advance Frederick
  4. I’m using a DPA 4017B and a Sony DWT-P01 and I haven’t had any problem at all. The plug-on is mostly connected to the bottom of my KTEK boom, but I have also had the plug-on connected directly to the microphone with no added noise or interference. To always have good coverage, I have it set to 50mW. So it’s probably a problem with the cable. Cheers Fred
  5. Hi James Thanks for your noise component comparisons. They work for my Cedar-processed files because I put the original recording in Cubase Pro, added an External FX plug-in and inserted the Cedar DNS-2 via AES/EBU - so every clip has the same timing and level. But, the Nova noise residue files doesn't sound as they should. There should be more pumping action as the noise gate work the material, more noise-to-signal action. Did you use Jebari's sound clips, or have you made your own sound clips in a Nova? It would be great to have level-matched Nova processed files using the AES/EBU-input of the machine. Maybe add a short tone in the beginning of the original sound clip as a level and timing reference. I should have thought of that when I created my files. When I have the time, I will update my files. Have a nice weekend Frederick
  6. Yeah, you can setup a Facetime call on a Mac and use Camtasia to capture both video and sound. I'm on Windows and use Camtasia to capture Teams and Zoom meetings (without showing a [recording] sign at the other end of the line). Works like a charm. https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html If you just want to record the sound from an iPhone and want to be able to film your talent speaking into the phone like an everyday call, you can use a Bluetooth adapter. The JK Audio Daptor Three works really well and offers XLR input and output. But it will hijack the speaker output of the phone, so you will have to send the call to the talent via IEM or a speaker close by. Dunno how to record the video in those cases. I'm just a soundie :-) https://www.jkaudio.com/daptor3.htm Cheers Frederick
  7. That sounds like a good start. I did experiment with the bias setting a bit when I first got the unit, but eventually ended up at bias 0, and just adjust the attenuation according to the situation. But, it's great to be able to lower or raise the bias-setting. I'm mostly using the digital I/O, but now and then use the analogue - and I think it sounds great. If you have a spare stereo AES/EBU output on the 688, then you can at least send a digital signal into the Cedar DNS2. You have four channel AES/EBU outputs on the 10-pin A output - fancy some soldering? :-) Digital inputs are assigned to channel one and six, I guess, like on my 664. You probably already know that the analogue part of the DNS2 is powered down when digital I/O is selected - a power-safe feature - but the analogue side can be enabled by pressing [SETUP] and then both [DNS ON]-buttons at the same time. I believe it has to been done each time the unit is powered on. I sometimes use it by sending Digital Out from my 664, and then analogue out from the DNS2 to a headphones distribution and the digital out to a recorder - when I feel like spoiling my client. Usually end up at about 4dB noise-reduction, like you. Cedar noise-reduction is a no-brainer in those occations. I always use it for events and conferences, as a digital insert in my mixing console, channel one noise-reducing a mix of the head mics, and channel two the podium mics. Having the ability to noise-reduce the podium mics by 6dB, means that I can handle the most shy presenter without any problem at all - that alone is worth the price of the unit - for me. :-) It would be great if anyone on the forum could process my sound bites through an 8-series Sound Devices, so that we can compare the results. Thanks in advance! Cheers Frederick
  8. Here's an episode of the excellent podcast "Twenty Thousand Hertz" on Spotify, which discusses deepfake audio. Highly recommended podcast! Cheers Frederick
  9. Late to the party. I've been using a Cedar DNS2 for two years or so, and I think it's fantastic - makes me look (and sound) good in every possible recording situation. Still a 664-user, but I love that Sound Devices offers both NoiseAssist and Cedar noise reduction as an option for the 8-series - for those users that need noise reduction. I had to buy a Cedar DNS2 (currently listed at around $3400). Anyway, is noise reduction really needed on set, and for recording? Well, I started a thread to shed some light on it, including sound clips with and without Cedar DNS2 noise reduction. If you have a minute to spare, please visit it and maybe even contribute with sound clips processed with the NoiseAssist and Cedar sdnx plug-ins. It would be great to be able to compare the results. Cheers Frederick
  10. I’ve used first the analogue Shure Axient and it sounds great with great range and fantastic control. The digital Axient sounds even better (though it’s hard to beat the analogue Axient). But I just love the dynamics and transparent sound of digital systems like Shure Axient, Shure ULX-D, Sony DWX etcetera. Constantin, rest assure, the digital Shure Axient sounds fantastic and the features are also fantastic. It’s basically impossible to distort, you just lower the volume in the receiver and you’re good - due to the way the digital signal is captured and transmitted by the transmitter. I’ve used both the digital Axient and ULX-D for big conferences with thousands of participants, lots of media (meaning lots of rouge RF-signals in close proximity) with ZERO problem. The Axient system will even swap channel if there is any interference on a used channel, and it’s possible to set two transmitters to the same receiver, and it will switch to the second transmitter if it has to, and send a new channel to the first transmitter. I’ve only used that feature for high-profile international automobile shows with hundreds of set channels (ten-fifteen for each pavilion and loads for the reporters. Still there are rogue signals appearing all the time. As always, Shure systems are rock-solid performers. I still got a bunch of analogue Shure UR systems for run’n’gun reality and documentary shoots - their range is fantastic even with the antennas on the receivers in my bag, and not even barking dogs will make the transmitters distort. 😂 Most of the time, I use my digital Sony DWX systems, but if Shure would make a digital ENG-receiver, I would probably jump ship. Cheers Frederick
  11. Thanks! I PMed you back, but didn’t get a reply. PM when you have the time. Cheers Frederick
  12. I think it sounds fine and if you have two-three channels open, you're not going to notice the gate working on each channel - it will be masked by the ambience, and clear things up a bit. The difference with proper noise reduction - like the Cedar DNS2 - is that I can apply it on the camera feed and set the noise reduction to 5dB, and it just work wonders - taking out room acoustics and troublesome ambiences dynamically both in level and in frequency range. But in your case, noise gate and automix on each channel will be almost as effective - and it's built into your Nova mixer. Cheers Frederick
  13. Thanks for the sound clips. I've never used a Zaxcom mixer so I didn't know that it had that kind of processing. Like you point out, it sounds more like a noise gate, but even if it has a Threshold setting in the mixer, it sounds like the Threshold is adaptive - because it performs better than a crude noise gate roughly set to the same settings. I think it performs pretty well and it doesn't make the ambience sound 'processed'. With a couple of lavs open and maybe a boom, you can probably get away with it sounding a bit jumpy now and then, right? Cleaning up the camera feed a bit. How are you using it in the field? Cheers Frederick
  14. I would love to hear how the NoiseAssist sounds and performs, maybe you have the time to help out? I've started a new thread where I have uploaded a couple of sound bites that I've processed through a Ceder DNS2. Let's compare it with the NoiseAssist and Cedar sdnx plug-ins! 🙂 Cheers Frederick
  15. Hi I'm using a Cedar DNS2 noise reduction unit whenever I have the need for it in the field. It would be interesting to compare it with other real-time algorithms like the Sound Devices NoiseAssist and Cedar sdnx plug-ins. And if there are other solutions available, why not compare them as well. I've recorded a couple of sound bites with my shotgun mic and processed them through the Cedar DNS2. If anyone on the forum can run the same unprocessed sound bites through a MixPre-10 using NoiseAssist set to the same amount of noise reduction, that would be awesome. Same goes for the Cedar sdnx plug-in in the 8-series mixers. Preferably via AES/EBU whenever possible to keep out other factors like the sound of the converters etcetera. I've used the following reduction values: -3, -6, -9 and -20dB The [Learn]-function was enabled, and I believe it's always on in the Cedar sdnx plug-in, so they should have similar performance - but let's compare them. Mind my recorded English, and if anyone want to add troublesome recordings that need noise reduction, please feel free to do so, and I'll run them through the Cedar DNS2. Naturally, it would be interesting to compare the results with offline processing from Izotope, Waves etcetera, but let's keep it to real-time noise reduction in this thread, okay. Stuff that can be helpful in the bag or in the cart. Thanks in advance Frederick 01_-_Voice_recording_unprocessed_48kHz.wav 02_-_Voice_recording_with_Ceder_DNS2_3dB_noise_reduction_48kHz.wav 03_-_Voice_recording_with_Ceder_DNS2_6dB_noise_reduction_48kHz.wav 04_-_Voice_recording_with_Ceder_DNS2_9dB_noise_reduction_48kHz.wav 05_-_Voice_recording_with_Ceder_DNS2_20dB_noise_reduction_48kHz.wav
  • Create New...