Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by ninjafreddan

  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
  16. You are right about that, Lectrosonics states a dynamic range of 110dB for their D2-system, which indicates more dynamics than 16 bit can transfer. Thanks for pointing that out, it looks like a good system too. It's well worth trying out in the field and the latest version looks really interesting - the Sony DWR S03D receiver and DWT B03 belt pack which is smaller than DWT B01. More functions, LEMO input, the choice of different codecs and thus even less latency and a smaller and easier-to-hide belt pack that is water-proof. I would love to put my hands on it! :-) With the money involved, I must say that I'm also interested in the new Audio Limited A10-system. Internal belt pack recording (which should be able to record 24 bit, even though I can't find it in writing), wireless control via BlueTooth on an iPhone and the possibility of using the belt pack for 48V plug-on duties - sounds like a dream come true. Hanging on to my Sony systems for the time being... Have a nice Sunday
  17. Hi everybody I would just like to express my deepest admiration for the sound crews working on the "Real Housewives" TV-series around US. Great work! Whenever my girlfriend watches those shows, I'm get the chills thinking about where and how the lav mics are hidden, and they are always very well hidden and sound great. We all know how difficult it can be to properly hide a lav mic and make it sound good - then add tight evening dresses showing a lot of skin and made of synthetic fabric, tons of hair-spray and make-up, table-flipping divas and tight schedules. And the guys having a two-day Italian stubble rubbing on high collars, wearing super-tight dinner jackets or sport polos. Being scripted reality, I guess it's possible to control the ambient noise from other "guests" in restaurant and bar scenes, same goes for party locations to some extent - though you don't want to kill the vibe of the party. And most of the time, it's very well done on those shows, IMHO. Making a good dialogue sound is a team effort, of course, and some of it can be salvaged in post. But, the real heroes are the sound engineers (and wardrobe) on location, keeping track of all those lav mics and where to hide both them and the transmitters - for indoor and outdoor scenes. I'm sure all the characters on those shows have PAs, and that you can train them to apply a lav mic and hide a transmitter. Same goes for wardrobe. But the lav mics still have to be checked, evaluated and adjusted regularly, and there will always be new cloths for the characters to wear - presenting new challenges for the sound crew. Being "unscripted" run-n-gun multi-camera shoots, I'm sure the boom operators are walking a tight rope everyday. Big thumbs up to you too! I just want to say that I'm in deep admiration of your work! Keep up the good work Frederick
  18. And in these times, it's up to us freelancers to not sell our services or rental equipment too cheap. The production companies still have money, so does the clients. It the Average Joes that don't have any money or jobs right now. And when there are no productions jobs, we don't cost a dime for the TV-stations, production companies or film studios. And whenever they need us, we are there to help out. Basically 24/7 - with or without equipment. That kind of service still cost, even in dire times. And we should not sell ourselves cheap or try to do two jobs at the same time. I know colleagues that sell themselves cheap and on top of that include ENG-equipment in the hourly rate (it's already paid off anyway, right?) - which is just plain stupid and I try to point that out to them. But, in the end it's each to their own, I guess. At the same time, I'm not dependent on ENG-work, like some of my colleagues basically are. So, I stubbornly charge a higher rate and add a daily rental cost for my sound equipment, when they offer monthly or bi-monthly rates including equipment just because they really need to earn some money. Telling them it's wrong is all I can do. I've got returning clients that hire me because I'm a good sound engineer and a social cat, and we enjoy each others company. I don't do freebies and I don't do discounts (even if they can be "door openers" according to the producer). If you sell yourself cheap, some people will treat you cheap - it's human nature. If you buy a nice $500 leather jacket - it's a really nice jacket. If you pay $50 for the same jacket, you will use it when washing the car. 2021 is also a lost year, but things will soon change for the better, and then we're there waiving with our booms. :-) Cheers Frederick
  19. I'm using two Sony DWR-S01D digital receivers in my bag and four Sony DWT-B01 digital belt packs and a DWT-P01 plug-on transmitter. All four channels hooked up to my SD664 via AES/EBU and they sound stellar. I'm tempted to say "sounds like a straight wire", but it actually sound better because there's practically no analogue cabling involved, and once you go to digital transmission, it's hard to go back to analogue or hybrid RF companding. Whenever I have the chance, and only use three belt pack, I hook up the plug-on transmitter and it sounds great. The ease of use, the dynamics and details of the sound are just fabulous. And I have no problem using Sony's -20dB reference function in the receivers, which digitally brings up the output level of the receiver 10dB and add soft compression to loud parts. Once you get the hang of where to set the levels of the transmitters, the compression is your best friend keeping track of momentary hot levels in a natural way. This can be achieved with newer digital mixers, but I'm hanging on to my SD664 for as long as I can. It might just be marketing, but as far as I know and please correct me if I'm wrong, but Sony is the only manufacturer I know that states 48kHz 24bit signal transfer between the transmitter and receiver. The Bit Scope in Wavelab says the recorded signal has 24 bit activity, but then it has been level processed by the receiver. I prefer taking a look at the radio spectrum with an RF Explorer and set the frequencies myself, but in run-n-gun situations or if I run into interference, I can quickly move a couple of meters close to the talent, for the control signals to work, and set a new frequency which is automatically set in the transmitter. And if I want to do a quick scan, I turn off the channel on the receiver, turn it on again holding the [+]-button and the receiver will scan for a clear channel, then transmit it to the transmitter - done in 30 seconds. All in all, it's a robust and user-friendly system that sounds great. I think it deserves some more traction in this forum. Have a nice weekend Frederick
  20. I've been using the Cedar DNS2 as a digital insert for some time now, but a couple of weeks ago, I used it as a mic preamp, ADC and noise-reduction unit sending an AES/EBU signal to my Sound Devices mixer. And the Cedar mic preamp sounded really good. I set up a temporary voice-over "studio" in a mid-sized "blackbox" at a film production company's place. There were black curtains to cover the walls which worked well as simple absorbers. Then there was some standing waves in the low-end that I really couldn't do much about, except for engaging the noise-reduction. I must say that the mic preamp performed really well, sounding transparent and engaging, and 4dB of noise-reduction suppressed the room acoustics in a natural way. I didn't even tell the director I was using noise-reduction, he just said to the producer, "listen to how great it sounds, even in this room". Ahh, well. 🙂 What the DNS2 did for me, was to take out the somewhat troublesome room acoustics in a very natural way, without tampering with the naturalness of the voices - and I'm very picky about such things. Which gave the director a feeling of how it would sound in his movie, and I was able to provide very nice-sounding headphone monitoring to the talents. Cedar worked tremendously well, as it has always done for me. It made me look good. 🙂 Cheers Fred
  21. Wisycom has an active antenna combiner and it works really well. But I believe it’s quite expense. I haven’t used the passive version, but I’ve used other passive combiners and they have worked okay. For optimal performance, you probably need some signal boosters before hitting the combiner. Good luck Fred
  22. I've worked a lot with Wisycom-systems and they sound really good, but I haven't tried the digital Audio Limited system yet. But, regarding sound quality, I'd like to continue on what Moe and Jeff points out. To me, an analogue radio system just can't compete with a good digital system. It has to do with the companding of the analogue signal, the radio transmission etcetera. I use digital Sony DWX-systems and the sound quality is fantastic. Tempted to say: "like a straight wire" but it's actually better because there is no analogue cable from the receivers to the mixer. So if you're really looking for the best sound quality, then my suggestion is to try a digital radio system, like Audio Limited. Regarding range, Wisycom will beat the digital systems, mostly because an analogue system continues to work at long range, but with lower sound quality. I have worked a lot with the two-channel Wisycom receivers and they are great in a small bag along with a 663 or MixPre-6 II - basically a shoulder bag with the possibility to record four lavs and a boom, that will get you a long way. So, if you're going for the best sound quality, my suggestion is to try a digital system, and if you're going for the most range, you should consider an analogue system. Hope this helps Fred
  23. I've used the Cedar DNS2 for two years and if the algorithm is equally good in the SDNX-plugin, then you will be able to do at least 4dB of noise reduction without affecting the voice sound quality. If you're super picky, there might be an ever so slight diminishing of the upper mid-range definition, but it's really only audible on really good speakers, and worth it, me thinks. And if you recording in a problematic environment and know that there won't be much sound editing in post, then you can do 6dB noise reduction without even blinking - that's how good the Cedar noise reduction is. What I like most about it, is the way that it's able to attenuate hard reflections and reverberation and just make the voices tighter without imposing its own "sound". The Learn-function - which is permanently enabled in the SDNX-plugin - continuously learns what's voices and what's not in an audio signal. Pretty cool stuff. Traditionally, noise reduction was all about identifying the noise in the signal. Nowadays, noise reduction is all about identifying the voice information in the signal and attenuate the "uninteresting" information - and it's a much better way to do it. When I started using the Cedar DNS2, I enabled the Learn-function to "learn" the sound of a voice and the background noise, then disabled it because with the Learn-function off, the sound quality would be even better, ever slightly so. Nowadays, I just fire up the DNS2 and keep the Learn-function on - because it works so well. I don't work with drama, so I have no problems noise reducing one or two lav mics, but when I record more channels than that, I leave them all unprocessed. Still using a 664, but when I upgrade to 833, I will definitely invest in the SDNX-plugin, because it will make my work sound great. :-) Cheers Fred
  24. I've worked many years with the Sennheiser SK50-system and the noise issue most likely was due to the screws on the back of the belt packs not being 100% firm. The system is sensitive to disturbe on the virtual ground plane - at least that was what I was told by Sennheiser back in the days - which could result in noise problems like you describe. So, once a year, I would routinely fix all screws on the fourteen systems that we were using at least two days a week, forty weeks a year. Sometimes they needed to go back to Sennheiser for routine service. The systems ran for close to twenty years with surprisingly little problems with the abuse they would receive weekly on live TV-shows, and have now been replaced by Wisycom systems. The Sennheiser SK50 is a work horse for sure, and it sounds just fine. Cheers Fred
  25. Officially, five systems. In reality, probably 8-10 systems - depending on how crowded the 2.4GHz band is. No, it’s not. The communication is bidirectional between a paired transmitter and receiver. Cheers Fred
  • Create New...