Jump to content

Andrej H

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Andrej H

  • Rank
    Hero Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Slovenija
  • About
    Sound recordist, music recordist and mixer, musician and sound artist.
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

624 profile views
  1. Thanks. Yes, I wanted it to be very intimate and surreal, the space should feel almost real, but not like impulse real or real acoustic space recording... It was best achieved recording in a very dry (and silent) studio and adding special reverb/delays... Much thought went into that... I prepared different FX combinations for different flutes and styles of songs/planned improvisations and played through them in the headphones... so I could react to the effect like I would in real space... I "played" them... I recorded everything separately live... so the effects didn't come after in the mix - they were part of the performance, so that is why they might fit so well... The effects units are classic "vintage" Lexicon PCM 70 and Roland SDE-3000A... I used one preset I did on PCM70, that I called "Nice Flute Hall" for all the songs, but I changed Roland delay settings for each song... The send went into Roland that was feeding Lexicon directly, so the delay was triggering the reverb and it was printed as one stereo effect, not separately. I used different ratios between delay and reverb in each song - but the delay was always going into the reverb unit. In mix I only had a dry stereo flute track (and some additional sounds in few places) and a stereo effects track... All I did in mix was choosing a ratio between dry and effects track that I also EQd to fit with the dry that I didn't touch... Very minimalistic everything... but planned...
  2. I am sure they are great mics from all I read, never tried them, but MKH40 is a bit different thing I guess...? Anyway, I like the tonality of it, the bass that is tight, but strong, the pleasant high-end, neutrality, but at the same time some depth... and also the promise that they work in humidity, etc., I will try to test M310 in the future... looks like it could be a great mic, too. Just bought the MKH40 in a good condition and including the MZS40 suspension... I was biased towards it since beginning, but searched for other options, too... BTW - I recorded a special minimalist native flute album with only a stereo pair of MKH40 and no EQ in the mix (except the low cut in kalimba track, because close micing kalimba introduces exaggerated sub-bass) - the only thing I EQed were the delays and reverbs... It was a special project were I needed the mics to "disappear" - so I would just know that what I play will be superbly recorded and I need not worry about them and just play my heart out - no thinking of changing the position, etc. They provided: https://nimetu.bandcamp.com/album/abri
  3. I think I'll go with MKH40 after all... I had it here, recorded an album with two of them, I get inspired by the sound when I record something myself and that means a lot... Seeing that many use it for indoor dialogue gives me confidence, that for those few jobs I do for dialogue recording, it will be perfect... I am sure M310 is a fantastic mic, too, maybe I'll get it some day, too. Too bad there are so little shoot-outs and reviews around - it would be easier to judge... it is also not so easy to get it for testing here... I got lucky that one friend has M300 - which is also fantastic - but in direct comparison with MKH40 (and for my very subjective taste) it was not equally satisfying to me...
  4. Yes, I have M300 here right now, comparing it to MKH40 (which I adore), but have no idea how they compare to MKH50 and M310... the latter seems to be a completely different mic from M300, just looking at the specs - on paper M310 has less self noise, higher sensitivity - needs less gain I suppose, has less hyped high end and a steeper low-end roll-off that starts already at 200Hz? That scared me a bit for recording double bass and percussion... M300 is an interesting, but a bit hyped mic and when I compared it to MKH40 it is by far not equally suitable for being on a boom - it sounds cool for percussion and certain instruments, but had too much high-end for certain rattles and kalimbas, etc. that sounded much better recorded by MKH40... but looking at the specs - M310 should be closer to MKH40 in high-end than M300, less hyped... only that roll-off question... But as I see in another response the low end roll-off of M310 is not a problem in real life... damn, I wish I could demo that mic... MKH40 still seems like a workhorse that will work equally good for music recording and dialogue recording... but this M310 is sure tempting... maybe a more "modern" sound, too? I wish to hear why it substituted the MKH50 as was mentioned...
  5. Superb! How is the bass response - I see it rolls off pretty high up, completely fine for dialogue but I wonder how "thin" it becomes for music? Those who substituted MKH50 (which is hefty in the lows) with this mic maybe?
  6. Great to hear that, what makes M310 better than MKH50 for this in your opinion? Do you have any public work recorded with that mic that you can share? Thanks!
  7. I occasionally record sound for some short films, documentaries, once even a big budget TV series, but that is rare - and in that case - the production rented equipment for me... I am looking for a good(*great) SDC mic for my smaller projects and regular use, one that would be useful for dialogue AND my main thing - recording instruments, narration, etc. I am a big fan of Sennheiser MKH40 that I rent occasionally, I like the smoothness, the pitch black silent background - absence of any self-noise, the response and the overall tonality - it just works for me... Now, for interior dialogues two most common standards are MKH50 (and Schoeps MK41)... so I was thinking of getting a used MKH50 instead of MKH40, but don't know if it sounds equally good for recording instruments and singing vocals as MKH40 that is super-useful in ANY application... Moving to the main question - I had a chance to rent Gefell M300 and found it a really nice mic, but when I compared it directly to MKH40 it lacked the rich low end and was too hyped in the high-end - even after EQing I couldn't get the same response as with MKH40 and also - it is not as silent in direct comparison - it is a very clean mic - but MKH40 is exceptional and I like that... But M300 was interesting and good enough to spark my interest, especially because I can get a good price and since I saw the super-cardioid version has better specs...The problem is that I can't demo M310, but on paper it has specs that are closer to the noise specs of Sennheiser and also the highs don't seem to be as hyped, just looking at the diagram... It could be a perfect mic for me, but I can't test it - I say perfect because I can get a new one for around 800+ EUR... Dose anyone have any experience with this mic? Compared to Schoeps MK41 or MKH40/50? There is very little talk about this mic and no test videos or test recordings around... I know it is not perfect to judge a mic upon those - but at least you get some impression... Also - would MKH50 work equally good for instruments recording as MKH40 or should I sacrifice a bit of "reach" in those dialogue recording sessions and have a more natural sounding mic for music? I don't do location work often, but when I do, I wish to have one great mic at hand... So I wonder how good is MKH50 with music recording - percussion, violins, vocals, cello, doube bass, flutes, native flutes, etc. does it lack something compared to MKH40 - more hyped, less natural, etc.?I am now deciding wether to buy a used MKH40 (or 50) for around 900-1000EUR or a new Gefell M310 for around 800... And there is also an option to get good price for DPA 4018A (version with MMP-A preamp) - that I also never tested and wonder how it compares to MKH40/50 and if it is equally well suited for music recording as those - or at least the superb MKH40... I only used DPA4011A and 4006A once and I liked them, but though they were way too expensive back then... I wonder if 4018A is equally good for instruments/vocals as 4011A... Many questions, I hope someone with more experience with those mics can chime in... I listened to MKH40, MKH60, directly compared to Gefell M300, but can't test M310 - should buy it blind (or better - "deaf" ), but I can rent DPA4018A - although some additional opinion doesn't hurt - from the actual use and experience...
  8. You can't... as far as I know. I use to forget that - a few times I planned to work with it when some overdubbing was required, but I had to bring a more cumbersome laptop + soundcard combination on location for that instead - those were some non-video, music only recording projects on location... Some live recordings on location where the musicians wanted to overdub some solos, vocal lines, etc. I still like the machine very much... just finished recording sound for one short film with it... it is a breeze and pleasure to work with and just today we also recorded one choir with it - video and audio project - two stereo pairs - main ORTF and spaced omni on the sides plus some spot mics for soloists... Very nice and tidy done with R-88... I already know from what I hear that its preamps are very nice, but this article boosted my confidence that it is indeed PRO enough sounding machine... : http://mixonline.com/news/roland_systems_group_holophone_dts_to_demonstrate_3-d_surround_at_nab_2014_show_0404/ Would still be interested to hear some direct comparison clips with SD and Nagra (VI) - especially for music where Nagra is king.
  9. I would enjoy the Christmas directed by anyone from my personal holy trinity - Lynch, Jodorowsky or Herzog - the three wise men of moving pictures (to me)... but for a more widely enjoyable evening I think I would ask Wes Anderson to make a cosy weird and fun Christmas evening for us... Happy holidays, you all!
  10. The best article about this thing I found till now: http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452387-48-fps-and-beyond-how-high-frame-rates-affect-perception/ Until they finish their experiments and figure out how to have clarity and cool cinematic look I shall pass...
  11. I would have nothing against added clarity, but why does it have to have this strange lighting, not "magical" or say blurry like 24fps movies and not smooth and amazing as real life, but just weird and "TV drama like" and why do the people move strangly awkward and nervous - not continuous and smooth as in real life and not graceful and cool like in the 24fps cinema? It is just not right... I don't mind high resolution - but it should also look cool... My last few "annoyed consumer POW" cents...
  12. Jep, I must be one of those people that is VERY sensitive to that "soap opera effect". I can stomach all the "problems" of 3D or any other technical errors or poor choices of DPs, but this kills it for me. And since I obviously lived in a bubble and didn't previously research what HFR really means in praxis (I thought it would look something like "Samsara" or something - I just ignorantly equalled higher frame rate with more eye candy ) and didn't knew all the controversy about it, I was totally unprepared to be presented with THAT kind of picture... It was an honest shock... when I have to mentally adjust and force myself not to be distracted by something to actually (at least partially) enjoy the move, I know it's not good (for me). I will strictly avoid any HFR projections from now on. At least the price to learn that was not too great... 8EUR for a ticket. I just hope it won't be a future "standard". And don't get me wrong - I can live with that kind of picture when there is actual intellectual content in the drama or a top notch british Tv comedy - and Stephen Fry seemed very familiar in that kind of picture - but this was not "Jeeves and Wooster" or "Black Adder"... I want my fairy tales in magical fairy tale picture quality...
  13. He maybe tried, but it still looks more like a "soap opera" as they mention in the article... Why is he pushing it at all... At least 3D has some eye candy to offer, some "woah" effect when some bee flies directly at you, etc. but this HFR thingie just looks sharp and lame - no commercial appeal in my opinion... it's not that we have to adapt to new way of looking at movies - it simply just doesn't look good... When I heard the first CDs they sounded good to me, not the very first "DDD" classical recordings that sounded somewhat sharp and thin, but I never had a problem with proper digital sound, I also disliked flat LCD TVs, the picture seemed cheap and like bad 80s VHS to me - but that improved and learning the right distance and angle - it works now for me... but at first it also looked really bad and I was walking around shops annoying the sellers with questions - "do you have any of those new expensive TVs that don't have this really bad and shitty picture?" I liked the practical aspect of less physical imprint of a much smaller object in a room, that you could even put on the wall, but the picture was just dreadful... btw - Life of Pi was a real eye candy - that plankton scene and whale, etc. - pure eye candy magic.
  14. Ah, sorry, I just saw that is was already debated here and beaten to death with the first Hobbit movie that I luckily didn't see in that horrid format... late to the party I guess... I was just so shocked how bad it looked that I had to vent it somewhere...
  15. Well, I started appreciating and enjoying 3D with "Avatar", the first time 3D really looked good to me and it felt to my senses like being immersed in a dreamlike or trip-like state... which also suited the aesthetics of that movie. 3D can be kitchy and painfull to watch, but with current technology and for certain kinds of movies - like all those commercial fairy tale kind of flicks - it is appropriate and adds to the experience. But this HFR actually takes away from the experience, it takes away the magic and makes it hard to connect to the story and the staged parts (which are the majority of that movie, apart from some rare pure outdoor footage) look awful, because you clearly see that it is just an artificial set... I can see some proper use of it in some of Werner Herzog's future "documentaries" - but even there I don't know if I would like it... To me - top cinematic photography is "Samsara" - 70mm is still king I guess... Pretty please to any DP reading -. stay away from HFR - even the lighting looks amateurish in even the biggest productions... I was shocked to see a multi-million dollar film look so... well... cheap... yet sharp... I thought I was crazy or there was something wrong with the projection, but I searched the web today and saw exactly the same opinion as mine more elaborately expressed here: http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/ I agree with that guy 100%.
×
×
  • Create New...