Matt

Thanks for the reality check! I have been thinking of going wireless with my boom op this year. Just bought a plug-on from Lectro which should be showing up in time for my next job. Should be a nice Christmas gift for my boom op! I totally get it, too. I am a Boom Op on occasion when I'm not mixing. Boomed a small horror film for 4 weeks and we would not have been able to do it without the wireless boom op setup. -Matt

I have been on more than one shoot for a commercial recently where a particular AD in town has refused to get room tone at the end of the shoot day saying it is because, "Everyone would kill her if we stop for that at the end of the day." This after I asked for it earlier in the day. Admittedly, this translates to either, "I want to go home and don't care," or "I have absolutely no control of my set". But, this brings up the topic, how often are you able to get a full 30 seconds of room tone on your jobs? I have no problem on interviews, and calmer jobs. But this AD has done this to me a few times now and I'm starting to get tired of it. I know it makes post's job harder. Granted, these are 30 second commercial spots. Maybe 30 seconds is too much? Maybe no one does it on commercials and just hopes post will glean enough room tone between the clap of the slate and "action" being called to loop together 15 seconds if they need it. Anyone else experience this or is it just a local trend? -Matt Hamilton

This is all very interesting. I would have thought that with the ISO's we have now that messing up the mono mix track would be kind of a non-important thing. If you're tracking 4 lavs down to one track on a 2 track recorder, I can see the problem. But, with the ISO's, I'd have thought that you could just remix in post, grab the boom iso, etc. I mean, don't they typically have to EQ the crap out of lavs in post to make them work in a shot, which would mean they'd have to re-do the mix anyway? With a boom, it is just a matter of being on-axis or not, which I can understand is a huge issue because there's no fixing THAT later. If the lav sounds scratchy and terrible and will definitely be used in the final mix, then of course I'd run it again. I admittedly have very limited experience mixing dramatic works of the TV or Film ilk, so I can't speak to that. Matt

Just wondering if anyone using the Com output on the 664 could give some real world experience, here. I have found that using an output on the 788T to feed headphones for a hardwired boom duplex cable does not provide enough amplification even when it is gained wide open. Has anyone else attempted this configuration without an extra amp box between the output of the 788T and the headphone feed? Following from this question is the topic of this . . . topic. Does the 664 Com output connector have more "juice" than the 788T? In other words, with a headphone jack adapter cable, is there enough level coming out the back of the 664 that it can drive the headphones on the opposite end of the Boom Op cable without additional hardware? I'd really like to be able to just have a TA3 to 1/4" female adapter cable plug straight into the back of the 664 without the need of an additional piece of hardware for my feed to my Boom Op. I have found in use that I run out of gain on the outputs of the 788 before my Boom Op has a sufficient level. If the 664 overcomes this, that would be one more thing pushing me that way. I've always thought the com setup on the 552 is much more useful than anything you can configure on the 788T with or without the CL-9, which confuses me for the price difference. I'm still learning the CL-9, so maybe I'm missing something, but the elegance of a cable plugged into the back of the 664 without extra boxes is very appealing to me. Thanks in advance for any feedback. -Matt

Check out the Ultrasone headphones. To my ear they match speakers better than Sonys, and others I've used. I haven't checked out the Krok headphones, but they are supposed to match their speakers. Beware that what sounds good in headphones may sound very different in speakers.

Thanks Olle!

In response to Jay, no, a pro like you DOES understand the difference, but I've had instances where some young gun does just mono sum it or keep both channels. Did a music shoot with a guitar, bass, drum, and singer. The editor panned drums and bass left and singer and guitar right. He was also the director, camera operator, and editor. So, as was pointed out, I think you really have to know the level of experience of your editor. There are "kids" coming out of college every day with a new Final Cut system who just seem to be winging it. Sound seems to be neglected in the training process unfortunately. The problem is that no one at the record label heard a problem with the aforementioned situation. Luckily, he let me redo the audio and I could at least pan the stuff more sanely. We use wireless because the untrained talent will inevitably stand up and walk away before I can get my pack off and grab the lav. I have hard wired, but it is rare. I agree that it sounds better, but no one apparently hears the difference all down the line. Matt

What?!? That's news to me. Thanks, I'll check it out.

Haha!

Senator, Can you provide a link to that thread? Matt

I have the Sennheiser 8050 with the low cut and really like it for interiors. Wish Sennheiser made a swivel like Schoeps. I use a Sanken CS3 outdoors. I'm always amazed at the reach it has. I second what Glen says. Brands are used because they have a good reputation, but nothing says a new kid on the block might not be the next classic. Use the pickup pattern you need and a good, clean, quiet, pro mike and you'll get good results. Microphones are like paintbrushes. All are a little different and what you use is a matter of taste, cost, and what is needed for the job.

I actually know of some very popular reality shows on cable TV that a friend of mine mixes on. He tells me they won't even send out a boom in their kit! Granted, it is a smaller, more controlled show. But, they also only do a mono hop to camera as primary audio (!). I was astounded when he told me this. I kind of like having the boom as a "security blanket" for moments when I do an OTF or just suddenly need it for ambience. (Cars, trains, cool machinery sounds, etc.). I will say reality shows have made me much better at my hidden lav technique, which can so much more frustrating than good boom technique to achieve good sound. I did an entire season of a show and only used hidden lavs on the interview portions as welll. Post later complimented me on the sound. So, different strokes for different folks. Great thread! Matt

Hey Jon and the SD Folks, How about a software upgrade to the CL-WiFi App? There are a few features I'd like to see: 1. The ability to enter sound report information and edit reports via the App. I love how easy it is to name tracks and all that with the current app, but was somewhat surprised that I had no access to the Sound Report menu and information such as Production Company, Job, Boom Op, etc. Seems like you'd want to be able to use the App to enter alpha-numeric data in any of the fields in the 788. 2. I wish the CL-WiFi app would somehow remember my track names like the machine does. Sometimes I need to swap the name on track 1 with the name on track 3 for instance. If the track names were memorized in a list within the App, like they are on the 788 itself, this would make the app even more functional for quick name swapping rather than re-entering everything. 3. Finally, this is kind of a long shot, but a free app that was purely a timecode reader that read timecode from the Wi-Fi link on the 788 would be AWESOME for PA's and Scripty folks who want to keep track of timecode for a shot log. I say free because they could just download a limited app (similar to what Denecke or Ambient has) that would read the incoming WiFi timecode and then everyone on set could potentially have it on their phone for keeping track of timecode without being asked by the sound department to buy an app. This would be GREAT on reality shows where you may have 3 people doing different timecode note-taking. Besides, as I mentioned, Denecke and Ambient already have free apps, but they don't read incoming WiFi timecode from the CL-WiFi as far as I know. Just some thoughts. Thanks! -Matt

Hey Marc, Just an FYI. I've found that first applying a small square of Transpore to clothing, THEN sticking the Rycote stickie to that improves the length of time the stickie will stick immensely. The Transpore adhere's much better than the anemic Rycote stickie glue and doesn't add any weight per se. Just a note. -Matt

Hey Jon and the SD Folks, How about a software upgrade to the CL-WiFi App? There are a few features I'd like to see: 1. The ability to enter sound report information and edit reports via the App. I love how easy it is to name tracks and all that with the current app, but was somewhat surprised that I had no access to the Sound Report menu and information such as Production Company, Job, Boom Op, etc. Seems like you'd want to be able to use the App to enter alpha-numeric data in any of the fields in the 788. 2. I wish the CL-WiFi app would somehow remember my track names like the machine does. Sometimes I need to swap the name on track 1 with the name on track 3 for instance. If the track names were memorized in a list within the App, like they are on the 788 itself, this would make the app even more functional for quick name swapping rather than re-entering everything. 3. Finally, this is kind of a long shot, but a free app that was purely a timecode reader that read timecode from the Wi-Fi link on the 788 would be AWESOME for PA's and Scripty folks who want to keep track of timecode for a shot log. I say free because they could just download a limited app (similar to what Denecke or Ambient has) that would read the incoming WiFi timecode and then everyone on set could potentially have it on their phone for keeping track of timecode without being asked by the sound department to buy an app. This would be GREAT on reality shows where you may have 3 people doing different timecode note-taking. Besides, as I mentioned, Denecke and Ambient already have free apps, but they don't read incoming WiFi timecode from the CL-WiFi as far as I know. Just some thoughts. Thanks! -Matt

Alex, With all that computing power onboard, what are you using your laptop for? And does anyone ever accidentally deposit a quarter into your cart? Looks great. Really cool. I remember you showing me the designs. Glad it has worked out so well for you. -Matt

Will this be a firmware update on my receivers or what will be my recourse to get this fixed?

Hey Everyone, I read recently on a post that someone was getting BETTER range and performance out of their Lectro 411 systems by setting the wattage down to 50 mW. This seems counter-intuitive. What has your experience been? I'd think that 100 mW would give me more range, but I guess 50 mW could give less "splatter" and therefore less intermod problems. -Matt

Yeah, if I do a scan with the 788 off, the scan is clean as a whistle. Then, rescanning with the 788 on, there is a low level RF across the entire 21 spectrum.

I just noticed that I get a hunk of low level RF when I turn on my 788T in block 21. Anyone else had this problem? I thought Sound Devices had rectified this in their design of the 788. I know the 744 had issues. I'm using the SSD version of the 788. Matt

Wow. What sort of ham-fisted boom ops are you all using? I'm joking, but seriously, I've never had problems with my 8050's low end like you are describing. At first it took some getting used to, but the InVision mount with a Softie for outdoors stuff has worked well for me. I also use it indoors as fast cueing of the boom wont be tamed by a B5. I also just use the low cut on my mixer. It is a rich, warm sounding mic (due to the low end no doubt) with some nice articulation of the midrange. Not as dark as an MKH50. It also has a better dynamic range than the MKH50. No -10db pad switch (which makes the MKH more hissy when engaged). I always seem to need to engage the pad on the MKH mics after it is too late and I've gotten distortion. Really impractical for doc work when you get one shot at it. I own a 40 and a 50 capsule. I primarily use the 50. The 40 just doesn't ever have enough reach for my taste. I did successfully use it once between two people in a sit down interview, but rarely need it otherwise. I don't own a low cut. Beware that the zeppelin rig rycote makes has a low resonant frequency that requires a low cut module. I learned this from Glen Trew. The Sanken CS3e has more self-noise than the 8000 series. It is a noticeable difference. However, the near legendary reach and isolation it has can be beneficial in challenging situations. I'd rent both and try them out before buying. -Matt

Wow. What sort of ham-fisted boom ops are you all using? I'm joking, but seriously, I've never had problems with my 8050's low end like you are describing. At first it took some getting used to, but the InVision mount with a Softie for outdoors stuff has worked well for me. I also use it indoors as fast cueing of the boom wont be tamed by a B5. I also just use the low cut on my mixer. It is a rich, warm sounding mic (due to the low end no doubt) with some nice articulation of the midrange. Not as dark as an MKH50. It also has a better dynamic range than the MKH50. No -10db pad switch (which makes the MKH more hissy when engaged). I always seem to need to engage the pad on the MKH mics after it is too late and I've gotten distortion. Really impractical for doc work when you get one shot at it. I own a 40 and a 50 capsule. I primarily use the 50. The 40 just doesn't ever have enough reach for my taste. I did successfully use it once between two people in a sit down interview, but rarely need it otherwise. I don't own a low cut. Beware that the zeppelin rig rycote makes has a low resonant frequency that requires a low cut module. I learned this from Glen Trew. The Sanken CS3e has more self-noise than the 8000 series. It is a noticeable difference. However, the near legendary reach and isolation it has can be beneficial in challenging situations. I'd rent both and try them out before buying. -Matt

Robert, I do agree that the limiters as received from the factory sound very squashed. How do you know it is different technology? I'm interested in knowing more about that. Did you speak to Sound Devices? Matt

Hey, Just saw the Nomad thread saying the 788 has worse sounding limiters than the 442. That was of course an opinion but I have found that simply setting the limiters on the 788 to match those on the 442 according to the specs in the manual is a huge improvement. FWIW. Matt

Actually, if you put a small "hair" rubber band or 2 around the Sennheiser 8050, it makes it just big enough to fit the B5 hollow foam. I use it all the time. Works like a charm. It also doesn't leave residue like the gaff tape approach. Still wish Sennheiser made a hollow foam rather than the useless foam that comes with the 8050. -Matt