Show me your bag

[ejy5]

Sound Bag (Bobo Lau)

Zaxcom Nova V1

4ch 212x2 Digital

2ch QRX200 AES

6ch ADX5D AESx2 Analogx4

 

[RadoStefanov]

The evolution of bags. My sd888 is kind of small as well

[locaudio]

On 4/15/2024 at 1:29 AM, RadoStefanov said:

The evolution of bags. My sd888 is kind of small as well

 

 

Hi Rado,

 

Do you know the weight of these 3 rigs?

[Richtrohr]

On 4/6/2024 at 4:54 PM, Bouke said:

[…]

MS is another thing, it took me (back in the days) some education to understand it, (I still don't get how it is 'mono compatible' if the stereo part gets cancelled out, so RTW with phase correlation meters 'should' go off), but that is something someone 'should' be able to write a nice paper about, or make a 30 second video. (Longer is no longer allowed so it seems, I also produce content for the local university, and the most promising / bright smart kids don't seem to be able to concentrate more than that.)

[…]

 

The secret is that the side signal from the figure-8 mic is present on both, left and right, channels with inverse polarity. Once you sum that to mono it will just cancel.

 

Give these gentlemen two minutes and I'm sure you'll get it right away:

 

The rest of the video is also worth watching in my opinion.

[RadoStefanov]

On 6/14/2024 at 2:01 PM, locaudio said:

 

 

Hi Rado,

 

Do you know the weight of these 3 rigs?

I know the weight of mine. Under 5 pounds.

On 4/15/2024 at 3:14 AM, ejy5 said:

Sound Bag (Bobo Lau)

Zaxcom Nova V1

4ch 212x2 Digital

2ch QRX200 AES

6ch ADX5D AESx2 Analogx4

 

what is bobs lau?

[Bouke]

On 6/30/2024 at 4:28 PM, Richtrohr said:

Once you sum that to mono it will just cancel.

Exactly my point. So, how is this 'compatible' if you throw away half the data of the stereo file?
(That it works is nice, but again, why aren't Baton's and alike not kicking in with phase warnings?)

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

It's compatible in that it doesn't turn into a mess of phasing when you sum the channels like some other stereo techniques do.  Mono inherently has "half the data" of a stereo signal, so compatibility is not a question of how do you preserve all the data, but how to you throw away the "right" half of the data and still end up with a listenable signal.  Mid-side does this by throwing away the side channel.  Some other techniques (<cough> X-Y) don't sum to mono nearly as well, and there isn't a good way of mixing the two channels together without causing really awful phasing.

[grawk]

2 hours ago, The Documentary Sound Guy said:

It's compatible in that it doesn't turn into a mess of phasing when you sum the channels like some other stereo techniques do.  Mono inherently has "half the data" of a stereo signal, so compatibility is not a question of how do you preserve all the data, but how to you throw away the "right" half of the data and still end up with a listenable signal.  Mid-side does this by throwing away the side channel.  Some other techniques (<cough> X-Y) don't sum to mono nearly as well, and there isn't a good way of mixing the two channels together without causing really awful phasing.

X-Y, if done correctly, can be mathematically converted into mid-side, and is exactly as mono compatible as mid-side is.  Near coincident techniques such as DIN, NOS, and ORTF are less so.

[The Immoral Mr Teas]

1 hour ago, grawk said:

X-Y, if done correctly, can be ....

 

Any two channels can be mathematically converted to mid-side, ha ha, and thereby have the 'mono-compatibility' of M-S. What I think Doc is thinking though is that the M in a forward facing mic is 'good coherent mono material' (the S being the icing ... in and out of phase) whilst Grawk is pointing out that a coherent mono sum image can be got from SOME stereo techniques but others may give a less coherent mono image.

 

I'm only writing this to illustrate that ANY explanation of mid-side, because of its ease of understanding to those who already understand it, have the unfortunate result of further confusion to those who don't quite yet get it.

 

I trust that's cleared up any remaining question Bouke?

 

Jez

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

2 hours ago, grawk said:

X-Y, if done correctly, can be mathematically converted into mid-side, and is exactly as mono compatible as mid-side is.  Near coincident techniques such as DIN, NOS, and ORTF are less so.

For sure!  I choose a poor alternate example.  You are right or course that near-coincident techniques will cause more phasing issues than coincident.

That said, in the mono-compatible conversation, usually it's a question of whether the two channels will straightforwardly sum to mono, not whether there's fancier processing that can convert it.  The original concern with mono-compatibility came from summing stereo mixes to mono for either TV transmission or AM radio, and the assumption was that most consumer equipment would either drop a channel or sum them to create a mono signal.  That assumption probably still holds today for all sorts of mono conversions, even though TV is no longer mono and AM Radio is mostly not thought about.

[docsound]

On 4/6/2024 at 12:53 AM, The Documentary Sound Guy said:

I offer MS for docs here and people don't know what I'm offering.  But I keep trying.  I agree, I like the realism it can add ... though sometimes you just need the isolation of a shotgun.

As a director and sound recordist, I'm very keen to use MS to record ambience for documentaries on the fly. For my last documentary I used a triple MS setup because it was finished in Dolby Atmos. Yes, the boom was heavy, but boy, was it worth it! There was a moment when I walked into my dialogue editor's studio and he just said, "I don't know what sound design could improve here, it already sounds better at this early stage of post than most finished docs". In my experience, most of my (doc) directing classmates from film school totally underestimate sound, and I think the ambience of a real-life scene can add a lot to your story and have the same level of emotional power as a good score. 

[Richtrohr]

9 hours ago, docsound said:

For my last documentary I used a triple MS setup because it was finished in Dolby Atmos.

That sounds interesting and I'd love to see that setup!

Maybe we should move the MS talk to another thread so we don't hijack the bag showcase here? 😛

[Richtrohr]

I'm not a pro, I just record sounds for fun.

 

MixPre-6 II in a K-Tek MixPro bag,

L-Mount sled with USB-C rechargeable SmallRig batteries,

XLR3 to XLR5 breakout cable for M/S stereo recording,

Shure SLXD1 for camera op IEM (they have a SLXD5),

Icom IC-R6 for recording airband audio,

Deity TC-1 and another one on the camera.

 

 

That day I was at an oldtimer airshow, recording some nice engine noises. I'm using MKH8050/8030 in a Cinela Zephyx:

 

[inspire]

Richtrohr, very nice! I have the same kind of tripod (one of many, Manfrotto MS0490C) as you have in the photo, and it's very comfortable, a lightweight tripod - good to carry along when on a hike or similar situation where you need to take more stuff with you.
I also have a similar interest in recording planes and their powerful sounds among other things. Although I haven't done it much, I have visited the airport several times. The more powerful the plane, the better. 🙂
What makes this interesting is that you never know exactly when it will come, and you can't repeat it either. Well, regular passenger planes do fly according to a schedule. With planes, you never know if it will come right over your head or not (which is not as exciting). At least in Tallinn, there are two options for landing and takeoff.
My best plane recordings are still ahead, as I haven't yet managed to capture one in a way that I would be satisfied with.

[Richtrohr]

Thanks, @inspire!

My goal was to keep the entire kit portable enough for hiking. It all packs nicely into a Lowepro Flipside AW 500 II:

[LDstudios]

Really inspiring setups in this thread! 

 

I'm surprised how common Wisycom 54 receivers have become. Out of curiosity, what is the driving force behind this? First receivers supporting 4 transmitters? The expanded compounder support for other manufacturer transmitters? My RF gear needs an upgrade. Wisycom for the win? 

[fieldsound]

@LDstudios more compact than dual receivers = lower weight. With the 54 I can eke out more channels without bringing out an RF distro. range is honestly phenomenal. And here in Canada I can make use of the MTP60s record/transmit function. After two years working with symphony wireless on location I can definitely recommend!

[Mattias Larsen]

On 7/14/2024 at 9:22 AM, LDstudios said:

Really inspiring setups in this thread! 

 

I'm surprised how common Wisycom 54 receivers have become. Out of curiosity, what is the driving force behind this? First receivers supporting 4 transmitters? The expanded compounder support for other manufacturer transmitters? My RF gear needs an upgrade. Wisycom for the win? 

First Quad Reciever. Wideband. Tc stamped recording on current transmitters. And pricing defenitely factor in. Now they have become much more expensive, but when they were released it was possible to snag them for about 2.7k Eur or 7k or so for a kit with TXes. A current kit and current pricing seems to be closer to 15k and then it might be worth to also look at Zax (which seems wonderful if you go full in), or Lectro if your already invested in their TXes. 

 

Biggest downside with Wisy is the lack of good wireless Boom options currently.

 

 

[locaudio]

On 7/14/2024 at 6:54 PM, fieldsound said:

@LDstudios more compact than dual receivers = lower weight. With the 54 I can eke out more channels without bringing out an RF distro. range is honestly phenomenal. And here in Canada I can make use of the MTP60s record/transmit function. After two years working with symphony wireless on location I can definitely recommend!

@fieldsound  How do you find the limiters on the MTP60s? 

I find the limiters quite poor on the MPT40s and wondering if the 60s/61s are any better?

[Jim Rillie]

17 hours ago, locaudio said:

@fieldsound  How do you find the limiters on the MTP60s? 

I find the limiters quite poor on the MPT40s and wondering if the 60s/61s are any better?

I am interested in this question as well. As a Lectro and Wisy user, I have always tried to avoid the limiters on transmitters. (Yes, I know Lectro advises this is not the way), but it works for me.

 

I prefer to limit later in the recording chain, if really necessary where I have live visual cues on the signal path, and of course better limiters, but maybe I am overly cautious.

 

 

[RadoStefanov]

On 7/14/2024 at 8:22 AM, LDstudios said:

Really inspiring setups in this thread! 

 

I'm surprised how common Wisycom 54 receivers have become. Out of curiosity, what is the driving force behind this? First receivers supporting 4 transmitters? The expanded compounder support for other manufacturer transmitters? My RF gear needs an upgrade. Wisycom for the win? 

Try it 

[martijn76]

Can a bag have weels ;)?

Very happy that this bag has a 15h battery and no longer rest on my spine, has been in the back of my mind for years to get something together. Out new house with a nice garage (means space for putting together) and a friend pointing out the dji500 battery finally got it of the ground. I am using the dji proprietary XDC output so can leave the stepup converter off (very inefficient to use that) (the wonderful cover was made by a good friend)

 

[The Immoral Mr Teas]

On 8/20/2024 at 4:35 AM, martijn76 said:

Can a bag have weels ;)?

...

(the wonderful cover was made by a good friend)

 

The cover is great. Do you have designs / material list for it? At first I wondered if you built a cart around the cover ...

 

Jez

[tanstudio91]

On 4/6/2024 at 4:56 AM, igomarsound said:

 

i want to ask how you connect BNC antenna with besto and dipole antenna, does it go through frequency filter accessory or something, i see you mentioned BSRF distribution, filtered and i don't understand how it is connected, please share with picture, thanks bro

 

 

 

when it's sitting on the cart : 

 

 

 

16 channels (LR mix + 14 ISO channels)

 

sonosax R4+

sonosax RX8 slot with 2 wisycom MCR54 with AES module

1 wisycom MCR54 receiver on analog channel 1-4, 

1 lectrosonics SRC receiver on line 5-6 

betso bowties ; lectro SNA600 ; RF venue diversity fin

sonosax LC8 fader surface

 

might be around 10 kg

 

-----

 

documentary bag :

 

 

sonosax R4+ with a mcr 54 on analog 3-4-5-6 

MS boom cabled on 1-2, using sonosax preamp and ADC

 

less than 5 kg

 

----

 

and last but not least "the feather rig" : 

 

 

SD mixpre6 mkII with automix and noise assist plugin

since v9 we can use TC on the stereo aux input and still have a additional audio channel available. only problem is the lack of fader.

MS cabled boom on channel 1-2

lectrosonics SRC receiver on  3-4

 

if needed i use the  deity theos on aux input 5-6 (after jamming internal TC and changing the inputs)

 

2.5 kg

 

 

[igomarsound]

On 12/29/2024 at 8:56 AM, tanstudio91 said:

 

Sorry it's a picture of the setup i used 1 year and half ago, so not anymore available to make a quick picture.

 

it is indeed filtered after the BSRF distribution, so BNC to BNC and then BNC to BNC to the the antennas. worth to mention that i also used the diversty fin from RF venue when more cart based.

 

IIRC, the BSRF filters at 700 MHZ, the added filter cuts everything above 614 mhz, wich is where my other camera hops and other added RF spilling devices were located. I reckon it's a bit overkill but i had tons of RF problems (CRAZY RF noise, spectrum all over the place)  on this area so i took extra measures.

 

hope that helps understanding the setup.

 

happy new year to everybody reading this BTW show us your 2025 bag !

 

 

Edited January 3 by igomarsound
clarification and syntax