Equipment hopes for 2015

[Glen Trew]

"I will certainly agree that a single RU is 1.75" tall and our receiver is 2.00" tall.  This in my opinion is semantical..." 

 

Glenn

There is nothing semantic about "half a single rack space" when a customer who reads that manufacture's description orders the device for a single rack space on their cart only to find when they go to install it that it's not going to fit. They would be even more disappointed if they tried to mount two RX12s side-by-side in a single rack space like one would expect to be able to do with devices described as "half a single rack space".

 

Semantics or misleading? The answer may be in the first response to the post that describes the RX12 as half a single rack space:

"Here's another one for the list: A rack mount kit to rack mount the RX12. :)"

 

The RX12 is a great idea, and after putting all twelve channels through some real world testing soon, I may go with one in a compact cart I'm building, because it is certainly compact for 12 channels. However, when mounting it in a standard rack, two rack spaces will be required for 12 channels, which, that alone, is nothing new, as the Lectro Venue has been able to do that for many years now.

 

No offense intended to anyone, any company, or any product. Just trying to filter the sales talk to keep the information accurate for the sake of those considering the investment.

 

So, to get back on topic, I'll restate my 2015 wish-list:

 

"Repeating for three years now: An 8-channel receiver system in a single rack space would rule."

 

gt

[James Arnold]

Any of the features on the ever growing but verrrrrry slowly fulfilled Zaxcom Nomad request list. Any of 'em!

[Jeff Wexler]

I have to agree with Glen Trew: "There is nothing semantic about "half a single rack space" when a customer who reads that manufacture's description orders the device for a single rack space on their cart only to find when they go to install it that it's not going to fit."

 

I think Glenn Sanders realizes now that the term "single rack space" and "half rack space" should not be used to describe the dimensions of the RX-12. That said, I think the RX-12 is an amazing box, un-rivaled by anything else out there in terms of features and function. Sure, it would be nice if it were smaller, lighter, cheaper, rackmountable, etc., but I'm guessing that there will be more on this in the future. Look at what Lectrosonics did with the Venue when people were asking for something suitable for the bag --- they took their rackmount only unit, folded it in half and added an NP-1 slot (and possibly other modifications I wouldn't know anything about). Similar things, in reverse, could be quite possible for the RX-12 since the all important modules and software have already been designed.

[RadoStefanov]

I don't know about you but I am pretty much set with my gear. Just need a little improvement.

 

• Cell phone App for Nomad - if possible.
• 6 AES input modification for Maxx
• Power Mode control on Maxx zaxnet from BNC.
• Accurate TC on Nomad and Maxx - so I don't have to use MozeGear Tig Q28 as master.
• -10DB line on QRX200 screen "plus accurate reading of levels when Never Clip TX is used.
• To finish my QRX/Nomad ONE UNIT device.
• To finish my QRX235 Audioroot half battery solution.
• Lighter rx6 or rx8 that only has qrx200 parts inside.
• Upgrade that would put the Nomad and Maxx guts with the guts of a few qrx200 in ONE UNIT device with a battery compartment like Deva for AudioRoot batteries.

[PhillipWestbrook]

I am perhaps not alone in desiring some kind of built in compressor/graphic eq atleast on the master channel of my 664. If we're dreaming then let's go for 3rd party VST3 type plugins. Soooo much work I do I suspect will never have the opportunity for post editing or clean up. Some simple tools (dsp based) could save time and money for post if we had them in the field.

[Constantin]

If we're dreaming then let's go for 3rd party VST3 type plugins. Soooo much work I do I suspect will never have the opportunity for post editing or clean up. Some simple tools (dsp based) could save time and money for post if we had them in the field.

I have on occasion thought about that too, but what could a nice service for post now (at my expense?) could well turn into a demand later. Suddenly we will be expected to perform basic audio post on our material each day. So now I am really hoping that this will not happen.

[dfisk]

I am perhaps not alone in desiring some kind of built in compressor/graphic eq atleast on the master channel of my 664. If we're dreaming then let's go for 3rd party VST3 type plugins. Soooo much work I do I suspect will never have the opportunity for post editing or clean up. Some simple tools (dsp based) could save time and money for post if we had them in the field.

As long as the original files remain intact and processed files are copies. Most post guys (myself included when I was one) don't like a lot of processing on production dialogue. 

[Mirror]

 

 

I think Glenn Sanders realizes now that the term "single rack space" and "half rack space" should not be used to describe the dimensions of the RX-12. 

How do you know what Glenn Sanders realizes?  I think gs would have to say the words before anyone would know anything in his head.  It would be amazing if gs admitted a mistake on his part.

[Nathaniel Robinson]

As long as the original files remain intact and processed files are copies. Most post guys (myself included when I was one) don't like a lot of processing on production dialogue.

Part of why I think it would be so cool if our mix decisions were saved as metadata/automation data. Loading a session from our recorders would recall the mix (including HPF and fader moves), all editable in post. I find it unnerving that so many post sessions begin by muting our mix track.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff Wexler]

How do you know what Glenn Sanders realizes?  I think gs would have to say the words before anyone would know anything in his head.  It would be amazing if gs admitted a mistake on his part.

How do I know? Just because YOU haven't heard from Glenn Sanders doesn't mean no one has heard from Glenn Sanders. I think it is unlikely that Glenn would share anything with you for the same reasons that I am often not so inclined to share anything with you. Generally, so many of  your posts are quite combative and divisive that I tend to not respond.

 

As for publicly admitting to mistakes (here on JWSOUND) have YOU ever admitted to the mistakes you have made in a post or apologized in any manner for the caustic remarks you have made?

[Mirror]

How do I know? Just because YOU haven't heard from Glenn Sanders doesn't mean no one has heard from Glenn Sanders. I think it is unlikely that Glenn would share anything with you for the same reasons that I am often not so inclined to share anything with you. Generally, so many of  your posts are quite combative and divisive that I tend to not respond.

 

As for publicly admitting to mistakes (here on JWSOUND) have YOU ever admitted to the mistakes you have made in a post or apologized in any manner for the caustic remarks you have made?

So you're saying that gs has said those things to you. Really.  It's weird that you coddle him like he was your precious child here in this forum.  Why don't you let him speak for himself?

 

gs response to Glen Trew was dismissive.  It was a way for him to say, "I'm not wrong, you're just knit-picking."  He does that a lot about criticisms of his products.  If he was more gracious A'la Larry at Lectro then the quirks in his gear would be more palatable.  But he is not, and his responses are irritating.  Just as mine are to you. And I get called on mine all the time. (Yes, I know I am breaking a lot of grammatical rules in this post)

 

And, yes I have admitted (and posted) to a number of my mistakes here on this board. The last one was where you pointed out that PATA drives are still being made.

[PhillipWestbrook]

Yes dsp processing would allow for more complex metadata (mix automation, gain settings). along with some master bus processing. The jobs I'm talking about won't have audio post anyways so nobody's losing out. It would certainly be a competitive advantage for any mixers that can provide this feature/service. ISOs recorded clean for sure!

[Jeff Wexler]

And, yes I have admitted (and posted) to a number of my mistakes here on this board. The last one was where you pointed out that PATA drives are still being made.

Glad you remembered that one.

[Mirror]

Glad you remembered that one.

 

It's hard to forget when you get handed a big slice of humble pie.

[LarryF]

It's hard to forget when you get handed a big slice of humble pie.

+1

It isn't very tasty but it is good for you 'cause after the smarting it makes you smarter.

Best Regards,

A world class taster of humble pie.

Larry F

[Constantin]

Yes dsp processing would allow for more complex metadata (mix automation, gain settings). along with some master bus processing. The jobs I'm talking about won't have audio post anyways so nobody's losing out. It would certainly be a competitive advantage for any mixers that can provide this feature/service. ISOs recorded clean for sure!

Everyone's losing out. When you add free additional work to your package, you are losing out. Audio post is losing out. Even if you charge extra for it, it probably won't be the same as a proper sound post would charge, because then they might as well do it. It's a bonus one day, an expectance tomorrow.

There is no "no audio post anyway", they are just unwilling to pay for it. You'd just be helping them with their race to the bottom

[Jeff Wexler]

Unless it is a live news broadcast, man on the street sort of thing, there is NO EXCUSE for no post-production handling of the audio. Is there no post work on the image? Is there no editing of any sort? Is there any format conversions, color correction, etc.? There are so many good reasons to NOT do during production any of the processes or procedures typically done in post. If you are on jobs where you feel the need to do post work for a client, do these things in POST (after you have done your day of production sound recording) and do it properly with the proper non-destructive tools. If you are compelled as well to do this post work for free, off the clock at the end of day, that's a whole other issue. On much the same topic, if production sound mixers do more of these things IN production (and this includes extensive metadata, file management, transfers and backups to multiple media, logging and so forth), younger people starting out in post will start to expect this from the production sound mixer. It is not our job in production to do these things.

[Roberto]

new firmware for the sounddevices 633...So i can actually use it in the field for recording without wrong datestamps on the file, and solve some power down issues.

[PhillipWestbrook]

Well I'm glad you think post ought to be a part of every production (I do too) but the reality is that VIDEO EDITORS don't know Jack about audio editing and all too often the entire process is: is there audio there, ok it's done. Also is it really so bad that editors would expect and want more metadata?

[RPSharman]

I tend to look at my work environment and their work environment. Then I think about an assistant editor (or even an editor) organizing and labeling files and tracks in a manner they prefer, or me deciding to label tracks and correct metadata with freezing fingers at five in the morning. Then I think about all the political work we do on set just to get decent tracks, while mixing mics on a large cast with multiple cameras for things they might never use.

This is when I decide it's simply not in my best interest to do someone else's job for free, when it is in fact a job someone is, or should be, paid to do.

I imagine most post people would prefer nice tracks over better secretarial work.

[Constantin]

Well I'm glad you think post ought to be a part of every production (I do too) but the reality is that VIDEO EDITORS don't know Jack about audio editing and all too often the entire process is: is there audio there, ok it's done. Also is it really so bad that editors would expect and want more metadata?

Video editors shouldn't be doing audio post either.

With you hope for dsp processing/additional metadata or whatever you are not helping the assistant editor, you're not helping the editor, you're not helping audio post and you're not helping yourself. You're only helping the production company save money. At your own expense.

Even if you were to only use it on charity productions, once the technology is there, other productions will want it, too, even those with money. First, they'll shorten the budget for audio post, next they will eliminate it altogether, all the while expecting us to do more and more post work

[Jeff Wexler]

+1 Constantin!

[NewEndian]

Personally, I see the lack of complex metadata (fades, EQ, etc) as an inefficiency in the process: there is a production mixer; if something has to be remixed, having to reverse engineer his mix to match it in post is a waste of resources.

That said, in my personal opinion, due to the inherent lack of time captured on film, the #1 priority for a sound mixer should be to provide post production the most flexibility as possible. By that I mean providing the most unadulterated and isolated tracks of the performance. 

 

Of course, this is an incredibly idealized position. Production mixing is done to both cut down on post production mixing time and to provide the director and editors with reasonable idea of the final sound of the dialog parts of the film. Cutting down on money spent on post production is still money saved overall. And providing good organization of audio through metadata is still part of providing usable audio.

While I certainly agree, advanced metadata should not be done to replace post production audio. I think it can be done in such a way that it doesn't increase the workload of the mixer and still provides a valuable asset to the post production process.

[Constantin]

To be clear: I was responding mostly to post #105 where Philip Westbrook is expressing the hope for dsp processing and VST plugins to be used right on the recorde, to perform audio post tasks.

I don't mind the ability to record my fader moves or EQ settings as metadata, but that's something different.

[Nate C]

I hope they don't get to the stage of recording fader movement meta data for at least a few years, I still make mistakes and some some of them go unnoticed in accidental moments of genius.

 

What I hope for in the future is an invoice that gives the client a little or LITTLE zap when they are late to pay. Oh and gave them a bigger zap when their excuses reregisters more on the bullshit meter.