daniel Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 You know, a lot of the time I need exactly 1 "good" preamp, for the boom. The rest can be of an "ok, clean, but not exceptional" quality because they will usually be in line-in mode inputting wireless RX. So…. if the Mozegear PAPI turns out well, there's a dinky good ext preamp for the boom….. I will look at this thing if/when it appears, for sure. philp +1 This is how i use a dr-680. the HP circuit on 680 is bit of a disappointment though in terms of critical assessment in noisy environments (no where near as good as similarly cheap roland devices). And despite both the zoom and the tascam having solo/pfl buttons (ie non linear (rotary) source selectors) a return box is needed to compliment the outputs of both these recorders. To judge by their current products maybe Mozegear are the folks to make such a monitor box, small and ingeniously configured. Imho: 2 stereo outputs - 1 for boom with independent rotary dip switch source selector. D sub connector for 3 stereo inputs (1 recorder, 2 aux), each channel (of 6) with 2 x 3 pole toggle switches (yes, 12 toggles in all!). But maybe Nagra would think this is an infringement and we'll discover how we monitor a source becomes a IP issue :-). A PTT built in mic would also be nice for talking to a boom op. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyfoxx Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 For Zoom to make these at a "game changing" price point they will have to sacrifice something. Zoom products are cheap partly because of the large amount of units they can produce and sell and field recording is not a large market relative to the other markets Zoom has all but flooded. I suspect a questionable time code generator with low accuracy would be one such skimp. Also, I would wager their limiters will be less than ideal and Zoom will be incorporating recycled technology from their H series (Preamps and all). There is also the question of how it handles Poly and Monophonic Wav files as well as Zoom's very questionable reliability. I do however like the form factor and redundancy on the SD cards though. These will probably flood the market just long enough for Zoom to make a profit right before they all start croaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominiquegreffard Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 For Zoom to make these at a "game changing" price point they will have to sacrifice something. Zoom products are cheap partly because of the large amount of units they can produce and sell and field recording is not a large market relative to the other markets Zoom has all but flooded. I suspect a questionable time code generator with low accuracy would be one such skimp. Also, I would wager their limiters will be less than ideal and Zoom will be incorporating recycled technology from their H series (Preamps and all). There is also the question of how it handles Poly and Monophonic Wav files as well as Zoom's very questionable reliability. I do however like the form factor and redundancy on the SD cards though. These will probably flood the market just long enough for Zoom to make a profit right before they all start croaking. A lot of good points there. I do hope higher end manifacturers note good design elements of that device. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Reineke Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 AFAIK, the Zoom F8 at NAB was an empty box with some connectors. I would certainly be skeptical of the quality if it does come to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmfsnd Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 Yes, at NAB it was barely a prototype - an empty shell with a display/animated UI ("running numbers"), and connectors only. I expect it will use the same pre's as the H series. Based on conversations with Zoom/Samson at the show, and their reliance on price point,"timecode" may be an external jam for input, and the output as a passthrough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyfoxx Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I interviewed several of the people responsible for the sound for All Is Lost, including Steve Boeddeker, Richard Hymns and Brandon Proctor (all of Skywalker Sound) for an article for Below the Line. Very little of the sound used in the picture was captured during production; the recordist (I think it was just one fellow, not a full team) only gathered scratch tracks. Virtually all of the sound of winches, rigging and other noises was gathered later, much of it in a sailing excursion in San Francisco Bay. I was surprised to hear that they accumulated these sounds using several Zoom recorders that they brought on board. What you hear in the movie, if not fabricated from other sources, was recorded with semi-pro gear. Many of the advantages of the best gear may only be apparent when there is a need to work at the limits. Many preamps have entirely adequate performance when recording sounds that are well above noise floor and well below overload. There are good reasons to work with the best but also circumstances where less capable gear might serve the need. David This is a similiar situation to "Life of Pi". These aren't typical environments for capturing sound and its my assumption that they knew this going in. That being said "All is Lost" had extremely sparse dialogue. All of Redford's breathing was ADR and it made up the majority of his "dialogue" for sure. If anything this shows the importance of scratch tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 This is a similiar situation to "Life of Pi". These aren't typical environments for capturing sound and its my assumption that they knew this going in. That being said "All is Lost" had extremely sparse dialogue. All of Redford's breathing was ADR and it made up the majority of his "dialogue" for sure. If anything this shows the importance of scratch tracks. "All is Lost" was entertaining, but it surely had extremely disjointed sound to picture. ADR was obvious and SFX did not match picture, it was so far off that I had to believe that it was intentional somehow, or maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Waelder Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 "All is Lost" was entertaining, but it surely had extremely disjointed sound to picture. ADR was obvious and SFX did not match picture, it was so far off that I had to believe that it was intentional somehow, or maybe not. Tom, it's been more than a year since I saw the picture but I don't recall any issues of mismatched sound, either in sync alignment or appropriate tone. All of the sounds were assembled later and constructed artificially so there is room for disagreement on the approaches used but nothing jumped out at me as glaringly wrong. I saw the film in an industry screening at Raleigh Studios so I expect it was shown at its best. Is there any chance that your experience came from projection rather than production? This is a similiar situation to "Life of Pi". These aren't typical environments for capturing sound and its my assumption that they knew this going in. That being said "All is Lost" had extremely sparse dialogue. All of Redford's breathing was ADR and it made up the majority of his "dialogue" for sure. If anything this shows the importance of scratch tracks. The recordings made by Steve Boeddeker and his associates were all nautical sounds - winches operating, halyards clanging against the mast, the groaning of a hull under load - that sort of thing. All of Robert Redford's breathing effects and the like were done in a studio. I just meant to cite this project as an example of audio work done by a team of top professionals (Skywalker Sound would certainly qualify) where they used a recorder of very limited capabilities to good effect. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Tom, it's been more than a year since I saw the picture but I don't recall any issues of mismatched sound, either in sync alignment or appropriate tone. All of the sounds were assembled later and constructed artificially so there is room for disagreement on the approaches used but nothing jumped out at me as glaringly wrong. I saw the film in an industry screening at Raleigh Studios so I expect it was shown at its best. Is there any chance that your experience came from projection rather than production? The recordings made by Steve Boeddeker and his associates were all nautical sounds - winches operating, halyards clanging against the mast, the groaning of a hull under load - that sort of thing. All of Robert Redford's breathing effects and the like were done in a studio. I just meant to cite this project as an example of audio work done by a team of top professionals (Skywalker Sound would certainly qualify) where they used a recorder of very limited capabilities to good effect. David The sounds were high quality, but as I mentioned disjointed from reality - didn't sound like the location nor did it approximate camera perspective. That is why I sort of believe that it was an intentional effect to give some separation from the stage, the man, and the situation, to allow perhaps a more introspective viewpoint? Not sure, but I did listen on my own home projection system with and older Sony SXRD and Lipinski L707 monitors. The source was poor, Netflix, but certain that did not color the playback qualities that I was noting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minduout Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 JW says: I'm not too pleased with posts that are just links but I approved this post anyway. The Zoom F8 will be available at all the usual (professional) suspects as well as Guitar Center, Sweetwater, B&H, amazon, etc. http://www.locationsound.com/zoom-f8-8-channel-multitrack-recorder-with-time-code-2904 http://www.prosoundnetwork.com/article/zoom-debuts-f8-multitrack-field-recorder-/19574#sthash.b1YEOTkx.dpuf https://www.zoom-na.com/products/field-video-recording/field-recording/zoom-f8-multitrack-field-recorder It's here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minduout Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Didn't know about this policy. I beg your pardon Mr. Wexler. My point is that the beast is unleashed and I would love to know what the real professionals think about the specs. I think it's a very impressive list of words, lets see if it holds in the real world. I'm from a no english speaking country and for what matters (professional audio) I'm in a completely different planet, so I'm asking you guys to be kind to me as I have the greatest appreciation for the opinions expressed within this realm. Best regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 The recorder is a lot smaller than I thought it was: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Didn't know about this policy. I beg your pardon Mr. Wexler. I'm from a no english speaking country and for what matters (professional audio) I'm in a completely different planet, so I'm asking you guys to be kind to me as I have the greatest appreciation for the opinions expressed within this realm. I apologize for my harsh comment and I know that everyone here, including me, will be kind to you. I over-reacted (I'm in a bad mood) and thought that your post might be some attempt to drum up sales for some specific company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismedr Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 The recorder is a lot smaller than I thought it was: jup same here - it's pretty much the 633 made 6cm shorter, and a tiny bit thinner and lighter. i wonder how comfortable it is to use the trims being that small (then again the trims on the 633 are not terribly comfy either, and on a chart you could use a tablet to control them). i'm most curious about the preamp quality, again on paper it seems to be comparable to a 633 (as is dynamic range). love the idea of having a backup recording per track at lower level if only 4 inputs are used (i guess they use the spare preamps of channel 5-8 for that?). would be a lovely feature for documentaries if it's a true dual preamp. on the zoom page they list: Crosstalk: -90 dB or less (between adjacent channels, 1kHz) anybody know typical figures for crosstalk in other recorders? chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minduout Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 No need to worry, Mr. Wexler. I know you do your best to keep this forum the reference it is. My concerns are for the little contribution I can give to the discussions, being from a totally different background than you professionals, so I'm asking for your forgivingness in anticipation for the mistakes I'll certainly do in here. That being said, I'm looking for some thougths about this little machine, as I'm willing to purchase one. I have good experiences with zoom gear (as I do have bad ones too), both in the music front and sound for picture, and I'm tending to think it's a great value. Being the first attempt from zoom to really get into the field recording market, it appears that they are doing things right. At least is what it seems to me. I would like to know from you experts what are your thougths about it, and will certainly wait for some real life experiences from others before make the purchase. I just didn't resist the urge to share the news in here. My bad... Best regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 No need to worry, Mr. Wexler. I know you do your best to keep this forum the reference it is. My concerns are for the little contribution I can give to the discussions, being from a totally different background than you professionals, so I'm asking for your forgivingness in anticipation for the mistakes I'll certainly do in here. That being said, I'm looking for some thougths about this little machine, as I'm willing to purchase one. I have good experiences with zoom gear (as I do have bad ones too), both in the music front and sound for picture, and I'm tending to think it's a great value. Being the first attempt from zoom to really get into the field recording market, it appears that they are doing things right. At least is what it seems to me. I would like to know from you experts what are your thougths about it, and will certainly wait for some real life experiences from others before make the purchase. I just didn't resist the urge to share the news in here. My bad... Best regards. what are others using in your market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minduout Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 (edited) what are others using in your market? Here the dominant player is the Zoom H4n, and it is widespread to the point that it is unfairly associated with low quality audio. That's because every production house has one and it is usually given to the last person in the production to have an occupation, or it's operated by the same guy who is operating the camera, directing the scene, the photography, etc... The natural replacement for this aging little wonderful machine is the Zoom H6, who will have the same fate in the unprofessional hands. There are some Roland and Tascam handheld recorders doing the same job with a somewhat higher reputation but with the same unprofessional results as for being unprofessionally operated. For multitrack jobs, the Roland R44 / Tascam DR-680 are common in the bags as the Roland R-88 / Tascam HS-P82 are in the carts. Then there is THE Sound Devices (almost exclusively the 7xx series), that here is associated with very professional and very expensive productions, despite being operated by a "professional" owner who is the same kind of untrained person, but with a high budget to invest in gear. Of course there is exceptions to this scenario, with very professional people operating both types of equipment, but they're a very small percentage of the market, as we have no film industry here and most (if not all) knowledge were built in the trial and error method, usually at the low budget end. This scenario is slowly changing as there are more access to information and there are more properly trained people getting into the market nowadays. Zaxcom, Sonosax, Aaton and other less known companies have no penetration in here whatsoever. Our access to gear is by alternative ways of import and that leaves us with the major players only, with the exception of Sound Devices wich is the fetiche brand around here. Again I apologise for my bad english and encourage you guys to point out any mistakes I do in my attempt to communicate in your language, as this will improve my ways of doing it. Thanks. Edited June 24, 2015 by minduout bad english Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minduout Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) I forgot to mention that I live in Curitiba, wich is outside the more vivid production centers of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, but I can assure that even in these centers the market is light years behind the quality and quantity of productions normally found in the USA or Europe. I would like to say that in any manner I'm diminishing the work of those who have built their knowledge at the field in the trial and error fashion. I'm just reporting that culturally the sound for picture in here are relegated to a second class. This is historical as I came to know recently. Our closest attempt to form a film industry was in the late 40s / early 50s, and it is said that there were this practice where all the filming was made with the director talking to the actors and camera crew and all sound was made in post-production. Most of our films until the end of 80s are of a terrible audio quality and to this day the sound department is viewed by the rest of the crew as a liability in some productions. This too is slowly changing with the arrival of more quality focused people in the film production jobs. Edited June 25, 2015 by minduout bad english Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Spaeth Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 I know some people who have worked in the Brazilian film industry. I think it's not as unprofessional as your post suggests. For Latin America Argentina and Brazil are the countries that produce the most movies (not talking about Telenovelas here). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minduout Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) I know some people who have worked in the Brazilian film industry. I think it's not as unprofessional as your post suggests. For Latin America Argentina and Brazil are the countries that produce the most movies (not talking about Telenovelas here). Hi there Christian, is good to know that you have had enjoyable experiences with brazillian personnel.As I said, we have very professional people working both at the top and bottom levels of the film production. They're just not the majority. Brazil is a vast country and much of the brazillian film production does not reach outside our own boundaries. The productions that are shown in festivals outside our country and those that make it to the international market certainly represent our very best and deserves all the merit, but they do not represent the majority of the work done here. I can't talk for the Argentinian film production except that I'm a great fan of their work. Maybe I've been too graphic at my report and that may have been somewhat distressing to the outsider. Brazil is a very singular and intricated market and to try to explain it to others may require a seminar. When I say that we have no film industry is of what can be compared to Hollywood or the rest of the world, where there are investors, a product, a workforce, a prospect of continuous production and profit. If you consider a market mostly sustained by government incentives and that get no revenue at the box office, then you can say we have an industry.The whole telenovelas ecosystem is very influential to the film production in a very bad way, but I may not dig this hole in here as I've been too much off topic already. As a side note, keep the good work with your national soccer team. You may again encounter our best personell, but at the soccer ground in the next world cup. Hehehehe!!!That team of ours you germans smashed last year is an example of the unprofessionalism I was talking about, hehehe... we may have some of the best soccer players in the world but that doesn't mean all our players are good...(I can laugh about it as I don't care much about soccer, but there are people around here that are still crying that defeat...) Best regards. Edited June 26, 2015 by minduout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 The recorder is a lot smaller than I thought it was: It is just *slightly* smaller than a Zaxcom Maxx (about one inch less in width). Not to take away from the F8's impressive size considering it is an 8 input recorder (at least I think?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Spaeth Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 That team of ours you germans smashed last year is an example of the unprofessionalism I was talking about, hehehe... we may have some of the best soccer players in the world but that doesn't mean all our players are good... (I can laugh about it as I don't care much about soccer, but there are people around here that are still crying that defeat...) Best regards. My last off topic post here (sorry everyone): I was in Brazil in August 2002. People made me suffer a lot for our loss of the WC. What goes around comes around, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.