cstauffer Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just curious to hear from any POST people here about usefulness of tracks that arrived to them having used either the new Cedar DNS or the Schoeps Super CMIT with the 2 auto noise reduction settings. I see these two pieces of equipment and think, isn't it something the peeps in post can do better and with more success because they are in a far superior listening environment? Or is it in fact helpful, if us users don't go overboard with its use in the field? Though, I realize the Super CMIT outputs affected and unaffected channels of audio, so maybe no issue there. Thanks! CRAIG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Well, I have recently had a longer discussion with the re-recording mixer on my show and he has basically asked me if I could try another mic, instead of the SuperCMIT. He found it too hissy. The hiss is fairly obvious starting at 15k. Since the Zaxcom 742 cuts off at 16 (even the already digital signals, which is a bit strange), it's only 1kHz, but he was not happy about it. Unfortunately, somehow I forgot to ask about the unprocessed channel (I always get nervous when post calls me). But I did also notice the hiss, and was getting increasingly annoyed by it. Since I find the regular CMIT on the hissy side as well, I am happy to return to my DPA 4017. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinTheMixer Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 C, I'm no post mixer but I do get in there and play around with the files just to see what I could have done better, and I really think it has more to do with what job you're doing. If you have off axis noise to deal with, it's the digital Schoeps. If you are sound staging, it would be, in my case, the DPA 4017. The ability for the Schoeps to reject reverb is far superior to the DPA. I think subject to mic distance greatly comes into play. The "reach" from the digital Schoeps is far greater. So, pick your poision I guess. As far as setting 2, which was part of your question, again, what are you recording? If your working on something noisy, like "Billy Bob's Goat farm and Dry Cleaning Wars" season 2, then the Schoeps might be best, unless you need to pickup grandpa way off axis arguing with the tv over who stole the horse on Bonanza in the background. Sincerely, Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 As a postie, mostly on docs, I come down on the side if wanting the location soundie to concentrate on getting really clean, fat, undistorted tracks that tell the story and are well organized and logged, as opposed to going down a location NR etc rabbit hole. I vote for that kind of thing really only getting deployed in very special circumstances, as in live-stream or no-post projects. Getting extra treated vs untreated versions of the same audio is kind of an opportunity for an audio screw-up during picture cutting (since often they can't even keep lav vs boom straight thru a scene) vs. what they will end up exporting, despite best efforts at sound reports etc.. In other words, please weigh the real upside to doing this treatment vs the extra work and possible confusion it will cause in post, and don't make it part of a standard operating procedure etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Cameron Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, Philip Perkins said: As a postie, mostly on docs, I come down on the side if wanting the location soundie to concentrate on getting really clean, fat, undistorted tracks that tell the story and are well organized and logged, as opposed to going down a location NR etc rabbit hole. I vote for that kind of thing really only getting deployed in very special circumstances, as in live-stream or no-post projects. Getting extra treated vs untreated versions of the same audio is kind of an opportunity for an audio screw-up during picture cutting (since often they can't even keep lav vs boom straight thru a scene) vs. what they will end up exporting, despite best efforts at sound reports etc.. In other words, please weigh the real upside to doing this treatment vs the extra work and possible confusion it will cause in post, and don't make it part of a standard operating procedure etc... This is really an issue, worrying which track is going to end up in the mix. It's so difficult to make enough notes and recommendations to post on which is the track to use here or there. Worse, some of the jobs I do have 'not much post at all' or no RRM (at least I doubt it). At this point I would offer the DNS-2. But yeah Philip..rabbit hole for sure. All this has to be so carefully considered. Above all, I make sure to give post both tracks with bold warnings to please listen keenly to tracks 1 and 4 (dirty and DNS'd). Great idea, cstauffer. Please chime in, posties. Lets hear from anyone with opinions or experience here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 On a no-post job (by which I mean what audio post there is will be done by the pic editor) if I did a location NR treatment as w/ Cedar I would not only do a big notes thing in the report but also CALL the editor (not email or text) and heads-up them. If they are really up against it and you solved a big BG noise issue for them then they'll be very grateful for both the NR-ed tracks AND the in-person info about where and what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstauffer Posted March 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 I should clarify that I do not own either of these. I just seeing them pop up more now and thought, isn't it a better idea to let post do these noise reduction things. Wanted to see what people's experiences were with using them, or just hear some opinions. CRAIG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel Cameron Posted March 11, 2017 Report Share Posted March 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Philip Perkins said: CALL the editor (not email or text) and heads-up them. If they are really up against it and you solved a big BG noise issue for them then they'll be very grateful for both the NR-ed tracks AND the in-person info about where and what they are. About half of the time, the editor is standing somewhere nearby. Yep. If I can, I give them the cans (show them the report, which tracks, etc) and explain the mess we're currently in with that noisy __________ over there. Then I'll jump between the isos with the headphone selector and watch their expression. Makes me new friends. I just wish they were in higher places. 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.