Field Audio Question - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

All Things Audio
Everything Audio, from acquisition to postproduction.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 10th, 2013, 02:24 PM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 974
Re: Field Audio Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass View Post
Not sure John as I thought it looked more like a loop of cable coming out of the mic and then something like a zoom or a micron type transmitter taped to the end of the boom arm.
It looked a bit square for that.

But it is common to run a short cable from the mic. to the plug-on transmitter as it makes boomng easier.

But I may be wrong, it was a bit fuzzy.
__________________
John Willett - Sound-Link ProAudio and Circle Sound Services
President: Fédération Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons
John Willett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2013, 04:31 PM   #17
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
Re: Field Audio Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
It looked a bit square for that.

But it is common to run a short cable from the mic. to the plug-on transmitter as it makes boomng easier.

But I may be wrong, it was a bit fuzzy.
Either way there is far too much weight at the mic end, it would have been better to keep the transmitter at the op end although I use an AT875 r with an skp 500 mounted in a rode PG2 on gitzo carbon fibre booms without any real problems!
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2013, 08:12 PM   #18
Slash Rules!
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 4,723
Re: Field Audio Question

There is some kind of perverse pleasure in seeing everyone ooh and ah over something and then having someone else come in and say "no, all of that was wrong." Is there a German word for that? There should be.
Josh Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 03:07 AM   #19
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
Re: Field Audio Question

I think the polite English phrase is "style over substance" and sadly the media industry is full of it these days!

I suppose the German would be "FooBarr" ??

and the American "Bullshit" ???
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 06:22 AM   #20
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 974
Re: Field Audio Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass View Post
Either way there is far too much weight at the mic end, it would have been better to keep the transmitter at the op end!
I agree, that would be much better.
__________________
John Willett - Sound-Link ProAudio and Circle Sound Services
President: Fédération Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons
John Willett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 07:52 AM   #21
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
Re: Field Audio Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
I agree, that would be much better.
Even better to have one of these at the Op end too so they can hear the mic and listen to where it is placed:
ART Pro Audio

useful for wireless and cabled boom operation and if using cables you could even feed a talkback circuit or IFB into it, they cost less than £50.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 09:54 AM   #22
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: LOWESTOFT - UK
Posts: 2,126
Re: Field Audio Question

If you are using a wirless link, an extra receiver works pretty well too.
Paul R Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 10:17 AM   #23
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
Re: Field Audio Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson View Post
If you are using a wirless link, an extra receiver works pretty well too.
That's where I liked the old EW100 receivers as they had a headphone output with a level control.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 12:01 PM   #24
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,682
Re: Field Audio Question

Gary & Paul,

I have the EW100. I think you just taught me something. Are you saying that in a situation where you don't want your field mixer and bag hanging on you to monitor the mix as I always do, that you can tune two receivers to the same frequency as the mic? Then put the mixer down and use the EW100 receiver with your cans in the AF out for a monitor?

Since I know exactly what happens when two transmitters are on the same frequency it scares me to run two receivers that way. I know it is not the same issue as transmitters but I have never been sure if both receivers would get exactly the same level and quality of signal from the mic?

Obviously I am not an audio genius or I would not be asking that question. That is why I hire boom OPs whenever I possibly can. I have never understood why an A-1 at a FOH console is always considered mandatory, even if it is just two mics but trying to get my clients to pay for a good field mixer is like pulling teeth sometimes. That is backwards to me. Almost any basic tech can ride gain on a stage mic....But a boom mix.... that's a different story!
__________________
www.CorporateShow.com
Been at this so long I'm rounding my years of experience down...not up!
Steven Digges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 12:26 PM   #25
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,742
Re: Field Audio Question

Two receivers are usually no problem. I say "usually" because it can happen that leakage from the internal oscillators in one of two receivers in very close proximity to each other can be picked up by the other receiver and interact to produce noise.

Why would you expect your clients to pay for a field mixer? It's a basic piece of kit, not an extra-cost add-in, and IMHO charging them when you use it is like charging them for each mic cable. Or do you use 'field mixer' in the sense of a person whose job is to operate the audio gear?
__________________
Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams!
Steve House is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 12:34 PM   #26
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
Re: Field Audio Question

We have used two receivers with one transmitter for decades in UK TV to cover huge or multiple areas, I even use older G1 radio mic receivers for multi cam talkback but now have an in ear monitoring system that will do the same!

One other handy application is to plug in an skp 100 to my mixer mono output and feed multiple cameras with guide audio via a receiver on each cam!
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 12:51 PM   #27
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,359
Re: Field Audio Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve House View Post
Two receivers are usually no problem. I say "usually" because it can happen that leakage from the internal oscillators in one of two receivers in very close proximity to each other can be picked up by the other receiver and interact to produce noise.
In theory that's quite true. But IMHO the receivers would have to be pretty poorly designed and pretty poorly built for that to occur. The receivers' IF sections should be well shielded to prevent secondary emissions (and in fact the FCC has specifications about such things). Think about the thousands of people listening to the same broadcast station at the same time... although, of course, those receivers are usually more than a few feet apart.

For that matter, if you're using a second receiver to feed your cans, you could also feed it into a second field recorder, and you'd have a backup track in case there were dropouts on the "main" receiver/recorder track.
Greg Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2013, 01:06 PM   #28
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,682
Re: Field Audio Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve House View Post
Two receivers are usually no problem. I say "usually" because it can happen that leakage from the internal oscillators in one of two receivers in very close proximity to each other can be picked up by the other receiver and interact to produce noise.

Why would you expect your clients to pay for a field mixer? It's a basic piece of kit, not an extra-cost add-in, and IMHO charging them when you use it is like charging them for each mic cable. Or do you use 'field mixer' in the sense of a person whose job is to operate the audio gear?
That was just bad typing on my part. I do not nickle and dime clients over gear. I also do not usually refer to boom operators as "field mixers" but I did then. Most of the time I also don't refer to them as "audio guys" especially around clients, I call them the "A-1" to be more respectful of their specialty.
__________________
www.CorporateShow.com
Been at this so long I'm rounding my years of experience down...not up!
Steven Digges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2013, 07:45 AM   #29
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 974
Re: Field Audio Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass View Post
That's where I liked the old EW100 receivers as they had a headphone output with a level control.
Only the mains powered EM 100 had this in the 100 series.

You needed the EK 500 pocket receiver for the headphone output - the EK 100 did not have this.
__________________
John Willett - Sound-Link ProAudio and Circle Sound Services
President: Fédération Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons
John Willett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2013, 08:26 AM   #30
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cornsay Durham UK
Posts: 1,941
Re: Field Audio Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
Only the mains powered EM 100 had this in the 100 series.

You needed the EK 500 pocket receiver for the headphone output - the EK 100 did not have this.
I stand corrected John, it was someone else who owned those EK 500 receivers when we used them so I must have got confused over which one had the headphone output.

It is a shame that the G2 or G3 don't have headphone outputs but I suppose that would affect the sales of in ear monitors.
__________________
Over 15 minutes in Broadcast Film and TV production: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1044352/
Gary Nattrass is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:32 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network