NLE Mac / Final Cut questions from 2003

[Jeff Donald]

The RAID card would allow you to add additional drives, but is the costliest solution. You would also get a performance boost from the RAID card. FireWire is nice but if you don't need portability it is the next costliest solution. You could add larger internal drives too. What Mac G4 do you have? That can effect things also. Are you thinking about upgrading soon?

[Jeremiah Boucher]

I am thinking of upgrading soon. I am using a G4 - 400mhz AGP graphics with FCP 2. I am thinking about a zif upgrade either a 800 or 1ghz (the reviews I have read about the dual processor upgrades were not confidence inspiring). Ram is not maxed but since max ram for an app is 999MB and this machine is dedicated to final cut, 1 GB ram is enough.

I have a B&W G3 that I use for surfing, word, excel, photoshop. This dinosaur has an ATA 100 PCI card installed that I was thinking about putting in the G4. However, the idea of portability is intriguing. I also have a Pismo powerbook that is getting the most use latley.

Is an external Firewire drive (theoretical 400mbps) faster than an internal ATA 100 IDE drive?

[Jeff Donald]

I would get a FireWire drive to add portability to the system, especially if they are not networked. The ATA/IDE 100 7200rpm is faster than a FireWire drive. However, none of your machines are real speed demons so the slight difference would not be readily apparent. I would also get a better video card, it will free up the processor and make the computer seem much faster. OS 10.2 with the Quartz Extreme can hog a lot of processor power rendering and displaying fonts and shadows. A newer video card will relieve the processor of those duties.

[Charles Papert]

Just thought I'd let you guys know about a lovely little mixer I picked up for an incredible price recently.

It's made by Eurorack, and the model number is the MX 602A. I was suspicious of the price ($79 at Promax, and can be found for less on the web) but having tried it for a month, it's working beautifully.

It's essentially a six-channel mixer, two channels set up for mike or line (XLR or 1/4" input with gain control and phantom power) and two stereo channels (dual 1/4" inputs). There's also stereo tape sends and and aux send, which can also be used as inputs as needed. It's solidly built, the controls feel good, and while it is fairly stripped down it still has some handy features such as 3 bands of EQ per channel, aux sends, a main and "control room" output etc. The level indicators are pretty skimpy...LED's, and only four of them, but if you are mixing sources into the computer you have the levels in your system to work with.

I have used it in a live presentation setting and also on my desktop, where I mix the computer audio output with my DV deck and dub rack, and the sound is clean.

If anyone is interested in more info, check it out here.

Sadly for me, in checking out that link I also came across their next model up, the 802, which adds inputs and more LED's for level--and it's only $20 more! Oh well.

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

Thanks for the heads-up on this economical mixer, Charles.

There are always mixed reviews on the Behringer line. "Too much noise and cross-talk," some claim; "For most applications you'll never notice," counter others. "It's cheaper to get a higher-end mixer used on eBay," says one; "No, right now it's just as cheap to get new gear as it is to get used gear," says another. There have also been charges that an inordinate number of Behringer products get sent for service with slow turnaround times. John Amstadter, Behringer Rep Midwest, had this to say: "As for reliability - I have sold thousands of Behringer units and have had returns running less than 2% failure rate. Most of the failures were related to shipping damage and not to any specific product. Behringer repair is backed up by Samson Technology and generally there is only a 5 day turn around. Problems should be addressed through Samson Customer Service. "

Behringer is alleged to have produced their equipment from stolen or reverse-engineered designs from other audio equipment manufacturers (Aphex, Mackie) using low-cost labor in China, then exploited stringent European libel law to prevent court rulings to this effect from being publicized. (In any case, that would seem to be nothing but good news for the end-consumer looking for a good deal.) In fairness to them, Behringer's customer service had this to say about the matter:

Subject: Re: Advice on Behringer MIC2200 Mic Pre
Date: 1999/04/12
Author: m.leidel <m.leidel@behringer.de>

It is always amazing how facts are twisted or how people come up with stories. I respect your personal opinion but let us clarify some things.

1.) The Aphex case many years ago was mainly about a dispute about Aphex's patent and Uli Behringer's own patent application. Our circuitry was very different since it was amplitude independent which is great to get harmonics even at low levels. The case was settled outcourt.
2.) We never had any dispute with dbx.
3.) Mackie. If you really look at the legal documents than you will find out that Mackie lost the case on all copyright and patent infrindgement.

We have now sued Mackie for various things which we cannot and don't want to dislose here. This is not our style.

We make great equipment at great prices. Some competitors don't like it and they think to defame us here on the net is their way of competition. They also prefer to hide their names rather than showing their identity.

This is OK for us.

Best regards
Michael Leidel
Behringer Customer Support Manager

Then came the reply:

Subject: Behringer lies
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:22:27 GMT
From: marvin_caesar@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro

This message is prompted by replies made by Michael Liedel, customer support manager of Behringer, regarding Ulrich Behringer's history of theft and lies. Inasmuch as Aphex was the first company targeted by Behringer and inasmuch as I was directly and personally involved during the entire episode, everything that is contained in this message is the truth as I know it.

Liedel stated that "the Aphex case was mainly about a dispute about Aphex's patent and Uli Behringer's own patent application". That is a lie. The truth is that Behringer copied the Aural Exciter Type B, right down to the circuit board and the manual, and called it the Typ F. The front panel was made to look very similar to our unit. The manual, being so blatant a copy, caused people who bought the Behringer copy to call our distributor in Germany for service. When it became clear to us that Behringer was going to be more than a garage operation, we first sent a legal letter to him demanding that he stop and then filed a patent suit.

To suggest that Behringer had a patent filing himself is also a lie. He abused the legal system in Germany to delay justice. It took six years to get the court to finally issue an judgment of patent infringement and forced him to stop selling infringing products. Behringer then told the world that he 'discovered' that it was better to not generate harmonics- that was after he 'invented' his own harmonic generator which just happened to be a copy of the Aural Exciter.

After the infringement was proven in court (not out of court as Liedel stated), the next step was to establish damages. That took another two years through the delay tactics that Behringer continued to use. The court finally caught on to his games. On the night before the last hearing, Behringer claimed to have a cold and asked for another delay. I had flown from LA to Frankfurt and the judge denied the request. At the hearing the lawyer for Behringer was admonished by the judge and told to agree to pay an amount which would be acceptable to us. If that agreement was not reached within a short time, the judge would force the settlement amount and also force Behringer to pay all court fees and our legal costs. Behringer paid 800,000DM. That amount was small compared to the benefit he received, but at least the world knows that he was found guilty of patent infringement and that he had to pay a significant, albeit insufficient, sum.

Behringer's attack on our products was not limited to the Aural Exciter. He tried to copy our 612 gate. He could not get our VCA so he used the VCA that we had used previously. We had to use a heat spreader on our new VCA which was not necessary on the previous design. Behringer glued a useless piece of metal on his VCA's showing that he either did not understand what was going on in the unit, only making a poor copy of it, or he simply tried to copy as exactly as possible. He also copied our manual--page for page, illustration for illustration. The court immediately issued an order for him to stop and reimbursed us for our legal fees.

I cannot comment directly on his raids on other companies' products, but based on my experience I know that he used similar tactics. He not only screws other manufacturers, but I have direct knowledge of him screwing a supplier. He has set up distributors and, after the distributor has done all the hard work, hired one individual from that distributor to set up his own distribution.

The mistake I naively made was thinking that once people knew who this miscreant was, they would never want to do business with him or buy his products. People turn a blind eye when there is a possibility to make a quick buck or buy a product which, on the surface looks like the original, but is cheaper.

I have absolutely no illusions that this message will change anybody's business methods or purchasing decisions. I just hope that those who are ethically challenged do not complain too loudly if they ever get ripped off. I also hope that people who do have some sense of right and wrong get a little twinge whenever they see a Behringer product in a rack. Especially now that they know the truth.

It has been put forth that the Chinese manufacturing facility for Behringer is ISO-9000 certified and is a much more sophisticated operation than just cheap labor.

So, if anyone else has reviews of their Behringer gear, it'd be good to hear. I'm interested in whether the SNRs are good enough for 16 bit DV work (i.e. not much worse than 96 dB SNR).

[Claude Isbell]

Yeah, I got one a couple of months ago. Very happy with it. Especially for the price. I can take it out when I'm shooting, where there's going to be power, and use it in the field.

[Scott Silverman]

I have a quick question for any one who owns a 602 or 802 or is familiar with a mixer such as the above. If I was to use a mixer like these (say, the 602) in the field, how would I get the sound into my camera? I know to go in through the mic-in on my GL2, but what kind of outputs does the mixer have (ie: XLR, 1/4, 1/8, RCA)? Also, if I wanted to get this audio directly into my computer what kind of card (PCI) would I need and what type of software would I use to capture the audio? Thanks to all! I am a little less familiar with the audio world than the video world ;-)

[Justin Morgan]

I have been reading the audio section of my final cut express manual and can't seem to understand the concept of 'db' with regard to the audio.

Could somebody please help explain this concept in simple terms. I have tried looking on the web and that really hasn't helped - it goes into algorithms etc etc. Or is it just a complex concept anyway... rather than just asssigning a certain number to a certain volume of sound (which would be the logical way to me).

[Brian M. Dickman]

The output on these mixers is 2 1/4" balanced (TRS) or unbalanced (TS) jacks (meaning it does either, just depending on the cable you plug in). If you're doing a really long cable run from the mixer to the camera, you may want TRS to XLR cables and an XLR-PRO or similar at the camera side, but most of the time we just run 6 or 10 feet of unbalanced cable and it works fine. Dual 1/4" TS to 1/8" stereo miniplug into the GL2 mic jack, and you're good to go.

For computer recording, there are lots of pro level audio cards that will do. Personally I love the M-Audio cards, the Audiophile 24/96 is a stereo in card that would do just what you want. Purchased new, the Audiophile comes with decent recording software, or you can go out and purchase something better like Sonic Foundry Sound Forge or Vegas (with Vegas, you get a multitrack audio recorder and killer NLE all in one!).

http://www.m-audio.com
http://www.sonicfoundry.com

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

The decibel scale is foremost a relative scale whereby any physical magnitude must be compared with a reference. The notion of absolute dB simply means that there is a reference that has been agreed upon in advance.

--William M. Hartmann, Signals, Sound, and Sensation

So dB is a log of ratios. You take the intensity of your sound, divide it by the intensity of a reference sound, then take the log of that ratio. "Hm," you say. I just want to know how loud a sound is. What am I supposed to use as my reference?

That's where it starts to get a bit complicated, especially once you start talking about VU meters, which is probably your actual aim. I could begin to go into the math here, but instead, you might appreciate these links which already say everything I might have repeated:

A thread from The Recording Website Audio Forums Archives. The third post down begins a "For Dummies"-type comprehensive discussion of dB.
Excerpt from Producing Great Sound for Digital Video, by Jay Rose (PDF)

[Ethan Goldberger]

Hi All,

I'm working on a segment of my movie (music documentary) and I'm having a bit of difficulty. First of all my setup is: PD150 (shot on and for edit deck) with a 15" LCD G4 Imac (800mhz) running Final Cut Pro 3.0.4.

The section is a slowed motion montage over music, using footage shot at a concert. The band uses really bright lights and much of the footage i'm using is really blown out at times (love the look). Anyways, I'm looking for ways to take some of the blown out footage and turn the bright white light into more interesting colors. I've tried using color correctors, but they just turn my footage "pink" or "sky blue" and i'm looking for more vivid colors.

Is there anything I can do? I tried creating slugs of the colors I wanted, then superimposing it ove the image, but it just made things look like tinted black/white. HELP ME PLEASE!!! I have access to After Effects if needed, although I've never used it before.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.

Ethan

[Ken Tanaka]

Hello Ethan,
Just to be clear, are you trying to change the color of the actual lights or of areas of "blown-out" reflected light (i.e. lit areas as opposed to the lights themselves)?

[Andrea Stockert]

Hi y'all,

Being a bit of a fledgling and ready to jump into an FCP system of my own (I've been using the company's for two years - OS9 version 1) I have two questions that you may have answers for:

1) Is there big difference in render times between a dual 1.25 and a dual 1.42 G system... both with 1.5 G RAM? Is it worth the x-tra cash to get the 1.42 system? (I'm going to be editing docs)

and

2) I see a system I like that is touting "OS9 Boot/OSX". What does that mean?

I'm sure more questions will pop up...

Thanks,

drey

[Trevar Mazza]

I'm helping an individual start up a production company and was wondering if any of you could provide some useful information on professional video cards. We'll be using either a high-end Dual Processor G4 tailored for digital editing or/and a Mac laptop. We'll be using Final Cut Pro 3 as our editing software. So, any suggestions...?

It would be quite helpful if you could give some pro/cons on the cards you suggest.

Thanks in advance.

[John Locke]

Any of you Mac users ever see this start to happen?

It's happening with a couple of programs...nothing seems to be amiss except the order.