my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » D-2 Analyzer Now Available (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: D-2 Analyzer Now Available Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 07-13-2004 09:51 PM                        quote: Mark Gulbrandsen The R-2 is taking 10 readings in the same time period that you are taking in just one. I am also getting 2.5 readings from four different locations during that 10 second period. I still don't understand the big difference. With that method, I am not taking 1 reading in 10 seconds, but 20, which are averaged. The only major difference (as far as the number of readings and the averaging method is concerned), is that the R2 takes all those readings - actually only half as many as the IE-33 in the same time -, then takes a moment and averages all the readings, while the IE-33 averages as it goes. Under the bottom line, there is no difference: the analyzer takes in a number of samples, then calculates the average values of each of them. I don't see why switching every second is more accurate than switching after 10 seconds: the room is active, but the activity does not vary so much that you wouldn't get a representative picture if you look at it for several seconds. That appears to me to be the original concept behind using the mux, to switch around to heighten the chance of catching the room at various moments. Applying the logic of time resolution you wrote about, the picture should be more accurate with this method, since in a given period of say, 40 seconds, you would get twice as many readings (2 per second as opposed to one per second) which are also averaged.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-13-2004 10:44 PM                     "I meant 10 seconds of averaging, then switching to the next mic." "I am not taking 1 reading in 10 seconds, but 20, which are averaged." ________________________________________________________________ I appreciate your tryiong to explain things but what you are trying to get across seems to be somewhat contradictory which may be why you don't understand the power of the features built into the R-2 or how it works. I can say that I do know exactly what you are doing as my PC-40 will do the exact same thing as the new Ivie. With the R-2 the mic scan rate is fixed at one per second for very good technical reasons. If there were no good reason for the one per second scan rate then it more than likely would also be a variable user adjustment but its not. Until you've used an R-2 don't assume that your method is doing the same exact thing or arriving at the same results because it is simply not and you would quiclky see that and most importantly hear the difference. Believe me, I already have been your route and gone, so have almost all the others that own an R-2. I would reccomend that you call and talk to Tim Holmes the designer of thr R-2 and the new D-2 and let him explain why it is far superior and why your system is not as acccurate. He is certainly more qualified than anyone on this site, especially me, to explain it to you. Tim is a very nice guy and you will ennjoy talking with him. Here is the phone: 415.785.2888 Mark @ CLACO  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 07-13-2004 11:06 PM                        I have used the R2, I never owned one, but as part of a team equipped with it. I thought you said you used PC-40, but nor the IE-33? I don't know its properties, maybe you are right when comparing these to to the R2. Why would looking at each mic for 10 seconds minimize the change to catch an anomaly? It seems to me that that actually heightens the chance while with 1 second switching you have to be very lucky to be on that mic just as the anomaly develops. If my memory does not deceive me, the R2 does not average on the fly, but takes the readings in first, then calculates the average. There is the main difference, as the IE-33 does it while it is going, so when you stop it, the average is already there. That doesn't really make it better or worse though. So it doesn't really take much more time (40 seconds, or whatever time you allocate to each mic X4). I really don't see a major difference here. Except if the R2 takes one sample or poll per switching (which I don't know), then you actually get twice as many samples to work with with the IE-33 (roughly, the polling time when in averaging mode is about 520 ms). It is all about looking at the room for a little while rather than just momentarily, and getting responses from 4 different places which are then averaged. BTW, how much is the D2 system?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-13-2004 11:23 PM                     "If my memory does not deceive me, the R2 does not average on the fly, but takes the readings in first, then calculates the average." _________________________________________________________________ Now what you are describing may have been how the first THX analyzer worked as it was based around an Ivie PC-40. However I've never seen one of those operate. Tim could tell you about that. But I am glad that you've had the opportunity to use the R-2. It very definately does average on the fly for the user preset times or continous. You can see the response actually "develop" on the computers screen. At the end of the preset time, 20 - 30 - 60 seconds, the averaging simply stops, the computer has already done the averaging. Running the averaging for longer 60 second times gets you a more accurately integrated response and is very useful for accurately integrating low frequencies from subwoofers. Normally I average stage systems for 30 seconds. However, when I am Eq'ing I often start out with it running on continous so I can see the EQ changes I am making as they happen and I don't have to keep re-starting the averaging process all over again. But I generally will go back and do a 30 second reading and then save that as the file. Call and talk to Tim, you will find him very interesting!! The D-2 costs 3495.00 and then you need a decent laptop running with two USB ports running XP Pro since the WinRTA software is a 32 bit software. XP Pro has been the most stable for me in all situations and boots up fast. But you more than likely already have the laptop. Mark @ CLACO P.S. There are very good reasons for looking at each mic momentarily. Let Tim explain to you why its done that way. [ 07-14-2004, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]  |  IP: Logged System Notices Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi Posts: 215 Registered: Apr 2004 posted 08-06-2008 05:34 PM                 It has been 1484 days since the last post.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 08-06-2008 05:34 PM                     Any comment on the new "studio" version of the D2? It's cheaper and can be "expanded" with a microphone cable to work in big houses. I'd like to take one, any comment on the new one? Marco  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.