Shotgun mike for Z1E - help?!??

[Ed Stradling]

Hi

I bought a Sennheiser MK300 thinking it would be fine for the Sony Z1E camcorder, and now I realise that the Sony has ONLY balanced inputs and not the standard mike jack.

Does anyone have a recommendation as to which mike I can get in a similar price range?

thks

ed

[shaunconnell]

I am unaware of anything similar. Why not by a 3.5mm mono to xlr convertor?

[Ed Stradling]

Can these be got in the high street do you suppose?

[StevenBagley]

You can get them, but they'll cost a pretty penny and require power. I was at the Carlton studios auction in Nottingham the other week and that type of device was going for £100

In fact, it'd probably cost as much as a Sennheiser K6/ME66 combination would by the time you've finished buying the extras, which is a) better quality than the MKE300 and b) has balanced output.

Steven


Steven

[Ed Stradling]

I'm concerned that because it's a longer mike it might actually appear in shot!

Anyone know if fthat is the case?

[mooblie]

That's why people use a Rycote Multimount, which raises the mic about 8cm.
http://www.rycote.com/products/softie/images/7lg.jpg

[tom hardwick]

This is what I use on my VX2000. Even with a powerful 0.5x wide-angle in place, and a big hairy dead-rat Rycote softie, there's no intrusion into the full frame.

tom.

[John Willett]

Originally posted by Ed Stradling:
Hi

I bought a Sennheiser MK300 thinking it would be fine for the Sony Z1E camcorder, and now I realise that the Sony has ONLY balanced inputs and not the standard mike jack.

Does anyone have a recommendation as to which mike I can get in a similar price range? This mic. is far too cheap for such a camera.

It really is a mis-match to spend £2k on a camera and less than £200 on the mic. :rolleyes:

The best match for this camera is the Sennheiser K6 + ME66 (http://www.sennheiser.co.uk/uk/icm.nsf/root/03284) in the multimount recommended above.

John

[hedleyw]

Originally posted by John Willett:
It really is a mis-match to spend £2k on a camera :rolleyes:

John For the Z1E you can make that £3.5k John - strengthens your argument somewhat as well...

[hedleyw]

Originally posted by Ed Stradling:
I'm concerned that because it's a longer mike it might actually appear in shot!

Anyone know if fthat is the case? Just tried it on a Z1E and it doesn't appear in shot at the widest setting, even with a rycote softie over it. Guess it would if you added a wide converter though. If you use a Sony HVL-20DW2 light on the accessorie shoe it will throw a shadow with the softie on, but not with just the foam cover on.

You will need something to pad the mic out a little as it doesn't quite fit the Sony mic holder.

For anyone using a Hyperlight 471, the foot is too thick to fit into the accessory shoe. Strange this, as it fits the shoe on my PD170 perfectly.

[Ed Stradling]

Yes, I bought the K6/ME66 in the end. Microphones do seem incredibly expensive for what you get, just mono sound which from the vox pop interviews I did, frankly didn't sound much cleaner than just using the built in mike.

[Rodreguez]

The K6/ME66 only records in mono? WTF? I just ordered one for delivery tomorrow from H.Prestons. I didnt know that. Sh*t.

[hedleyw]

Originally posted by Rodreguez:
The K6/ME66 only records in mono? WTF? I just ordered one for delivery tomorrow from H.Prestons. I didnt know that. Sh*t. What would the point of a stereo shotgun mic be?

[tom hardwick]

Look at your camera and imagine a big black pair of cardboard Mickey Mouse ears sitting there in the hot shoe Rodreguez. That's what the pickup pattern is for the inbuilt stereo microphone pair. It won't be a lot of good for picking up the speaker's voice if he's more than a couple of metres away, and it won't be much good at rejecting the 'noises-off', for that's precicely what its been designed to record.

tom.

[Rodreguez]

Sure, I understand that, and I understand that a shotgun mic is super cardiod or hyper cardiod or something like that, I just had the idea in my mind that if for example I wanted to record a car passing from right to left straight across the front of the mic, I could then run the (stereo) signal through two audio tracks panned hard left and hard right, and I'd get a nice wide panning effect, that wouldnt be so wide in mono. Perhaps I could run it through Soundforge and convert the signal into stereo. I do appreciate however that if the mic is pointing forward it will pick up any noise from that direction as well as the noise of the car driving past. I just didnt expect a mic of that price to be in mono for some reason! But then I suppose it makes sense. :rolleyes:

[Ed Stradling]

The fact remains that stereo mikes are available. Just more expensive.

And in my view in the days when you can buy a DV camcorder - albeit bottom of the range - for £400, to pay that price for a mono microphone seems crazy.

[StevenBagley]

And in my view in the days when you can buy a DV camcorder - albeit bottom of the range - for £400, to pay that price for a mono microphone seems crazy.Why? If you compare the picture between £400 DV camera and a £2000 one you can easily see the difference.

If you compare the sound output between a £400 microphone and £80 you can hear the difference.

Microphone construction is a pretty complex business, getting multiple capsules positioned accurately so that you can get waveforms to cancel to reduce the microphones response in certain directions. Making sure that the microphone enclosure doesn't colour the sound, designing the electronics to be shielded from interference etc etc. It is a complex and expensive design process -- the costs of which have to be recouped somehow. Plus (as with everything) the more professional the microphone the less it sells, and so the cost goes up.

Just don't look at how much the mics used on films and TV cost -- you'll die from a heart attack if you think £400 is expensive smile.gif

Steven

[Rodreguez]

Hell yeah. I studied Sound Engineering at IMW in Islington. There we were playing with Neuman U87s, and other mics that cost up to £4000.

[Ed Stradling]

Steven,

If you re-read my post, what I am saying is that you can buy a basic digital camcorder (which involves various high level technologies married topgether and includes, amongst many other things, a competent stereo microphone), for £400.

I don't think it's unreasonable, therefore, to express surprise that a half decent mono microphone costs the same amount.

[StevenBagley]

and includes, amongst many other things, a competent stereo microphone), for £400.You've answered the question yourself. The 'competent' microphone is fine in simple situations and will probably sound similar to your K6/ME66 in such situations (although I suspect you will still notice a difference, I can tell the difference between my MKE300, my VX1000s internal microphone and the PA desk's AKG microphone when filming at church the other week -- all recorded digitally to DV tape)

Now try filming a speaker from the back of a conference hall over the audience noise with your ME66 and compare it to the one built-in to a £400 DV Camcorder (or a £4000 for that matter). That's when you notice the difference.

Steven

[John Willett]

As this thread is in the wrong forum it's taken me a while to catch up.

To answer the stereo question - you should never put a stereo mic. on a camera as the stereo image shifts around as you move the camera. If you use a stereo mic. it should always be off camera.

Very few micriphones are stereo and there are only a handful of good ones, most costing several thousand - the normal way of stereo is to use two microphones (or many and mix to stereo).

Back to the original question - if you spent £3.5k on a camera you should spend about £1,000 on the mic. (something like an MKH 60 or MKH 416 - or the MKH 418-S if you must have stereo).

Just for the record - the Microphones and Audio FAQ Intro thread has been updated and made a "sticky" and links to other audio related FAQs - look HERE (http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=33969).

John

[Robin Davies-Rollinson]

John,
I would have thought that the only place for a stereo mic would be if not on the camera, at least on the same axis as the camera. If the camera position changes, at least the stereo image will change with it...
What's the point of having the sound not matching the picture in spatial relationship?


Robin

[infocus]

No, in principle John is absolutely right, and the best example I can think of was a sequence I once saw transmitted with two people talking next to a fountain. For this the sound had indeed been recorded with the mic on the same axis as camera. Result? As the cuts from one person talking to the other happened, the sound of the fountain flew from one side of screen to the other, and it really had to be seen and heard to fully appreciate how totally awful it was. The mystery is not so much that it was recorded that way, but it made it all through to transmission (prime time show) without somebody saying "errr, perhaps this would be better mono, or at least pulling in the width......"

If I'd been recording it, the best I can think of is to put the mic at RIGHT ANGLES to the camera axis, so at least the fountain stays central at edits. (No, not geographicaly accurate, but one hell of a lot less distracting than hopping from side to side). And use the pattern of the mic to put the speakers one side or the other as appropiate to the shot.

When stereo first happened, the initial reaction was "now everything has to be RECORDED in stereo", and I remember a very jolly period. Gradually reality set in, and most recordists came to the conclusion that good mono is a hell of a lot better than bad stereo. And that's with good sound recordists really trying hard, top range mics on booms - not just putting a stereo mic on top of the camera and hoping for the best! In practice, the best way of working was often found to be using a good shotgun mic on a pole for the tightest sound possible (albeit mono), and lots of stereo wildtracks.

All that said, in principle there's a lot to be said for recording a stereo camera mic IN ADDITION to the main sound, then using it or not at the edit stage. Unfortunately even top end pro cameras, capable of recording four sound tracks, don't tend to have four separate inputs, so bang goes that idea. And because it is a stereo mic, it is just as likely to record handling noise, camera zoom, cameramans curses, as birds tweeting in trees to right or left - that is exactly why shotgun mics are normally recommended for on camera use!

Bob, can I echo John Willett, and suggest this thread is more appropiate to the audio forum?

[RayL]

One of the 'gem' features of Sony's VX9000 camera is the 'Dual' feature. With no external mic plugged in, the internal mic is L and R as normal.

When an external mic is plugged in (it has a 3.5 stereo external mic socket) and the Dual feature is on, the external mic goes to L and the internal mic to R.

For event work, think about the convenience of this! A mic can be rigged in advance and the cable end left in readiness (ready for wedding vows, for example). The camera roams picking up the arrival of guests (using internal mic) then there is that brisk walk down to the other end of the church ahead of the bride and her father. Pick up the cable end, plug it in and instantly you have close-mic'd vows on L and church ambiance for hymns, etc on R. At the edit, use either or both as appropriate.

I've looked in vain for this wonderful feature on other Sony (or any other) cameras but no luck - my new Z1, for example, needs fiddling around with menus, the last thing you want to do when seconds are vital.

I'm very reluctant to retire my VX9000 and that is one of the strong reasons.

Bring back 'Dual' on cameras that have to work for their living!

Ray Liffen

[infocus]

Ray, I'll fully endorse all of that. It seems surprising that having put it on one camera, Sony haven't made it a general feature, at least on cameras without XLR inputs. A "stunting" feature, so these cameras aren't too attractive professionally (and therefore hit higher end sales), or simply a designer who doesn't really understand real world usage?

In general, the whole concept of "split-track" audio (as opposed to stereo) is fundamental at the pro end of the market, but much less appreciated the more you come towards consumer. Which seems to apply almost more to editing programmes than cameras (?), but I think that needs a different thread in a different forum....

[Bruce]

I find the best way is to record all dialogue in mono and then add a stereo atmos track in the sound dub. It would be easy to panm any particular mono sfx as well.

[bcrabtree]

As this thread is in the wrong forum it's taken me a while to catch up.

SNIP...
John

John,

Useful stuff but I'm not sure whether this is the wrong place for this posting.

I think I'd probably search this forum first for threads about what mic to use with an HDV camcorder.

Well, I certainly would now.

;)


Bob C

[Alan Roberts]

It all confirms my opinion, yet again, that the FX1 and Z1 are consumer products, not pro/broadcast. They both come from the same, consumer-products factory at Sony, so are designed for what Sony believe consumers want. Even though they're happy ,to sell them to broadcasters, and showed us prototypes for comments ahead of production, that still doesn't make them pro products in my book.

[DSR]

I've looked in vain for this wonderful feature on other Sony (or any other) cameras but no luck - my new Z1, for example, needs fiddling around with menus, the last thing you want to do when seconds are vital.
Why on earth would you want to use the internal mic anyway - it's awful. I'm sure it's only there for commonality (ie cheapness) with the FX1. The solution is easy - mount one mic on the camera plugged in to channel 1. When you get to the front of the church, plug the other mic into channel 2 - easy! Or stump up a few more quid and do it properly with a radio lav mic on the groom. The camera records two seperate audio streams, it's up to your editing system how it interprets them.

It all confirms my opinion, yet again, that the FX1 and Z1 are consumer products, not pro/broadcast.
What is a "pro" camera anyway? The quality is certainly good enough for broadcast (the BBC seem to think so anyway) and the basic features (DVCAM, XLR, mono viewfinder) are all there. There are a few features I'd like to see, mostly around the white balance functionality, and a better viewfinder would be nice, but overall it's a great piece of kit.

Or is anything which has autofocus or weighs less than a small family car automatically classed as consumer still? :-)

[Alan Roberts]

I'll say it yet again, Sony make the FX1 and Z1 in a "consumer products" factory, not in a "professional/broadcast" factory. Those are Sony's descriptions and names of the factories, not mine.

[infocus]

What is a "pro" camera anyway? The quality is certainly good enough for broadcast (the BBC seem to think so anyway) ........
Regarding the second point, I'd understood that such as the BBC were considering them for second camera/reality/specialist use, but the intention was not for them to become the mainstream camera by a long way. It could be argued that because the BBC etc think the quality obtained by surveilance cameras is good enough for broadcast sometimes, should they therefore become the mainstream? On pro equipment a mono viewfinder is the norm because a mono CRT has represented the best sharpness it's possible to achieve. Putting a menu option to switch a fairly low resolution colour LCD to mono is not IMO the route a pro camera.

But yes, what IS a pro camera? This has been discussed a lot in the thread about the JVC camera and lens options, also in this forum, and I've commented how poor the current classifying system is: - "In some ways categorisation is a nearly impossible task, but at another level it is necessary in some way, to try and ensure like gets compared with like. Hence the term prosumer - equipment used professionally, but styled in a consumer fashion, and generally smaller, cheaper and lighter than what is normally referred to as "professional"."

In practice things don't fall neatly into two camps, and it's not surprising that "quality" (whatever it means) generally improves gradually with increasing cost. If you are saying that the Z1 produces good enough results for it to be used across a range of professional uses, then I couldn't agree more. If you are saying that it's a waste to spend more on a camera than the Z1, because it doesn't achieve more, then errr, I can only wonder if you've ever had experience with such equipment.

I've recently been able to compare the Z1 with the new JVC HD100 from JVC, and that has been fascinating, since the two packages are comparably priced and of comparable size and weight - no family cars here. Technically, much has been said that the HD100 will only record 720p/25. In other respects they couldn't be more different. Pick them up and the HD100 instantly feels "professional" (OK, at the bottom end...) whilst I'm afraid the Z1 just feels ....."consumer"! (Yes OK, at the top end, and high quality pics none the less.)

I know I'm not alone in thinking this, and the big question is why? I've heard two theories, and believe there may be some truth in each. First is that Sony are worried that they will lose lucrative sales from their pro division, and have operationally "stunted" the Z1 enough so as not to make it too tempting to prospective XDCAM buyers. JVC have no such concerns, haven't had much luck in this market sector recently, so are going for it with all they've got. Second theory is that they asked different people about the design in advance. JVC state in their brochure that they asked opinions from many broadcast cameramen, so what they've come up with is a cheap pro camera. For the Z1 a similar process was gone through for their customers, but since it came from the consumer division, then what popped out the end but .... a top of the range consumer camera!

It will be interesting to see if such as the BBC keep on buying Z1s, especially when Canon eventually join the HDV market.

[DSR]

Don't follow the logic Alan, what has the name of the factory got to do with anything? If the Z1 one was made in a factory called "Domestic Appliances" would it be a washing machine? I have spent today editing wearing shorts and a t-shirt rather than a shirt and tie - does that mean I'm not a professional?

In any case, you're wrong about the marketing. If you go to www.sonybiz.net, follow the links Products - Broadcast & Professional Video - Camcorders, you will find the HVR-Z1E nestling comfortably alongside all it's DigiBeta/DVCAM/HDCAM bretheren. If you further click on "Benefits" you'll see that paragraph 3 is entitled "Designed for Professional Use". Sony are clearly marketing the Z1 as a professional product, with the same Silver warranty and so on that you get with the rest of the pro range.

Anyway, at the end of the day it's images not buzzwords that count

[Alan Roberts]

I couldn't agree more with Infocus. But I still stand by the simplest descriptions, a product from a "consumer products" factory is a consumer product, from a "domestic appliances" factory it's a domestic appliance even if it's a ship. I don't make these rules, the manufacturers do.

But, when all's said and done, I really don't give a monkey's what they're called, it's what they do that matters, and the Z1 doesn't belong in the pro class while the JVC does. For me.

[infocus]

Anyway, at the end of the day it's images not buzzwords that count
On the face of it, I couldn't agree more with the last comment, but "images" are made good or bad by three basic factors: 1) the technical quality of the camera 2) the facilities, features, styling of the camera - it's "usability" 3) the idiot behind the camera, whichever camera it is.

There's not a lot the manufacturers can do about no 3, and no 1 is likely to be dictated largely by price, higher prices improving attributes like sensitivity, highlight handling, lens coverage as much as overall quality beyond a certain price point. As regards no 2, that's down much to careful research at the design stage, and LISTENING TO INFORMED AND SENSIBLE OPINIONS FROM BELOW. If you discount the conspiracy theories, that Sony stunted the Z1 so as not to affect XDCAM etc sales, then in this area we have Sony getting it wrong, and JVC (for once) getting it right. The best way I can describe it is to say that pick up an HD100 and it feels and handles as good as you could realistically hope for for the money. Pick up a Z1 and you think "why did they put that like that"?!

Going back a few years, cameras like the PD100 were IMO a pinnacle of design for the type, size and weight. Models that followed kept the same basic styling, got better quality, and steadily increased in size, weight, and features. The styling that was optimum for the PD100 etc (dare I say consumer?) cameras just isn't for the FX1/Z1.

"Buzzwords" may not be worth much, but every occupation or hobby has it's own words for language and nomenclature, and they are vital for communicating thoughts and ideas. I've already complained about how imprecise the terminology is, but unless anybody can think of anything better we're stuck with consumer, prosumer and professional for the time being. And in the meantime, calling a "prosumer" camera "professional" still won't make it as nice to use as even an HD100. And a camera that's nice to use is easier to produce nice images with, all else equal.

It makes me wonder what Sony think about this. Will the prospect of losing market share in the Z1 area be more worrying than XDCAM potential sales being lost to an improved Z1Mk2?

[DSR]

> Regarding the second point, I'd understood that such as the BBC were considering them for second camera/reality/specialist use, but the intention was not for them to become the mainstream camera by a long way.

Indeed so. I believe they are replacing all of their PD170's with the Z1, and they are often used in place of the higher end DVCAM kit like the DSR570. They are being used for news & reality (ugh!) stuff in the field, can't see them ever being used in a studio situation

> On pro equipment a mono viewfinder is the norm because a mono CRT has represented the best sharpness it's possible to achieve. Putting a menu option to switch a fairly low resolution colour LCD to mono is not IMO the route a pro camera.

My point exactly. For static situations (interviews for example) where you have time to focus then it's great, in a dynamic situation the viewfinder is nowhere near sharp enough to accurately focus on the run. The expanded focus function works well, but only when the camera is on standby, so it's not a complete replacement. In my view it's the biggest weakness of the Z1 over a larger format traditional pro camera.

> In practice things don't fall neatly into two camps, and it's not surprising that "quality" (whatever it means) generally improves gradually with increasing cost. If you are saying that the Z1 produces good enough results for it to be used across a range of professional uses, then I couldn't agree more.

That's exactly what I'm saying

> If you are saying that it's a waste to spend more on a camera than the Z1, because it doesn't achieve more, then errr, I can only wonder if you've ever had experience with such equipment.

Absolutely. The Z1 is excellent value for money in terms of quality, but there is no doubt it is at the lower end of what could be considered professionally acceptable.

> I've recently been able to compare the Z1 with the new JVC HD100 from JVC, and that has been fascinating, since the two packages are comparably priced and of comparable size and weight - no family cars here. Technically, much has been said that the HD100 will only record 720p/25. In other respects they couldn't be more different. Pick them up and the HD100 instantly feels "professional" (OK, at the bottom end...) whilst I'm afraid the Z1 just feels ....."consumer"! (Yes OK, at the top end, and high quality pics none the less.)

I haven't seen the JVC, but it looks very good indeed. I'm not an early-adopter generally, and I would have preferred to wait until the JVC was on the market to make a decision between the two cameras, but circumstances demanded that we jump quicker, hence our purchase of the Z1's. I agree that the Z1 feels cheap, but overall I'm satisfied. If I was making the decision now it might have been different, but there's always something better coming along!

[Alan Roberts]

Can't argue with any of that. The Beeb's bought into the Z1 largely as a replacement for DVCAM, rather than as an alternative to HDCAM or DVCProHD (or HD XDCAM if/when it happens). A large number of PD cameras were coming up for replacement (they get hard use) and it would have been silly to stay in SD, Z1 was the best bet at the time. The logic's perfect. But the Z1's not being used for programmes co-produced in HD (because the co-producers won't accept it, quite rightly), only for PD170-equivalent stuff, and for inserts into otherwise properly shot HD programming.

[infocus]

The Beeb's bought into the Z1 largely as a replacement for DVCAM, rather than as an alternative to HDCAM or DVCProHD
This is getting even further off topic, but Alans last post raises an interesting thought about such a situation for the Beeb or whoever. Certainly for the purpose they are interested in (small, lightweight DVCAM replacement, rather than HD, with bonus of native 16:9), I suspect the HD100 would be a far better bet than the Z1, and it is a comparable price after all.

Lets say they do indeed go that route for the second batch of PD replacements, then these cameras start to see HD use. Bingo! Suddenly a mixture of HDV1 and HDV2 tapes in the system, and it by no means clear which is which at first sight. And at the moment HDV decks and cameras will only play one or the other - anybody see the next big confusion coming along? ("But it's an HDV tape, so why won't that machine play it" - "Well, theres HDV and HDV, and it's the wrong sort of tape on the line.... sorry, I mean in the machine." - "?@*&&!!?"!!)

When the subject of 720 or 1080 was being discussed in these forums last year after the EBUs statements, the general feeling was "no problem - let them co-exist, and let the receiver sort it out, be able to decode either". I made the point at the time that this may be fine for TRANSMISSION but what about inter broadcaster exchange? We could be heading back to the current NTSC/PAL multi standard interchange hassles. With this issue alone, I can see the problem being INTRA broadcaster, let alone inter, and closer than imagined. Or will such as the BBC adopt an internal 720 or 1080 only policy, for just such reasons? Either way, I see problems ahead, and regret that no clear standard has won out.

[Alan Roberts]

The last I heard, the BBC's internal policy (certainly for any HDTV produced with co-production money) is that all post-production will be 1080. That's no issue for the HD100 because it makes only 720p/25, so it easily upconverts to 1080psf/25. This situation could change when JVC get the next generation of the HD100 to do 720p/50 onto tape (the camera already works 720p/50, it's the compression chips for 720p/50 that aren't ready yet).

Given this approach, it really doesn't matter how the stuff's shot, it all gets converted to 1080. It's the same situation that DV was in 5 years ago, all DV material was grabbed onto digi for editing, there was no serious editing of native DV footage. I suspect that, in 5 years time, we'll all look back on nthis discussion in exactly the same way. I really don't think it's going to be a big problem.

[infocus]

OK - though in the absence of decks that play HDV 1 & 2 that still means two players in the post production suites? And presumably the likelihood of similar duplication in such as offices for viewing purposes?

[StevenBagley]

OK - though in the absence of decks that play HDV 1 & 2 that still means two players in the post production suites? And presumably the likelihood of similar duplication in such as offices for viewing purposes?

Sony's player will happily play both HDV1 and HDV2 I think.

And as it is only likely to be used to play out via an AJA box (or equivalent) to a HDCam deck it's not a problem.

Now a professional deck with HD-SDI...

Steven

[infocus]

Sony's player will happily play both HDV1 and HDV2 I think.

I don't think that's true, but I stand to be corrected. The Sony brochure for it makes nomention whatsoever of HDV1 or 720p at all. The JVC player will convert to 1080 for output (presumably only analogue), but AFAIK that will only play HDV1 tapes. My understanding at the moment is that if you wish to play both variants of HDV, you need two separate playback devices. I assume such as the Firestore is able to support both variants?

I would have assumed material would be more likely to feed straight into an NLE, and let that do any neccessary converting, rather than go via an HDCAM deck?

[Alan Roberts]

Much of the BBC production acquired in HDV is done by indies, or uses non-BBC editinjg facilities. So the problem has either shrunk or been spread out, depending how tyou look at it. HDV kit isn't exactly expensive, so having two decks rather than one isn't going to kill any project for the braodcasters. It's the small, self-contained, organisations that might have problems.

[StevenBagley]

I don't think that's true, but I stand to be corrected. The Sony brochure for it makes nomention whatsoever of HDV1 or 720p at all.

The M10 manual lists 720p playback compatibility via the analogue output only, which would be fine for copying up to HDCam or whatever.

No output via firewire though, which makes it hard for 'confessional' editors but fine for professionals. :)

Steven