Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1277927
26 S U M M E R 2 0 2 0 I C A S Q U A R T E R L Y loss of copper cable. For SDI video feeds, a Thor Broadcast SDI over fiber module is used. Identical, opposite modules are on the cart end. The T-FOCA (Tactical Fiber Optic Cable Assembly) pictured here was designed to be used in very harsh environments. There are so many possibilities and they are constantly being further developed and updated. Like anything, this could be a double-edged sword, but I feel the advantages of remoting FOH rigs like these may outweigh the disadvantages. If you're already set up to operate this way, you may offer the producers a sigh of relief. You've already constructed a plan to put yourself far away from everybody; removing one more person from the inner core of "Zone A" and effectively becoming a crew member in "Zone B." THE ARGUMENT FOR CENTRALIZED WORKSTATIONS I've never "begrudgingly" designed an audio workstation in my life until just recently. What I mean is, I had no intention of working with a remote FOH rig. But feeling a mounting pressure regarding scenarios that myself and colleagues were speculating, I decided to dive in and figure out my own plan on how my selection of RF and networking equipment would come together. So, on the opposite page is a diagram of my personal take on constructing a remote workstation … before I make my argument against using it. I just want to be prepared for the inevitable conversation with a producer during pre-production on how I plan to distance myself since it is impractical for my two booms to do so. With this in mind, I decided to put together something that required minimal additions to my existing inventory. The other criteria was that I wanted this FOH unit to be as compact and portable as possible. I based it off of a half-rack concept but with plenty of RF receiving and transmitting channel and hardline options. This is the outcome of my "begrudging" design process. Now that I have gone through the motions, I can breathe a sigh of relief that I have a plan moving forward if this is a mandated mode of operation. But honestly, I do not want to work this way nor do I believe it would even be a necessity in order to provide the more-than-adequate amount of physical distancing that the normal operating, centralized "RF bubble" would allow. Meaning, in most instances, our wireless tools would offer more than enough range to both receive and transmit all of the needed RF audio signals adequately with just the placement of the sound cart on the outer perimeter and tucked around the corner of a set, whether on location or on a soundstage. Even the extra help from remoting powered RF antennas 100 feet would offer even more physical distance and not require the networked or fiber- optic FOH solution. And, even though I'm confident the FOH system would perform its task with minimal bugs, I still can't help but know better that this method is adding fail points in a production-style audio system. Specialty audio systems like ours are expected to perform at near perfect reliability. As much as the remote split of the sound mixing workstations is a very valid way of working with RF advantages and environment isolation advantages, I feel that this is ultimately something the sound department should have the choice in implementing. An "opt-in" approach, if you will. And for it to be production-mandated would be an uninformed mistake. But obviously, there is enough speculation out there to conclude that this may be a choice taken away from us as we're placed on an adjacent soundstage. I can also assert that audio workstations with their wireless devices centralized by default, still effectively offer the sound mixer to production as a "Zone A" crew member for almost the identical reduced contact of a "Zone B" crew member. Left: T-FOCA (Tactical Fiber Optic Cable Assembly) on a spool ready to deploy. Below: T-FOCA connector on the sound cart end.