alenK

I guess I neglected to acknowledge that legal U.S.A. wireless gear is officially licensed and assigned an Emission Designator, which is to say that I had not acknowledged that we are not at liberty to alter the specs of a item that has been previously approved unless the alteration is approved. I was optimistic and fantasizing that "enable" might be code for "subsidize", but now I realize that fantasy was naive. Thank you.

Does anyone know what this means? "Additionally, the Order will enable legacy equipment that operates within the 600 MHz band to be modified to comply with the new regulations, saving a significant amount of still operational wireless gear from costly pre-mature obsolescence following the transition period." Thank you

Thank you.

Hello, Does the IR replace the dweedle tone on the LT or is the dweedle tone still an option? Thank you.

Hello, I was searching for some other information and stumbled upon a statement that suggests that 470-512MHZ may be auctioned off in a few years. Is this idea accurate? Has the FCC made their intentions clear? I have recently purchased, and continue to shop for, radios below the 600Mhz line and am wondering if we are going to be squeezed from the bottom in 2020? Thank you. http://blog.rfvenue.com/2015/02/17/how-to-future-proof-your-next-wireless-microphone-purchase "The FCC would like to auction the T-band (470-512 MHz) around 2020. That is some time away, and the fate of remaining wireless microphones there is unclear. The FCC seems to want to allow TVBDs to operate in T-band spectrum, so that bodes well for microphones and we can expect to have those 42 MHz for the foreseeable future."

Hello, I have been using 5.5mm O.D. and 2.1mm I.D. cables on a pair of my UCR210Ds for many years. It seems as if the newer receiver (411a, SRc etc.) manuals include published dimensions such as 0.215 inch O.D. and 0.075 inch I.D., which correlate to 5.461mm O.D. and 1.905mm I.D. I do not understand the apparent discrepancy but have successfully used 5.5mm O.D. and 2.1mm I.D. connectors on the newer receivers as well as the old. Best regards.

Hello Wes, Thank you for explaining. I must admit I misread your first post and assumed you had offered the RDI part number for the pigtail cable but later came to realize it was the 'jack" soldered on the receivers PCB. I regret having presumed you would share the source number of an item you also vend as an accessory. With that in mind I feel it was less than gracious of me to have inquired. I also feel it was tremendously gracious of you to reply with an answer. Thank you for sharing a winning attitude and taking the high road. My apologies. Best regards!

Hello Wes, How about the RDI part number for the locking right angle 72" Lectro part number 21747? I was working with some of the Tensility brand cables today and the 18AWG is a pain and overkill. 22WG seems better. :-) Thank you.

Hello, I finally purchased the New Endian Lectro RM app and tried it with my SMQV transmitters. I am very pleased that everything works so well. Thank you.

Thank you for the helpful information.

Hello, I am trying to learn the implications of using Pre or Post Fader options in recording the ISO tracks on the Sound Devices 633. It occurs to me that if the fader control on the 633 is after the ADC, or analog to digital conversion, then it may not matter if you increase the signal level in the mixer or in post, and if this is the case then using the Pre choice makes for a very safe recording level. If the Fader on the 633 is part of the analog domain prior to the ADC then I will probably have a differing opinion on which choice of Pre or Post Fader option I use for recording ISO tracks. Does anyone know if the fader on the 633 is analog or digital? I looked in the manual for a flow chart or block diagram and did not find an answer to my question. The only thing I found was an arcane reference to "calibrating" fader and pan knobs which makes me suspect this is all happening in the digital domain. Thank you.

Hello, Thank you for the helpful information. I would have replied sooner but a storm killed our internet connection for the past 3 days. Thank you!!!

Hello, I am thinking about power supply distribution etc. and considering how the popular distribution splitter boxes use 6 Amp Polyfuse Thermistor overload protection. I was curious to learn what the overload spec on the batteries I use. I looked up some specs. IDX NP-L7S 14.4V Lithium-Ion NP-1 Battery (68Wh) : Maximum Discharge Current = 4.8A/53W with Battery Protection: Over charge, Over discharge, Over current, Temperature. Sony BP-GL65 14.4V Lithium-Ion V-Mount Battery (65Wh) = could not find any information at Sony Pro I previously owned a camera system and when its technology was rendered worthless the V-mount batteries retained good value so I have been using them as the primary power in my bag kits. Does anyone know what the maximum discharge current for the Sony BP-GL65 14.4V Lithium-Ion V-Mount Battery (65Wh) is? I can not find a published specification. Thank you.

Thank you. I greatly appreciate Lectro's ability to share this info. I find the open and honest disclosure to be reassuring and it bolsters my confidence in the brand and its products. Thank you.

I have been interested in an answer to the same question. ^Bump^.

Hi Mark, Thank you for the helpful information.

I tried reading through the entire thread for information, but there is so much energy spent on debate that I find it exhausting to search for an answer to what seems to be a relatively simple question. Can someone who has had a license for a while please help out?: Is the Call Sign your effective identification as a license holder or do you end up with some sort of ID card to carry with you? Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, I just received an email with a link to a two page .pdf file that verified an official part 74 license has been granted. Should I expect some sort of printed, or hard copy, identification card to be sent in the mail or is the call sign what is used in the field to identify the license if a question is raised face to face? Thank you.

Thank you for the replies. The jam on return to 24fps is what we are doing now. Thank you.

When we are shooting multi cam docu-package b-roll of live action our producers have started interrupting the flow by asking one or more of the cam ops to quickly switch to a higher frame rate for slow motion highlights. We usually just jam sync the cameras at the start but lately have been considering using some of the new mini lock boxes. How can we integrate these boxes into our workflow and accommodate a mid stream change of frame rate on a portion of the cameras in play? My concern is that we may be attempting to evolve with use of technology just as our production practices are devolving. I was thinking perhaps we could have an extra box preset to the other rate. e.g. have a set of boxes at 24fps and an extra at 60 or 120 and quickly swap it in. The key is that we are covering action that happens without our control. We can not call cut, and any time we waste making changes, is a lost opportunity for making pictures. Post never complains about time code issues but I'd like to do the best we can with the circumstance we find ourselves in. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you.

Thank you for the information.

Well, I have seen a few claims that users have had their SRc swamped with RF despite clear scans and normal precautions. These observations have caused me to go back and forth on choosing 411s or SRc on an impending purchase. Why does it matter to me where the issue is? It seems as if the front end is using state of the art tech, so I am wondering if there is potential for improvement that has been identified elsewhere or if Lectrosonics feels that the SRc is on par with 411 with regards to the circuit layout, shielding etc. I suppose some people upgraded from SR(a) to SRb simply because the performance was better but other people probably appreciated knowing why the performance was better. I think Lectrosonics did a great job of providing explanations. Thank you.

I agree. I meant to express the idea that it is probably better to just set my gear up so it works ok and stop trying to over think it.

I agree that the question is best answered by Lectrosonics. I suppose they must have some way of making distinctions and employed some method when developing the improvements in the earlier SR products. Thank you.

Yes I did read this thread, and then I asked my question. Perhaps I should have worded the question more specifically. Reading here and elsewhere I have learned that: UCR411a have a tracking filter 11MHz wide while the SRc have a tracking filter 15Mhz wide. I have also considered that UCR411a have a IP3 of +8dBm, SRc have a IP3 of +0dBm, and UCR210d have a IP3 of +12dBm. I have read quite a bit about how the original SR(a) evolved into the SRb and appreciate how developments in the pcb layout and construction resulted in remarkable improvements. I am fascinated with the new broad band SRc but also scared off by a few reports that some users have had them swamped by interference. I am wondering if the SRc may be such a new design that it will evolve in a manner and timeline similar to the SR(a) to SRb transition. I am grateful that Lectrosonics is clear about the comparisons between the 411a and the SR series. My specific question is asking if there are any issues with RF interference that may occur after the tracking filter. I am asking if any interference picked on the internal circuit but not necessarily via the antennas can be compared between two appliance designs. I am asking how the SRc compares to the 411a (with its enormous metal case/shield) and if there is any way to quantify the difference. I realize that tacking this question on the end of a thread about the "front end" may have been a poor decision. I have been avidly reading everything I can find about the SRc. Thank you.