alenK

Thank you for the comments and posting the link. It is obvious to me that I don't think about the actual frequency value enough because Larry's comment about the first harmonic being beyond the entire UHF range we work in was a revelation.. For example;. 2 x (the lowest frequency available to us) > (the highest frequency available to us). I have never considered this specifically but now it seems obvious. The information about inter modulation between two blocks was informative but I reminded myself that as you add frequencies the interaction gets more complex and this is a reason for considering pre coordinated frequencies as suggested by the Lectrosonics page: http://www.lectrosonics.com/europe/images/PDFs/precoordwebver.pdf The more I thought about that I realized that Larry's advice "set up a test situation with transmitters at real world distances, both near and far, and make sure everything operates the way you think it should" is the best way to address my concerns. Thank you.

I guess I was reading too much in to it and thinking that there was perhaps a technically inspired strategy to prioritize the talent signal reliability over the camera hop. I was imagining that harmonics, reflections, and possible intermod problems attributed to the lower frequencies may step on the camera hop with less repercussion than having the camera hop cause mishaps with the the talent signals.

Hello, Are there any official specifications on how the SRc and 411s reject stray RFI? Anecdotes describing how the early SR series was more susceptible than a 411 to RFI have me wondering if the SRc is as good as the 411 in this regard. Thank you.

Hi Martin. That does seems like a good work habit. Thank you.

Hello, Thanks for the replies. The idea that a close proximity of a transmitter to a receiver may be problematic seems easy to agree with. It's hard for me to remember which posts suggest using a higher frequency range for camera hops. I did not pay much attention or realize that I was seeing the idea suggested repeatedly until after I became impressed with the idea that I was seeing it repeatedly. It is possible that I have read a particular thread multiple times and now mistakenly think I have seen the idea repeated more often than it has been. I guess if there was a technical reason then people might recognize my question, and if there is not a technical reason than the whole idea may be a figment of my imagination. Thank you.

Hello, I have seen several mentions that talent mic to mixer frequency ranges should be below a hop from mixer to camera frequency ranges. Is there a technical reason or is it just a habit? Thank you.

update 03/06/2017 I tried using several older versions of JAVA in my Windows 7 x64 OS in Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer browsers and had zero luck until I found and used an archived copy of the Windows x86 jdk-6u45-windows-i586.exe installer. I had to manually enable the "Add-Ons" in Internet Explorer 11. Note that the Windows x64 jdk-6u45-windows-x64.exe did not seem to work in my x64 OS and I imagine this is because Internet Explorer is still a x86 application. Once I had this version of Java running the FCC application opened quickly and ran smoothly. I had none of the troubles that I had anticipated. I followed the instructions at the Local 695 website and was able to complete the application in one session. I got the 6u45 JAVA install by registering an account with Oracle and downloading the installer here:: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase6-419409.html#jdk-6u45-oth-JPR I am adding this note because I wasted a lot of time trying different JAVA versions and hope that the info helps others. Good luck.

Hello, Is there a paper form version for this application? I tried 3 browsers and finally got Internet Explorer with security set wide open to begin to load the applet but then the process stalls with a grey page and a few tab buttons. I am ready to give up and will prefer to use real life paper at this point if it is possible. Thank you.

Thank you Jason, I think it is time for me to download some manuals and read about these features in detail. Your explanations have been very helpful in getting me started. Thank you.

Thank you Jack. What you mention is an example of how I am getting confused; A "2 Channel ENG Receiver" is only good for 1 transmitter and a "4 Channel ENG Receiver" is for two transmitters. I feel like I need a translation manual. :-) Your explanation is very helpful. Thank you very much.

Thank you both for elaborating. I had just edited my question about the "QRX200" to say "RX200", but I can see how your answer applies. If the QRX235 is used, do you grab your time code from the Sound Devices 6 series TC output? Is the scratch audio straight off a mic rather than a rough mix from the mixer's output? Thanks very much for explaining what you have. I have worked for a couple decades as a field mixer for network news and prime time news packages shows. The work flow has evolved quite a bit while I have been doing the same old stuff (interveiws and run and gun) day after day. I feel it is time to catch up to what people are doing these days.

With all respect, and I mean that sincerely, this is exactly the type of info I find confusing. I am asking about getting two transmitter signals into two analog inputs of an audio mixer and the information available seems to describe everything but. I don't understand the benefit of having IFB on a receiver such as te QRX235 if it is before the mixer inputs in the signal flow. I also do not understand how a camera link transceiver relates to a need to get the mic signal into the mixer. As I mentioned, I am interested in the gear and I am missing the obvious; what receiver serves as a good match for the front end of a system? Maybe the QRX235 is the best choice? It seems like it does so many other things beside output of two channel of analog audio. Is it the case where the RX200 is the answer to my original question, but the extra features of the QRX235 are too hard to ignore at this stage in the technology's evolution? No. I own a 633 and often operate a 664. I admire the 688 but probably will never work a call where it is required.

Hello, I have been trying to imagine how someone would use Zaxcom gear as the front end for a bag kit. I get confused when I start reading about the receivers and all the extended features. Lets say you start with two lav mics and two TRXLA3 transmitters and want to get your signal into a Sound Devices 6 series mix-corder. What is the ideal receiver in the Zaxcom line for this "front end" of a system? Thank you.

Thank you for the information about Micplexer 2.

Hello and thank you for addressing the question. It has been my impression that using a better or better placed antenna system results in a net increase in signal even with the drop on a passive split. I am trying to learn about this stuff and still confused about many of the details. I have assumed that is why some engineers explain that an active stage is only necessary on a long cable run. Does this advice only apply when using the dipoles or sharkfins on a single receiver? Is it routine for people using extra antenna systems and multiple receivers to use active splitters in over the shoulder bags? What products are people choosing to use? Thank you.

Hello, I guess I am confused. I assumed that you are using the 2 SNA600a dipole antennas to feed what ever receivers you add to you bag. It seemed like the kit would need a splitter for each dipole, with each dipole output being split to one of the two antennas on each receiver. I have been trying to learn what actual RF distribution products people are using. For example; are people using two separate 1x4 splitters or are there some 2x(1x4) splitters available. I have seen the PSC RF Multi SMA 2x(1x8) splitter and it looks nice but seems like possible overkill for a small bag mount system with a few receivers. I enjoy seeing all the bag and harness mounts for the antennas and I am wondering what choices people are making for RF distribution. Thank you.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

Is that a passive or active splitter? Thank you.

Hello, I have a similar question; How are you distributing the antenna output to your collection of receivers? Thank you.

Hello, I have been reading the Lectrosonics SRc vs UCR411s threads and have been learning a bit about how they are different. I see in the specs that the Third-order intercept specifications seem very different UCR411a = +8dBm SRc = 0dBm and after reading a Lectro white paper I see the following: IP3 Receiver Performance -5 dBm OK when operating in a clear spectrum 0 dBm Good for moderately congested spectrum +5 dBm Will tolerate fairly high levels of interference from external sources +10 dBm Excellent performance in almost any RF congested environment I am hoping to gain a better understanding of the terms "moderately congested" and "high levels of congestion". I currently own UCR210 receivers and am surprised to realize that they have a IP3 spec of +12dBm. I routinely operate corporate owned UCR411a receivers with the +8dBm spec. How will a SRc with a 0dBm spec compare in real world use? Are there other factors that offset the need for a high IP3 rating? Thank you.

Thank you. I had read that but overlooked the info about the 39 month transition.

Thank you for the comments and info. What is the time frame for the "replacing" of broadcasters below 600MHz?

Hi, I am currently using older Block 21, 22 and 25 gear. I have not followed the latest news about which blocks have been or are likely to be ineligible for production use, but I am beginning to shop for new gear. The new Lectrosonics multi block gear appeals to me and my current use habits lead me to think the B1 band will be a good choice. The little bit of recent reading I have done suggests that the C1 band (blocks 24, 25, 26) has been sold off and so should be disregarded for new gear. How about A1 vs B1? Thank you.

Thank you. I just received a Orca OR32 to try out. One thing I was not aware of after reading reviews and watching the official videos is that the side panels (which I was calling "doors") actually have smaller doors in them. If I had known about the small doors I would have been less concerned about routing cables in and out of the bag. Thank you..

What are people doing when run and gunning with a multi channel cable wired to a camera? Even if you use low pro input connectors it seems as if the bags don't have room for old fashioned straight XLR connectors on the output side. Are people just leaving the "door" open? Thank you.