Ed Denton

Nice one guys

Thanks Peter for the insight. Surprisingly though the 302 Tape Out impedance is 1.8k ohms which is only just under the H1 input's 2k ohm impedance; a far cry from a factor of 10! It seems strange given your explanation that people are having such good results. But good nonetheless.

That's good to hear that it's working properly from the 302 Tape Out. I was reading the spec sheet of the 302 in the manual and it says that the Tape Out / Mix Out TA3 is "for use with >6k ohm inputs" but on the H1 spec sheet it says the mic / line input has an "input impedance of 2k ohm". This would seem to suggest that the impedance of the H1 was too low for the 302 Tape Out? I'm not very well schooled on the effect of mis-matched impedance but its good to know that this arrangement works in the real world. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of electronics can explain why this setup works despite the discrepancy in impedance?

I can't find any other wiring diagrams online and the one on the page that came with the SRb is hard to follow... Does anyone know how to wire a D-tap connector to the provided SRb power cable. So I can power it from a broadcast camera's V-lock battery D-tap. The provided cable come with unterminated red and black wires. Much appreciated if someone can tell me what to do!

Thanks John! That's exactly what I was looking for. The UPS looks awesome, clean and compact. Just have to figure out a way to mount it on the bottom end of the pole. Not a fan of adding more weight to the mic end of the boom pole.

Timo, I'm loving the UMP and QWB! It's exactly what I was describing in on this site. However I would love it if there was a version of the QWB that allows you to mount the UMP and transmitter on the other end of the pole much in the same way as the K-Tek KTA2 does. One thing I don't want to be adding to the end of an already heavy pole is more weight; a fully extended pole with full wind protection recording a 15 minute take can bring a grown man to tears! If the QWB, UMP and TX could be mounted in the bottom section of the boom pole (via internal cable) perhaps between where the boom op's hands would be while booming, it would be free from the RF damping from the TX being close to the body but also mean the boom is not tethered to the operators body meaning you can pick up and put down the boom quickly with out having to unclip the belt-clip and find a safe place for the QWB. When booming I often find I need to quickly put the boom down to adjust talent wireless between takes which is a bit of a hassle with my current MM-1 wireless boom setup.

I've been using the mic cabled into MM-1 into UM400a configuration for about a year now. It is great from a monitoring, powering and sound point of view but it hasn't fully solved the problem of mobility in the way I hoped. If I'm booming on the wireless MM-1 setup but then I need to make an adjustment to a talent's lav or something I still need to unplug the boom, quickly roll up the cable and secure it to my belt so I can be free to move around the set with both hands free to make my adjustments. Not the end of the world but I feel its time to go for a pole mounted solution. I'd like to try a body pack method of transmission before jumping straight into a HM, but the problem of powering the mic has been stumping me. I've found the Denecke PS-1A and PSC 48V power supply but both are clunky and I doubt they would mount well on a boom pole. Are there any in-line power supplies with a small profile that could perhaps be used mounted on a pole? Thoughts from anyone else using a similar configuration?

Just an update for anyone interested or considering having their Lectrosonics wireless re-blocked: I spoke to one of our local Lectro dealers in Melbourne and it is possible to have any of their hybrid-digital wireless (UM, SM, UCR, SR etc) moved to any block. The two block max shift was for the older analogue series of wireless. Sweet.

As I'm sure most of you are aware, in Australia there has been a large sell-off of spectrum to telco's and as of 2015 it will be illegal to operate in 694-820 MHz. I have two UM400A and UCR411A sets in block 28 which I will need to have re-blocked and I also want to add an SRb as a wireless link. I was thinking of having my UM400A's and UCR411A's changed to block 26 and buying an SRb and two SMDA also in block 26 that way I could use my old UM400A's as the link tx's with the new block 26 SRb on the camera and I could use the new block 26 SMDA's as talent mics with my old UCR411A in the bag. However another soundo suggested that I would get some serious intermodulation having the link in the same block as my talent mics because they are in such close proximity in the bag. What I would ideally like to do is have my block 28 UM400A's re-blocked to block 24 and buy a block 24 SRb to pair them with, and also have my UCR411A's re-blocked to block 26 and buy two block 26 SMDA's to pair with the old UCR411A's. Is this possible? I heard that it is only possible to have Lectrosonics re-blocked a max of 2 frequency blocks, i.e. from 28 to 26. Is this true or can I get my UM400A's moved from block 28 to 24? Hope this makes sense! Any helpful answers much appreciate and hope you all had a great Christmas.

Ah, it's sounds like it might be a BS Ultra Master reset...

Hi Larry and thanks for your response. Yes I did indeed buy from a local dealer: Soundequip in Melbourne, Australia. What a great service, just one more reason why I'm staying a loyal Lectro customer. Before I send it in - and in answer to Mike's question - no I haven't tried the DS Ultra Master reset sequence, I'm not even really sure what that is. Is that something I should try, or should I just send in back to the mothership?

Hi all, I've recently encounter a problem with on of my Lectro UM400A transmitters. There is an audible "spitting" or "hissing" sound in any audio recorded with it. It is not the normal noise floor associated with wireless mics, I have another identical UM400A tx in the same block and it is not experiencing the same issue. I have swapped out a number of different microphones and receivers which is how I've identified as the transmitter. The transmitter is in block 28 which falls in the soon-to-be illegal band in Australia, but I have tried changing frequencies many times and I have tried my other block 28 transmitters on the same frequencies and I only have the problem on the one tx in question so I don't believe it to be a RF interference problem. I have been advised by my local dealer to return it to the factory in USA but before I go down this rather expensive path (postage from Aus to USA is outrageously expensive!) I want to see if this is something that can be resolved here. I have attached a recording of the sound. There are two sounds in the file: the first 15 or second is with the problem tx, and second is my other identical tx which is not experiencing the same problem. You can clearly hear the difference between the "spitting" sound and the normal noise floor in the second sample. Anyone experienced this before? UM400A audio.mp3

Rhys...lol!

Stewart don't worry about Mike, he will often reply to threads but rarely with helpful answers. I find the pluraleyes system works well with a tradition slate as a backup. You don't want to be manually slate-syncing every shot, that is definitely not the most productive use of time in post. What I usually do on DSLR shoots is record primary audio on my recorder but send a mono mix from my mixer to the camera mic input with a small light wireless system like a Sennheiser EW-112p G3. This way the director/cam op can watch back clips with sound rather than having to wait until its been synced up to hear the dialogue. Also it means that you'll have less trouble syncing with pluraleyes because the waveforms will be pretty much identical. You can often have trouble syncing the recorder audio with the camera if you have only used an onboard camera mic because the camera may not necessarily be close to the action, for example if you are on a wide shot, so the audio waveforms may not be a close match.

Chris, yes I know it has a line "monitor" input but I can't use this with my Senny G3 as return from the recorder or to take cues from the mixer because it doesn't have enough output. I could put one of my 411a's on the MM-1 and feed it line level to the MM-1 but that would be a waste of a 411a and the 411a weighs about as much as the MM-1 anyway. In the past I've used a 302 as a boom setup mixing to a 744T. This is great because I could set up a Senny G3 from the 744T to feed a monitor to the boomy on the 302 so I could talk to the boomy but also I could feed him a recorder mix because he liked to listen to the radios or second boom in split ear monitor mode. Other users of MM-1, what do you guys use to send a wireless mix to the monitor input?

For wireless boom (i.e. not connected to the mixer, there's still cables ) I cable into an MM-1 then send via UM400a/UCR411a to the mixer at line level. I just set this system up in the last week for a production that wanted a wireless boom op and it seems to be working well. Pity the MM-1 doesn't have a "return" type input like you find on an 302 etc. I'd love to be able to send a confidence monitor to the boom op with one of my hardly-ever-used Senn G3 like I do when getting a wireless confidence return from a camera. Instead I guess I'll buy an R1a.

The 552 signal is completely analogue from input to output, only the recorder is digital (as you'll thankfully discover when the recorder jams up but the mixer continues to feed audio to the camera). So there's no real reason for that to affect your decision. I'm a happy 552 user though after 4 years I'm ready for the 664 uprade. Definitely recommend the 552 as a starter. I was just about to buy a 302 mixer when the 552 was released and paying the extra money for the recorder on the 552 was the best gear buying decision I ever made. I paid the thing off in a matter of weeks just on 5D jobs where they needed recording capabilities.

It sound good, possibly even better than the COS-11, as an externally mounted lav as it has a little better low frequency response but conversely this makes it a little muffled when hidden under clothing. This is true of both the Rode PinMic and Lav as they both have the same capsule; only the mount is different. I use the PinMic a lot in ENG and studio jobs because it looks nicer and less obvious than a clip mounted lav. Looks like a button or tiny brooch on the top. To the untrained eye it doesn't look like a mic at all. Be careful when using these mics with other lavs particularly COS-11's as the wiring is different and the phase is flipped.

Does anyone know what is the difference between Mogami W2602 and W2931? They are both 4 pair cables from what I can tell. My camera snake is W2602 but others appear to be using W2931.

Beauty, thanks for your help. I bought 1 meter of Canare coaxial cable, a TA3F and a BNC female connector and I'm going to make a short 20cm TA3-BNC cable. I already have a bunch of BNC cables of various lengths so I'll just use the short cable as a BNC to TA3 adapter and chose a BNC cable of appropriate length depending on the circumstance. My original plan was to use GS-4 to make a short cable and couple it on to my BNC cables as I've described above but the guy at the store where I bought the gear suggested I might have issues because the BNC cables would have a resistance of 75 ohms but the GS-4 cable has a different resistance and it could distort the TC signal received by my 552. Has anyone heard of this being an issue?

I want to make up a cable for timecode input to my Sound Devices 552 but I can't find any information on what cable I should use. Given that the input on the 552 is TA3, I.e. 3 pins, I'm assuming that 75 ohm coaxial cable is recommended because in the 552 manual it says "For TC, 1 and 3 - ground, pin 2 - hot +". Is this correct?

My camera snake is Mogami W2602 and it has been faultless for 4 years. I want to build some more but I can't find it now. Has it been discontinued? What is the difference between W2602 and W2931? Also does anyone use the RF shielding EMC series Neutrik connectors on their breakaway tails? Much appreciated, Ed

I've been wondering about this as well. It is now being made by Sound Excellence as the ENG-44A. A couple of years ago I was briefly looking at it as a cheap backup option but wasn't convinced by it. But it looks like it might be an ok option in non-critical situations. Has anyone actually used this mixer? A friend recently asked me to give him some help setting up a little space for recording interviews for the web. His standards of quality weren't very high, he originally just wanted me to recommend a mic to plug into the camera. I've eventually convinced him that it worth putting in a little more effort but he definitely wont go as far as a a Mix-Pre or the like. My suggested setup for an extremely tight budget was a pair of Oktava MK-012 overheads and I was thinking of suggesting this mixer if it is any good. Thoughts?

Just because you can't answer the question Senator please don't be dismissive and make it sound as though the question is not worth asking. It may well have been that this phase issue was a known problem that someone had found a good solution to that they were willing to share with us. It also may be a new problem with a certain batch of these mics. It also may be that this is a consistent problem with these mics and my asking the question and making people aware of it could help others with their purchasing decisions. Please have a little respect for this forum and what myself and others are trying to use it for.

Thanks Senator, you've been really helpful as usual.