Jamesg

Members
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jamesg

  • Rank
    Hero Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hollywood
  • Interested in Sound for Picture
    Yes
  • About
    Sound mixer...

Recent Profile Visitors

703 profile views
  1. Aquapac make a really good waterproof duffel bag. Ive tried many versions of roll top bags for waterproofing kit (for me, I usually have to have it attached to my harness to wade or jump in water in caves and such) and this seems to be the best. It's not transparent, although I did find a transparent one that is absolutely giant and too big for a 633 really. It's got a load of mounting points plus (and I think this is unique) a purge valve. Use an IFB for monitoring when it's closed, obviously... https://aquapac.net/store/shop/waterproof-bags-duffels/upano-waterproof-duffel/ i think it's the smallest one that fits the 633.
  2. Wow - now THAT is an answer! Thank you so much! That explains why in my test, which was really a worst case scenario with the transmitters and receivers much closer than they would be out in the wild, I didn't see any difference in reception when the transmitters were switched on or off. As I mentioned, I'm using this particular setup in remote locations so I'm not likely to hit any unknown frequencies, and I can coordinate everything. I can see how one could end up getting effectively "boxed in" if you were to do this in a frequency rich environment, though... J.
  3. I just got round to doing a test... I don't have the exact system I'd be using, but I set up two TRX-LA3.5 on block 22 @100mw, 3x wisycom tx on block 19 @50mw, and 2x SMQV on block 24 @100mw... The trx's as talent mics, received by a QRX200 with whip antennas in the bag, and all the other transmitters right next to the QRX in the bag too, antennas almost touching (I was trying to go for worst case scenario)... Freqs coordinated on Freqfinder. Walked the TRX's to the edge of their range with all the transmitters in the bag switched off, then turned them all on one by one. Absolutely no reduction in range at all. Obviously I'm mixing digital with analog here, so it's possible that if everything was analog (or hybrid) it might be a different story, but it looks like all is well in this case.
  4. Totally, and I do all the usual scanning and freq finder stuff - I'm wondering specifically if having my talent receiver block in between the IFB and hop blocks, frequency wise, is likely to cause more issues than having the transmitters grouped into one block at one end of the spectrum and the receivers grouped into one block at the other end of the frequency spectrum. I'll still have at least one clear block in between the blocks I'm using... That's always been my workflow too, but I wonder if that's only true for adjacent blocks? I'll run some tests and see what happens...
  5. On bag based jobs where I have a couple of talent receivers (Sometimes Lectro, sometimes Zax) as well as hop and IFB transmitters (all SMQV's) I usually keep the talent wireless to lower blocks (19 or 20) and the hop and IFB transmitters in higher blocks (24 and 25). So my question is: If I were to have the camera hop TX on block 19, the talent receivers on block 22, and the IFB's on 24, am I theoretically likely to hit more intermod problems by effectively "sandwiching" my receiver blocks in between two transmitting blocks? There will still be a block of separation between transmitting and receiving blocks, but my gut says that spreading the frequencies out across the spectrum can't be the best idea... One thing to note - the job is an adventure type show, so the spectrum is generally pretty open, so I'm not dealing with too much other RF. Obviously I'll do some tests, but in the meantime, any thoughts? J.
  6. I got one of these: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01K8ANDCI/ Really just to use as a means of sending audio to a car radio that only has bluetooth when using as a follow car (seems that modern cars don't have aux inputs any more). Works great so far - not sure I'd want to rely on it as IFB though as even the smaller delay would be disconcerting if producers were in the same room as talent, I'd think...
  7. Yeah, batt is 100% good, and the unit is basically new... I'll give Tascam UK a call tomorrow. Tascam USA aren't able to help as it's not sold in the USA...
  8. Has to be, but I don't know if it's user serviceable? Loathe to just start taking it to bits...
  9. One of my DR-10C's has just started acting up, where after it's been off for more than a couple of minutes, "DATE TIME NG" appears on the display at powerup, then the unit goes straight to the date and time setting page with everything zereod out (see attached pics). I'm assuming that this is because the internal date battery is dead? the AA batteries are all good, and it has latest firmware. It's been sat on the shelf for probably near to a year, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case, but anyone had this happen? Anyone ever replaced the internal battery? I'm in the US (brought these from the UK) so I'd rather avoid sending them in for service if at all possible..
  10. Brilliant!
  11. That is interesting... Wish I'd been able to compare the old and new systems, then...
  12. I absolutely agree - I've even got much better range with homemade dipoles on my harness. Unfortunately for the particular show I'm prepping for, that won't work as it involves a lot of climbing, rapeling, cave swimming, etc, so the setup needs to be super compact and able to be handed off and literally tied to a bit of rope and dragged up a cliff face and suchlike. Anything extra attached to a bag or a harness is another thing to get caught/snagged/broken. Joy! Anyway, my point was that the difference between the new ZHD modulation and the "old" XR modulation seems negligible, when I was under the impression that it would be markedly better. It seems that it's horses for courses, and that in certain RF rich circumstances the ZHD mod will be a godsend, though. Not that this can't work in my situation - in fact I was on a big reality/survival show last year that was all TRX2.5 and QRX200 and it worked great, but we were aware that we were sacrificing range for the advantage of having a one-pack solution which was really necessary with upwards of 14 talent in the jungle for a few weeks! Upcoming show is only two talent (host and celeb) in jungle survival environments, so I'm probably going to stick with WM transmitters and ZFR recorders and have the best of both worlds... Ahhhh I wasn't getting what you're implying, Rado. So maybe ALL the modulations on the new firmware are better? That is interesting.
  13. Interesting. So you're saying that the XR modulation mode on the older firmware is different from the XR modulation on the new firmware?
  14. First test I did was indeed just me, so I left the transmitter inside and walked away with the RX (into a 633 in a bag, obviously). Second test was with a second person, simple walk test. Same frequencies each time, just changed the modulation to see what the difference was. As I said, my goal was simply to see what the new ZHD modulation did to the range, ie compare XR and ZHD mods.
  15. So, I got hold of a TRX3.5LT and a QRX200 and was surprised to find out that, at least in the environment I was testing the system in, I was getting slightly LESS distance from the ZHD modulation as compared to the XR mod. Slightly disappointing as I was hoping that the new modulation would extend the working range, which seems to be the received wisdom... A call to Zaxcom clarified that the ZHD is really most useful in crowded RF environments, places with a lot of reflective surfaces, and suchlike. In (what I'd call) "usual" eng situations, the XR modulation is best. The tests I performed were using the dual receiver mode (I think thats ZHD96?) mainly, although I did check using the mono modes as well. Firstly I tried line of sight walking down a side street in West Hollywood. Nice clear frequency, settings checked on tx and rx, etc. Bearing in mind that this was an LT receiver, so tops out at 50mw, using XR mod, I was getting approx 100ft with the tx in open air, maybe 50ft with it in a pocket. Whip antennas on the rx, nothing else transmitting in the bag. ZHD mode was very similar, but seemed to start dropping out maybe 10 ft earlier. Secondly i I tried the TX in my apartment, and walked the RX out into the street. Both modes maxed out at maybe 50ft, through walls, and again the ZHD mod started dropping out a little earlier. With a TRX3.x-LA transmitter I'd guess that one would get another 30% or so? But I was mainly interested in comparing the modes rather than measuring range. Now, I'm only testing these using the kind of setup I'd be using them in. Bag use, whip antennas, and in a non challenging rf environment. I'd suspect that using directional antennas would make a world of difference (obviously) and perhaps the ZHD mode really shines in that situation? A little disappointing as I was really hoping that ZHD would extend the working range of a TRX to match or exceed a WM, but for me, at least, it seems not!