Zaxcom- MAXX

[dominiquegreffard]

The idea is that the Maxx feeds a QRX that is on a camera, and if that QRX has the IFB option, it will be the Zaxnet transmitter. It makes perfect sense to have the Zaxnet transmission from the camera up in the air on somebody's shoulder instead of buried in a bag. If that doesn't appeal to you, the camera link is an alternative. Personally on Nomad jobs in the last year, I almost always use a camera hop, but sometimes use IFB. That said, I know that's not universal and I absolutely see the logic behind just popping ERX2TCDs on cameras in many cases. I think that would be very logical for the job I am on now because we are using C300s, so that would allow for camera mounted shotguns to take the 2nd audio channel.

I agree with you, the simplicity of putting a erxtc on camera is what makes my nomad setup shine. The ability to send zaxnet from the bag is a definite deal breaker for me. I d rather stay with my 302 + zfr100/sta150 setup for my light bag then even i converting files is a bit of a drag.

[James Arnold]

Someone else asked this question somewhere, but is it possible to chain Nomad and a Maxx? If virtual faders were inconvenient it would be a great way of adding another 4 tracks. Or even just link the record function?

[fieldmixer]

I've been been using a rx emergency with my nomad to get a 7th physical knob. Works well. Now looking at the rx emergency2. Two knobs.

[dominiquegreffard]

Someone else asked this question somewhere, but is it possible to chain Nomad and a Maxx? If virtual faders were inconvenient it would be a great way of adding another 4 tracks. Or even just link the record function?

I'd do it just to have 4 extra assignable faders and 4 extra xlr's in. Basically to expand nomad's xlr inputs and controller count for these (rare) occasions when i have more than 6 sources.

[dominiquegreffard]

I've been been using a rx emergency with my nomad to get a 7th physical knob. Works well. Now looking at the rx emergency2. Two knobs.

Yep, you d then get two fader and two channel of wireless into one of nomad's side ta-5 returns. What wireless rx do you use in your emergency rx and a what level do you set your output on the receiver?

[fieldmixer]

I either use an srb, or 411's. Output as hot as they go of course. Gain structure looks good.

[Jack Norflus]

Someone else asked this question somewhere, but is it possible to chain Nomad and a Maxx? If virtual faders were inconvenient it would be a great way of adding another 4 tracks. Or even just link the record function?

You can go AES out of Maxx to AES into nomad essentially giving you 4 hardware faders.

[Olle Sjostrom]

never clip on TX will be a lot better option if zax ever implement it on anything other then trx742... +1 That's honestly the feature I'm waiting for. It feels like a logical step for zaxcom. So I'll wait to pull the trigger until Zaxcom either confirms or denies that development.

[fieldmixer]

You can go AES out of Maxx to AES into nomad essentially giving you 4 hardware faders.

quite an expensive way to get four faders. What's the price point on the new Rx Emergency "two"?

[soundslikejustin]

quite an expensive way to get four faders. What's the price point on the new Rx Emergency "two"?

Tried Nomad (don't own one). Virtual faders suck. You know what wouldn't suck? That 4 fader expansion that was shelved. Seeing as Nomad supports mix8 control via USB, I'm sure it could handle a Mix4 fader pack.

[fieldmixer]

+1

[TomBoisseau]

Tried Nomad (don't own one). Virtual faders suck. You know what wouldn't suck? That 4 fader expansion that was shelved. Seeing as Nomad supports mix8 control via USB, I'm sure it could handle a Mix4 fader pack.

I will confess, that is one reason that swayed me towards the 664, although I must admit the Nomad is "technologically" superior. I haven't regretted it, although I do envy some of the features you Nomad user have. If they had not scrapped the add on 4 fader panel, I probably would have purchased the Nomad, or at least would have given it much more serious consideration.

Tom

[RadoStefanov]

They already have the never clip on the trx742. I have a stereo trx900la 2 ad converters. I am sure it is technically possible to engineer never clip in to a lav tx..

If that happens the zax wireless will be IMHO the most amazing reality workhorse. " in addition to onboard recording, wireless gain , wireless power and frequency control...

 

+1 That's honestly the feature I'm waiting for. It feels like a logical step for zaxcom. So I'll wait to pull the trigger until Zaxcom either confirms or denies that development.

[Olle Sjostrom]

Totally agree with you Rado!

[pindrop]

on the nomad, input 1 on the digital input can be AES42 if selected in the menu.

Thanks and can the two outputs of the Schoeps Super CMIT AES42 ( DSP and non DSP) be routed as digital inputs 1 & 2 to card tracks 1 & 2, I assume they can?

Also can a compressor / limiter be applied to the AES42 input?

Sorry just remembered this is a MAXX thread and I'm asking about the Nomad if you'll excuse this please?

[Jack Norflus]

Tried Nomad (don't own one). Virtual faders suck. You know what wouldn't suck? That 4 fader expansion that was shelved. Seeing as Nomad supports mix8 control via USB, I'm sure it could handle a Mix4 fader pack.

Justin

When did you try the virtual faders?The original virtual faders were a bit clunky.

With customer feed back Zaxcom made some major changes to the virtual fader operations a little while ago. With the new virtual faders you can now fade, trim and pan right from the ENG home screen.

 

The reason why the fader panel idea died was due to the lack of interest in it. Most customers generally use 6 or less faders at a time and the few times they need an additional fader the virtual fader was sufficient. So the feed back that Zaxcom got was people didn't want to have to pay for and carry around extra hardware.

Glenn has said if there is enough interest in the fader panel it will be back on the drawing board.

[fieldmixer]

Hi Jack, I am definitely interested in a fader panel. To be precise, I would particularly be interested in a two fader "box" that would/could be attached to further fader "boxes". I agree with the idea that a one piece 6 fader panel would rarely be nessesary, 2-4 extra channels I run into fairly regularly. I would give zaxcom more money for a pair of those. +1 for mini fader panel.

[Olle Sjostrom]

+1 for fader panel.

[soundslikejustin]

Justin

When did you try the virtual faders?The original virtual faders were a bit clunky.

With customer feed back Zaxcom made some major changes to the virtual fader operations a little while ago.

Pretty recently, but on a loaner unit (firmware might not have been the latest, but it was reasonable recent).

Imagine needing to pan and reduce the fader on input 8 - press bus to get into panning section (if not already there), scroll across to 8 (the menu knob selections on this unit were far from accurate), press the menu knob 2-3 times. Then I assume press bus to get out of panning, press menu knob 1-3 times (depending if fader+trim or just fader). then wind down the level... Hopefully not missing any of the cyclical selections.

Hardware? Twist 2 knobs.

Fader pack? Stay in pan mode, and use hardware fader.

[glenn]

Justin that is not how it is.

No one has to pan to operate faders 7-10.

The unit can be set up to control any of the 4 extra channels.

 

To use them,

 

Push the menu knob to activate the desired virtual fader and turn the knob to change levels.

 

Done.

 

Nothing complicated here. In fact, without the need to adjust input trims on the Nomad a better mix is obtained with only the faders needed to control the level of the mix.

 

Glenn

[soundslikejustin]

Justin that is not how it is.

No one has to pan to operate faders 7-10.

The unit can be set up to control any of the 4 extra channels.

 

To use them,

 

Push the menu knob to activate the desired virtual fader and turn the knob to change levels.

 

Done.

 

Nothing complicated here. In fact, without the need to adjust input trims on the Nomad a better mix is obtained with only the faders needed to control the level of the mix.

 

Glenn

I said I needed to PAN AND FADE input 8 in my example. Not a rare occurrence for someone doing reality with people coming and going from the scene etc. Obviously, I don't HAVE to do both...but if I needed to, the bus-button activation of the panning controls would be required, correct?

 

EDIT: Having spoken to Glenn, i'd like to point out the virtual faders as such are easy to get to and use - not QUITE as fast as having a dedicated pot, but close enough for the odd fade. In my convoluted example (which would probably be rarer) I think I made it sound more difficult than it is, though I still hold on to my opinion that it's not as fast as having hardware everything, but is a good compromise on space/weight/etc.

[mbois]

using the AES inputs, is there a virtual fader? or like  the Ryan said Boom on AES 1 through a MixpreD or is 

Zaxcom building AES RX soon?

[Jack Norflus]

AES inputs would use the hardware faders.

The QRX has AES outs already.

[Marc Hoppe]

I'd be interested in a fader panel, but now that the RX Emergency 2 has been announced, that might be the more cost effective way to go. I have been traveling with 5 wireless and a boom, but on occasion I use more wireless. If I have one wireless on the virtual fader, it's ok, not great, but workable. More than 1 channel on the virtual fader gets a bit clunky for me- I like to have more immediate access.

I have been using the RX Emergency as an additional fader pot and it has been working well when I need it.

I suppose it would boil down to functionality and price point for me if Zaxcom produced an additional fader panel.

Marc

[Cloud Wang]

I would like to use two Maxx instead of one Nomad. One full function installed the other one with a four tracks installed. Plus the QIFB USB linking control trx's gain.