Jump to content

Recommended Posts

beartrax   

an option that has worked for me on a few productions is using my lectrosonics tx in ifb mode then affixing r1 (r1a) rx to cameras and distributing r1/a for production listening as well, i like using a single tx for dual purpose, all in all not too bad on the budget either

 

there are many options for tx... t-1 /t-2 /t-4 or even um400a / uh400a / hh / or any sm variety … i typically just use a single mono mix because it's only a scratch to camera and production doesn't need stereo … i have cables to feed 2 ch input of camera if needed, i have quite a few r1/a rx so this is a good fit for me... i can easily feed a few cameras and have a bag full for production … r1/a run for 5-6hrs on 1 9v battery, i put a little tape on the volume knob when r1a is on camera so level doesn't accidentally get moved … all in all seems to work well for me, as you know many ways to do this depending on resources and production ..

 

something i really like about this is i can tx at 250mw so with a a good frequency range is excellent, of course good separation & coordination with your other frequency blocks is key at 250mw ... also if i need more rx i can run 400 & sr series rx in fib mode in the same block and pick up the audio as well and if available i can take advantage of a slot camera if using sr 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BAB414   

I use G3s for mono mix hops and SRbs for stereo hops when necessary. The problem is powering the SRb which on some cameras you get away with a p-tap out. On c300s and DSLRs etc, you'll need the batt sled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beartrax   

Is there a difference in quality when you put a Lectrosonics in IFB mode?

lectro could likely speak more eloquently on the subject than i , however i do believe the ifb mode to be considered a slightly lesser quality when compared to hybrid / 400 mode, i think you get the most processing benefits on rx when in hybrid / 400 mode … however for on location monitoring and scratch track i believe it to be perfectly acceptable, on many production these days probably acceptable for the final cut to ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JP: " Is there a difference in quality when you put a Lectrosonics in IFB mode? "

give it a listen, and tell us...

 

Beartrax: " i do believe the ifb mode to be considered a slightly lesser quality "

give it a listen, and tell us...

 

or...

 

 

...what does the data available on the Lectro site say ??

 

 

 

 

 

OK, yes there is a difference...

but could you tell ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beartrax   

JP: " Is there a difference in quality when you put a Lectrosonics in IFB mode? "

give it a listen, and tell us...

 

Beartrax: " i do believe the ifb mode to be considered a slightly lesser quality "

give it a listen, and tell us...

 

or...

 

 

...what does the data available on the Lectro site say ??

 

 

 

 

 

OK, yes there is a difference...

but could you tell ???

when i've listened my ears cannot tell the difference using 411/sr/401/r400 rx between ifb or hybrid/400 when using headphones on location … however when listening to the r1/a rx i feel the audio spectrum is slightly diminished, a little thin when compared, of course r1/a is headphone amp and different electronics are in use then the previously mentioned

 

the lectro site or manual does not consist of data comparing the quality performance of the mode emulations … they only say things such as … a 411 rx will operate "best" when paired with a 400 tx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bear: " they only say things such as … "

the information is there, you aren't seeing it...

 

" a 411 rx will operate "best" when paired with a 400 tx "

I don't think it says that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mirror   

lectro could likely speak more eloquently on the subject than i , however i do believe the ifb mode to be considered a slightly lesser quality when compared to hybrid / 400 mode, i think you get the most processing benefits on rx when in hybrid / 400 mode … however for on location monitoring and scratch track i believe it to be perfectly acceptable, on many production these days probably acceptable for the final cut to ...

I'm curious as to way even use the IFB mode then?  What's the advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beartrax   

bear: " they only say things such as … "

the information is there, you aren't seeing it...

 

" a 411 rx will operate "best" when paired with a 400 tx "

I don't think it says that..

 

maybe i am missing something, it wouldn't be the fist time … if you have a link then please share it ... however the below is cut n pasted from a 411 manual … a little more wordy than what i posted however i feel they can interpret the same… note the bold

 

The UCR411A receiver was designed to operate with Lectrosonics 400 Series transmitters and will yield the best performance when doing so. Due to the flexibility of digital signal processing, the UCR411A is also able to operate with Lectrosonics 200 Series, Lectrosonics 100 Series, IFB Mode, as well as Modes 3 and 6, which work with certain non-Lectrosonics transmitters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beartrax   

I'm curious as to way even use the IFB mode then?  What's the advantage?

 

why do anything …  because we can … but seriously i'm not sure what aspect of the use you're questioning … are you wondering why use it if it's a slightly lesser quality…?

 

for me i like to use this method, as i stated above, for the convenience of a single tx handling production monitoring and camera hops simultaneously using gear that i already have handy … and sometimes i like the idea of have my hops & ifb at 250mw, and when i'm working as a 1 man audio dept out of a bad it's been a good fit for some productions

 

i thought i'd mention this set up i have used because the price tag isn't too bad if someone was looking to purchase a different way to hop … plus depending on what pieces are paired together there can be desirable flexibility … you can get a 411 (or 401) smqv (or um-uh 400a) and r1/a(s) and have the option of talent mic in hybrid mode or hop + ifb in ifb mode … of course there's other ways you can get these pieces to work for a given scenario … most any set up will have some limitation of sorts depending on the production … this set up doesn't offer tc & recording or aes, however when i've used this set up nothing more was required than it was capable of, if the production requires more then i reach for something else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LarryF   

The R1(a) receiver was (is) a single band compander system with pre-emphasis and a maximum deviation of 20 kHz and a frequency response that starts to fall off at 15 kHz. Frankly, they sound better than they should. Remember, this was designed for IFB. The only reason to use IFB mode is if you have an R1(a) receiver in the receiving mix. Otherwise use the 400 mode (digital hybrid) for better frequency response (22k), noise suppression, much wider deviation and lower distortion. However, to paraphrase the 70's "If it sounds good, do it!"

Best,

Larry F

Lectro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rorrim: "  What's the advantage? "

it works properly with the IFB receivers.

 

bear quotes Lectro: " will yield the best performance when doing so "

ok, you changed a keyword: operates >:> performance.

and yes, it says that but there is more too it, as the context implies using digital hybrid (aka: 400) mode on both the TX and the RX, and that achieves the optimum audio / system performance...

continuing with your homework: your answers are all clearly in the Lectrosonics spec's: the IFB systems are compander systems (and all that companding includes), and, among its other spec's,  IFB uses a single band compander, compared to the 200 series which is a superior dual-band companding system, and with improved spec's.... the IFB, 200 and other modes, when used on series 400 units are digital emulations of the analog companding systems, and the other spec's of the analog systems, and only 400 mode-400 mode is total digital hybrid processing with the superior digital hybrid spec's, and performance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mirror   

@beartrax,

 

Ah, I think I get what you're saying. You use the IFB mode because you can use multiple IFB receivers, which are cheaper to buy, as opposed to using multiple 411 receivers all tuned to the same frequency (more money).

 

EDIT... I see Larry and Mike both posted with the answer while I was typing my response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beartrax   

 

 

bear quotes Lectro: " will yield the best performance when doing so "

ok, you changed a keyword: operates >:> performance.

and yes, it says that but there is more too it, as the context implies using digital hybrid (aka: 400) mode on both the TX and the RX, and that achieves the optimum audio / system performance...

continuing with your homework: your answers are all clearly in the Lectrosonics spec's: the IFB systems are compander systems (and all that companding includes), and, among its other spec's,  IFB uses a single band compander, compared to the 200 series which is a superior dual-band companding system, and with improved spec's.... the IFB, 200 and other modes, when used on series 400 units are digital emulations of the analog companding systems, and the other spec's of the analog systems, and only 400 mode-400 mode is total digital hybrid processing with the superior digital hybrid spec's, and performance...

 

well everything is always open to some element of interpretation … if you compare some definitions of the words operate & performance (according to webster) a layman like myself may easily confuse them

 

op·er·ate

 verb ˈä-pə-ˌrāt, ˈä-ˌprāt

: to function or behave in a proper or particular way

per·for·mance

 noun pə®-ˈfr-mən(t)s

: the act of doing a job, an activity, etc.

 

in other news … seriously, thank you for contributing some useful info to this thread and reminding me of the compander spec, it's been years since i've read any of the manuals and i should've remembered to site fundamental difference of analog vs digital (or hybrid) between the r1/a & current production rx … maybe i should spend more time reading & re reading the manuals and less time reading these posts … but this site is more fun then product spec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beartrax   

The R1(a) receiver was (is) a single band compander system with pre-emphasis and a maximum deviation of 20 kHz and a frequency response that starts to fall off at 15 kHz. Frankly, they sound better than they should. Remember, this was designed for IFB. The only reason to use IFB mode is if you have an R1(a) receiver in the receiving mix. Otherwise use the 400 mode (digital hybrid) for better frequency response (22k), noise suppression, much wider deviation and lower distortion. However, to paraphrase the 70's "If it sounds good, do it!"

Best,

Larry F

Lectro

 

thanks larry … for my occasional application when i want my scratch hops and ifb to operate together on location this set up has worked well … one time production said "it sounds good" so i kept doing it … i guess i can play around the next time i use this set up i'd be curious to see if a t4 or smqv sounds better … or maybe i should clarify if my ears can tell the difference ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mungo   

Hi Jeff,

 

if I had to buy new hops now, I would try out the Sony UWP-D.

 

It's very very very cost effective for Digital Hybrid, has true diversity receivers with audio out for camera/mixer and also a headphone out for anyone listening on set. So you need to buy only one transmitter and multiple receivers.

 

The biggest advantage of them is the possibility to power them via USB. Plug power in and forget. Almost any cam has a USB jack, professional and semi and radio shack.

 

I haven't tried them yet, but the idea is great I think.

 

You only need a lav mic from another manufacturer if you use it as a wireless microphone transmitting system because Sony's lavs seem to sound very poor.

 

Greets! Mungo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your suggestion, I looked into the SONY UWP-D series wireless --- quite impressive and so reasonably priced! I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with them, to offer that much flexibility and features in a rugged package for that price. It is a digital hybrid though it is not exactly clear what they are doing --- they talk about using a digital compander before transmitting (analog transmission of course) which I guess is how digital-hybrids generally work. Also, it is a true receiver diversity system which is a good thing. I would love to hear from someone who has had some real world experience with these SONYs.

 

post-1-0-76847000-1404050931_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

if I had to buy new hops now, I would try out the Sony UWP-D.

 

It's very very very cost effective for Digital Hybrid, has true diversity receivers with audio out for camera/mixer and also a headphone out for anyone listening on set. So you need to buy only one transmitter and multiple receivers.

 

The biggest advantage of them is the possibility to power them via USB. Plug power in and forget. Almost any cam has a USB jack, professional and semi and radio shack.

 

I haven't tried them yet, but the idea is great I think.

 

You only need a lav mic from another manufacturer if you use it as a wireless microphone transmitting system because Sony's lavs seem to sound very poor.

 

Greets! Mungo

Interesting inexpensive option for sure.  Reading the specs though it seems the rx only outputs mic level.  I prefer to go line into the camera if possible.  However if the headphone out is loud enough they would make a decent ifb feed for not too much money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people do something similar with the Sennheiser G3 series. Receiver as reference hop on camera and the IEM versions for IFB all being fed by a single transmitter.

I got a little mixed up. I was once told about a show doing it "one man band" put the talent mic in IFB mode so the producer could listen and the camera's 411 receiving IFB mode. That's a different situation because they are never getting the talent mic at full quality. This is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any direct experience with the UWP-D series. But I have used other Sony wirless in the past and I have to say I was quite disappointed with the range. But like I said this was an older analog system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any direct experience with the UWP-D series. But I have used other Sony wirless in the past and I have to say I was quite disappointed with the range. But like I said this was an older analog system.

Not only the range was bad but the sound wasn't great either.  The analog companding was nasty sounding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mungo: " Sony's lavs seem to sound very poor. "

while the cheapo ones with the cheap kit may not be too good, many of Sony's lav's are excellent, and popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×