Mirror Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Someone juat told me that the Superbowl wouldn't allow Zaxcom to be used at their venue. True or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmfsnd Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Because the Illuminati and Ancient Aliens. Them too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Someone juat told me that the Superbowl wouldn't allow Zaxcom to be used at their venue. True or not? You're a little late to the table, this has been discussed at great length on Facebook. As is often the case, lots of mis-information, lots of comments that are so clearly designed to bash Zaxcom and celebrate their own favorite wireless, and amongst all of that social drivel there was some real factual reporting on the use of Zaxcom wireless by the NFL, in all their games and including the Superbowl. To expedite the massively complex frequency coordination efforts for the Superbowl it is my understanding that the NFL coordination mandated that Zaxcom wireless was not to be used for ENG crews and also that no "camera hops" wireless from ANY manufacturer were to be used at the Superbowl. The simplest answer and the clarification to the erroneous statement that "someone told" you, Glenn Sanders posted on Facebook the following: "It is amazing for me to think about the fact that all of the player audio from the big game is coming from Zaxcom wireless mikes on the players. While these mics are never seen on TV because they are under the uniforms they are heard almost every play by millions and are taking the abuse of actually being in the game. Even in stereo TX mode they provide a clarity that would be impossible to replicate with analog wireless due to the high noise of the venue. Not to shabby" To put things in perspective, a post on another Facebook page serves only to further the confusion regarding the use of Zaxcom wireless by the NFL: Jason Fyrberg "I hear zaxcom refused to do spectrum analysis for them because zaxcom is too good for real world use, so the NFL went back to lectro" And the list goes on and on with my personal conclusion being that very few of the people who are going on and on about this are not really interested in what was used at the Superbowl or whose wireless is better, or what companies do we want to hate today, etc., etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I believe that the players were using all Zaxcom Wireless. Now, as far as the ENG crews go, I gathered the same conclusion as Jeff did from the same Facebook posts / discussions that he mentioned. I will only add something that Jeffrey M Jones quoted the following on Facebook, after asking the Super Bowl RF coordinator, James Stoffo (from Radio Active Designs): "They take up too much radio footprint. That was the motivation behind RAD being spectrally efficient. Zaxcom takes up 600kHz per microphone transmitter. Not acceptable in this congested environment. We can literally fit 12 belt packs in the same space." Supposedly they received about 10,000 frequency requests, while only being able to accommodate about a tenth of that, so understandably, they will make whatever choices needed to support their requirements. The lesson here to me is that if you wish to work in different kinds of gigs, including sports coverage of the biggest televised event in the U.S., you should never have all your eggs in one basket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Radlauer Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I believe that the players were using all Zaxcom Wireless. Now, as far as the ENG crews go, I gathered the same conclusion as Jeff did from the same Facebook posts / discussions that he mentioned. I will only add something that Jeffrey M Jones quoted the following on Facebook, after asking the Super Bowl RF coordinator, James Stoffo (from Radio Active Designs): "They take up too much radio footprint. That was the motivation behind RAD being spectrally efficient. Zaxcom takes up 600kHz per microphone transmitter. Not acceptable in this congested environment. We can literally fit 12 belt packs in the same space." Supposedly they received about 10,000 frequency requests, while only being able to accommodate about a tenth of that, so understandably, they will make whatever choices needed to support their requirements. The lesson here to me is that if you wish to work in different kinds of gigs, including sports coverage of the biggest televised event in the U.S., you should never have all your eggs in one basket. This is essentially what I was told by GDC when myself and several of our colleagues were attempting to coordinate zaxcom gear. The last 2 Cardinals games of the season GDC would not coordinate ZAX, and while at first I (personally) was told that it was a congestion issue in a specific block, later I found out that no zax was being coordinated at all other than what the NFL was using based on their agreements with ZAX. Basically ENG crews were out of luck! Some of the conversation got out of hand..somewhat due to MY lack of properly communicating information. Sometimes thats hard to to do when your walking thru a crowd tethered to a camera. Regardless of the reasons behind the decision, the decision was theirs to make... I was simply trying to communicate this information to friends and fellow mixers so they could plan ahead and not be caught by surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I liked Billy Sarokin's comment on FB: the NFL didn't want anyone else there on Zax because they were concerned that a Zax user could hear what the players were saying whenever. philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Radlauer Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I liked Billy Sarokin's comment on FB: the NFL didn't want anyone else there on Zax because they were concerned that a Zax user could hear what the players were saying whenever. philp Really though.. That would be one of US doing that...And risk getting banned by the NFL? You would have to be lucky enough to be on the same block as the player mics. Is it really that realistic? I for one would not risk it... GDC was out in force last night at the game..Constantly scanning etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I can say with first hand certainly that most of the posts in this thread contain errors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirror Posted February 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Radlauer Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I can say with first hand certainly that most of the posts in this thread contain errors. I have no doubt whatsoever... As I said on my side..ENG was told no zax period. The reasons don't matter at this point. I was just trying to get it out there to people that this was the case so they could plan for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I can say with first hand certainly that most of the posts in this thread contain errors. One of the first errors is the spelling of Super Bowl in the title of this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirror Posted February 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 John, can you clear things up a bit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirror Posted February 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 One of the first errors is the spelling of Super Bowl in the title of this topic. Ha! You are right. Typing qjuickly between takes has got me again. Jeff, can you fix that for me, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codyman Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I spy a Block 20 Lectrosonics SMQV? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Wait minute, this thread is about the "Superbol"? Oh... I was talking about the Super Bowl. Never mind <G>. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 John, can you clear things up a bit? While I would love to, I feel restraint is in order due to an NDA. I will say that the not having all eggs in one's basket comment is well-advised. Having options is always good practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Exactly, John B., as always, the voice of reason. I would still make the appeal to everyone who on the surface seems to be "interested" in this, look to yourself and really try and figure out why this issue is so intriguing. If you are honest with yourself, you may find that there is some other less than savory agenda at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyfoxx Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I believe they were also using Shure wireless as well. If anything it seems Shure makes up the majority of what the NFL is using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I spy a Block 20 Lectrosonics SMQV? Wow! This clarifies so much, a Ref with a Lectro transmitter! Who knew? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I doubt the NFL cares about our curiosity, but they seem to use a mix of brands. We know the players wear Zaxcom transmitters. That would make sense. You definitely want something secure. Especially when there is a history of a team tapping into another team's wireless transmissions and cheating. Referees definitely wear Lectrosonics to transmit to the TV feed (as shown by Bane in the Batman movie), but they also have other wireless on their belts. Brands I personally don't recognize. I would assume they can talk to each other (and maybe somebody with a playback machine), and then use a PTT type thing to go over the PA and to TV audience. ENG crews had to use Lectrosonics, no Zaxcom. Didn't hear if anyone tried to use Wysicom or anything else. Motorola walkies, and probably tons of other wireless audio devices on top of possible video feeds and whatever else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 There is a better shot of that ref on Facebook and it shows a few wireless devices on his belt. The others may be in pouches, so they're not as obvious as the SMQV with the blue clip. Props to Lectrosonics making something so easily recognizable to people in the business. You can spot those all the time on doc/reality TV. Very clever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 The thread continues with much speculation. For the most part, it seems that those who know the least seem to be speculating the most -- it's an internet thing. There are errors in almost every post in the conversation. Readers should approach this entire thread with great scepticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirror Posted February 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Exactly, John B., as always, the voice of reason. I would still make the appeal to everyone who on the surface seems to be "interested" in this, look to yourself and really try and figure out why this issue is so intriguing. If you are honest with yourself, you may find that there is some other less than savory agenda at work. Jeff, if your referring to me as someone that has a "less then savory agenda" you'd be wrong. I heard something about it and so I asked. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Radlauer Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 I had no motive when I posted that there would be no Zax for ENG at the Super Bowl...And by my own admission I relayed what was said to me incorrectly...Thus churning up the rumor mill. I have zax gear. A small amount but it is gear that I depend on and use in my work flow everyday.. When I was told I couldn't use it, I was caught off guard and thought it was be important and courteous for others who might be coming to AZ for the Super Bowl to know before they got here.. I probably should have waited to post what was said to me in order to avoid all this so called speculation. That's on me. And for everyone else who basically shot the messenger for getting the details wrong? There needs to be an emoticon that gives you all the middle finger...because thats about how I feel about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.