Jump to content

What is Superslot? Mr Fisher?


Freeheel

Recommended Posts

Looking at the new SD 688 with interest and also the portable SD SL-6 wireless "dock".

 

Can anyone link me to information on what the superslot is all about?  From Sound Devices advertising, it looks like the superslot allows information and control transfer through the slot.

It'd be great to get some details on that.

 

I found this on Location sound site:

 

Sound Devices SL-6 Compatible Wireless Receivers:

Manufacturer Model SL-6 Compatible SuperSlot Compatible

- Audio Ltd. En2 CX2-P ✓

– Lectrosonics SRa      ✓ ✓ With SRb & audio board updates from Lectrosonics Lectrosonics

-SRb                             ✓ ✓ With audio board updates from Lectrosonics

-Wisycom MCR42        ✓ ✓ With SLK42-IKSS rear panel adapter

 

but a search of the Lectrosonics site and the internet in general brought up no additional info.

 

It would be awesome to get an idea of price and what's involved in the SRB update procedure.

 

Cheers,

Brent Calkin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this is an initiative started by Sound Devices, so the query should be directed at them.  For it to be truly successful, they should have in place either a reasonable licensing mechanism for other manufacturers (Cameras and competing audio companies) to incorporate this technology, otherwise it risks being a flash-in-the-pan-format.

 

I'd like to see RF and control integrated to the slot.

 

RF = 3 coaxial connectors

DC = 2 contacts

control = 2 contacts (I2C) or 3 contacts (RS-232/422)

audio = 6 contacts

 

Seems like a 13W3 connector would be perfectly suited for a job like this (anyone remember SGI workstation monitors?)

 

600px-13W3_Stecker.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this is an initiative started by Sound Devices, so the query should be directed at them.  For it to be truly successful, they should have in place either a reasonable licensing mechanism for other manufacturers (Cameras and competing audio companies) to incorporate this technology, otherwise it risks being a flash-in-the-pan-format.

 

I'd like to see RF and control integrated to the slot.

 

RF = 3 coaxial connectors

DC = 2 contacts

control = 2 contacts (I2C) or 3 contacts (RS-232/422)

audio = 6 contacts

 

Seems like a 13W3 connector would be perfectly suited for a job like this (anyone remember SGI workstation monitors?)

Great idea! I'm curious as to why you'd need 3 RF connectors though? 2.4ghz remote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

We have given SD the complete instruction set for the SRb receiver series so any front panel control and metering functions  that  they want to display or control are available including the ability to turn the receiver off and on. As said above, it will require a new audio board in the SRb with the new interface. SRa's will not be upgradeable.

Best Regards,
Larry Fisher
Lectrosonics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remote controlling receivers is kind of redundant.

Transmitters is what remote control is necessary for.

"Remote" control of receivers? The receivers, and their screens, are generally quite close to the 688's screen --- I'm not so sure there is an advantage of tying up the recorder's screen with redundant information. Now, the transmitter's already have what they call "remote control", though again, you're not so far away or remote from the transmitter with your dweedle - dee - dweedle - dee routine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Remote" control of receivers? The receivers, and their screens, are generally quite close to the 688's screen --- I'm not so sure there is an advantage of tying up the recorder's screen with redundant information..."

 

Jeff, I was about to ask the same thing, then I thought that all this information and control could eventually find it's way onto a touchscreen video monitor similar to that way the SD interface for the 970 currently works. Info and control = good.

 

gt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it could find its way onto an iPad or a computer via WaveAgent...

The main aspect, to me, of the SL-6 is not the remote control of the receivers, but that is or can be an added bonus. I would imagine that when in recording mode, I can choose to not have all the receiver info displayed on the main screen, but when I'm setting up I can view as many receivers as I like on that screen and make the adjustments. So I'd get a large and clear screen to adjust my receivers or just check settings instead of those tiny receiver screens. What's wrong with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, I was about to ask the same thing, then I thought that all this information and control could eventually find it's way onto a touchscreen video monitor similar to that way the SD interface for the 970 currently works. Info and control = good.

 

gt

I do agree with you, Glen, I have to admit that I was sort of following Rado's lead (a bit snarky). The most significant thing in my opinion with the 688 is that it is a digital mixer --- this opens up all sorts of possibilities for the future for Sound Devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remote control of the receivers would allow them and many other components to be moved to a backpack, carrying the weight in a way that's much more ergonomic way.

Also would allow an install of a rack of receivers near the location, but control and monitor of them from far away, like video village.

You can't do these things yet, but the possibilities are there and could prove very useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do you want to remotely control on the receivers? Analog out put gain? 

If you want to change the frequency you still have to change it on the corresponding transmitter. 

All I am saying is remote controlling the transmitter is a lot more important then controlling the receiver.

But that would require a major upgrade in Lectro and Wysicom wireless.

 

 

Remote control of the receivers would allow them and many other components to be moved to a backpack, carrying the weight in a way that's much more ergonomic way.
Also would allow an install of a rack of receivers near the location, but control and monitor of them from far away, like video village.
You can't do these things yet, but the possibilities are there and could prove very useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do you want to remotely control on the receivers? Analog out put gain?

If you want to change the frequency you still have to change it on the corresponding transmitter.

All I am saying is remote controlling the transmitter is a lot more important then controlling the receiver.

But that would require a major upgrade in Lectro and Wysicom wireless.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think remote control of transmitter is great , and is the primary reason I bought Zaxcom wireless. But we're not talking about transmitters here. That is a completely different conversation. I'm talking about the possibilities that remote control of receivers presents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

any remote control of a transmitter would most likely be done through the receiver anyways, so if you have 1, you have both if it is a supported function in the first place.  Zaxcom uses a separate 2.4GHz network for remote control (hence my suggestion for supporting 3 RF signals in the slot).  Sony is the first that offered remote control that I'm aware of, I'm not sure what method they used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Remotely" monitoring/controlling RX might appear redundant but it is not. Just try to operate any slotin with thick winter gloves below -10°C/14°F. Any concept/standard to remote RX is a step to have less stuff at your belly in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sony is the first that offered remote control that I'm aware of, I'm not sure what method they used."

 

I am fairly sure Zaxcom was the first to remote control a transmitter. 

About 10+ years ago Zaxcom invented the method of controlling a transmitter through FSK (frequency shift keying) tones through the microphone. This method is in no way remote control but it was better than nothing. This method was too bothersome to the production and you still had to interfere with the talent. To better remote control the transmitters we came up with Zaxnet with its RF remote control. I think we came out with this about 7-8 years ago. If something predates us I would like to know.

 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think remote control of transmitter is great , and is the primary reason I bought Zaxcom wireless. But we're not talking about transmitters here. That is a completely different conversation. I'm talking about the possibilities that remote control of receivers presents.

 

I see where you are going with this. I think we are still a few years off, but very possible. gear in a backpack and something like a small tablet screen to see everything, and maybe just a few physical faders (rotary or linear) "on the front" would be interesting. Having something like just a Cantarem and a screen to monitor everything sounds great. I never tried it, but maybe even something like a next generation Google Glass has a place down the road. Then you can see levels without looking down. 

 

If gear keeps getting lighter, it might not be all that important. Look at Rado's bag. He has 6 or 8 wireless receivers and a Nomad in a bag all said and done for 8 pounds. That's perfectly reasonable. 

You can see some obvious ways to make that rig lighter and smaller (single box), but it requires less modularity and flexibility, and then it turns into a "is there a market for something this specific" situation. 

 

Actually, somebody may be able to make this happen today. Put a Nomad in front, and then a backpack with an RX12 and your battery. Make a snake to bring (digital) audio signal and power to the Nomad. The RX12 can have little antennas sticking up on your shoulders for even better range. The only thing you need to figure out is the RX12 display, but that's it. The Nomad itself is 3.8lbs, add for a tiny bag that just houses the Nomad in front and you are good. The weight of an RX12 (6 lbs fully loaded) and a battery to power it for a day isn't significant in a backpack type setup. That could be an incredibly ergonomic rig. I would almost love to build one as a proof of concept. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...