Jump to content
John Willett

New Digital Radio from Audio Limited

Recommended Posts

Just noticed that Audio Limited have announced their new digital radio system on their website HERE.

 

  • 20 channels in one TV channel
  • end-to-end latency of just 2ms
  • transmitter works from 2 x AA batteries

Available from September this year.

 

Looks like the best latency (AD / DA) of any system I have seen to date

 

comp4_hires_right.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How important is latency with regard to production sound mixing? One mixer I spoke to wasn't bothered at all by big latencies, it can all be corrected in the recorder.

In a live sound environment, sure, latency is a consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latency is an extra irritation. If it can be reduced within the wireless systems themselves then it means less buggering about trying to delay other channels particularly when mixing different brands of wireless. And of course some recorders don't have delay - 664 for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the second full digital system with a slot in receiver. The concept looks great, especially as a hop for high quality audio on camera when zaxcom is too much / too big.

 

I'm really surprised, never heard rumors that they would develop something like that ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the second full digital system with a slot in receiver. The concept looks great, especially as a hop for high quality audio on camera when zaxcom is too much / too big.

 

I'm really surprised, never heard rumors that they would develop something like that ...

WHat is the first full digital system with superslot if this is the second?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the second full digital system with a slot in receiver. The concept looks great, especially as a hop for high quality audio on camera when zaxcom is too much / too big.

I'm really surprised, never heard rumors that they would develop something like that ...

Except if it's single channel then it's relatively useless as a hop. And a waste of space in the superslot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHat is the first dull digital system with superslot if this is the second?

I just mean the camera slot. Sony has a digital system for Sony cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except if it's single channel then it's relatively useless as a hop. And a waste of space in the superslot.

Do you always send a 2-channel mix to the camera? What do you send?

I'd prefer a single channel rx if that means a full 48k 24bit AES output with a "true" diverstiy receiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised, never heard rumors that they would develop something like that ...

 

 

Audio Ltd have been working on this for some years now and I know they developed their own original algorithms which might be why the latency is so small. That is probably why they put their efforts into expanding their budget En2 range rather than the 2040 as this 1010 range becomes the natural successor to the RMS 2000 / 2020 / 2040. I am looking forward to trying them out. The RMS 2000 / 2020 / 2040 sounded great so I am interested to see if they can carry that sound through in the digital domain. 

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who knows what else they may have in development?

 

there seems little point making a slot in dual channel receiver if Sony wont allow any other manufacturer access to channel 2.
and the slot in format has restrictions for power consumption, so it may not be possible with the available technology to make a dual channel receiver to the slot in spec.

 

A dual channel, bag friendly receiver would seem like a logical addition in due course. but remember, most manufacturers dual channel receivers have some kind of compromise compared to a single channel receiver. 

It would make sense for a new range to offer the best performing receiver straight away, and then develop the dual channel receiver with what they learnt from the single channel receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you always send a 2-channel mix to the camera? What do you send?

I'd prefer a single channel rx if that means a full 48k 24bit AES output with a "true" diverstiy receiver

Always two channel. ALWAYS. My boom is kept unmixed from wireless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who knows what else they may have in development?

there seems little point making a slot in dual channel receiver if Sony wont allow any other manufacturer access to channel 2.

and the slot in format has restrictions for power consumption, so it may not be possible with the available technology to make a dual channel receiver to the slot in spec.

A dual channel, bag friendly receiver would seem like a logical addition in due course. but remember, most manufacturers dual channel receivers have some kind of compromise compared to a single channel receiver.

It would make sense for a new range to offer the best performing receiver straight away, and then develop the dual channel receiver with what they learnt from the single channel receiver.

Doesn't need to be suited to Sony. Ignoring the 5P and other variants for a second, most mixers use sleds or some other mounting system for the vast array of cameras out there. The point being TWO CHANNELS.

Equally, while there are some downsides to dual RX I'd argue that the benefits vastly outweigh these, which is why almost every ENG recordist has switched to them if they haven't already invested in 411 or Audio 2040. Stuff like Zaxcom and Wisy can't really be considered massively compromised by being dual channel. It's a no brainer in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always two channel. ALWAYS. My boom is kept unmixed from wireless.

You need to make sure production understands that clearly though all the way down the line, as it can end up just being mono'd by someone who doesn't know or care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always two channel. ALWAYS. My boom is kept unmixed from wireless.

That's interesting. For me, it's NEVER two channels, nor do I know anyone who does that. Of course, I never record production audio on camera. Only in my recorder and just a scratch track on cam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to make sure production understands that clearly though all the way down the line, as it can end up just being mono'd by someone who doesn't know or care.

In the world of entertainment, reality and documentary television (at least in the UK, but I would suspect to a large proportion elsewhere as well) recording on two camera channels has been absolutely standard for many years. How one splits that is up to the mixer themselves, but generally common practice is to keep wireless and boom apart if using both. It's kind of expected by the edit. There are almost never any conversations about workflow.

Of course there are now more shows requiring multitrack which does require a closer relationship with the cutting room if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting. For me, it's NEVER two channels, nor do I know anyone who dies that. Of course, I never record production audio on camera. Only in my recorder and just a scratch track on cam

See above, I'd struggle to find 'normal' TV shows outside of multitrack reality work that would not require main audio sent to camera even if a recording is also being made. I don't really think of a scratch track as a 'proper' wireless link given that it is generally mono, not for broadcast and can be achieved using devices way below the spec of SRB, QRX, Wisy and Audio Ltd. It's more of a courtesy for sync purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think of a scratch track as a 'proper' wireless link

Absolutely, that's my point. I guess it really depends on the sort of work you do. When I work out of the bag it's usually doco stuff and I'll always record on my recorder. The fast turn-around stuff such as reality TV or actual eng may be different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you always send a 2-channel mix to the camera? What do you send?

I'd prefer a single channel rx if that means a full 48k 24bit AES output with a "true" diverstiy receiver

Of course, I never record production audio on camera. Only in my recorder and just a scratch track on cam

So have to ask why you need 48k 24bit AES output with a "true" diverstiy receiver then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So have to ask why you need 48k 24bit AES output with a "true" diverstiy receiver then?

Talent mics. Do I "need" full range? No. Do I want it? Yes.

If nothing else, I could use it for music recordings. Still, my personal preference is to have the best possible signal and be able to decide to engage an HPF (as an example) or not. I don't want that decision to be made for me.

It's the same reason why I dislike mics like the DPA 4071 with a built in boost around 5K. It's something I'd like to have control over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok James. This product is not for you. Totally understandable your workflow; so wear a hat and walk away. The sun is bright!

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ENG / reality / sports shoots I do always require single channel on camera from me, even lavs and boom in a mix. Journalists don't want to spend too much time with sound because the pictures are often edited, mixed and broadcasted on the same day.

 

A digital single channel in camera receiver would be great for this. With analogue wireless you never know if there are dangerous sibilants, noisy artifacts or other compander stuff on camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the world of entertainment, reality and documentary television (at least in the UK, but I would suspect to a large proportion elsewhere as well) recording on two camera channels has been absolutely standard for many years.

...

The thing about standards these days is there are so many to choose from.

(Not original, but seems to apply.)

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


×