Jump to content

Zaxcom and AudioLTD digital wireless - the future


RadoStefanov

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, RadoStefanov said:

Here is what I think about other wireless users logic:

I ask them:

Would you like to have pre RF recording on TX for drop free workflow? -It is cool but I am fine without it.

Would you like to be able to change gain, freqs, power state remotely? -It is cool but I am fine without it.

Would you like to have 100% pure sound without any artifacts and noise contamination? - It is cool but I am fine without it.

And now I ask?

Would you like to have 20+ mics in 6mHz of spectrum?

Insert answer here!

 

No, no please do not write the question and the answers... My answers to your questions are not those ones :

Would you like to have pre RF recording on TX for drop free workflow? 

Yes I am waiting for this. 

Would you like to be able to change gain, freqs, power state remotely? 

Yes I will appreciate this too.

Would you like to have 100% pure sound without any artifacts and noise contamination? 

 I haven't notice this on my set. Between 1 and 24 wirellesses.

Would you like to have 20+ mics in 6mHz of spectrum?

Why not, but honestly since I am only working with wideband, I have always found some good frequencies for my radio. But I like the idea, it might become useful. I wait to see a real demo and to test it on a set, not on a "hudson" video.

I would also add that working with whips antenna is very confortable on doco, scripted or reality : it saves my back !

Manufacturers are really awesome, the technology is improving very quickly. It helps us everyday. And clearly digital wirelesses are improving.

...you have forgotten a good point of digital wirellesses...Encryption. And a bad point...energy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Capulli said:

I suspect that one issue with such a narrowband signal is that all other offending signals will be much wider and can wipe out more of our mics if they are tightly spaced

A stronger signal will wipe out the signal from the transmitter regardless of how wide it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Derek H said:

I'll also add that I think good range with simple whip antennas is important.

In every test I did with ZHD -including midtown Manhattan and the floor at nab, both of which was very heavily rf congested, the range on just whips suprized the hell out of me.

I was told that the range on ZHD was going improve the range. But when the concept became a reality and I did my very first walk test at zaxcom in New Jersey several weeks ago the range was way beyond anything I expected. 

Every sound mixer that was at Rado's test the other night was in impressed as well - one person even said that it seems like ZHD broke the laws of physics.

ZHD will be shipping soon to dealers so I encourage you to contact your dealer to do your own tests because seeing it will make you a beleiver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:25 PM, RadoStefanov said:

 

 

 

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 2:25 PM, RadoStefanov said:

Here is what I think about other wireless users logic:

I ask them:

Would you like to have pre RF recording on TX for drop free workflow? -It is cool but I am fine without it.

Would you like to be able to change gain, freqs, power state remotely? -It is cool but I am fine without it.

Would you like to have 100% pure sound without any artifacts and noise contamination? - It is cool but I am fine without it.

And now I ask?

Would you like to have 20+ mics in 6mHz of spectrum?

Insert answer here!

 

I think the answer is Zaxcom does 60 channels in 6 MHZ spectrum and no one does 20 from what I know. I think Audio is 15 with 400khz spacing. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RadoStefanov said:

why wait for it? It is available.from 2 companies.

Because, most of the times I try to have to a kit as compact and light as possible. I generally prefer to work with whips antennas and as far as i know it is not yet a good idea in digital transmission.

But do not worry: I have to buy another set at the end of the year, and I will consider seriously a TX recorder among over others functions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, VM said:

Because, most of the times I try to have to a kit as compact and light as possible. I generally prefer to work with whips antennas and as far as i know it is not yet a good idea in digital transmission.

But do not worry: I have to buy another set at the end of the year, and I will consider seriously a TX recorder among over others functions.

Rado and the other NAB sound mixers tested the ZHD zaxcom  whips to whips and got well over 500  feet  as Jack and Jose did in midtown manhatten. There is no limitation here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glenn said:

I think the answer is Zaxcom does 60 channels in 6 MHZ spectrum and no one does 20 from what I know. I think Audio is 15 with 400khz spacing. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think the answer is Zaxcom does 60 channels in 6 MHZ spectrum and no one does 20 from what I know. I think Audio is 15 with 400khz spacing. Please correct me if I am wrong.

No, I wouldn't say you were wrong - 

Just something to be (obviously) proud of, Glenn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Capulli said:

I suspect that one issue with such a narrowband signal is that all other offending signals will be much wider and can wipe out more of our mics if they are tightly spaced

This is not the case, just the opposite is true. The more narrow ZHD signal will have a 4 times better immunity to being interfered with vs a wider signal.

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RScottATL said:

Glenn, is this (interference resistance) for the same reasons you're able to achieve better range and obstacle penetration? 

The signal isn't interference resistance - it is just that there is less signal to get interfered with - ZHD takes up roughly 75% less spectrum space. 

Think a tennis ball (the interference) with a tennis racket (normal signal) vs a baseball bat (ZHD signal).

The racket has more surface area vs the bat. So if you throw ball (interference) there is a greater chance that it will hit the racket.

Worlds worst analogy aside - what has amazed me the most with ZHD is the ability to penetrate obstacles and bounce off surfaces.

Stuff like the signal penetrating through cars and through walls is pretty great. And the non-line of site walk test around the NAB floor and through the drone area left me speechless.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone elaborate on the 32K sample rate?  Is the internal recording capable of 48+/-?
Can we expect a future firmware to transmit at 48K?
Am I misunderstanding this as a compressed signal that is later expanded at the receiver?

I fear editors may be itching their head if handed anything but the sample rate requested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, lyrnxG said:

Can anyone elaborate on the 32K sample rate?  Is the internal recording capable of 48+/-?
Can we expect a future firmware to transmit at 48K?
Am I misunderstanding this as a compressed signal that is later expanded at the receiver?

I fear editors may be itching their head if handed anything but the sample rate requested.

You seem to have a bit of misunderstanding about how Zaxcom files work.  

Since I don't have time at the moment to go into any great detail (and, to be fair you should do some research), the short answer is -- unless you choose otherwise -- what you hand in to post are great sounding 24-bit files at 48kHz sampling rate.

Jack:  Your self-admitted "World's worst analogy" brought a smile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, John Blankenship said:

You seem to have a bit of misunderstanding about how Zaxcom files work.  

No doubt, I have been  a lectro guy all my life.  ZHD has some amazing specs though, so yes... its time to read away.

If anyone knows a manual or part of the website that explains the Zax files, please fire away.  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you turn in your recording to post, you are not turning in Zax files, you are turning in an industry standard 24 bit 48K file (unless of course you have chosen to set your recorder to record at some other spec). The micro SD card in the transmitter does "record" data in a Zaxcom proprietary format --- it is not compressed audio but if wanting to use the files directly from the micro SD card, a conversion to standard 24 bit 48K file is needed. If you are turning in the files from your recorder (that has recorded the output of your wireless receiver), regardless of what recorder it is, those files will be to whatever spec you have set your recorder. If using a Zaxcom recorder, the primary recording internally also utilizes a Zaxcom specific file format, MARF, which is NOT turned in to anyone in post. Regarding your fear that "editors may be itching their head if handed anything but the sample rate requested" the files in their hand are exactly the same as any of the files from any recorder with one significant difference: most editors, if they are really listening, will be scratching their heads, wondering how you got a wireless mic to sound so good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the packs transmit at 32khz (roughly to 16khz audio). If you want an idea of how this sounds, try taking your current wireless system into a DAW and roll off at 16khz. From a post sound guy - for voice recording, you will never hear it. For classical music recording, well, shucks why are you going wireless? 

The files you record will be in whatever sample rate you set, with the super duper high frequencies not present. You won't miss them except on the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another test you can do if you're so inclined (I'm really not a "numbers" guy, for several reasons, I don't own any precision test gear beyond what I consider to be the best measure --- my ears) if you take any analog wireless which may have a specification of "20 to 20K" and actually feed it sweep test tones, walk it around in a moderate RF environment, take it out to the edge of its range and beyond, play with the mic preamp trim (gain) on the transmitter, let the battery deplete, etc., and measure the received frequency response at the receiver. If you have the test gear to do this it will be an eye opener for you and will probably convince you that playing the numbers game is a far less reliable measure than what you can achieve by LISTENING.

"I don't care if you've got ninety tracks... what does it sound like, baby"
- Ray Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, lyrnxG said:

Can anyone elaborate on the 32K sample rate?  Is the internal recording capable of 48+/-?
Can we expect a future firmware to transmit at 48K?
Am I misunderstanding this as a compressed signal that is later expanded at the receiver?

I fear editors may be itching their head if handed anything but the sample rate requested.

Just to elaborate, a computer and the (free) zaxconvert program is required in order to convert the MARF files into .wav at whichever sample rate you like (which can add some data wrangling time to your day).

The Audio 1010s record as .wav files, however they transmit at 44.1kHz so still need sample rate conversion and again some data wrangling time.

On the plus side, this may result in some overtime pay!

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...