Jump to content
afewmoreyears

NEW SMWB and SMDWB Lectrosonic units Announced..

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, daniel said:

 Arguably the thing missing on that 1 is the ability for a boom op to monitor directly from the TX, ironically the only 1 I know which does this is the humbly priced rode newsshooter (which is a plug-on).

 

Or Zaxcom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Constantin said:

 

Or Zaxcom...

Please excuse any unwitting misrepresentation of current and discontinued Zaxcom products in the following summary of my understanding of their products (feel free to correct). By my (admittedly limited) comprehension, it seems monitoring of all current Zaxcom TRX is via Zaxnet and therefore needs an ERX (with the boom op) and in most cases an IFB or QIFB equipped RX (at the mixer-recorder end if not using an appropriately equipped Zaxcom recorder). 

 

~ TRX942; (discontinued) "transceiver for boom", it had P48 and I guess a direct HP O/P (not dependent on a IFB or recorder)?

~ ZFR400; no P48, recorder only, can O/P a 'direct' audio signal via the lemo (hopefully allowing monitoring, so strong enough to drive HPs?).

~ ZFR300; no P48, recorder only, allowed QC monitoring via zaxnet TX - Ie you (only) need an ERX3TCD to receive QC audio?

~ TRXFB3; no P48 but built in zaxnet receiver, not sure if this means you can monitor directly from it with or without an IFB/QIFB sending something back to it, but i'm guessing not(?) because it was primarily designed for use on presenters needing IFB from directors etc.

~ TRX743; P48 but no direct HP O/P, monitoring only through zaxnet, so you need IFB/QIFB and ERX3TCD?

~ ZMT3-HM; P48 but no direct HP O/P, monitoring only through zaxnet, so you need IFB/QIFB and ERX3TCD?

~ ZMT3-PHANTOM; P48 but no direct HP O/P, monitoring only through zaxnet, so you need IFB/QIFB and ERX3TCD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To monitor off the 742 I use the fb3. I keep the 742 next to the fb3 on my belt with coiled cable to the boom and use that and it works well.  Only use that setup really if I want super light and don't want to carry a mixer around or b roll. 

 

Another way is in a Small Fanny pack I keep a MixPreD with a rx200 and monitor that way with the 742 on the pole. Works great if I'm recording MS as I can use the stereo cone and then decode on the MixPreD.  Recording is done on the 742. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Glen Deakin said:

To monitor off the 742 I use the fb3. I keep the 742 next to the fb3 on my belt with coiled cable to the boom and use that and it works well.  Only use that setup really if I want super light and don't want to carry a mixer around or b roll. 

So thats a $2000 'monitor box' to listen to a $2000 TX. Of course your 'monitor box' is just moonlighting from its usual duty as a TRX for a presenter with IFB, but don't you ever think to yourself, a minijack socket on the 742 would have be a nice touch?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, daniel said:

So thats a $2000 'monitor box' to listen to a $2000 TX. Of course your 'monitor box' is just moonlighting from its usual duty as a TRX for a present with IFB but don't you ever think to yourself, a minijack socket on the 742 would have be a nice touch?

 

Of course it would be nice and has been talked about and requested repeatedly on here. Just making it work the way it is now. 

But I think this is a bit off topic. Let's keep this about Lectrosonics newly released transmitters 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was in the mood for being sarcastic i would suggest no body else, in recent history, has made so many audio recorders without a conventional headphone O/P as Zaxcom, but it wouldn't be politically correct to do so, so i wont :-) But I will say, if all TX had a HP/line O/P, wireless boom ops would be less encumbered and folks could have hooked up any small BU recorder and recent IP kerfuffles would just be the fantasy of some IP lawyers somewhere. As it stands, Rode and their modest $500 newsshooter kit is the only 1 to have done this, go figure. Singling out Zaxcom is a little unfair as this observation applies to any producer of a wireless designed to be used by a boom op and anyone making something they call a recorder - without a HP O/P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daniel said:

So thats a $2000 'monitor box' to listen to a $2000 TX. Of course your 'monitor box' is just moonlighting from its usual duty as a TRX for a presenter with IFB, but don't you ever think to yourself, a minijack socket on the 742 would have be a nice touch?

 

 

Most if not all of Zaxcom's transmitters can broadcast "qc audio" via Zaxnet. You can listen to that with an ERX receiver. No further gear needed. 

Granted, it's not quite the same as a headphone output, but instead it's something very similar and perhaps more versatile, because you can also tune in talent tx and check them and then switch back to your boom mic or to the feed from the cart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Constantin said:

 

Most if not all of Zaxcom's transmitters can broadcast "qc audio" via Zaxnet. You can listen to that with an ERX receiver. No further gear needed. 

Granted, it's not quite the same as a headphone output, but instead it's something very similar and perhaps more versatile, because you can also tune in talent tx and check them and then switch back to your boom mic or to the feed from the cart. 

Sure, and tune several ERX into the same channel - which is useful for those distributing a lot of audio. The more you have, the more sense it makes.

Anyway, making recorders without HP O/Ps seems to be a trend (unless I'm missing something with the A10 and SMWB/SMDWB). It would have been so much simpler if they all just made TX with line/HP O/Ps.

I totally didn't get from the Zaxcom website that most of their TX "broadcast "qc audio" [directly] via Zaxnet". I got the impression (from their description) TRX/ZMTs have a Zaxnet receiver (for control and TC purposes) and figured audio monitoring on an ERX was via another box (IFB/QIFB/NOMAD/ZFR), I.e. not direct from the TRX/ZMT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, daniel said:

Anyway, making recorders without HP O/Ps seems to be a trend (unless I'm missing something with the A10 and SMWB/SMDWB). It would have been so much simpler if they all just made TX with line/HP O/Ps.

 

Yes, it would have been great - as long as they could do it in the same small package. That is a concern especially re Audio Ltd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Constantin said:

 

Yes, it would have been great - as long as they could do it in the same small package. That is a concern especially re Audio Ltd. 

Why more so than the smwb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, daniel said:

Why more so than the smwb?

 

I meant the small package is a concern with the new Audio Ltd tx, which already are not very small. Add a mini jack and they'll get even bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Constantin said:

 

I meant the small package is a concern with the new Audio Ltd tx, which already are not very small. Add a mini jack and they'll get even bigger.

it might have been done through the lemo (if it had more pins) and a 'y' cable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2017 at 12:45 PM, daniel said:

Anyway, making recorders without HP O/Ps seems to be a trend (unless I'm missing something with the A10 and SMWB/SMDWB). It would have been so much simpler if they all just made TX with line/HP O/Ps.

 


That is prevented by the threat of the Zaxcom lawyers once again. 

This is why the Tascam DR10 became the Tascam DR10L (which removed the headphone jack) in the United States. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@IronFilm, don't know about all this negativity toward Zaxcom. Mr Sanders is an entrepreneur and deserves the fruits of his labor, intelligence and foresight. Besides, you live in New Zealand, why do you care so much, it really has no effect on you unless you're married to using lectrosonics (which is understandable)? When people are talking about Audio Ltd, the products aren't infringing on Zaxcom patents unless sold in USA, so the idea that they didn't include a feature like HP O/P because of a patent in one country seems like a stretch to me. For the record, I'm a lectro user, and I want the simultaneous recording transmission feature too. Sorry to derail the thread. Looks like a great product from lectro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, IronFilm said:


That is prevented by the threat of the Zaxcom lawyers once again. 

This is why the Tascam DR10 became the Tascam DR10L (which removed the headphone jack) in the United States. 

Considering Zaxcom don't have TX with a HP O/P it seems a bit of stretch to suggest other makers don't include HP O/Ps because of Zaxcom. The IP issue with those Tascam recorders was a Tascam mistake on a number of levels. I don't see how anyone could have stopped them making a mono or stereo recorder with generic I/P and O/P. Interfacing 1 with a TX could have been left for those smart enough to work how to facilitated this with a custom cable. As it stands, I or anyone could something very similar right now, in any market, with a zoom h1, any brand of TX and some custom cables.

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


×