Jump to content

Thomas Beach

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Thomas Beach

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday January 1

Profile Information

  • Location
    Milwaukee
  • About
    Pro location audio since 1994. IATSE.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks, guys. I too noted the non-tilt as a concern and the IP-only adjustments of the Blackmagic. But again, a great price point. But warranty troubles must also be considered. And I know the Marshall's have been a longtime favorite of many mixers. I was completely unaware of the Feelworld D71 and family of monitors. Thanks! They look pretty darn good and offer twice the resolution.
  2. I'm considering a rack-mountable dual monitor and have seen primarily Marshall and Blackmagic Design systems as the go-to's out there. So I'm just wondering which monitor brands the group likes and why? I am especially interested in the Blackmagic Design Smart Duo given its price point of $495.00. Then there is the Marshall M-LYNX-702 V.3 at $800.00 and the M-LYNX-702W at $1250.00. If there are other brands or models recommended please feel free to do so. My needs are basically standard corporate/commercial work and low-budget indie features. Thanks for your input. Tom
  3. Foolishly I didn't keep my v2.03 prg file. But am getting help with that from SD. Am going to try another troubleshooting work session before going backwards with Firmware to see. But will resort to that if needed and report back. Thanks. I might add that upgrading to 4.51 has proven to be disastrous. My CL6 went completely bonkers after doing so and I was forced to remove it. So I'm dealing with SD on that as a separate issue. The other mixer I borrowed a 664 from said the same with 4.50. The problems so far with this firmware has been legion with me. here is a pic of what my CL6 looked like after breaking for dinner and coming back to it a half hour later. It was in REC but not recording and couldn't be closed out without rebooting. But I digress from my original post.
  4. I am reviewing a 2014 thread dealing with the Zaxcom IFB200 and 633 RF interference problem. But as that thread is three years old and doesn't deal with the CL900 CamerLink and the 664, I wanted to get a fresh perspective from users here. I purchased the CL900 last August and have been using it successfully in my ENG bag directly (2" or less) above my SD 664 and in tandem with with Zaxcom ERXTCD3 RX's only for Time Code send via 2.4GHz Zaxnet send to cameras. This has also been without using the 2-ch. audio feed side of the CL900. Again... not a single problem since last August in this same configuration. Three weeks ago I bought a new CL6 and successfully installed it. I used the 664 with the CL 6 on three commercial shoots, all without incidents. A week ago I upgraded my 664 Frimwarre from 2.03 to 4.51. The first job after the upgrade was a weeklong shoot in FL on a doc shoot. On day two I began hearing constant high-pitched RF bleed creeping into my tracks. After several minutes of troubleshooting (cables, connections etc.) I determined the only way to lessen and/or eliminate the RF bleed was to remove the CL900 from my bag and get it at least 6"-8" away from my bag (IFB TX Power of 7) or reduce transmit power to 5 or less, which still bled into my 664 if held close to the 664. I called Zaxcom. Was told perhaps a break in the Zaxnet antenna. I was also told that this is a 664 problem which has arisen before and had seen a "fix" by Sound Devices made to the units. Bought and replaced the Zaxnet antenna. It did nothing to fix the problem. I called Sound Devices. They denied any known problem nor any "fix" conducted by them for it on the 664. So in other words, Zaxcom and Sound Devices appeared to push the problem back and forth to each other. I removed the CL6 (other problems with it!) a few days ago. That said, the RF bleed still exists without the CL6. Yesterday I borrowed another mixers 664 (v4.50) and conducted the same test using my CL900. The RF bleed was also in his unit as well. And just as bad. I want to know why after almost a year of no problems, I'd suddenly have these issues which are now irreparable without the removal of my CL900 from close proximity to my 664? Clearly I cannot operate in this fashion. At this point I don't know which gear to send in. Both? All I do know is that I am not getting substantive support help from either Zaxcom or Sound Devices. And I would appreciate an immediate response by both companies in order to work together to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. Thanks Thomas Beach
  5. Please forgive the very late reply to those who have posted here in order to offer opinions, thoughts and help. I want to thank all of you for your contributions. For what it is worth, I went with the Zaxcom Camera Link and a pair of ERX3TCD. I have now used them several times and I couldn't be happier with the audio quality, range and reliability where Time Code transmission is concerned. I'm looking forward to adding QRX200 RX's in the very near future. Again, thanks to all. Tom
  6. Thanks, Philip. Lots of wisdom in that last reply. Thanks, John. Sounds like you've been around the block with Zaxcom and with good results. I appreciate your insights, configs and experiences. Had a good long conversation with Trew L.A. and think I've settled on something of compromise. I think I'm going to take the plunge with Zaxcom TRX900CL and a pair of ERX3TCD's to start out. Much greater flexibility in lieu of IFB200 for future step-ups to the RX200 or QRX235 w/QIFB option. Thanks again to all for your invaluable insights and recommendations.
  7. Thanks, Abe. Yeah, the Secuirty workaround did the trick. Much appreciated. Thanks for the ZaxConvert info and confirmation. Thanks too for ID'ing Glenn Sanders. Thought it might be him but couldn't tell.
  8. Thanks, Philip. Didn't realize that was Lectro policy forever. Guess I'm confused though as Lectro said yesterday each 411A/TX would come in at $1150.00 approx. That strikes me as a whole lot cheaper than $2800.00 p/ch. Yes, the 100's are toast based on cost to re-block. Thanks again for your thoughts and opinions! So would you support the IFB200/ERX3TCD solution as an interim ramp-up solution as well?
  9. Yes, I am deeply disappointed in Gordon Moore's current stance of tossing off anything 7 years or older for re-blocking. Turning me off to Lectro. I was told yesterday by Lectro that I may want to consider getting my BLK's 24 and 25 done soon as well ($1150.00 p/ch) just in case (no decision yet) Lectro tosses them into the 7 year old pile as well (mine are 2005). Just discovered the ERX3TCD also offers a locking 3.5. That's nice.
  10. Great and helpful posts from all. Glenn, thanks for the system config advice. But quick calculations send me over $5K, which was the reason I was considering lesser expensive options. I think the system you recommend would be awesome otherwise. I have no illusions about what I stand to give up if I go cheaper/cheapish. Not the least of which would be the lack versatility using the IFB200/ERX3TCD set-up as I already have a full Comtek system. Derek, Thanks for all of the insight. Some considerations, both good and bad I definitely overlooked. Abe, Tried downloading ZaxConvert on my MacBook Pro 10.9.5) but got the block due to unrecognized developer. Whats up with that? And will I have to carry around my laptop to do file conversions from .zax MARFF to .bwf files for all of my clients?
  11. Jeremy, I just got a call yesterday from a NYC company I worked for telling me my scratch track was only 70% there in post. See my previous post admitting I've been having hints of trouble with my 100's (that's on me). And considering they are BLK 29 (I know my 100's are illegal) combined with the disturbing news from Lectro under Mr. Moore's tenure that they will be simply throwing off doing block conversions for anything 7 years or older (no, I'm not happy about that, as the owner of four BLK 24/25 411A's from 2005) I've pretty much confirmed that my 100's are fast becoming deep-sea fishing sinkers. And as such, I must replace them for both my own and legitimate Lectro reasons. My points are twofold. I need to replace my 100's with something different, and now, and I am not pleased with Lectro for their current stances as it relates to older product support, not to mention all of the expense-to-need I previously expressed. So I'm looking both at Lectro as well as Zaxcom/Senny. Right now I'm leaning towards IFB200/EXR3TCD. BUT... as part of my investigation, I trried downlaoding ZaxConvert and discovered my MacBook Pro blocks it due to unrecognized developer reason. Plus I'm not keen on the idea of having to tote around my computer for file conversions. So any thoughts out there on ZaxConvert issues would also be appreciated. I apologize in advance for ignorance of Zaxcom software/products as I'm still getting up to speed with them.
  12. Thanks, Johnny. I've been using a pair of 100's (BLK 29) for years in that role but now have severe issues with them. And given the very slow set-up for clear freq's, I'm just going to replace them. Yes, Philip, I made quick note of that benefit as compared to say the Zaxcom ERX3TCD's. But in the role of hops, I'm hoping the camera op isn't going to be putting the connector to the test too often! Seriously though, I know how a quick hand movement might disconnect a simple 3.5mm connector, although I've pressed my old PR-72b's into hop service when needed and have never had a real problem in that way. Still, the locking mini is a good point. Thanks.
  13. Study reveals these ERX3TCD's are pretty cool in capabilities and versatility. And the price is very right. Thanks.
  14. My oversight in the wideband must be a result of not digging deep enough on their gear. To reiterate, you use the IFB TX and the ERX3TCD as single channel camera hop and with good results? A quick review of Zaxnet reveals I don't have a handle on that system yet either. More digging to do.
×
×
  • Create New...