Jump to content

Thomas Beach

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thomas Beach

  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 y
  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
  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 sa
  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, Trie
  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
  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 probl
  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.
  15. Really looked hard and long at Zaxcom, Abe. For the life of me I can never seem to make sense of what appears to be their revolving door of products. They change and discontinue so quickly it makes me nervous. Plus they haven't stepped up to wideband either yet, I see. Another limitation compared to Lectros. Also, w/o the Nomad I wouldn't be able to benefit from the ZaxNet feature, although TC is a huge shiny object in their favor. I will look at the config you've recommended. Thanks. Abe, The Zaxcom IFB route is interesting. So you use the ERX3TCD as a single channel camera hop? This
  16. Thanks, Abe. Smattering... big city, rural, countryside. I was speaking of 2x SRc's for two-cam shoots. Good deal of what I shoot is two-cam, hence two SRc's. That more than anything else is what gives me pause on price-to-need. Wow. I completely overlooked the LR. That would be a nice compromise perhaps. Thanks. Thanks, Philip, for the very objective assessment and the real-world experiences. Yes, I do nothing with a camera hop that isn't backed up by my own audio. And again, every client I deal with wants it that way. You touch upon my real dilema; I never do hi
  17. I'm in need of a pair of reliable camera hops for standard fare; documentary, ENG, corporate, commercial. I am struggling to justify the huge layout for two SRc RX's and a pair of LT/LMb TX's. I always buy the best when I've determined I need something. And I know Lectro's are the best camera hops I can get (Okay, Zaxcom is great too). So naturally I am predisposed to buying Lectro's. But... everything I do keeps me within 10-15 ft. of cameras and is always a simple request for scratch track audio (almost always a single mono sum mix) for Plural Eyes, and not primary audio as that is a
  18. Thanks Mike and Matt. Greatly appreciated. So it sounds like the issue of the ACL204 taking jam from my 664 but being re-jammed by the Alexa will be overcome by choosing manual/once in the Jam TC sub menu. But after jamming the ACL204 in manual/once, the Alexa will definitely take the jam from the 204, correct? Thanks Tom
  19. Thanks, Jason. That's clearly the issue I've been having as well. I am using a Sound Devices 5-LEMO > 5-LEMO coiled TC cable. What were you using? And what did you find finally worked for you? Also, I've only tried the B: TC/ACN LEMO output. Would using the A: TC/TUNE output be a possible workaround? Tom
  20. Thanks, SB. Will try that. The other issue I've had is that the Alexa only prefers to be the slave when the SYNC signal is active with one of the numerous selections available. When the SYNC signal is 'OFF' it then wants to act only as the master, instead jamming the ACL204 and not the other way around. While I agree that the use of the ACL204 seems logical enough, the manual is horribly written. Best, Tom
  21. I'm having a helluva difficult time trying to understand how to properly use the ACL-204 and would like to ask for some help. I have an Alexa shoot coming up this weekend and would appreciate knowing what the menu settings in each of the menus should be ( GEN, SYNC, TC, SYS, ACN). All I need to do is continuously jam Time Code to the camera and would prefer that my 664 be the Master and the Alexa be the slave. Not worried about the Genlock signal. I would be very grateful for some help here as soon as someone can lend it. Best, Tom
  22. A collective thanks. John: I started the new thread because a two year+ old thread is ancient in the world of digital cameras. I wanted to be sure Arri hadn't done something different in the interim. Few: As for sending the audio, yes, the client is demanding it as they wish to make use of Plural Eyes in post. Mike: If you re-read my post you'll notice I asked if anyone else out there had had experience in using the 100's w/the Alexa for the described purpose. I have never hopped the Alexa and as such, I have never used Lectro 100's with it either. So I don't know what you m
  23. Did some research here and found some posts on this. But if I recall, all were rather old. Hence my starting the topic up again. Need to know what solutions currently work best for sending a wireless hop to the Alexa for a scratch audio reference track. Presently, I have some older Lectro UCR100's which would seem ideal for this purpose. Can anyone tell me whether they have tried using these units with the Alexa? And what success or pitfalls they have encountered? Also, if these units will do the job, can you tell me the wiring scheme from the 3.5mm UCR100 Out to the 5-Pin XLR In?
  24. Thank you for that important note. I had completely forgotten about the resolver issue. But according to a CAS post by Glen Trew back in 2003, while the Cooper C.S.S. resolver is all that is needed to resolve IV-S-TC tapes, the 4-pin Jumper plug needs to be installed. Presume this means that the C.S.S. resolver will be useless unless I have the 4-pin jumper plug that is inserted into the Pilot tuchel port on the IV-S-TC, correct? (it appears the C.S.S. connectors are to both the Cue tuchel plug and then the LEMO TC I/O plug on the IV-S-TC) #2 07-31-2003
  • Create New...