alenK

Clocks that have not been synced with gen lock may seem to be rounded up or down by comparison to another and appear as +/- 1 frame at different instances, but here the comparison wobbles beyond a rounding boundary when the 3 frame difference is displayed as 21:16 and 21:19.

Hello, For example; A 5 track Polywave which was named in the Sound Devices 633 recorder as Scene-001-01.wav would be split to 5 files named as such: Scene-001-01_Lmix.wav Scene-001-01_Rmix.wav Scene-001-01_Jacks-Lav.wav Scene-001-01_Jills-Lav.wav Scene-001-01_BOOM.wav As I think I now understand it, the only current option split a 5 track Polywave which was named in the Sound Devices 633 recorder as Scene-001-01.wav to 5 independent files produces naming such as this: Scene-001-01_01.wav Scene-001-01_02.wav Scene-001-01_03.wav Scene-001-01_04.wav Scene-001-01_05.wav Thank you.

Hello, Than you for your response. I was hoping there was an automated way to include the track name in the names of the new files that result from the split process. I will assume by that I am not missing any opportunity to select an option to include the TRACK INFO name in the name of the split files. Thank you for your help.

Hello, I just used Sound Device's Wave Agent to split some Poly wav files from my SD 633. I was surprised there was not an option to include the TRACK INFO "Name" in the processed split files. In other words, my channel that was labeled "boom" was processed and split with the designation "_03", where as I will prefer to retain the "Boom" designation. I used a generic file renaming utility to do what I wanted but had previously thought the ability was a basic capability with Wave Agent. is it possible with Wave Lab? Am I missing something? Thank you.

I own an Orca OR-32 and while I admire the design and quality of fabrication, I have never actually used it. The interior space is simply to constraining for my real life needs. I have been disappointed with the fact that all the latest bags are designed for tight fits that require low profile connectors and are generally optimized for scenarios where no cables emanate from the bag. For example; on board recording with wireless inputs and wireless hops. In my work I need to be able to wire up a mult-to-camera cable and have the connectors protected by the walls of the bag. I can't have them sticking out unprotected. I also need to be able to mix and match connectors on my inputs and have the same sort of protection. Having said that, in the past thirty years of working in the field, the only bag that has met my needs is the Porta Brace A0-4. It has never been optimal but has always been serviceable. Indeed, If I were to have a dream bag custom made it would be slightly longer than the AO-4 and have facility to bolt the recorder/mixer and wireless brackets in to the bag. My gear sits a little loose in the Porta Brace A0-4 but I have worked in the midst of crowded news scrums, public celebrations, public demonstrations, out and out riots, and natural disasters with it, and my gear has more or less been protected. Plus, the generic versatility of the Porta Brace A0-4 bag lets me deal with the "rigors" of sit down interviews without having to tear my package apart just to re-patch some connection. I have been trying to love the new style, form follows function bag designs, but they simply don't function for me. I have yet to find a bag that seems like an optimal fit for the 552/664/688 form factor. I try to not to complain on the interweb, but I sure wish some of the bag designers would provide a solution that better meets my needs. Thank you.

Thank you for explaining. This information increases my appreciation of the SR receivers. Thank you.

Thank you for the suggestion. The block diagram shows a pair of splitters. One splitter per antenna. The descriptions speak of the diversity systems, and explain that two receivers can run independently while sharing the antennas in the SmartDiversity mode. My question, which has been inspired by this thread, is directed at the technology of the splitter(s). In other words, is it a passive splitter with signal loss, or is it active splitter with a "noise" increase? How did Lectrosonics achieve a level of performance comparable, or nearly comparable too, the 411 design with either a signal loss or noise increase? I had not appreciated the challenge that has been met until this thread caused me to think "wait a minute, the SR series must have on board splitters and all the gotchas associated with the use there of.". How did they do that? Thank you.

Hello Larry, Can you explain, or direct me to published info, about how the SR series of receivers share the antennas between the two circuits? How does the SR design split the incoming signal and maintain performance comparable to the 411 series? Thank you.

FWIW, When I recommended the H-pad in another thread on this subject, I assumed the context was a balanced line out to a balanced mic in. I did not recognize that the use of the term "reflex" as referring to a digital single lens reflex camera and I hadn't guessed that the recorder had unbalanced outputs. A pair of L-pads does seem like the better choice in the intended scenario.

Try the H Pad: http://www.nu9n.com/tpad-calculator.html

Thanks very much. Thank you.

Hi, I am setting up my IFBT4 for an unbalanced connection. I just read over the section of the manual that describes the Mode Switches for the input configuration. I think that I may be able to memorize the choices more effectively if I learn what the RTS acronym refers too. Thank you.

Is there any explanation that a lay person may understand that describes why the walkies effect the B-1 band more so than the A-1 band receivers? Thank you.

Hello Gordon, Thank you for explaining the details and for suggesting a method to make the best of the situation. Thank you.

Hello, I read some threads about the SR series TXBAT function and most of the discussions seemed to focus on the confusion related to the wide variety of rechargeable batteries that are used. I am trying to figure out if I can use the indicators with disposable premium Akaline batteries (Energizer and Duracell) and or Lithium batteries such as the Energizer. With Premium Alkalines AA batteries, and the AA meter choice, a brand new battery seems to be reported as done after a very short while but it lasts much longer. I have noticed that when using the 9V TXBAT setting the indicators seem to correlate with premium Alkaline AA discharge rates. I can't imagine why a 9V reference seems more accurate when using the AA Akaline batteries. I generally change batteries using my instinct timer and am probably a bit conservative and wasteful, so I would like to learn if I can learn to rely on the indicators. Can anyone share any thoughts? Thank you.

Thank you for taking the time to answer and for posting such a thoughtful reply. Thank you.

Hello Larry, Do you have any thoughts about how the recent incorporation of aluminum framed structures in sound kit bags, and the resulting near proximity of the sheet of metal to both receivers and sources of emissions, may effect radio transmission and reception? Thank you.

Thank you for the further explanation.

Hello, I have one last pair of questions to ask: Is it being proposed that the 490+MHz "spur" does not exist in the "air", but rather only as an inter-modulation artifact within the radio scanner/receiver? Additionally, is it to be understood that these spurs will only occur within receivers that do not have front end filters designed to protect a receiver from an introduction that may cause inter modulation symptoms? Thank you.

Hello, Thank you for the responses. I apologize for the delayed acknowledgement. I was working on the road and did not have my login info handy. First I would like to say that I regret having created the impression that I was critical of the RF Explorer devices. Although I see how my original post would appear to focus on the performance of the devices I was and am more interested in having learned that my household appliance may be creating spurious RF. Let me explain; I was charging the batteries of the two RF Explorer units which were sitting on the kitchen counter, and I happened to warm up some lunch in my microwave. It was then that I observed the 493MHz spurs. I had not gone looking for them, nor was I actually testing or comparing the RF Explorers, but I did happen to look down and notice some new and unexpected activity on the meter display. To confirm my thoughts I started and stopped the microwave oven several times and saw the 493MHz spurs disappeared with the microwave off. I had never considered the idea before, but I have worked in live kitchens for Cooking Channel segments and in many cafes doing interviews etc. It made me think of the occasions when unexplained gremlins get in the signal. That is what I wanted to convey, but I made it more complicated. LarryF said "Tune a transmitter to 493 MHz and see if the "blind" unit suddenly sees it. If it sees the transmitter, then the Maytag is probably innocent, at least at 493." I followed your suggestion and tuned a transmitter to 493MHz and both RF Explorers see the transmitter clearly. I followed the suggestions posted by rfexplorer and tried running the microwave again. The spurs still show up on the Standard model and seem to be unnoticed by the Plus model. When I stop the microwave the spurs cease to occur. I don't disagree that it may be a false reading. I suspect that I do not have the tools to establish a proper protocol for further testing. rfexplorer said "The new RF Explorer WSUB1G PLUS is ... being compared with RF Explorer WSUB1G standard model...You can still run the WSUB1G PLUS model in the same way as standard model, if you prefer, being faster: select DSP:Fast mode in the CONFIG MENU." Yes, you are correct about the two models I now own. Thank you for the suggestion, I have set the PLUS model to fast to make a comparison. The only other potential difference I see is the "Iterations" setting which has a max of 28 in the Standard model and 16 in the Plus model. I have reduced the iterations in the standard model to 16 to match the Plus. I do not mind if the two devices have slightly difference performance as long as they are helpful in the field. It occurred to me to imagine that the requirements for scanning low frequency energy down to 50kHz, as the PLUS model is designed to do, may preclude some characteristic behavior which I have become accustomed to with the relatively narrow band UHF Standard model. In any event, I have found my original RF Explorer to be a very helpful aid when I work, and having recently purchased some Lectrosonics VHF IFB devices, I am eager to use the VHF capable PLUS model as well. DanieldH said "...the setup in detail. Version of the unit/module and firmware, antennas/filters used, settings, etc." That is a lot of typing. :-) I will try to take some screen shots for you to compare. Thank you.

Hello, I purchased a new RF Explorer that includes VHF as well as UHF ranges. Today I was comparing its performance to my original UHF version. I learned two things 1) The new wider range VHF/UHF unit seems more sluggish than the narrower UHF band unit despite matching all the settings that may be matched. 2) My Maytag microwave oven splats bursts of 493MHz RFI. The original RF Explorer shows a large narrow spike repeatedly pop up to -30dBm and disapper. Unfortunately the new VHF/UHF scanner does not display this activity. I thought some may find it interesting that a common household appliance is capable of bursting into the Lectrosonics A1 Band of frequencies, and it may also interest some that this RFI activity may or may not show up on a scanner.

Maybe, but I can only relate my own experience. I do not think I can make a truly logical conclusion based on the limits of the premise, yet it seems like a comfortable intuitive assumption. I am very interested to learn about the improvements made to the PCB layouts etc. I have two SRc A1 and two SRc B1 receivers and I thought I had waited long enough before buying them. When the improvements go online, I will be eager to learn if my radios can be upgraded to be the very best they can be.

From the Facebook site: https://www.facebook.com/groups/69511015699/permalink/10155840314545700/ ‎Gordon Moore‎ to Lectrosonics February 8 at 1:14pm · "Doug Pearson for the win! Doug recently posted pictures showing a discrepancy in the scans between a block 19 SRB and an SRC -A1. After several days of trying to duplicate the problem we finally found it (and are kicking ourselves for not catching this sooner). This answers the problems you ALL have been having with getting interference on "good frequencies" as shown on the scan of the SRC-A1. There is a bug in the firmware that runs the scan. It was improperly indexing the channel selection in the scan and the hexadecimal value for the frequency was off by 9.2MHz! That's why Dougs pictures showed clear at EE on his SRB and messy EE on his SRC. The SRC receiver was working fine, the scan firmware was not. This also skews the values in the SmartScan by 9.2MHz. (not so smart, huh!) So, while we will continue with beta testing the SRC new rev boards for their improvements - there ARE improvements there - we have FINALLY found the smoking gun for the majority of weirdnesses the SRC-A1 has shown. This will require a firmware update for ALL SRC-A1's . We are investigating the B1 and C1 as well to make sure there isn't a similar offset problem. It will take some time (not too long we hope) to program the bug out and get it tested to make sure we don't break something else with the firmware. Stay tuned - we will post the new firmware on the website as soon as it is fixed, tested and released. In the meantime, next time you see Doug, buy him a drink. His post helped us zero in on this bug (which has been plaguing the A-1 from the beginning). Thank you Doug, and all of you for the constant feedback/nagging/patience." I never use the SRc scan function because I use a frequency analyzer for scanning, but it is interesting to learn about this discovery and planned fix.

Hi Erob, I am still getting used to my Tentacle E devices and your post sparked my curiosity. I have been confused by the app a few times, and find it disconcerting as I consider the app to seem potentially reassuring, but when it doesn't work as expected I find it distressing. FWIW, I have downloaded the latest version of the app. Here's my latest experience: 1) Started with a long hold on a Tentacle E. It blinked green. I saw it on my app. It was set at 29.97. I powered it off. 2) Turned on a Sound Devices 633 set time code to 23.98 frame rate. 3) Turned on the Tentacle Sync E with a short hold. It blinked red. The iPhone app saw the Tentacle and reported that it was set at 29.97. I plugged the Tentacle into the Sound Devices 633's TC output and the Tentacle switched to blinking green. The iPhone app showed that the Tentacle was now in 23.98 FPS, but while watching carefully I could see that the iPhone app timecode display did not match the mixer's display. The iPhone app was advanced by approximately one frame while the mixer seemed to lag behind. Additionally, the iPhone app displayed the triangular warning icon and offered a dialog box that claimed the Tentacle was not generating time code (despite the fact that it was blinking green) and the dialog suggested that a cable needed to be connected. (FWIW the Tentacle Sync Sound Devices Lemo connector cables are wired so that you need two different cables; one for in and one for out so it seems routine to have to pull one out and replace it with another) I pulled the 1/8" mini plug out of the Tentacle E and re-inserted it and the warning went away and more importantly the iPhone apps timecode display seemed to sync with the mixer's display. The approximate one frame time lag was gone. I had not actually switched to the proper timecode cable for sending time code out of Tentacle E with a Lemo connector. All I did was remove and insert the 1/8" connector at the Tentacle E device. I do not know how, or if, this differs from what is intended but it does seem like a fuddle through operation, when a green blinking green light is presumed to mean that everything is good but the iPhone app says it is not.

At the end of step 2 does the Tentacle actually switch from the red to the green light?