alenK

19ms = 0.456 frames at 24 fps. Just thinking out loud.

Hi, Does anyone know of any dealers who may have a demo set of these IFB units? Thank you.

I have been interested in the ERX feature set but have concerns about short range as well as the go/no-go nature of real time digital transmissions. I have become especially curious about the Lectrosonics VHF IFB gear. I used a network supplied Block 25 Lectro IFB UHF package this past week and it sounded good. I want to buy a IFB rig for my own kit but am reluctant to add any supplementary gear that works in the shrinking portion of the TV UHF bands. The restricted TV VHF band III seems like a good place to operate. The 50mW limit seems like a small number, but I understand that long wavelengths can be propagated with much lower power. I look forward to experiencing how transmissions with 50mW at 174mHz compares to 250mW at 500MHz wavelength or 2000mW at 2.4GHz. I hope to someday find a way to demo the Lectrosonics VHF gear before buying an IFB package.

Hi, I am still interested in these VHF units and hoping someone has had a chance to compare them with other VHF products and can share some thoughts about the practical differences. Thank you.

I suppose your point may be that the Zaxnet network is not using a 802._ protocol and therefore the Bluetooth protocol and dongle is the practical choice for wireless interchange between common consumer appliances, such as phones, pads, or computers, and Zaxnet. Yes? No? Maybe?

Hello, Does anyone have any experience with Lectrosonics VHF IFB gear? If so, do you have any thoughts about how the use of the 174.100MHz to 215.750 MHz ( band III ) has been working out? Setting all the price differences aside, do you have any thoughts about how this gear compares to other VHF choices in terms of performance? I have been looking for a rental house that lists the Lectro VHF gear. I see the UHF at most rental houses but haven't found a VHF listing. Thank you.

Thank you for explaining. Adding more bluetooth devices to the list of things I may want to pair with does not seem like a great idea. I already have one too many bluetooth devices that I would like to be paired with. I had imagined that the Zaxnet wireless network would prominently feature an ability to log directly on to the network with a computer etc.

Hello, I am interested in Zaxcom's IFB products and have been reading about how the IFB200 provides a lot of extra Zaxnet features. After reading through the Zaxcom website, I am still trying to understand how the Zaxnet features are accessed with an IFB200. Are the commands simply made through the menu and scroll buttons with the small screen on the Zaxcom IFB200 box or can you sign an appliance, such as a cell phone or laptop onto the wireless network and make parameter adjustments with some sort of app? Thank you.

This statement sparked my curiosity What aspects of sound quality seem remarkable when contrasting and comparing? Thank you.

T-Mobile Spectrum from T-Mobile National Development on Vimeo.

Thank you. I have looked through the Magworld and General catalogs and have missed finding it.

bump

Hello, As a recent recipient of a FCC Part 74 license I was evidently included in the recent T-mobile mailing of their certified letter notifications about their intent to use the 600MHz space. I am on the road, but have become aware that a USPS notice of an attempt to deliver was left on my door. I will not be available to travel to the post office to sign for and retrieve the letter before it is returned to sender. I am wondering how this circumstance relates to the FCC policy that my address of record needs to be current and accurate. My address is accurate and current (I have resided at the same location for 25+ years) but I am not available to sign for unanticipated certified transmissions. I know I am overthinking this but do not want to find out my part 74 license has been revoked because it may appear to T-mobile that my address is not current. I do not appreciate the fact that they have burdened me with the obligation to sign for their letter. I imagine the letter simply repeats the message that was already sent to me via email. I would rather disregard the situation and let it pass but want to retain my part 74 license in good standing. I was happy to have gotten signed up, but I guess I have finally learned what the part 74 license is actually useful for. Will the FCC be concerned that I have not signed for this letter? Thank you.

Is WaveAgent able to play the problematic files?

Thank you for the suggestions. Here are some line loss specs (obtained from an online calculator) that prompted me to consider RG-8 for a 10 foot connection to a passive antenna system; Belden 8216 (RG-174) loss @500MHz = 2.181dB Belden 9913 (RG-8) loss @500MHz = 0.302dB Belden 9258 (RG-8X) loss @500MHz = 0.888dB Belden 9201 (RG-58) loss @500MHz = 1.054dB Placing my dipoles higher in the air may improve line of sight conditions, but I don't expect them to provide much more than 1 or 2 dB of Gain so negating that positive gain with an inconsiderate choice of cabling seems counterproductive. The RG-8 seems like the most effective way to address the concern, but the convenience of working with a more flexible cable certainly seems valuable. Thank you.

Thank you for the information.

Hello, I am trying to learn about occasionally and temporarily augmenting my bag mounted Lectrosonics SRc receivers with supplementary antennas mounted up in the air on a pole. For the foreseeable future It's unlikely that I will make the leap to using an antenna distribution system and multiple receivers. I am primarily interested in being able to quickly hook up one SRc and cover an occasional long distance walk and talk shot with two radio mics and then resume a day of near proximity scenarios. I started experimenting with some home made dipole antennas and they have provided an effective improvement in range during testing. The Lectrosonics SRc receivers introduced me to SMA connectors. Previously all my receivers used BNC connectors. I bought some 5 foot SMA to BNC RG 174 cables for my dipole experiments, and I look forward to using slightly longer cables, perhaps 10 feet in length. The "low loss" RG 174 cable is specified to have much greater loss than a familiar RG 8 cable (such as the specification used in Lectrosonics RF cable products). I am second guessing the merit of combining an antenna that only adds a few dB gain with a RG174 cable that loses 1dB (5 foot length at 500MHz?) or 2dB (10 foot length at 500MHz?) of signal strength. Which brings me to the question; How do other people connect the SMA connections on a Lectrosonics SRc receiver to an antenna? I realize that a lot of people use an interim buffer system such as the PSC Multi SMA, but I am not that sophisticated yet. I am reluctant to hook a SMA terminated RG-8 cable directly to my SRc radio because it seems like the relatively stiff cable could strain the radio's connector, so I am considering using a very short 6" length of SMA to BNC RG174 cable as a strain relief and then connecting a RG-8 to that. I am wondering what other people have done in a circumstance such as I have described. Thank you.

I work NABET and IBEW local 1200 gigs, and it is true that lately my cam op brothers have been sneaking out and working sound without insisting on being accompanied by a union sound tech. At the very least the cam ops could helpfully remind the assignment desk about the agreements by billing a few extra hours to wrangle all those extra cables they never had to mess with before.

Does anyone know what this C-stand "base" part is called and where it can be purchased? Thank you. :

I feel the same way. The Lectrosonics M2R Wireless IEM/IFB seems like a good starting point for wishful thinking.

Thanks for the reply. I am actually asking about the stand base clamps/brackets featured in the 3rd photo.

Hi Max, Where did you get the C-Stand holding brackets? Thank you.

For my 633 wires I am going to leave Pin 3 disconnected at both the XLR and TA3 outputs. For my 552 I will tie Pin 3 of the XLR outputs to Pin 1 and 4 of the TA5F. For a 664 or 688 I will leave Pin 3 disconnected on the TA3 outputs, and for the XLR outputs I will tie Pin 3 to Pin 1 and 4 of the TA5F.

Thank you for explaining.

Thank you for explaining. I just went and read the IFB T4 manual and see that even the "digital hybrid" IFB transmitters have to be run in IFB mode to work with the IFB receivers. Now it all makes sense. Thank you.