Actualsizeaudio

If anyone ever wants to hear an example of poorly executed noise reduction done in post, please watch the video above. 

I've had very good luck with my Lectro SMA transmitters and moisture as well. 

Are the new transmitters resistant to moisture? 

So, if the QRX receivers work on the SONY, the cameras must have sample conversion on the inputs, right?

Yeah, and I'd love to know what is the lesser of those two evils. The analog components on the newer line of Sony cameras has been the same since the EX3, and I think they sound lousy. Cheap A/D conversion can really suck the life out of things, and I've heard it in here first hand, especially with those cameras. If it does have a realtime SRC on the input, I'd be curious how good it is. As we all know, when they design the audio circuity of these cameras their main concern is power consumption/size/cost. I'm not sure performance is one of the considerations. 

-from Tom Visser (always a good read): "The voices would be recorded at 48KHz.  The 32KHz processing bottleneck would be equivalent to applying a low pass filter at 16KHz.  They wouldn't have a problem with that and if they did, they shouldn't." (my emphasis). 

 

Thank you Tom for putting this issue in perspective. I think the original concern voiced by Pascal is important, certainly as it seems to have been boiled down now to a reporting (spec) issue rather than any sort of real technical concern), but it served to de-rail this thread big time. I thought about starting another topic: "Device specifications and the Real World" but decided against it.

Jeff, later this week I'll make some comparison files for that thread if you make it. I recorded some operatic music today in the city (with my Nomad) and I can re-record it though some stereo wireless transmission. I think it would be a nice test case and could help add some clarity to the conversation. I have a bunch of other technical questions I would love to raise in that thread. The issues with 32k are not as simple as some people are making them out to be. I too think this thread should stay focused on questions regarding the new developments in the technology. 

Do any of the rental houses have these puppies yet? Also, how close to the talent do you have to be in order to use the zaxnet features? 

If wireless had to be the option for that gig then surely the Sennheiser EM9046 is the best option. Saying that it's designed for Stage/Theater productions and the receiver has selectable digital sample rate outputs.

But for the purpose of the QRX line which is mostly ENG/EFP in the bag or on a cart and dialogue I honestly can't see this is a real issue.

I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you. Some of us want to know what's going on inside the units for technical reasons within our workflow. You don't think we should care, or just use other gear (that we don't own). I guess we will have to just leave it at that. 

And while this issue is valid, it IS overshadowing the real issue of the awesomeness in these new products. I'm getting some. The fact that I can tell a frequency coordinator I can be anywhere within a 4 block range is a GAME CHANGER!!! It's friggin epic. 

Yes I am aware of that, its 3am and the brain is not fully functioning I got the wording wrong.

But my question still remains when has the 32khz output been a problem.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Refer to the rest of my post. I detailed where the issues are for myself. Others may have issues as well, and I would guess it would be with using gear with no real time sample rate converters, like say my ULN8. 

Please tell me where the 32khz AES DAC has effected your work?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

There is no such thing as an AES DAC. A DAC is a digital audio converter. AES is a digital signal that does not come in contact with a DAC. 

Look, this is a very valid question Paschal has and there should be an honest answer. I have a very high end studio and I have tested out my zaxcom digital camera links. They sound excellent. I certainly do hear a difference between short line level cable and stereo digital wireless transmission. That being said I think the "rivals" cable is fair marketing speech honestly. Now, here is where more info is better: If the DAC is running at 48KHZ but has a sample rate converter in front of it, then there is good reason to stay AES and avoid sample rate converting till the very end of your chain. I can hear sample rate converters in my studio. I can NOT hear them through headphones. But if there will be a sample rate convert at the end of the chain again, then I would not want one also happening at the DAC. 

All in all more info equals better decision making when dealing with technical decisions. Tomorrow I'm recording the Philadelphia Opera singers. There has been a push for me to send wireless signals to cameras not really accessible enough to get cable. I'm refusing. I'm going to force them to use the recording I'm going to make. I know the transmission would make a sonic difference and I'm not giving them the opportunity to use anything less than the best possible sound. I'm doing this because I have the opportunity to hear my gear in a critical environment. Most people don't have that opportunity, which is why they need to be properly informed. If tomorrow's gig was a dialog gig I would send wireless to the cameras without a moment's hesitation. 

So, am I correct to deduce that the DAC is 48khz, but that it is up sampling a 32khz signal? I believe this is how all of the Zaxcom stereo transmissions work, even the gold line systems. 

Just curious. Correct me if I am incorrect. 

 

 

3) Sanders doesn't want to hear what you have to say, he only wants to hear what he already thinks.  Suggesting something to him is like talking to a wall.  There is no, "I see what you're saying" from him, only, " Yeah, but...".  I am not the only sound mixer to voice this disturbing trait about him.  

I have the first production Nomad. I had been using Sound Devices products for years, and still do use them. In the early days of the Nomad firmware I suggested a bunch of ideas, some of which didn't make it, and some did. One of which was the idea of having the slate be called up by the TC button. I suggested that to him after being on a shoot where we wanted to use it, but we couldn't get to that screen fast enough for the shooters. He said: "wow, that's a great idea, I wouldn't have thought of that". Now, it's a feature I use with some regularity. Honestly, I can't think of the point of your post other than to attack someone you don't like. The only person who is going to design the perfect recorder for you is YOU. Good luck with bringing it to market. 

For hour-long shots, I can understand your concern about not having genlock. I think there are generally less of those kind of shoots, and even among them the sync may not be such an issue.

I've had enough issues with my Nomad on shoots with long rolls where I use my Metric Halo ULN8 on those types of gigs. I was doing a show where the rolls were more than an hour long. Since I couldn't lock the Nomad to WC, I would have to pull my files into Pro Tools at the end of the day, and make new files. What would happen was since I was jamming to external TC, and not external sync, the files would overlap or have a gap in the offline editing timeline, be it Avid or Pro Tools. I would have to butt the files up against each other, and export them. It sucked, so I stopped using the machine and pulled out the Metric Halo which obviously can lock properly to an external device. 

In the early days of the Nomad Glenn mentioned that the machine would be able to resolve sync from external TC much like a MOTU digital timepiece. Not sure if that development has been pushed aside. I put a post up on the Zaxcom forum asking about it. We'll see if it gets any attention. 

Out of curiosity, I vaguely recall someone saying that SD had changed the way the WAV files were written so that in a power loss scenario the most you might lose would be 4 seconds or so of audio. Did I dream this?

Back in my 788T days I had this happen, and this was in fact the case. I lost about 4 seconds only. 

Has there been an update on Zaxnet power? Does it approach the power of an IFB100?

Stay away from these. 

There is a little wind screen in there that comes loose, and rattles around. Makes the mic useless. I'm not the only one to have that problem. Too bad because I thought it sounded nice, and was reasonably priced. 

As for the pin mic, the new one is nothing like the old one IMHO. Too bad. I love my old ones, but I'm so afraid of losing the capsule, that I rarely use them!

I suppose you could sell a bunch of stuff and upgrade, but why if everything is working properly?

Hi Damen,

That is a good question. Since I got my Nomad I haven't used my 302 since it doesn't record. I just don't do anything without recording it anymore. A good friend of mine even got a call weeks after a job hoping he had recording the audio on his shoot. Her edit system crashed, and somehow the video came back and not the audio. Crazy stuff happens. I just like the idea of having a transmitter with no RF bleed that I can easily throw into record. I WOULD like to use my 302 on jobs where I'm only booming for hours on end. I still get those from time to time.  The TRX900AA, even with the front buttons putting it into record, is too cumbersome for me. The auto load works well, but I'm on a lot of shoots with toy cameras. I also like the idea of a 2 way zaxnet system with my nomad bag. The AES seems very cool as well. 

BUT

I might not do it in the end. I used my TRX900AA system today. It worked really well. made me think twice.

There are other needs for me coming up, like Pro Tools 11 for both my my PT systems. Now THAT I'm really, really excited about. 

Still, I'd love to hear from users of these transmitters as mic transmitters as to wether or not one is heads and shoulders over the other. I'd also like to know how well they work with Sankens, since that is what I mostly use. 

Wow thanks Andy, Zaxcom loves super secret menus. I wonder if Glenn has a secret room in his house. 

Does it have an adjustable threshold, or is it on off only? I wouldn't mind it if it wasn't set so low. 

Hope you have been well. I've been sending work your way. Hope some of it has materialized. 

Are you buying the same block? Might make sense to keep a backup set... Or the ability to feed multiple cameras. I currently have anTRX900AA/STA150 sending to a RX900S and QRX100Q. I have a COS11D wired for my TRX and it works great, usually when i need the recording. I've used the older hops but only to feed a camera and not as body pack mics, so I can't speak to the difference in sound for that use.

Personally I plan on getting the new camera hop on the same block and maybe making my current TRX/STA the backup.

I am buying the same block for sure. It really is handy having 2 of these things on the same block for that very reason. 

Hey Mike,  Do you know you can turn the limiter off on the stereo line.  

 

Andy

No, please tell me how. It's not in the manual. I knew I should have asked about that earlier. 

Hello friends,

Like a handful of you, I'm very much looking forward to getting the new zaxcom hop when it comes out. I've been in the middle of reconfiguring my bag to reflect the work I'm doing as of late. I'll spare the boring details, but I'm trying to decide which of my 2 hops to keep. I'd like the one I keep to be my #6 wireless, and my B-hop for when I need to send to a second camera. I plan on getting a QRX with IFB option. I currently have a Nomad, so I'm not really using the IFB option in my TRX900 anymore. 

System A: Stereo line system I got in 2005. It has served me well. It's drawbacks are the limiter that kicks in too quick, less intuitive screen, almost no metering, and it's finicky with what it likes level wise. Pros are that it's compact, power efficient, less expensive to keep, and there is no screwdriver required to go from cam link to mic. 

System B: TRX900AA with STA100, RX900, IFB100. I got this system when these first came out. My TRX has been updated to the new board, and it has the recording option and the IFB option. It's drawbacks are that to use it as a mic requires more work than the Stereo Line, and it's also much more expensive to keep. Its pros are that it records, I could use it as a mic/IFB if I had the little adapter, has a better screen, defeat able limiter, excellent metering. 

What I don't have is any experience using these as microphones. I'd love to hear from anyone who does, and can help me make this call. Does one sound better, have better range? (my stereoline is a version 149 with the fixed 65MW). I'm leaning strongly towards keeping A and selling B right now, getting QRX, and just waiting patiently for the hop to arrive while using A as my main hop for a while. 

Thoughts?

Actually Pro Tools was 48bit fixed for PTHD, and 32bit floating for regular native PT. Now in PT10 it's all 64bit floating.  Metric Halo ULN8s are 80bit fixed. You can very easily clip the mix bus of the older native Pro Tools. Maybe not with one track, but once you start piling on tracks it clips quick in my opinion. The Metric Halo boxes are another story, they have crazy headroom at the mix bus, and mixes do sound better summed inside one than they do when summed though a 32bit floating point mix bus. 

For a 12 track recorder I would think a 32bit bus would be plenty, and highly advantageous. Thanks for the diagram, it makes the concept much clearer. 

The limiters, and the compressors on the unit are fantastic IMHO. Very powerful for field work, and so much more transparent than any analog field mixer I have ever used. 

Thanks Senator, for being a jerk.
The Nomad's 32 bit mix engine is noted on the website.  It is also how ProTools and many other DAWs run their internal processing, making it almost impossible to clip the internal mix busses.
 

Somewhere on one of the many Zaxcom threads, someone asked about the pin wiring for the TA5M on this new Camera Link. Will it remain the same as the STA100/150 TA5M? Please tell me we don't have to buy more cables for this new unit. Can our existing cables work properly with the new link.

The question was raised by that person because the current pin wiring for STA1XX has phase issues. I've had to rewire all my input cables for my STA100. If I buy a new Camera Link TX, I would hope my existing cables would work without phase cancellation at the camera when the camera's monitoring switch is in the "mix" position. Whats worse is when the loggers try to listen back in mono and hear nothing but the levels are moving as though there was audio there.

IIRC, the STA1XX manual specs for pin wiring are wrong.

I wish I could find that particular post, but I cant find which thread it was in.

Anyway, it was a valid question which remains un-answered.

Cheers

Peter Mega

That was me who asked that question a few weeks back. 

Thanks Jack for the answer, and that was very thoughtful of them to provide a menu driven phase switch for us with older cables. I still might just go re-solder my cables. The wrongness of the other pin configuration freaks me out. 

With Nomad the Camera link will allow bi directional Zaxnet operation and 2 channel camera link. Without it the Nomad can either receive or transmitt but not both at the same time.

 

Glenn

My nomad has a transmit and receive option in the zaxnet menu now. Does that not work? 

Great job on the new product Glenn, this thing really does look like it was designed with lots of user input. I'm really looking forward to upgrading to one (but not to seeing what my TRX900AA setup goes for). 

A question: Will the features on this unit all be standard, or will one be able to piece meal the unit? Say configure a unit that's RF only, or one with RF, zaxnet, and no record option. etc. 

-Mike

You totally can use two separate transmitters as hops.

Though there are several advantages about using a dedicated unit such as the new camera link or an TRX900AA with an STA adapter.

First is you can use the QRX in single mode which allows you the QRX to operate in true diversity which means the receivers work together resulting in about 4 dB increase sensitivity over dual mode and the receiver is better able to correct for reception errors. While the QRX in dual mode uses antenna switching diversity.

Also by using the camera link or TRX/STA you can feed the transmitter two balanced line level signals as opposed to feeding the two separate transmitters two unbalanced mic level signals.

The camera link or TRX/STA also allows you to power the unit from an external DC source vs using AA batteries or some sort of home brewed battery eliminator.

Plus by using two individual transmitters you loose the ability to receive return audio from the camera and you can't output the return TC from the camera - if you are in a situation where the camera is running record run TC.

Also if you are recording backup files on the internal SD card you will now have two cards each with one track vs one card with both tracks.

The advantage you didn't mention is sending in true stereo, and also minimizing phasing of 2 sources. I do a fair amount of stereo boom, and if you have 2 transmitters going, instead of just one, you loose the ability to send a stereo signal. A deal breaker for me.

I technical question though: Those of us that end up getting one of these that already have an STA100 or 150, will we need to re-solder our TA5 cables? Many may not know (I didn't when I made my own), that the STA adapters are wired....errr....strangely. You would think it was a pin 2 and 4 hot deal, but it is actually a pin 2,3 hot scenario (yep, printed some 100% out of phase audio to camera, and got to check it out in Pro Tools later when I was asked why the audio "looked" like it was there but sounded gone").  

I for one welcome this piece even though I have an early STA100/TRX900 combo if it really means the RF leakage issue has been resolved. I like the form factor as well. Will fit into a bag very, very nicely.