Masaki Hatsui

Invert notch filter option is what I want to recommend to Zaxcom. I'm thinking of making a cable from Nomad's output to my Smartphone to better using frequency analyzer apps.

Thanks John for this information. This little gear may change some situation of headache, where an assistant or director says there's drop in the audio. Hope they will coming up soon.

Hi, Bring up this thread to the winter season. Is there any update about the Sound Guys Solutions' amplifier? I'm pretty much interested in this one but there's still no annouce about this on their website. Masaki

No problem Mr Soundwil ! Seems like an item for the next purchase (even though I have a CUT1...). Any cons to mention? RFI weakness?? Masaki

I'm not sure if you're talking about the same accessories as this one cannot connect to CCM. Are-you talking about LC60 ?

Hi everyone, I was looking at the Schoeps website and figured out there's this new (?) inline filter on the list. Seems like a CUT1 alternative, smaller fixed frequency inline hipass filter: http://www.schoeps.de/en/products/cut60/overview Has anyone already tried this? Masaki

This one is a DPA 4017C competitor. 4017C is 154 mm long while MiniCMIT is 151 on their website. Below is my modded Rycote suspension for DPA4017C, for the moment for interior use only, which works quite well. Windscreen version (shorter than WS1) is coming... Hopefully Cinela will coming with a sophisticated solution for these shorten microphone bodies. I was not convinced their answer with Pianissimo to DPA 4017C, because of its final volume, and non compatibility of use without basket. And now that Schoeps makes a miniatured body, how about to make a MiniCMC with interchangeable capsules Masaki

If it is only the Tascam needs to feed a regulated 12V, I'd rather put a regulator next to DR680. I really don't know that recorder but according to the picture I found on the net, maybe you can even put a small regulator inside the box... https://www.gearslutz.com/board/9310017-post25.html

Hi Patrick, Not sure, cause in this case the clip starts at 16:27:07:20 and ends at 16:29:24:04. TC drop occurs in between 16:28:41:07 to :11, timecode jumps 7 hours and 12 minutes but strangely stays at the same second - where I thought it might be a miss read /miss trascode of LTC audio signal.

Even if I'm happy working with ERX's TC, trombles's test is still interesting to understand the camera's behavior. From my experience, if FS7 looses its ext TC from behind, it will automaticaly switch through its internal clock, which is rather accurate than previous models (seems at least for one hour it hold the tc quite acculate but I didn't have done a precise test). Here, his test doesn't show the case. I wonder if Lectro D4 outputing some digital noise when it looses the signal, that the camera accidentaly interpret to false timecode, or it's simply camera doesn't working as supposed to be. What happens if we simply use a trusted tc generater hardwired to the camera and just unplug the cable? Another question is... If TC on quicktime (or whatever nonlinear digital files) is simply a time stamp on file's header, why are we seeing the TC drop in this case? Masaki

Yeah I know, But this Ktek one seems like more robust, protection on switches, with 1/4 thread. Actually more expensive but is easier to mount on the camera. So Jack, Have you used this case?

Read carefully my comment. I don't think of a third party adapted controller for SX-R4+. But given the scale of each company, which are aroud 10 employee I guess, if for example Sonosax and Aaton exchange each other their knowledge to make use of their each controller - one rotate knob and one fader type Cantarem - there maybe no need to develop again a fader controller but use their effort to other thing. That accelerate the develop speed to bring more option for us every user, if not you have to wait another one or two year to come every product anounced. But given the reaction of this thread, I'm somewhat dreaming.

I am sorry if my phrases was somewhat provocative. I understand the pain how Jacques feeling after that story happend. Well, I just wanted to give some user's point of view even if few would not agree with me, to let talk to each other in this small industry. For example BWF metadata (bext chunk or iXML) was standardized after several meeting and agreement to implement every informations we need to. Why not make a standardized control protocol? This will not exclude the concurrence.

There's certainly more knowledgeable person than me, but: on DAW basis, MIDI control protocol has a certain latency causing some issues controlling from a controller. I wonder if this is the reason why every manufacturer tends to develop their own control protocol. Avid use EuCon which is supposed to be a proprietary protocol developped by Euphonix which is more accurate, faster than MIDI protocol, is now supported by several DAW software. Of course each recorder has its own size / ergonomy so there's always better fitted hardware for each one. But couldn't be a big help for our software developer of having a basic control protocol to share, not to develop from zero? And for us user not to throw away every controller each time we change a recorder? Yeah, like Sonosax who stopped talking to their competitor. Did they actually tried to collaborate? Frankly speaking, we, as an user would better make a suggestion to our developer. These kind of comments are nothing but pouring oil on fire. If you are a close friend of Jacques Sax, you'd better encourage him to meet Zaxcom's Glenn Sanders, talk to each other. That story of conflict between these two companies was less beneficial not only to each companies but to each users. Masaki (who knows Patrick very well)

Concerning the control surface - What about those manufacturers to find an agreement of put together a universal control surface protocol? From users' point of view, it is more benefic to be able to use one brand's mixer controler on the other recorder, like Cantarem on SX-R4+ or RC8+ on Cantar, or Zaxcom's mixer panel with SX-R4+ (if they agree...). I personally think it is a huge resource consumption that each maker makes their own controller to each recorder that sells maybe 1/100 or even less of Avid Artists series controller.

To bring up this rather old thread... I just found that Ktek made a pretty good shaping holder for ERX. Not cheap but seems very well thought out. http://www.pinknoise-systems.co.uk/kserx-stingray-erx-holder.html There's yet no information on their own site. Is there anyone already used this? Masaki

I'm using 4060 on my Zaxcom TRX but never encountered a problem with its so called higher self noise. I have read all the document, recommendation about why we have to use the low voltage version, but 4060 "Hi-sens" is 10dB higher sensibility and 3dB lower self noise than 4063. So if a 3.3V causes à slightly higher self noise, it will be compensated by lower gain setting on TRX. Personnaly I found it better signal to noise solution as you add less self noise of your transmitter. Masaki

rado, Sonosax, not Sonasax... I found their menu structure somewhat better than those of Nomad.

It is as if same to say "I'm living in Europe, I don't really care about Zaxcom - Sonosax patent war in the other side of planet".

Though patent discussion was moved to the another thread, I want to add some input as everyone continue to talk about. NOTE: to continue this discussion about patents in general, please go to this LINK An irony of fate that Neumann Solution D technology is also patented according to their datasheet. But it seems different than what achieved Zaxcom with their Never clip technology if I read correctly. Really intrigued to understand how it hadles the signal with this "variable internal word length" behind that microphone... And just wondering if it is because of their patent that Schoeps, Sennheiser or other manufacture doesn't introduced a digital microphone with dual AD converter. Someone knows of the history behind ?

Though I didn't see the controller myself, I think it can be prevented adding an option to react STOP recording by holding button 2 sec. or so. (somewhat how the transport controls works on Nomad itself).

And who was listening to The Cure ? :-)

I only can answer to the first question. You'd better wait to see how they will come with those option (you have to understand that Sonosax is a small manufacturer; all you have to do is wait). They've briefly showed us that there's a dedicate menu entry to set how you want to mix every tracks. Option to how much dB you want to attenuate when the signal goes to center channel, and I think there was also pan option, not just to send left or right (if memory is correct).

To answer to Glenn's question, each input has two AD converters coupled to work together, like Neumann's digital microphone or like Zaxcom's NeverClip. From what they told me, once the signal passed through the differential amplifier, it goes directly to these two AD. After that is (now) well known process. First AD works as ordinaly and once there's hot signal coming, it pass to the other one. Masaki

​Yeah, and make box bigger than this. It is too small