Gordonmoore1

Let me be the first to offer congratulations to the team at Sound Devices for their win at the CAS Awards for the Product of the Year. Great job by a great team. And congratulations to every sound mixer honored by a nomination or an award - yours is a tough job and the end results are always to impressive. Keep up the good work! Gordon Gordon Moore President Lectrosonics

We have 50 plates in the works right now - as soon as they clear production, we will start the loaner pool and organize the loan program. I'v even hired a person for customer service to handle this (plus the boards swap and block changes). We will post everywhere we can think of when all the ducks are properly aligned and start sending them out. You will get the endplate, a return shipping label, a piece of shipping tape and a reusable box. After you have reprogrammed your units, you will simply rebox the unit, use the tape to seal up the box, realize that you just sealed in the shipping label, open the box again, take out the shipping label, spend two hours looking for another price of tape to seal the box back, slap on the label, notice that you have now left the endplate sitting on the counter because the label was under it in the box, re-open the box, return the endplate to the interior, tape it up for the third time and ship it back to us. Or, if you don't want to do it the way I probably would, take the shipping label out first, pack the endplate, tape up the box, then slap the label on and ship it. Whichever is easier............ They are good folks - we like working with them

The issue with the Sound Devices 688 is related to their recent firmware release. They contacted us and our engineering department has spent considerable time checking and it has been narrowed down to a firmware glitch in the 688. We are sending SD a current unit so they can chase down their bug. Our bug has nothing to do with their bug. They aren't even the same species, so we don't have to worry about cross breeding and getting a new bug. In short, their firmware issue is unrelated to our firmware issue. (what I would like to know is what exactly is "firm" about firmware......) Remember, the scan bug is ONLY on the A1 band units.

See you all there!

Here's the current status - we have some new RF board designs in beta test in the field right now - if these tests go as well as expected, we will begin building production quantities of boards and take care of anyone having issues (regardless of purchase date) with a complete board swap - This has been elusive - as Dafydd Cooksey pointed out - lots of guys have had no problems with their units - it's been a small percentage with problems- but persistent enough (like Dayfdds unit) that we have been making changes in the design. Especially perplexing because we can't duplicate the problems here in New Mexico. We are very close now and hoping these new boards resolve your issues. Don't sweat the serial numbers or purchase dates. Once we confirm this board revision, we will take care of you. It will still be a bit - we have to begin building the boards from scratch and put them through QC first - and we are still waiting on the beta field reports - the first ones in are very encouraging but not enough data yet to pull the trigger on full blown production.

Without diving into the gritty details - the transmitted signal is an error in a predictor algorithm that has been put back int he analog realm, then converted back into digital again upon pickup by the receiver. This error data is then added to the predictor digital signal in the receiver and then converted into analog audio - the AES endplate is converting the resultant analog signal back into the digital realm. It's complicated but the end result is AES3. Gordon

The beauty of it is, if we find a way to change the rate, or any other improvements in firmware for that matter, you will be able to download the file from our website to a micro SD and update all your units without sending anything back to the dealer or factory. Additionally, there will be no USB driver issues or cables or even having the computer present once the card is loaded. That's why we went this way - the micro USB Port took up just about the same amount of board space and then we would have all those weird USB issues and the need for an update program. The SD card simply made better sense. Once we had the card.......

Correct - the Digital Hybrid is sampled at 44.1 - internal conversion was costly from a current (amperage) and a code space point of view. When I import a 44.1K file into a 48K project into Adobe Premiere, the conversion is quick and simple - I hope it's not a pain in other editing suite platforms - shouldn't be. Nope - it would be nice but US Patent laws apply to US manufacturers inside or outside the US. If we were fully located in Tahiti, we would be able to do so - but probably wouldn't because it would cut too much into beach time........ Gordon

Gordon answers - Patents.....

Ed was a really mellow guy - his input in our early days made all the difference. His patience with us beginners when we first came on the scene was just terrific - I will miss him.

The SR series receivers with either the SREXT or the SRAES end plates will allow easy externally powering options - the SRAES plate allows you to send AES digital straight to your mixer if it has AES/EBU inputs.

Don't confuse CE with RF approvals. CE is the consumer protection regulations - Separate RF regulations cover EU approvals for radio gear. CE has no bearing on the radio testing and regulations. All gear sold in the EU (legally) must bear the appropriate approvals for meeting the EU regulations for transmitters (50kHz deviation, 50 mW power output, SAR testing etc) - said approvals must be done through a certified laboratory and the various nations notified through a "Notifying Body" - typically a division of the test labs. So, a US unit certified under FCC regulations cannot be sold in the EU. Yes, it can be modified to meet the EU regulations but still won't have the proper approvals marks (CE is NOT enough - and the radios must have both CE and RF approvals) . The reverse holds true as well - an EU certified unit is not US legal unless that device is the same in both markets. The NEW regulations that take effect in October of 2018 for US products will be compliant with the EU regulations (except for allowed power levels, which are higher for Part 74 - that's you guys). For any lower powered units (<50mW), we will be able to have them tested and certified for both markets - and carry dual approvals. Units that are capable of higher power cannot get EU RF approvals if they are wireless microphones operating in the normal UHF bands. Messy - and very expensive - business. Testing costs are ridiculous anymore.

Blocks 24, 25, 26 will eventually go away, forced off the air by both regulatory mandate (FCC rules) and by physics (the cell transmissions will blow you off the air). That will take time - how long depends on the speed of the execution of the auction reallocation of TV stations and the speed of infrastructure construction by the cell companies who won spectrum in the auction. The ultimate regulatory deadline is July 13, 2020. As far as affecting production for wireless manufacturers - it means we are discouraging US buyers from buying anything in the 600MHz bands now - Blocks 24, 25 and 26 (Band C) - unless you have a valid economic reason to buy now and change later (long term contract that gives you a good return on buying now and using for the next three years as an example). These blocks are still sold elsewhere so we are still building them but we must cease selling them in the US by October 13, 2018. As far as the rest of the 600MHz spectrum NOT owned by T-Mobile (who has the most ambitious implementation plan) - there are numerous other buyers and their rate of adaptation and implementation will vary. Some may not even be up and running by 2020 - it's very hard to predict the future - as others have pointed out, the 700MHz band is not yet fully implemented and it has been 8 years. So, if I owned a Lectro block 26, what would I do? I would first check to see if it can be block changed to a lower block - that is certainly a more cost effective method than any rebates or trade-ins. Several recent models still have that option available. Check with the factory. If so, then wait until you have a good time for a changeup - (you have until 2020) and then get it changed. If it is a really old legacy product where certain parts are no longer available so block or freq changes cannot be done, then I would consider selling it ASAP before the rush or working it to death until it can't be used any longer (legally or physically, whichever comes first), then selling it overseas via eBay and upgrading to the latest generation. If it is THAT old, you got good life out it and an upgrade to the newer gear will give you new capabilities. The good news is that you don't have to act immediately - but act eventually you must. There's no rush, no panic - you will simply notice it getting tougher to us as new stuff starts firing up. Gordon

And the 620-670 is going away. and that FCC-ID number is .......... ?? It should be on a label on either transmitter or receiver. Generally a 6 character alphanumeric - the Label will also have the frequency range

What's the FCC-ID on those wireless? - I sure can't find it on the FCC website. Their website does, in fact, tout their factory in China - and their operational frequency (610-680) does NOT comply with the new regulations based on their published information (608-614 is off limits to wireless mics) About Us GTD Audio Inc, is a professional audio equipment manufacturer. We have been designing, manufacturing, and marketing audio equipment since 1990. we are headquarter in the U.S.A and have our own manufacturing plant in China. we assure and provide high quality products to our clients at the most competitive prices.

Just remember, T-Mobile didn't buy the whole spectrum - just a few 5Mhz blocks - they can't wipe it out singlehanded......

Too true, I've been interviewed at trade shows showing our gear while using someone else wireless for the interview - we all just get a good laugh out of it.

Good afternoon, all, The SRC problems reported early on centered on vulnerability to high power sources in the 450 band - typically walkie talkies. There was a fairly high incidence of reports involving A1, fewer for B1 and even fewer for the C1 band. Keep in mind that since each involves a different group of frequencies, each is a discrete design with variances in components. In September, the A1's were resolved with a systemic RF board design change. The fewer B1 units we received got a change up of a number of components to correct them - it wasn't pandemic in the B1 band - most seemed great but a few had hiccups. The C1's were even fewer in number and in some cases the fixes that helped in the lower bands weren't as effective. B1 and C1 have the same basic board revs. It's hard to determine the serial numbers involved (like a changeover point) because we went back and upgraded a number of units in stock that were not sequential. So, we have been handling it on an as needed basis for units exhibiting issues. As always, our engineers can never leave a design alone for long and we have been working on continued improvements for the SRC due to some export frequency bands from which we learned new tricks and incorporated that in to new board spins. So, officially, we feel the A1 and B1 bands are now solid. C1 is also very good but randomly we encounter one or two that hiccups - we are getting very good at catching that in QC. (Half the battle was duplicating the circumstances) If you are having issues, contact our service department - it a warranty thing. Units going out the door - as testified by many happy users now - are working well. Just remember, not all interference problems are traceable to the design corrections we have found. Often it is environmental coming from a source that we don't know about. The coordination looks good but there is another unknown RF source in the neighborhood that just messes with everything. My point is that not every symptom is the result of early design glitches - but regardless, you know we will take care of you. Larry will hunt me down otherwise - and he gets especially grumpy without his hammock time.............

Thee is no beeper designed into the UCR411a or transducer of any type. The only thing I can think of would be a faint noise either from the physical button squeaking along the side of the hole in the panel or perhaps a very faint change in oscillation of the controller for the LCD display as the display reacts to the button push. (LCD's and their support circuits can "whine" at extremely low levels) If that's the case, I want your hearing!

I'll vouch for this - he's a saint..... Really! .................... no, really!

Ok, as we have been asked to comment (indeed, a demand from JW - “ I would like someone from Lectrosonics to explain”), we will do so. First, I stand by my earlier heartfelt congratulations to Zaxcom for their achievements. I also stand very proud of our engineers and staff for theirs. Both companies have been deservedly recognized for technical achievements and contributions to the motion picture industry. Both should be proud. Both have earned it. One award does not preclude or supplant another, nor does it diminish it. Should we feel less honored because Zaxcom was also a winner - or visa versa? A participation award? Both companies have put too much blood, sweat and tears into their efforts to have this diminished and dismissed so easily. Now let us look at some of the accusations. Jeff Wexler brought up the specter of “false claims” by Lectrosonics, a serious accusation. The process by which our award was granted was the same as for any other company being considered for a Sci-Tech award. It is NOT a popularity contest or a political process. Last fall, we learned that the Academy was considering wireless microphone technology for an award, so we put in an application. The application process specified a description of the technology for consideration, timelines, patent numbers, any prior art to consider, the contributors, and the impact on filmmaking including a list of films made using our products. The process is then furthered by a committee of highly qualified engineers and technicians who are members of the Academy. Based on the information in the applications, they chose potential award candidates, then asked that each company to do a five minute presentation, meeting certain requirements, at the Academy last fall. In all categories that was roughly 40 companies presenting that day. A few weeks later the committee set up a phone conference with us where the technology was brought under much more intense scrutiny by the committee. I can tell you during this step - I was present -, the engineers from the Academy who conducted the interview were highly critical and required very detailed explanations, challenging all claims in the application. By their credentials (Dolby Labs for example) and their questions, they were highly qualified to review the subject matter. They had thoroughly read our patent, (which says it all) and had a complete understanding of what we are doing with this technology. The interview was detailed and addressed the very same technical issues brought into question here on JW Sound. Their judgment does not and should not deserve to be questioned by those less qualified. Now again, to the question of “false claims”. The statements in the awards themselves and the subsequent press release were written by the Academy, not by us. And not by any other company, either. But we agree with their representation and feel that it is clear to them our technology has contributed to the art of filmmaking, which is, after all, the spirit of these awards. Jeff, do you or anyone else dispute our contribution to the film industry? If so, this would fly in the face of the number of films made with our technology during the past decade since Digital Hybrid Wireless was first introduced, including most of the Oscar winners and nominees for “Best Sound Mixing” during that time. Case in point: all five nominees for Best Sound Mixing in 2016 (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, The Martian, The Revenant, Bridge of Spies, and the winner, Mad Max: Fury Road) used Lectrosonics for production sound. Indeed, we have been a presence on award winning sets since 1989 (Glory and Driving Miss Daisy). And you state that “we have only seen real reduction in transmitter size in the last year or so.” This is simply not true. The SM transmitter was introduced in 2005, and with only the exception of the Q5X Quantum and the Lectrosonics SSM, the SM is still the smallest standard unit on the market, and is about the same size as the Sennheiser SK5212, introduced at roughly the same time. There is room in this industry for innovative companies. Indeed, it is competition that drives technical innovation. We welcome it. I have been in this industry now for over 28 years, and I find it interesting that we have good relationships with Sennheiser, Sony, Shure, Wisycom, Audio Ltd., and others, with mutual respect between ours and their engineers, management and staff. All companies innovate differently and address the market needs in their own ways. To discredit the contributions that we (or any of us) have made is simply misguided. Zaxcom is an innovative company. So are we. Lectrosonics is a vertical manufacturer where we make everything we possibly can under our roof. In doing so, we give full time employment with benefits to over 140 people – machinists, surface mount techs, design engineers, assemblers etc. We actively support the sound community though the RAMPS gathering at NAB, the Atlanta Sound Mixer Mixer and many other events such as the Sound Summit. We have worked hand in hand with Sennheiser, Shure, and Audio-Technica in the efforts to defend your spectrum and technologies with the FCC. How is it we are villains for doing so? In closing, I repeat - The Academy determined that we earned this award and we are honored. Just as Zaxcom earned theirs (congratulations, Glenn and Howie!). Personally speaking, I am weary of this singular argument about what Digital Hybrid is or is not – it’s been 14 years already. Look forward to the future. I know that’s where our attention is directed.

Kudo's to the Zaxcom team - a great year for audio! Sure made MY day yesterday!

Diego, I just checked with service - it looks like they and your dealer in Spain (who is an authorized service center) are on already on top of this - they have some good theories on the nature of your units problems (lots of information flying back and forth). Sounds like the entire team is on it now! We will get it resolved.

Diego, best bet to troubleshoot your problems is send us your list of frequencies (and that's for EVERYTHING RF) plus your location - sounds like you are hitting a local interference source but the only way to tell is with a full blown coordination. You can send me the list here at the plant (Gordon@lectrosonics.com) and we'll run it through the computers. Send the serial numbers of your units as well so we can check for any updates you might need. Gordon