Jamesg

Ah, yeah I can see why that would be confusing... The side plate bracket is part of the battery adapter (V-Lock to Anton Bauer I think) and won't be used on the actual camera configuration for the job I'm doing (I just went in to VER and grabbed a camera to test the prototype bracket). The F55 Dock doesn't have the two screw holes on the very back of the camera (behind the slot-in receiver plate) to secure the adapter plate like you would on a F800 or similar, so even if we did use that adapter it wouldn't be secure enough to take the weight of the RX200. I could probably have bodged something but the job I'm prepping for is a three month shoot all over the world so it's worth a bit of expense to make a really solid rig! Totally agree on the universal mount idea. I was vaguely talking to Mike about making a bracket that consists of a horizontal piece with two screws in a slot (like a tripod plate) to accommodate different spacings of holes, which would would be joined to a sliding vertical piece which could be moved closer or further from the camera, which would have the standard 4 BEC mounting holes. Kinda hard to describe, but could be a simple solution to ever changing camera rigs...?

The awesome Mike Babcock at BEC turned my crappy drawing into an excellent bracket for attaching a receiver (RX200 in my case, but whatever fits into a BEC box) onto the Sony F55 with documentary dock. Just tested out the prototype today and it works really well - allows all the BNC's for SDI outputs to connect and pass under the box. Obviously the finished product will be "BEC black" but thought I'd put this up here in case anyone's looking for something like this...

Aquapac make a really good waterproof duffel bag. Ive tried many versions of roll top bags for waterproofing kit (for me, I usually have to have it attached to my harness to wade or jump in water in caves and such) and this seems to be the best. It's not transparent, although I did find a transparent one that is absolutely giant and too big for a 633 really. It's got a load of mounting points plus (and I think this is unique) a purge valve. Use an IFB for monitoring when it's closed, obviously... https://aquapac.net/store/shop/waterproof-bags-duffels/upano-waterproof-duffel/ i think it's the smallest one that fits the 633.

Wow - now THAT is an answer! Thank you so much! That explains why in my test, which was really a worst case scenario with the transmitters and receivers much closer than they would be out in the wild, I didn't see any difference in reception when the transmitters were switched on or off. As I mentioned, I'm using this particular setup in remote locations so I'm not likely to hit any unknown frequencies, and I can coordinate everything. I can see how one could end up getting effectively "boxed in" if you were to do this in a frequency rich environment, though... J.

I just got round to doing a test... I don't have the exact system I'd be using, but I set up two TRX-LA3.5 on block 22 @100mw, 3x wisycom tx on block 19 @50mw, and 2x SMQV on block 24 @100mw... The trx's as talent mics, received by a QRX200 with whip antennas in the bag, and all the other transmitters right next to the QRX in the bag too, antennas almost touching (I was trying to go for worst case scenario)... Freqs coordinated on Freqfinder. Walked the TRX's to the edge of their range with all the transmitters in the bag switched off, then turned them all on one by one. Absolutely no reduction in range at all. Obviously I'm mixing digital with analog here, so it's possible that if everything was analog (or hybrid) it might be a different story, but it looks like all is well in this case.

Totally, and I do all the usual scanning and freq finder stuff - I'm wondering specifically if having my talent receiver block in between the IFB and hop blocks, frequency wise, is likely to cause more issues than having the transmitters grouped into one block at one end of the spectrum and the receivers grouped into one block at the other end of the frequency spectrum. I'll still have at least one clear block in between the blocks I'm using... That's always been my workflow too, but I wonder if that's only true for adjacent blocks? I'll run some tests and see what happens...

On bag based jobs where I have a couple of talent receivers (Sometimes Lectro, sometimes Zax) as well as hop and IFB transmitters (all SMQV's) I usually keep the talent wireless to lower blocks (19 or 20) and the hop and IFB transmitters in higher blocks (24 and 25). So my question is: If I were to have the camera hop TX on block 19, the talent receivers on block 22, and the IFB's on 24, am I theoretically likely to hit more intermod problems by effectively "sandwiching" my receiver blocks in between two transmitting blocks? There will still be a block of separation between transmitting and receiving blocks, but my gut says that spreading the frequencies out across the spectrum can't be the best idea... One thing to note - the job is an adventure type show, so the spectrum is generally pretty open, so I'm not dealing with too much other RF. Obviously I'll do some tests, but in the meantime, any thoughts? J.

I got one of these: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01K8ANDCI/ Really just to use as a means of sending audio to a car radio that only has bluetooth when using as a follow car (seems that modern cars don't have aux inputs any more). Works great so far - not sure I'd want to rely on it as IFB though as even the smaller delay would be disconcerting if producers were in the same room as talent, I'd think...

Yeah, batt is 100% good, and the unit is basically new... I'll give Tascam UK a call tomorrow. Tascam USA aren't able to help as it's not sold in the USA...

Has to be, but I don't know if it's user serviceable? Loathe to just start taking it to bits...

One of my DR-10C's has just started acting up, where after it's been off for more than a couple of minutes, "DATE TIME NG" appears on the display at powerup, then the unit goes straight to the date and time setting page with everything zereod out (see attached pics). I'm assuming that this is because the internal date battery is dead? the AA batteries are all good, and it has latest firmware. It's been sat on the shelf for probably near to a year, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case, but anyone had this happen? Anyone ever replaced the internal battery? I'm in the US (brought these from the UK) so I'd rather avoid sending them in for service if at all possible..

Brilliant!

That is interesting... Wish I'd been able to compare the old and new systems, then...

I absolutely agree - I've even got much better range with homemade dipoles on my harness. Unfortunately for the particular show I'm prepping for, that won't work as it involves a lot of climbing, rapeling, cave swimming, etc, so the setup needs to be super compact and able to be handed off and literally tied to a bit of rope and dragged up a cliff face and suchlike. Anything extra attached to a bag or a harness is another thing to get caught/snagged/broken. Joy! Anyway, my point was that the difference between the new ZHD modulation and the "old" XR modulation seems negligible, when I was under the impression that it would be markedly better. It seems that it's horses for courses, and that in certain RF rich circumstances the ZHD mod will be a godsend, though. Not that this can't work in my situation - in fact I was on a big reality/survival show last year that was all TRX2.5 and QRX200 and it worked great, but we were aware that we were sacrificing range for the advantage of having a one-pack solution which was really necessary with upwards of 14 talent in the jungle for a few weeks! Upcoming show is only two talent (host and celeb) in jungle survival environments, so I'm probably going to stick with WM transmitters and ZFR recorders and have the best of both worlds... Ahhhh I wasn't getting what you're implying, Rado. So maybe ALL the modulations on the new firmware are better? That is interesting.

Interesting. So you're saying that the XR modulation mode on the older firmware is different from the XR modulation on the new firmware?

First test I did was indeed just me, so I left the transmitter inside and walked away with the RX (into a 633 in a bag, obviously). Second test was with a second person, simple walk test. Same frequencies each time, just changed the modulation to see what the difference was. As I said, my goal was simply to see what the new ZHD modulation did to the range, ie compare XR and ZHD mods.

So, I got hold of a TRX3.5LT and a QRX200 and was surprised to find out that, at least in the environment I was testing the system in, I was getting slightly LESS distance from the ZHD modulation as compared to the XR mod. Slightly disappointing as I was hoping that the new modulation would extend the working range, which seems to be the received wisdom... A call to Zaxcom clarified that the ZHD is really most useful in crowded RF environments, places with a lot of reflective surfaces, and suchlike. In (what I'd call) "usual" eng situations, the XR modulation is best. The tests I performed were using the dual receiver mode (I think thats ZHD96?) mainly, although I did check using the mono modes as well. Firstly I tried line of sight walking down a side street in West Hollywood. Nice clear frequency, settings checked on tx and rx, etc. Bearing in mind that this was an LT receiver, so tops out at 50mw, using XR mod, I was getting approx 100ft with the tx in open air, maybe 50ft with it in a pocket. Whip antennas on the rx, nothing else transmitting in the bag. ZHD mode was very similar, but seemed to start dropping out maybe 10 ft earlier. Secondly i I tried the TX in my apartment, and walked the RX out into the street. Both modes maxed out at maybe 50ft, through walls, and again the ZHD mod started dropping out a little earlier. With a TRX3.x-LA transmitter I'd guess that one would get another 30% or so? But I was mainly interested in comparing the modes rather than measuring range. Now, I'm only testing these using the kind of setup I'd be using them in. Bag use, whip antennas, and in a non challenging rf environment. I'd suspect that using directional antennas would make a world of difference (obviously) and perhaps the ZHD mode really shines in that situation? A little disappointing as I was really hoping that ZHD would extend the working range of a TRX to match or exceed a WM, but for me, at least, it seems not!

Hey I know there's a TRX thread going right now, but my question is slightly different. I'm about to embark on an adventure show, and my usual workflow is to double mic the talent with both a Lectro WM (for range) and a Zax ZFR for backup record. Best of both worlds, two separate lav mics for if and when one fails, gets waterlogged, covered by a rope, etc... For various reasons, I'm considering switching to the new zaxcom TRX, but I can't find anyone who's done any real world range tests in difficult circumstances, specifically with the transmitter in an aquapac under wet clothes. I'm going to try and get a test unit this week and see how it performs, but has anyone used them in anger yet? I know the ZHD mode should be a significant improvement in range, but in all probability my transmitters are going to end up buried in a pocket under a wet climbing harness, in an aquapac, with the antenna bent double! Any thoughts on if it should be as robust as a WM under these conditions?

Just back from a load of flights, domestic and international, and no problems. Seems that nothing has changed... You can still hand carry as many NP-L7s as you want (I had 5 with me)...

Is this waterproof/resistant as mentioned in description of the other slates? I don't see anything about that on the blurb about this one... Looks cool though!

I've been flying a lot recently too, but it seems the rules *may* have changed from April 1st. It's all a bit muddy, but it looks like they have just tightened up the regulations on batts in hold luggage even more. Spoke to IDX this afternoon and they seem to think it's still fine to take them in carry on, and I haven't heard any reports to the contrary! They pointed me to a useful document for traveling with IDX NP-L7s batts - proves their compliance with airline rules... http://1quqvr388yes3qdchk1vgjo2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/MSDSUN-NP-L7S-201601.pdf

Hey apologies if this has already come up... but... I'm heading off to South Africa from LA next week, and I can't make head or tail of the new rules for carrying lithium batts (I'm thinking specifically IDX NP-1's - less than 100MWh). It seems that nothing's changed (i.e. you can carry them in hand luggage) but if you look deeper it seems that *maybe* you can't! It's all to do with the definition of batteries as "UN 3480, PI 965, Section IA and IB" as far as I can see. SUPER confusing, although I am probably a bit slow... Link to the new rules below: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dgr/Documents/lithium-battery-update.pdf and an insane flow chart that sort of defines what the definition means... http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/dgr/Documents/lithium-battery-guidance-document-2016-en.pdf so it looks to me like you CAN carry up to 5kg "with equipment"... I think... Any thoughts? And again, sorry if this has already been covered and I didn't see it. James.

+1 for the Orca rain bib... I just tried it on an unexpectedly nasty sea crossing, and it was surprisingly effective.

Just happened across this... http://www.markertek.com/product/sw-318bt/switchcraft-318bt-phantom-powered-bluetooth-audio-receiver But that's just for receiving audio... However, I think the bluedriver is the only game in town as far as allowing you to send audio back down the bluetooth stream back TO the phone/ipad or whatever... I'm sure there are others but not that I've seen. So the workflow would be: Lav mic on talent -> RX -> Mixer input -> mixer aux out 1 (pre) -> Bluetooth return (heard by the party on the other end of the line) Bluetooth Receiver -> mixer input -> Mixer aux out 2 (pre) -> Earwig or induction earpiece on talent So the phone (apart from the facetime picture if you're doing a video call) essentially is just a vessel to make the call, it won't input or output any audio. I *think* that's the way to do it!! I've been meaning to test this out for ages, but in truth these things often happen in the heat of the moment and a speakerphone held close to the talent's lav mic works just fine - and probably sounds the most natural if that's what's happening in the scene.

Thanks!! I'm slightly confused, though, as I always thought that a parabolic worked best with an omni (or wide cardioid) but the Telinga site seems to recommend cardiod... So I wonder how the results would be with my Schoeps CCM41?