Jason A Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Well, wahoo for you dude! Thanks for pointing that out. It's still an issue for the rest of us though. The reason why I brought this up was that Glenn first presented this unit as something that simplifies the bag by requiring less cables etc. The problem is, adding the IFB 100 to the equation (vs Nomad) keeps the cabling about the same. Both the Nomad and Maxx provide a more simplified bag than the competitors for sure, so before all you Zaxcom fanatics get all defensive, as I said before I think it's going to be a great unit regardless. Still would be great to offer a an ERX that could be tuned to the Maxx TX block though. I currently have a Fusion 12, IFB100, and various Zaxcom wireless for hops and cast. I think this new Maxx is going to be a perfect small mixer to compliment my other rig! So, while some are bemoaning the lack of built in IFB I am thrilled with the feature set. I'll just pull out the IFB100 when needed...and being paid for by the client. I plan on buying the full blown Maxx next year when the need arises. Production Sound Mixing for Television, Films, and Commercials. www.matthewfreed.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Wang Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 it won't be a problem that if you use QIFB as the wireless mic though,you can use that to control zax-gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundslikejustin Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 it won't be a problem that if you use QIFB as the wireless mic though,you can use that to control zax-gain. You can do the same through the IFB 100, but that's the point everyone is making - you cannot use MAXX faders to control the preamp gain, or the rec button for remote roll etc like you can with Nomad/Fusion/Deva. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 $2200 is a killer price for this. I agree, the Maxx is an interesting competitor for the 552 (and in some ways, the 744). I'll be very interested to see if (or how) Sound Devices responds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Wang Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 there are only four faders on the panel,one for boom and two for lavas, it's pointless to use the last fader to control one of the zax-gain.Even with Nomad it's not convience enough to actually seeing the zax`-gain number changes right now. if you use MAXX with single camera for a rec-run tc setup,the camera link QIFB can be the master get tc from camera then slave your lava QIFB,then the lava QIFB's tc output to your MAXX to slave the MAXX. if you use MAXX as the master clock for multi cameras,you can send tc though built in transmitter to couple or several camera QIFB to slave or the camera's tc. ( the QIFB can receive TX's tc as main tc source) the ifb100 just would be a extra weight in your bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Wang Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 my wondering is : if we have AES option and transmitter option,does it have the ability to transmit four ch(post fader output level) to one QRX ,Glenn ? 100mW sounds great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundslikejustin Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 my wondering is : if we have AES option and transmitter option,does it have the ability to transmit four ch(post fader output level) to one QRX ,Glenn ? 100mW sounds great No. That would require a second stereo transmitter. That was a question above - you would use AES outputs to feed a second hop tx. Only the D4 sends 4 channels with 1 transmitter so far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Wang Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 No. That would require a second stereo transmitter. That was a question above - you would use AES outputs to feed a second hop tx. Only the D4 sends 4 channels with 1 transmitter so far... correct him Glenn ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjh Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Wow indeed, another Zaxcom triumph no doubt. Lectrosonics and Sound Devices need to merge if they are to keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundslikejustin Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 correct him Glenn ! I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg sextro Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Of course, but not controlling the TX preamps via faders, slave transport etc etc. But who knows. ...probably Glenn. Was I not clear in my post? The answer is No. I asked the <hat> this question prior to posting. It's kinda too bad there's no zaxnet, but its clear the Maxx is the Maxx and the Nomad is something else. "I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong..?" I also don't know of a single 4 channel transmitter besides the D4...Cloud? "there are only four faders on the panel,one for boom and two for lavas, it's pointless to use the last fader to control one of the zax-gain.Even with Nomad it's not convience enough to actually seeing the zax`-gain number changes right now." I don't know if I'd use the word "pointless.". The znet page gain control on the Nomad is pretty coarse right now, but this is "on the list" of things being addressed (according to the <hat>). Using one of the faders (assigning a tx gain in the fader menu) yields quicker adjustments, and though there is no numerical feedback, you can more or less guess based on the position of the dial! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 The Maxx display will be easier to read in direct sun than the Nomad as we have eliminated the plastic covering that is part of our button panel. The Glass display is excellent in the direct sun. The IFB100 can be used with Maxx. I see no reason why the Maxx would not provide recording control over our wireless if the time code connection was utilized but I need to talk to Howy on that. If the Zaxnet capabilty is importaint a Nomad 6 is the best choice. Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arnold Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 The Maxx display will be easier to read in direct sun than the Nomad as we have eliminated the plastic covering that is part of our button panel. The Glass display is excellent in the direct sun. The IFB100 can be used with Maxx. I see no reason why the Maxx would not provide recording control over our wireless if the time code connection was utilized but I need to talk to Howy on that. If the Zaxnet capabilty is importaint a Nomad 6 is the best choice. Glenn So it comes with the 'Knife Mod' already performed? I'm confused. If the plastic cover isn't useful on Nomad why do we have it? And if it does prevent dirt and moisture entering the device or becoming engrained on the surface will the Maxx be more vulnerable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Still would be great to offer a an ERX that could be tuned to the Maxx TX block though. The whole ERX thing requires 2.4 Ghz rf transmission and Maxx does not have any 2.4 Ghz wireless. Also, it seems to me that so many posts here are already starting to complain about what Maxx doesn't have. If Maxx were the only product from Zaxcom, this would be a concern, but since there is already the hugely successful Nomad for lightweight portable bag use, Maxx fills out the product lineup in a really good way. If the job requires things that Maxx cannot do (like full Zaxnet and IFB, infinite I/O routing, etc.) then use Nomad. If Nomad lacks things you want (like touchscreen, more I/O, higher track count) the use a Deva. We have really gone so far off from the one-size-fits-all recorder/mixer because of fundamental changes in the jobs we do. Also, if you are at a place in your career where you want to be able to do ALL sorts of jobs recording sound, you're going to need a wider variety of equipment these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Zaxcom site updated: http://www.zaxcom.com/maxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Wang Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 don't get too serious about my post Justin and Greg,i have tons of zaxcom products at home,and actually probably more than any one in this post. it's still half a year of time,i think if we want some features( eg:more ch be transmitted or built in ifb),we should let Glenn know about it. So they can consider add it or not. for me: the four ch digital transmission would be awesome. I think it's not that hard for zaxcom to add two more TX ch. It's only the number of ppl who ask for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry long Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Wow, what a great 2nd machine or 3rd even What I'm waiting for is a new version of the Deva with 16 lanalog ine inputs and a remote touchscreen interface recording to a ssd and mirroring to a cf. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 for me: the four ch digital transmission would be awesome. I think it's not that hard for zaxcom to add two more TX ch. It's only the number of ppl who ask for it. Add a TRX to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Unless you want to use Zaxnet to control transmitters, why not use the QRX100 as your IFB transmitter? Having the antenna up on the camera puts it in a good spot, and it's a canary in the coal mine. If it stops working, it's quite possible the camera isn't getting audio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Yes you will have Zaxnet transmission from the camera via QRX100 with IFB option. QRX100 will transmit camera audio and camera time code or Maxx time code that it receives from the Maxx via the UHF transmission. As pointed out the range will be excellent due to the transmitting position on the camera. Again the Nomad is always an option if complete Zaxnet control is required. So a perfect system might be Maxx, QRX100 with IFB option for the camera and ERX2 monitor receivers. Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Just bought a Nomad. Bugger. Would have been nice to know this was round the corner. Built in camera hop would be great on Nomad... Here's the thing, you are using the Nomad today. The Maxx isn't coming for at least 8 months. They are still pretty different devices in terms of features, though I agree a built-in camera hop would have been really cool for Nomad. Not sure I would want to lose Zaxnet for it. If I am doing a 5D or Red shoot (and some other camera setups), I only send a reference track to camera. When it's not a 5D, I am often using a sync box too. In that case, the Zaxnet mono track + TC option is perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsnd Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I don't understand why you would pick the maxx over a nomad if you had the option Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 So a perfect system might be Maxx, QRX100 with IFB option for the camera and ERX2 monitor receivers. Glenn This is basically what I do now with Fusion. Im curious to hear from Howy, what software functions might be possible still (your past comment). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Add a TRX to it. Maxx is a two bus unit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I don't understand why you would pick the maxx over a nomad if you had the option It's a smaller, lighter box, and it's cheaper. There are a lot of us that own/owned a 302 and a 442. I bought my 302 after owning a 442 and to this day think it was a great purchase. Actually, I use my 302 more than the 442 these days. If I am going to use more tracks, I use my Nomad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.