Sound Art Film Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Hi all, I have been having issues with my Lectro units when working with my 788. The problem arises when my lectros are connected via XLR inputs on the 788. The difference in available frequencies is dramatic when the 788 is turned on and my units are connected via XLR to the 788. When the 788 is on and I scan with my lectros, and without being connected to the 788, I get minimal RF spray, even when the units are right next to the input section. After doing some investigation I came across this page on SD's website: http://www.sounddevices.com/notes/recorders/788/788t-w-wireless-in-38-40/ I inspected my XLR's from 411a to 788 and discovered that the ground pin had not been connected to the housing of the connector. Also, I inspected my Y cable for my SRB5p and noticed that the ground pins had not been connected to the housing either. After doing the modification to the XLR, my available frequencies improved quite a bit for the 411. However, even after doing the mod for the Y cable for the Srb5p, I got no better results. my theory is that the shield in the thin cables is not sufficient to help block the RF interference no matter what. At this point, I remembered reading that the RF leakage was much less using the TA3 inputs on the 788. After soldering two new cables to go from the TA3s from the SRB to the input of the 788, I discovered that I had much more available frequencies on the Srb5p. Case in point: It appears from my testing that if you are going to use Lectrosonics receivers with the 788 and route through the XLR input, make sure your XLR, on the male end, has the ground pin attached to the housing of the connector. If possible, it appears the TA3s have a lot less RF problems than the XLRs and are a good choice to choose for routing Lectro units into the 788. My setup 788: All channels activated and routed to tracks. Powered by Sony NP-970 L mount battery. Lectrosonics 411a and Srb59: 411: Block 22, Srb5p Block 20. 411 powered by two 9V lithium batteries. Srb5p powered by L mount battery. XLR: 12" Y cable: Made by Pro-Sound as Y cable for ta5f, terminated with two XLR male. 12" Pictures and examples below: Units scanned with 788 off and not connected Units scanned with 788 on, not connected. Units scanned, connected via XLR inputs on 788, 788 on. Units scanned, connected via XLR with ground pin connected to connector housing. (notice difference on 411, but not on Srb5p) Units scanned, modded XLR connected to 788 and 411, modded Y cable connected to 788, but not connected to Srb5p, 788 on. Srb5p scanned, Y cable attached to 788 via XLR, no 411, 788 on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound Art Film Posted March 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Units scanned, modded XLR to 411, two TA3 from Srb5p to TA3 input on 788, 788 on. Srb5p scanned, No 411 or XLR input, two TA3 from Srb5p to TA3 input on 788, 788 on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 In 250mW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryF Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Thanks for the pictures and the good experiments. I will just mention something that I am sure everyone understands and that is this would affect any brand or type of receiver that operates in the same UHF band. So these real world tests would apply to any receiver setup. Again, thanks for the excellent input. Best Regards, Larry Fisher Lectrosonics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sound Art Film Posted March 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Hey Larry, Thanks for the clarification. I assumed that was the case,but did not want to erroneously include other brands that I did not test first. I'm glad that you appreciated the experiment! Yasou Vasileios, No transmitters used, just receivers. Thanks to everyone for chimming In so far! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Hey Larry, Thanks for the clarification. I assumed that was the case,but did not want to erroneously include other brands that I did not test first. I'm glad that you appreciated the experiment! Yasou Vasileios, No transmitters used, just receivers. Thanks to everyone for chimming In so far! Oh sorry. My fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith B Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Thanks for doing these tests! I contacted Sound Devices & was told this would void my warranty so will wait until it expires before trying it out. Just a heads up for anyone thinking about jumping straight into it like I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryF Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Thanks for doing these tests! I contacted Sound Devices & was told this would void my warranty so will wait until it expires before trying it out. Just a heads up for anyone thinking about jumping straight into it like I did. What warranty breaking modification? All this was done inside the cables. Or I'm missing something (which is not unusual). Thanks, LEF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldmixer Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 I dont understand either. How is your warranty voided? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith B Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Ah sorry I misread it & thought the mod was done at the 788t end, not the input cable end. My mistake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryF Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Ah sorry I misread it & thought the mod was done at the 788t end, not the input cable end. My mistake! Good. I thought that was unusually tough for SD. Best, Larry F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Mega Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Who's on first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ronnerblad Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 Hi, I'm new here on this forum. I have a SD788 and will probably soon buy my first Lectrosonics system. SRb & SMV Are there more known RF problems with SD788 and Lectro? These tests were at block 20 & 22. I was thinking about buying a system in block 24. Should I be worried or what? I've googled my ass off, but can't find any answer. I have seen a lot of people using 788/Lectros but haven't heard that there could be a problem. Regards John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDirckze Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 In my experience, there is some spray across my block 24 SRA, but it's manageable by physical separation in the bag and by using the TA3 inputs. You'll get better results using SRB I imagine, and even better results using UCR411's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VM Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 Are there more known RF problems with SD788 and Lectro I use this combo, never noticed any problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanpeds Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 I use block 24, 25, and 26 with a 788T. No problems either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ronnerblad Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Thanks. I know that wireless can cause problems, but I don't want them before I bought the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryF Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 The title of this thread is a bit misleading. The problem isn't just Lectros; it is a 788 problem and would be with any receiver of any type. RF on a carrier frequency will reduce the sensitivity (range)of any receiver and reduce the sensitivity exactly the same amount. Lectros just happened to be the system the poster was using with the 788 Larry Fisher Lectrosonics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted March 16, 2013 Report Share Posted March 16, 2013 Larry is correct. This is not a Lectro problem. It is the source of the interference that is at fault not the receiver. Glenn 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.