New from Zaxcom....

[Jack Norflus]

Wisycom, Lectrosonics, and Sony manage it, I surprised Zaxcom expertise can't?

Yes but there is a lot more going on in in a Zaxcom transceiver

[glenn]

We certainly looked at slot mounted receivers and decided that it was a really really bad idea for us. A Zaxcom receiver does so much more than a slot mounted receiver allows.

 

We like AES output and that is not something the slot camera manufactures allow.

 

We do not want cables coming out of the slot for 2 channels as it is a compromise solution.

 

The slots are different between camera manufactures and we would want compatibility if we were to consider it.

 

Slot receivers generally have poor RF specifications due to the limited power and space available in the form factor. We do not want to compromise our RF performance.

 

 We could not have our side mounted LEDS that have become a Zaxcom feature.

 

Some slots are unbelievable hot and we need to have some air flow for proper operation.  We have up to 4 channels of audio and time code output. This is a nonstarter for a slot.

 

Having proper room for 2 UHF antennas and Zaxnet would be difficult for us if not impossible.  

 

Available Slot power is often limited and we do require a fair amount of current to do what we do.

 

Most importantly the slot is not offered on most cameras and is not being designed in to the cameras ENG and EFP will use in the future. Any slot receiver sold today will end up in an adaptor box sometime in the future.

 

There are many choices to choose from in the slot world. Zaxcom provides a different solution with innovative features.

 

Now if you want a really cool Zaxnet 2.4Ghz slot receiver that we can do. Just need to put TC in and out on the slot connections ;-)

 

I am sure the format is a benfit to some but I am happy with our products and feel the slot market is well represented by basic wireless products that get the job done.

 

Glenn

[Cloud Wang]

We certainly looked at slot mounted receivers and decided that it was a really really bad idea for us. A Zaxcom receiver does so much more than a slot mounted receiver allows.

 

We like AES output and that is not something the slot camera manufactures allow.

 

We do not want cables coming out of the slot for 2 channels as it is a compromise solution.

 

The slots are different between camera manufactures and we would want compatibility if we were to consider it.

 

Slot receivers generally have poor RF specifications due to the limited power and space available in the form factor. We do not want to compromise our RF performance.

 

 We could not have our side mounted LEDS that have become a Zaxcom feature.

 

Some slots are unbelievable hot and we need to have some air flow for proper operation.  We have up to 4 channels of audio and time code output. This is a nonstarter for a slot.

 

Having proper room for 2 UHF antennas and Zaxnet would be difficult for us if not impossible.  

 

Available Slot power is often limited and we do require a fair amount of current to do what we do.

 

Most importantly the slot is not offered on most cameras and is not being designed in to the cameras ENG and EFP will use in the future. Any slot receiver sold today will end up in an adaptor box sometime in the future.

 

There are many choices to choose from in the slot world. Zaxcom provides a different solution with innovative features.

 

Now if you want a really cool Zaxnet 2.4Ghz slot receiver that we can do. Just need to put TC in and out on the slot connections ;-)

 

I am sure the format is a benfit to some but I am happy with our products and feel the slot market is well represented by basic wireless products that get the job done.

 

Glenn

Totally agreed on all these. No reason to give up all the unique features just to put a receiver in a slot. Cant see how come its not a slot receiver could be a deal breaker to anyone.Power usage would be the same, weight might be slightly less. Saved one or two audio cables.Why bothers.

[Jeff Wexler]

+1 to Glenn's very thorough explanation of why the Zaxcom system does not have a slot mounting receiver.  There is an element of denigration in the statement: "Wisycom, Lectrosonics, and Sony manage it, I surprised Zaxcom expertise can't?" when the truth of the matter, as described by Glenn Sanders, makes it quite clear that a lot of thought went into the design of the various receivers. If slot mounting is the most important "feature" for you, then choose a different product --- as Glenn has said, "the slot market is well represented by basic wireless products" from other companies.

[Zack]

One thing people need to realize with in-slot Rx that are 3rd party to the camera manufacture is that they don't always get to use all functions of the Rx.  ie:  .... an SRa can't use both channels in a Sony slot, you'll have to have the SRa5p adapter to cable route the 2nd channel around the back into the rear XLR for that.  This type of proprietary hardware makes it difficult on 3rd party developers like Glenn pointed out.

[pvanstry]

Believe it or not, this particular product is interesting me a lot. To have a single transmitter that you can use for simple system ( cam hop 2 track ), scratch mono feed with TC and IFB, is really attracting. Hopefully the 2.4ghz tx will have some power to give enough range for it to be worthwhile.

I would say on the slot receiver side that a smaller, simpler and cheaper dual channel receiver, something the size of an ERX, but with very little latency, battery powered, and the ability to switch one of the audio channel to TC, would make this even better. Basically a basic cam hop receiver.

[Derek H]

If it's not too late I think this product really needs dedicated record and stop buttons. It would make the built in recorder so much more user friendly and useful.

Hopefully the 2.4ghz tx will have some power to give enough range for it to be worthwhile.

I hope so too! No more 2.4GHz amps! The QRX IFB is under powered for program monitor use, fine for TC of course.

[pvanstry]

Question here: when using the cam link with a QRX receiver, in order to send TC to a camera via the QRX ( originating from the cam link ) is it necessary to have the IFB option on the QRX? In other word, in a camera hop system comprised of the cam link and QRX, is the TC on the UHF tx or the 2.4ghz?

[Derek H]

Good question.

[fieldmixer]

TC can be sent on UHF and 2.4. UHF get's it to Qifb, or the 2.4 to get it to erx's. Maxx for example with the integrated transmitter, will transmit timecode via uhf to Qifb but not to erx.

[pvanstry]

So basically regardless of sending on on UHF or 2.4, the QRX still requires the Qifb option to output TC to a camera?

[pindrop]

We certainly looked at slot mounted receivers and decided that it was a really really bad idea for us. A Zaxcom receiver does so much more than a slot mounted receiver allows.

 

We like AES output and that is not something the slot camera manufactures allow.

 

We do not want cables coming out of the slot for 2 channels as it is a compromise solution.

 

The slots are different between camera manufactures and we would want compatibility if we were to consider it.

 

Slot receivers generally have poor RF specifications due to the limited power and space available in the form factor. We do not want to compromise our RF performance.

 

 We could not have our side mounted LEDS that have become a Zaxcom feature.

 

Some slots are unbelievable hot and we need to have some air flow for proper operation.  We have up to 4 channels of audio and time code output. This is a nonstarter for a slot.

 

Having proper room for 2 UHF antennas and Zaxnet would be difficult for us if not impossible.  

 

Available Slot power is often limited and we do require a fair amount of current to do what we do.

 

Most importantly the slot is not offered on most cameras and is not being designed in to the cameras ENG and EFP will use in the future. Any slot receiver sold today will end up in an adaptor box sometime in the future.

 

There are many choices to choose from in the slot world. Zaxcom provides a different solution with innovative features.

 

Now if you want a really cool Zaxnet 2.4Ghz slot receiver that we can do. Just need to put TC in and out on the slot connections ;-)

 

I am sure the format is a benfit to some but I am happy with our products and feel the slot market is well represented by basic wireless products that get the job done.

 

Glenn

Thanks some very good points.

Though heat has not been a problem on any camera slot for me, RF performance mediated through antenna has been excellent, and AES is possible with Wisycom.

Sorry to have been a little glib but I'm so fed up with hanging boxes and cables off cameras that operators complain about and trash quickly that anything that minimizes that is good and I just thought I'd make a little friendly jibe . Although of course Zaxcom system means no TC TX/RX box, and in reality I could consider Zaxcom - now if the bandwidth could just be tripled to Wisycoms 208 Mhz that'd be a winner .........

[Derek H]

Pascal, I think you'll have to check with Zaxcom to be sure but I'm thinking that while the TC transmission can be via UHF you may still need the QIFB option just to get the TC output connector in place.

TC via UHF is a pretty new feature of the system.

[Jack Norflus]

If it's not too late I think this product really needs dedicated record and stop buttons. It would make the built in recorder so much more user friendly and useful.

 

When in the home screen the up key is start and the down key is stop. So it is very easy to start and stop.

[Jack Norflus]

Question here: when using the cam link with a QRX receiver, in order to send TC to a camera via the QRX ( originating from the cam link ) is it necessary to have the IFB option on the QRX? In other word, in a camera hop system comprised of the cam link and QRX, is the TC on the UHF tx or the 2.4ghz?

Yes you would need the QIFB option because the option adds the 3.5mm jack that allows you to connect the QRX to the camera.

[Jack Norflus]

now if the bandwidth could just be tripled to Wisycoms 208 Mhz that'd be a winner .........

While the camera link isn't as wide as the Wisycom it is wider than all of Zaxcom's other TX's

[Derek H]

While the camera link isn't as wide as the Wisycom it is wider than all of Zaxcom's other TX's

Jack, will it be possible to upgrade the QRX to be tunable within this entire "2 block range" or does it simply mean it will work with two adjacent receiver blocks?

Thanks!

[OmahaAudio]

" Production companies simply balk at paying for them. Certainly it's becoming a more common request for me, but cabled up is still the prevelant method. "

a valid, but separate issue...

IYHO

[Jack Norflus]

will it be possible to upgrade the QRX to be tunable within this entire "2 block range" or does it simply mean it will work with two adjacent receiver blocks?

Not sure.

[pscottm]

At this point:

 It will transmit ZaxNet audio and TC to ERX's

You will be able to send TC to TRX's and ZFR's

I will receive audio and TC back from a QRX with an IFB option board.

You will be able to change frequencies between the QRX and Camera link (much the same way the TRX/STA) currently works.

There may be some other capabilities added via software updates in the future.

is TC imbedded in the audio stream or sent via zaxnet or both?  if using a CL w QRX (no QIFB board), can TC still make it across to QRX?  

[pscottm]

oops, sorry.  i see this question was answered clearly just last week.  I've looked at all the info i can find except for just higher up on this page.  doh

 

QRX needs QIFB board to decode TC and send it to physical output provided by QIFB board.    

[tonetripper]

I hope so too! No more 2.4GHz amps! The QRX IFB is under powered for program monitor use, fine for TC of course.

What be the way to augment the ifb functionality to make for better program monitor use?

[Derek H]

An elaborate third-party amplifier and antenna system not sold by Zaxcom.

For short range use it may work okay. I've found it doesn't go through walls very well.

I'd love to hear more details about the expanded tuning range of the system. I don't see the point if the receiver is still a single block.

[Timlin]

Hi all

 

As a user of the wonderful IFB100, I feel that perhaps this newer model may have missed an important feature that I consider to be quite important.

 

That feature is the TC out socket - the IFB100 has separate TC in and a TC out sockets, whereas this new model appears to have a single TC in/out option via a BNC plug. But, I do see that the use of the BNC socket instead of the 3.5mm F socket as a vast improvement!

 

I currently send TC to my TRX900 camera link and the IFB100 from a "Y" TC cable from my 788, I then take the TC out from the IFB100 to send TC to my Betso TC display... am I right in thinking that with this new model I wouldn't be able to do this?

 

Am I also right in seeing a reduction in RF output from 100mw to 75mw in the new model? Is this a big deal, or am I making a fuss over something that will mostly be un-noticed other that overall power consumption?

 

Please advise!

 

Rgd's

 

 

AT

[glenn]

You would just "y" the cable 3 ways to each device from your 788 with the IFB200. The slight reduction in power output will only effect range about 10% and should not be an issue.

 

Glenn