Jump to content

Zaxcom product launch


Bob

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks rich for the number. It's reasonable for such a device.

Rado, even of the DAC was 192khz, if the AES output is 32khz, I will bet ( please someone comfirm this ) that the machine is limited to 32khz period. Like I said, it's fine for dialog work, but not so fine for musical or other special application. And definitely not fine to make a statement that it is equal to a cable... In Dynamic range and it's lack of limiting for RF purpose, it is indeed close to a cable if not the same but not in frequency response.

The reason I say this is because I am always thinking of making the move to a full Zaxcom rig ( digital thru and thru and more control ) but I always find something like that and I get pushed away.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's make an analogy to refrigerators.

 

GE has made the same fridge for the last 5 years, a good, competent, always cold unit.  I buy that fridge today.

 

Next week they unveil a refrigerator that uses lasers to keep things cold.  I want that fridge.  Do I demand they create an update path for my current week old fridge, or demand a firmware update to a fridge that doesn't even have the same hardware as the new one?

 

No. 

 

I suck it up.

 

 

Businesses depend on sales to generate income.

 

Income is required for capital, which is required for R&D.

 

If I tell you 3 months ahead of time that I'm working on laser cooling technology, you are going to not buy a new fridge - waiting for laser cooling technology

 

Which stops income.

 

 

The point is that everything has a definite life cycle, especially when it comes to technology.  If you decide you need a piece of hardware to solve your issue, it's up to you to decide to invest in current technology, or wait for new technology.  Whatever your decision, it's your problem, not someone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that was the point of my comment all that time ago. if you are doing musical or similar application, and you need that dynamic range and frequency response, then why arent you able to use a cable.

 

and if the frequency response of the transmitter only goes up to 16KHz, you arent losing a great deal, if anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the 32KHz issue is a problem for me, as I record 99% dialogue with them, the application for which I purchased them.  For most music, they would be fine too, but normally wouldn't be using wireless in the first place.  I do personally wish they were 48KHz and the WC input worked that was on the original units, the reason I bought them, but adding AJA ADA4 has solve the sample rate issue for me.

 

Try high pass filtering anything above 16Hz sometime.  Its a lot of crispy non-musical stuff for the most part.  For drum overheads, or cymbals, I'd want to keep it, but for almost anything else, it's no big loss.

 

I'm happy that Zaxcom has issued these updated devices.  I'll gradually move over to the the new system as needed.  If anyone is selling QRX B25 receivers for real cheap, I may even buy them.  I still haven't purchased NC versions of transmitters yet, as I simply have never really required that type of dynamic range from my equipment.  Equipment purchases are not an investment in the equipment, but investment in YOU so that you can perform greater varieties of work.  Digital, it sucks, but the equipment looses almost all its value in a mere number of years, just something you have to come to terms with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rado, even of the DAC was 192khz, if the AES output is 32khz, I will bet ( please someone comfirm this ) that the machine is limited to 32khz period. Like I said, it's fine for dialog work, but not so fine for musical or other special application. And definitely not fine to make a statement that it is equal to a cable... In Dynamic range and it's lack of limiting for RF purpose, it is indeed close to a cable if not the same but not in frequency response.

The reason I say this is because I am always thinking of making the move to a full Zaxcom rig ( digital thru and thru and more control ) but I always find something like that and I get pushed away.

Thanks

 

 

Dear Pascal,

 

While the AES output of the QRX receiver is 32 KHZ, it is necessary for us to do this to sample rate convert 2 transmitters to combine them in a sample locked fashion.

 

The fact of the matter is there is no I repeat no effective audio that is present above 16 KHz when used for film and television production. FM wireless with either analog or digital companders produce more distortion and throw away more content than anything you would ever miss above 16 KHz.  If you like the sound of analog or digital companders in your wireless that is personal preference and you would do best to stick with what you have. The fact of the matter is pure digital audio with no processing or limiters is vastly superior to analog in any form.

 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that 32khz is a huge problem, and no you can't always use a cable for musical recording ( ex: a console feed ) BUT the standard in this industry is 48khz. Why make it lower? I understand, it is for processing power reason, so get a bigger processor.

What really gets me is then don't advertise that it is equal to a cable, even 48khz is not. For me, it really gets me when people make statement on which others make very expensive decision but the statement is incorrect. For instance a lot of publicity has been made about how great a Zaxcom wireless boom kit is, but if you take the actual specs as we know now, aside from feature set ( which is great I grant ) the actual " as good as a cable" is not true. And don't give me that phrase that it doesn't matter because we only do dialogue, IT IS PUBLICISED THAT WAY AND THEN SHOULD DO IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the audio frequency range it has to get from point A to point B it is as good as a cable and in many cases better as it does not pick up induced noise and have changing characteristics over distance .

 

I do not think that is a published thing only the opinion of our customer base and my personal opinion.

 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal preference is a cable.

 

But also keep in mind that a cable has a lot of negative qualities over distance.

 

With a long enough cable, wireless is actually a better transmission format.

 

 

I used to be a FOH mixer for a well known guitarist.  For his entire career this performer used a extremely long 1/4 for his guitar.  When trying to get him to join the rest of the world in wireless world, he absolutely HATED the sound of his guitar through the wireless system.

 

He had been playing through this several hundred foot cable for so long, that he was used to the signal loss in the cable.  He HATED the increased frequency range of the wireless opposed to that cable.

 

Eventually we created a cable for him to the TX that simulated the long cable length he was used to.

 

 

A lot of wireless systems actually have these cable length emulators built in now.  All they really do is lower frequency response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that 32khz is a huge problem, and no you can't always use a cable for musical recording ( ex: a console feed ) BUT the standard in this industry is 48khz. Why make it lower? I understand, it is for processing power reason, so get a bigger processor.

What really gets me is then don't advertise that it is equal to a cable, even 48khz is not. For me, it really gets me when people make statement on which others make very expensive decision but the statement is incorrect. For instance a lot of publicity has been made about how great a Zaxcom wireless boom kit is, but if you take the actual specs as we know now, aside from feature set ( which is great I grant ) the actual " as good as a cable" is not true. And don't give me that phrase that it doesn't matter because we only do dialogue, IT IS PUBLICISED THAT WAY AND THEN SHOULD DO IT.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allright, lets get a little clearer here.

 

An RF Transmission is MORE CONVENIENT over distance then a cable not BETTER.

 

A MIC LEVEL signal over a long cable, will have enough induced noise to make a difference over an RF Transmission BUT NOT A LINE LEVEL SIGNAL like a boom op using a very long cable should do.

 

And i personally ( people should make there own opinion and not just listen to other ) don't like for a MFG to let people carry statement that are VERY BENEFICIAL to them, uncorrected because the reality of the specs makes it that it is only correct after limiting the said statement to a narrow situation. 

 

And when will you have a boom op 3200 feet from you...

 

We can make specs say anything…  And this is what really bugs me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 And definitely not fine to make a statement that it is equal to a cable... In Dynamic range and it's lack of limiting for RF purpose, it is indeed close to a cable if not the same but not in frequency response.

 

A case could be made that in terms of s/n the Zaxcoms are better than cables, especially compared to long cable runs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again Bigmaho, your statement might be correct but a less knowledgable person might  ( and i am sure did ) make a purchase thinking that you meant it was OVERALL better then a cable.  At 32khz, it is simply not.

 

My next questions, and it is legitimate one, is at what sampling rate do the rest of the product line ( including mixers, recorders etc… ) operates?

 

These are very important information when making a decision on what system to buy for our client base.

 

I am not saying that the product is not good ( how could i make such statement when i have not even seen it ), but question the practice of letting incorrect information circulate without qualifying it.

 

A MFG should ( in my opinion ) be more pro-active at explaining the qualities ( that is never an issue ) but also it's limitations.

 

My two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CCalandro, even more a reason not to run MIC LEVEL signal over long cable runs.  I personally never use longer then 50 feet of cable when dealing with a mic level signal.  If i need any longer, it is either converted to digital or at least brought to LINE level.

 

But a very interesting article that all should read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what you are doing.  Are you running a cabled boom?  How far do you need to go? How are you going to put a mic pre near the mic?

 

There are a lot of variables.

 

a balanced mic level signal will probably go a few hundred feet before you get a noticeable loss.  We have done that in live sound since live sound existed.

 

An unbalanced signal, like a guitar, is going to degrade signal a lot sooner.

 

It also depends on the mic, cable, mic pre, etc.

 

 

The point is, is the zaxcom wireless system better, the same, or worse than a cable?  There isn't really one straight answer to that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Zaxcom website it actually says something like "quality that rivals a hard-wired connection", which I think is not too bad. I was surprised too, when I found out about the 32k limit, especially on the 742.

but I really think that 16k is enough for most dialogue recordings and on those few instances where it isn't and where a cable isn't an option (i tend to prefer a cabled mic, still) you can always use the internal recording feature of the trx to get at least 48kHz, I believe.

That should provide all options required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...