Jump to content

Equipment wishes for 2016


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AnuarYahya said:

I wish for Mac OS and or Android compatibility for Oasis..  

The Graphical User Interface for Nomad Oasis will be available to run on MacOSX --- I have been assured by Glenn Sanders that this will happen (but I don't know how soon). This will allow you to use your Mac laptop, Mac-Mini or anything running MacOSX for Oasis and not have to deal with Windows or a Windows computer at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Jeff Wexler said:

The Graphical User Interface for Nomad Oasis will be available to run on MacOSX --- I have been assured by Glenn Sanders that this will happen (but I don't know how soon). This will allow you to use your Mac laptop, Mac-Mini or anything running MacOSX for Oasis and not have to deal with Windows or a Windows computer at all.

I would love that.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2016 at 1:09 PM, daniel said:

I was thinking of a new version of this:

SQN-1.jpg

Ie. with a fader, meter and SQN's 'levely' limiter.

what SQN model is that? i likey. as someone who uses Sonosax SX-BD1 regularly i would like to see more thingys of that type. A Sound Devices MP1 with a full segment meter display, internal 2 channel recorder, tone generator and camera monitor return would be welcome and i'd buy it in two seconds flat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cloud Wang said:

I really wish there would be a Nomad16 or newer designed Deva16 that can work with Oasis and Touch, need more tracks than 12 but certainly don't want to go Deva32(way too big at least for me)

i would like maxx2 , nomad2 and oasis 2.

maxx with 4 aes 8 channels

nomad with 8 aes 16 channels

integrated battery on both

oasis with 16 faders

or just OneUnit 8 channel wireless integrated battery

better design RX12 would be nice

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gerard-NYNY said:

what SQN model is that? i likey. as someone who uses Sonosax SX-BD1 regularly i would like to see more thingys of that type. A Sound Devices MP1 with a full segment meter display, internal 2 channel recorder, tone generator and camera monitor return would be welcome and i'd buy it in two seconds flat.

It's one of the first products SQN made back in the 70's (when they were based in soho - read up on their website). iirc it was designed to be used with nagra R2R recorders (possibly SN). I've considered buying a BD1 several times over the years but somethings have put me off. If a modern equivalent had a built in lithium and 2 O/Ps (1 pre, 1 post fade) I think it could be very versatile device as it could be used with a RM and small recorder (eg tascam DR10x), or used to send a pre fade iso and a post fade mix element to a bag recorder. When I made the suggestion to SQN I also mentioned a monitor selector that could give combinations of direct from device, return from recorder and another from a camera (something missing from a few of the new mixer/recorders on the market). I very much believe SQN analogue limiters have something to offer the world of digital mixer/recorders but we probably don't need to carry around more than 1 or 2 because the rest of the tracks/channels are coming from RMs. Yes, I would drop the cash instantly for something that did most of these things because it would be great stand alone device as well greatly improving the usability of recorders like the Zoom F8, Tascams and even R4+ (which incredibly wont ever have a camera return).

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jeff Wexler said:

Speaking for Rado (which I shouldn't do): too big, too heavy, too power hungry, connectors in the wrong place, etc., etc.

It also doesn't have an IFB Tx, so for those of us that don't use a Nomad, makes it difficult to integrate Zaxnet into the equation - even the standard serial / USB connection would have sufficed.  In a dream world I'd love to see an RX6... at that channel count, could even care less if it is modular or not.  Maybe they could even call it QRX600 or something.  If it doesn't have integrated Zaxnet TX, at least be able to interface with an IFB200 somehow without loosing the ability to utilize all the audio connections.  I'm not too concerned about the weight or size, but improvement there would be a bonus.  Ideally there would be at a minimum 6 channels of AES output and 2 channels of AES input (for the IFB TX) - all on a DB-25 would be fine by me.  (would imagine it would have to have analog connections to in order to be commercially viable)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Wexler said:

Speaking for Rado (which I shouldn't do): too big, too heavy, too power hungry, connectors in the wrong place, etc., etc.

 

23 minutes ago, Tom Visser said:

It also doesn't have an IFB Tx, so for those of us that don't use a Nomad, makes it difficult to integrate Zaxnet into the equation - even the standard serial / USB connection would have sufficed.  In a dream world I'd love to see an RX6... at that channel count, could even care less if it is modular or not.  Maybe they could even call it QRX600 or something.  If it doesn't have integrated Zaxnet TX, at least be able to interface with an IFB200 somehow without loosing the ability to utilize all the audio connections.  I'm not too concerned about the weight or size, but improvement there would be a bonus.  Ideally there would be at a minimum 6 channels of AES output and 2 channels of AES input (for the IFB TX) - all on a DB-25 would be fine by me.  (would imagine it would have to have analog connections to in order to be commercially viable)

All of the above plus the fan is on the bottom which makes it unpractical for a bag. The size is bigger then nomad. It is not in the same shell as the recorder with integrated battery to power both. OneUnit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the RX-12 (I agree with Anuar that there is nothing on the market that does so much in a relatively small package). Sure, it would be way better if it had IFB built in (for Zaxnet) but I have been told that it would be very difficult to implement in the box so it probably won't happen. Using the IFB200 with the RX-12 works fine. I was worried the little screen would be insufficient to display all the relevant info but it looks good and provides immediate status for up to all 12 channels. I'm with others who would hope for some improvements but it is a stellar piece of kit as is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jeff Wexler said:

Speaking for Rado (which I shouldn't do): too big, too heavy, too power hungry, connectors in the wrong place, etc., etc.

Ok then for a cart: Machine a 1 space rack that holds (4) Wisycom MCR41S-42S in a rack that's (8) Channels of True Diversity.  Or (4) of those ENG style in a bag.......(8) Channels of True Diversity in (4) RX....pretty sweet.  or Or PSC 6 Pack giving you (6) Channels. 6 True Diversity......  I like my RX12's, but....Real Diversity....small and portable.  I suspect we'll see some new Lectrosonics surprises around NAB....but True Diversity...:)

 

I just made cables for the RX12 and Nomad 12 in a bag and it's fine.  I guess heavy is a relative term...We could do 4 track and carry 2 Nagra STC's and ....:):)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To jeffmjones: "true diversity" is a term which is often used and in my opinion it is a term that probably should not be used. It is certainly a term that Lectrosonics users rarely if ever say, primarily because it's usual reference is to one the several forms of diversity reception, that is, receiver diversity (which is not the diversity system that Lectro uses). I used Audio, Ltd. wireless for many, many years, and I am guilty of referring to them as having "true diversity" because they all use receiver diversity compared to most all of the other wireless companies were using antenna diversity. After retiring my non-frequency agile Audio, Ltds and going all Zaxcom, I still had the receiver diversity which in my opinion and personal experience is preferable to antenna diversity. But neither is "truer" than the other, just two different diversity systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I like the RX12. I guess its not perfect but there is nothing out there that even comes close to how badass the RX12 is. "

Now that I can agree with. The RX12 in one of our best bits. To get 12 receiver channels into a box that will easily fit into a sound bag was not an easy task. In fact it was brutal. We could of made it differently but this was the best product for our customers. If a 8 receiver version were available it would cost the same and not be significantly smaller.  I think the 200 MHz tunable range of the system with front end filtering and receiver diversity make the unit the best multi channel receiver system for sound cart or studio use. Is it overkill for a bag? Maybe, but just plug in as many receivers as you need. As for diversity, digital transmission and receiver diversity is the best way to go as it minimizes dropouts and totally eliminates the receiver switching distortion common to FM based antenna diversity wireless systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, glenn said:

"I like the RX12. I guess its not perfect but there is nothing out there that even comes close to how badass the RX12 is. "

Now that I can agree with. The RX12 in one of our best bits. To get 12 receiver channels into a box that will easily fit into a sound bag was not an easy task. In fact it was brutal. We could of made it differently but this was the best product for our customers. If a 8 receiver version were available it would cost the same and not be significantly smaller.  I think the 200 MHz tunable range of the system with front end filtering and receiver diversity make the unit the best multi channel receiver system for sound cart or studio use. Is it overkill for a bag? Maybe, but just plug in as many receivers as you need. As for diversity, digital transmission and receiver diversity is the best way to go as it minimizes dropouts and totally eliminates the receiver switching distortion common to FM based antenna diversity wireless systems.

the other thing I prefer QRX models over RX12 which is they have two TA5 for each receiver,which is great for me to connect them both on analog and digital gears at the same time,the design of RX12 is OK for me but I really need&want more output on RX12. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat my wish that Nomad's Automix achieve its previously promised "world class" status.  I tried it again, for a conference a few days ago (9 lavs and a stick mic), and was greatly disappointed, as I have been in the past.  If I need to do many more of these in the future, I'll be compelled to buy a 688.  

I use a lot of Zaxcom gear (just did a highly-watched national broadcast yesterday w/Zax wireless) and definitely appreciate much of the ingenious engineering, but in my opinion, Nomad's Automix doesn't do justice to the innovative device it's in.

A really usable Automix would be a much appreciated improvement to the Nomad!

Link to post
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...