Jump to content

Equipment wishes for 2016


Glen Deakin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I find it to be unusable as well. And fiddly. Too easy to screw up the mix and remember the multi menu-page dance that needs to be done to correctly enable it. (Meaning having to un-route everything). Too hard to switch back and forth.

Unless they fix it up and make it work with the user rather than against it will sit unused for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Constantin said:

You mean like HMa, SSM, LT and Lmb?

No, constantin, like the 411a or the wisycom  (display on the top). 

6 hours ago, RadoStefanov said:

maybe he means wider.

Happy with 3 blocks. Of course more is better but I understand the difficulty of doing this. 

Dual Rx in 411a form factor would really be the business 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jack Norflus said:

John

Ive used the Nomad automixer quit a bit over the past few years and I found that I've had good success with it. Granted it's no Dugan but it is more than adaquate. Perhaps you need to fiddle with the parameters a bit?

Every time I've used it -- whether conferences, reality shows, or whatever -- it has never performed adequately for me.  And, yes, I've tried all manner of variations for the parameters.  It simply doesn't do what an automixer should, which is basically to keep the background level consistent with no pumping, and no choppiness, as individual mics cut in and out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had very mixed success with the nomad automixer.  Occasionally it will work well enough to deliver a clean reference mix, but rarely would I consider it for a final broadcast mix, even though it'll be fine for much of it, it will glitch or get "tricked" by certain situations.  When it does work for me, it gives a great improvement.  Implementing a dynamic threshold that monitors the background level would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had great success with the automixer, and especially love using it for panel discussions, multiple-subject interviews, and other similar scenarios. The thing for me though is that you have to continuously baby sit it, and make fader adjustments (for post-fader automix) on the fly as needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2016 at 9:17 PM, John Blankenship said:

.  It simply doesn't do what an automixer should, which is basically to keep the background level consistent with no pumping, and no choppiness, as individual mics cut in and out!

i am not a nomad user nor have i read the the manual. are there expander settings on each channel? expanders and gates usually need some fiddling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my apologies if i appeared to be questioning your experience, i was not. i merely find the problem interesting. i looked at the manual and it appears the functions act like an expander, but not exactly. it's not a gate either as explained in the  Attenuation subsection of Automix:

Sets how much each microphone is attenuated when a person stops talking. When a person stops’ talking that microphone is not closed,the microphone is actually attenuated. The level of attenuation is adjustable here. In some environments it may be more palatable to hear some or most of the ambient microphone noise all the time rather than hear the noise mute and then reappear when someone talks.

Please note that regardless of this setting the last active microphone will always remain open. Attenuation can be set between 10dB and 80dB.

-----

i also noticed that there's a compressor at the input stage of the Nomad. i would switch it off.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 2, 2016 at 9:21 AM, John Blankenship said:

I certainly hope the new year brings:

- A greatly improved Nomad Automix 

- Individual transmitter sleep via Nomad

- A wide band Lectrosonics SR w/tracking front end 

- Safe, light weight, longer lasting battery chemistries

- Peace and Harmony for all

I'm speculating that at least two of these will happen within the next four months.

 

 

+1 to all of these. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Richard Thomas said:

Except for the USB (and more AES I/O) the Sonosax SX-R4+ does all that

"A Sound Devices 744T MK II with 1. Four Mic preamps with faders knobs" --- I don't think the faders (knobs) on the SX-R4+ are faders, yet, I was under the impression that they are input trims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to have more firmware updates for the RX12 and a new Zaxcom case that can host QRX212 modules as standalone wireless receivers in order to have smaller wireless package when the whole RX12 is not required. Zaxmote app also requires an improvement imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vale said:

I'd like to have more firmware updates for the RX12 and a new Zaxcom case that can host QRX212 modules as standalone wireless receivers in order to have smaller wireless package when the whole RX12 is not required. Zaxmote app also requires an improvement imho.

To sort of play off on this, what I would like is two new smaller versions of the RX-12, using the same infrastructure of the RX-12 brain, and that can use the same QRX212 modules:

- RX-8 that is the same width of the Nomad, and that could actually be attached to the Nomad via screws a la FP8. This will lead to a compact "one-unit" design. Since the Nomad is only able to do up to 8 AES inputs simultaneously, then I see no reason to have more than 8 simultaneous mono channels of wireless, so only 4 QRX212 modules would be required.

- RX-4 that is the same width of the Maxx, and in similar fashion be able to attach it to the Maxx via screws. Since the Maxx can only do 4 AES inputs, then 4 mono channels are perfect, so only 2 QRX212 modules would be needed.

I think that adding a DE-15 connector on the left side of these units to match that of the Nomad and Maxx would be ideal, because then that way we can build short, DE-15 to DE-15 cable to do AES into the recorder.

In the end, users would be able to hot swap modules between their bags and carts, making for fast and smooth operation, and less cable clutter and fiddling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Jose Frias said:

To sort of play off on this, what I would like is two new smaller versions of the RX-12, using the same infrastructure of the RX-12 brain, and that can use the same QRX212 modules:

- RX-8 that is the same width of the Nomad, and that could actually be attached to the Nomad via screws a la FP8. This will lead to a compact "one-unit" design. Since the Nomad is only able to do up to 8 AES inputs simultaneously, then I see no reason to have more than 8 simultaneous mono channels of wireless, so only 4 QRX212 modules would be required.

- RX-4 that is the same width of the Maxx, and in similar fashion be able to attach it to the Maxx via screws. Since the Maxx can only do 4 AES inputs, then 4 mono channels are perfect, so only 2 QRX212 modules would be needed.

I think that adding a DE-15 connector on the left side of these units to match that of the Nomad and Maxx would be ideal, because then that way we can build short, DE-15 to DE-15 cable to do AES into the recorder.

In the end, users would be able to hot swap modules between their bags and carts, making for fast and smooth operation, and less cable clutter and fiddling.

+1 on RX8 and RX4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jeff Wexler said:

"A Sound Devices 744T MK II with 1. Four Mic preamps with faders knobs" --- I don't think the faders (knobs) on the SX-R4+ are faders, yet, I was under the impression that they are input trims.

Well, they should be in a few weeks...

It's currently possible to alter their gain range and whether they mute at zero, so it's possible to mix on the machine but you're limited to post-fade isos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RadoStefanov said:

+1 but not based on RX12 modules. Just 3 QRX200s and a micplexer in a common shell.

 

This is my wish too. I run a zax cart rig and a separate nomad bag rig and would love to be able to have them set up autonomously without raiding one for the other. I think the RX12 is too big for a bag rig but i am a little frustrated that i need a plexer to run more than 1 QRX200 in the bag. I too agree with Rado that the QRX200 is best and a built in plexer would make a powerful piece of kit with many options for bag or small bag cart work. 

A slim version of the mix 8 is another wish of mine that would fit in the pocket of a bag. I have thought of cutting one down as I like the 8 faders but its too bulky.

Tony

1 hour ago, RadoStefanov said:

+1 but not based on RX12 modules. Just 3 QRX200s and a micplexer in a common shell.

 

 

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...