Jump to content

Zaxcom and AudioLTD digital wireless - the future


RadoStefanov

Recommended Posts

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Jack Norflus said:

There will be new trx software soon that amungst other things, like a more friendly and easier to navagate menu structure, auto frame rate detection and a few new cool features. With the update howy did say that he will be looking into expanding the maximum number for files per card. So stay tuned - zaxcom has been listening.

Awesome! Please dont forget ifb frequency auto detect, which is availible on erx units....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sennheiser also seems to think that digital RF is the future !...And is compatible with its analog transmiters. 

http://en-us.sennheiser.com/news-maximum-compatibility-the-sennheiser-ek-6042-two-channel-camera-receiver

Pretty impressive. It'd be interesting to see what "long range mode" means

Sennheiser also seems to think that digital RF is the future !...And is compatible with its analog transmiters. 

http://en-us.sennheiser.com/news-maximum-compatibility-the-sennheiser-ek-6042-two-channel-camera-receiver

Pretty impressive. It'd be interesting to see what "long range mode" means

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sennheiser 9000s have been around for a while now (although the ek6042 is new), although the transmitters can't record.  'Long range mode' is similar to the analogue sennheiser 5000 I've been told, they also have an 'non-long range' uncompressed 24/48kHz mode which only works with the (very big) rack receiver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, VM said:

Sennheiser also seems to think that digital RF is the future !...And is compatible with its analog transmiters. 

http://en-us.sennheiser.com/news-maximum-compatibility-the-sennheiser-ek-6042-two-channel-camera-receiver

This product's compatibility is great. Not sure what the transmission 'footprint' is of the digital TX and therefor the potential channel density (since this is now the new black :-) but for Sennheiser to make their first dual camera/bag receiver(?) compatible with all their analogue TX and their digital TX (ie. what their current users probably have and what they'll probably work with in the future) makes this a versatile product for owner ops and rental houses in Europe, wisycom dual RX are a bit cheaper than the projected mrp but this 1 offers quite a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JDirckze said:

Just curious if when doing real world tests with ZHD, were there any transmitters running in the bag close to the receiver, like if one were running a camera link/hop?

I had the TX next to the bag and it does not spread as much. But it does not matter because again the zhd will be mono only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RadoStefanov said:

I had the TX next to the bag and it does not spread as much. But it does not matter because again the zhd will be mono only

I think Jase meant did the camera link affect the range you were getting on the QRX using ZHD as apposed to XR modulation.

MY TRX900CL antenna is not more then two inches from my Micplexer antennas and has no effect on reception on the QRX and SRb. So I doubt it would affect the range of ZHD transmitter. Just speculating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that currently the latency of the ZHD is circa 18ms - this will be improved.

I believe that currently the latency of the Audio Ltd 1010s is circa 2ms.

Have a think about this when people ask - 'how do they do it'.

Not in any way having a go - merely stating what I believe to be facts.

Peace to all..... sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bash said:

I believe that currently the latency of the ZHD is circa 18ms - this will be improved.

I believe that currently the latency of the Audio Ltd 1010s is circa 2ms.

Have a think about this when people ask - 'how do they do it'.

Not in any way having a go - merely stating what I believe to be facts.

Peace to all..... sb

Where is that 18ms statement coming from?

I would have heard it if it was more then 6

 

5 hours ago, Nate C said:

I think Jase meant did the camera link affect the range you were getting on the QRX using ZHD as apposed to XR modulation.

MY TRX900CL antenna is not more then two inches from my Micplexer antennas and has no effect on reception on the QRX and SRb. So I doubt it would affect the range of ZHD transmitter. Just speculating. 

He is talking about camera hops use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exact specification of latency on any wireless system in a production environment is to a point , totally irrelevant.  Since all modern mixer /recorders have delay on their inputs all audio sources, analog,  analog with DSP processing, digital wireless or anything else can be time aligned by the recorder as they are right now.  Latency is mostly important when wireless is used as part of the chain of an in ear monitor system. As no one has a problem using Zaxcom wireless Sennheiser digital, Lectro  or anything else with delay I do not see this as a relevant concern as all systems have different latency . No latency is best. Anything else is just a matter of setting a matching delay on other sources.

Our customers have found that 3-5 mS of LAV mic delay works out very well as it helps to match Lav and wired boom time frames.

As a side note,usually 100s of mS of delay are added to audio in a live broadcast to match the multiple frames of video delay so in this application wireless latency is not a limiting factor. Even in theatre the distance of speakers from the center of the audience is a longer delay time than the latency of any wireless system I know of. Some 2.4 gig wireless mics might break that rule though.

 Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bash said:

I believe that currently the latency of the ZHD is circa 18ms - this will be improved.

I believe that currently the latency of the Audio Ltd 1010s is circa 2ms.

Have a think about this when people ask - 'how do they do it'.

Not in any way having a go - merely stating what I believe to be facts.

Peace to all..... sb

The ZHD delay is about 5ms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, glenn said:

The exact specification of latency on any wireless system in a production environment is to a point , totally irrelevant.  Since all modern mixer /recorders have delay on their inputs all audio sources, analog,  analog with DSP processing, digital wireless or anything else can be time aligned by the recorder as they are right now.  Latency is mostly important when wireless is used as part of the chain of an in ear monitor system. As no one has a problem using Zaxcom wireless Sennheiser digital, Lectro  or anything else with delay I do not see this as a relevant concern as all systems have different latency . No latency is best. Anything else is just a matter of setting a matching delay on other sources.

Our customers have found that 3-5 mS of LAV mic delay works out very well as it helps to match Lav and wired boom time frames.

As a side note,usually 100s of mS of delay are added to audio in a live broadcast to match the multiple frames of video delay so in this application wireless latency is not a limiting factor. Even in theatre the distance of speakers from the center of the audience is a longer delay time than the latency of any wireless system I know of. Some 2.4 gig wireless mics might break that rule though.

 Glenn

Totally agree, but i couldn't find the latency info on your site and it is nice to publish this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jose Frias said:

The ZHD delay is about 5ms.

I could clearly hear the latency at NAB. Why was I told it was (at NAB) 18ms (I was told at the same time it could be reduced).

Jose - have you measured it as 5ms? I understand that the latency will change depending on how you set the kit up.

If the latency is of such insignificance, why is everyone quite so tetchy about it?

Kindest, sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Totally agree, but i couldn't find the latency info on your site and it is nice to publish this."

ZHD is currently unreleased and is in Beta testing. When the product is released the latency of each ZHD mode that we may offer and there may be more than one will be published. Till then this figure is subject to change + or -. 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bash said:

If the latency is of such insignificance, why is everyone quite so tetchy about it?

Kindest, sb

I imagine people get crazy about latency for the same reason they originally got concerned about latency when latency first entered our world with Zaxcom digital wireless: "won't everything be out of sync?", "how can I ever mix with everything coming to me so late?", "I'm not willing to burden the people in post having to adjust the sync on every shot", etc., etc. Well, none of these things were problems once everyone started using wireless with a latency (processing) factor, including Lectrosonics when they came out with their Analog Hybrid with DSP that exhibited latency. I do think it is important to publish the latency specification for sure, but I would never prioritize  that spec until I had used the unit in production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a movie theater, sound is delayed by approximately a frame for every twelve rows further back you sit (figuring about four feet per row).  

So, for instance, if you sit in the back row of an eighteen row theater, your sound is delayed by more than sixty milliseconds.

Put another way, if two laved actors are standing six feet apart, the sound is delayed roughly five milliseconds from one mic to the other.

Want a perfect, frequency-aligned world?  Make all actors occupy the exact same spot at the exact same time, use only analog gear, and have every theater goer simultaneously sit in the exact same spot and not move their head at all.

Alternative:  Live in the real world and don't sweat the small stuff.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jeff Wexler said:

I imagine people get crazy about latency for the same reason they originally got concerned about latency when latency first entered our world with Zaxcom digital wireless: "won't everything be out of sync?", "how can I ever mix with everything coming to me so late?", "I'm not willing to burden the people in post having to adjust the sync on every shot", etc., etc. Well, none of these things were problems once everyone started using wireless with a latency (processing) factor, including Lectrosonics when they came out with their Analog Hybrid with DSP that exhibited latency. I do think it is important to publish the latency specification for sure, but I would never prioritize  that spec until I had used the unit in production.

I quite agree Jeff, BUT..... if there is any question of using radio mics in a scenario where an artist might hear themselves back in 'delayed' real time, then the latency is of very great importance indeed. It should also be remembered that many other pieces of kit produce 'an amount' of delay, so we need, generally, to keep the total amount of delay to as little as possible. - 1 or 2 ms here and there is live withable, but if one piece of kit alone is making 10 or more ms of delay, then that may well have 'implications'.

Kindest, sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bash said:

I quite agree Jeff, BUT..... if there is any question of using radio mics in a scenario where an artist might hear themselves back in 'delayed' real time, then the latency is of very great importance indeed. It should also be remembered that many other pieces of kit produce 'an amount' of delay, so we need, generally, to keep the total amount of delay to as little as possible. - 1 or 2 ms here and there is live withable, but if one piece of kit alone is making 10 or more ms of delay, then that may well have 'implications'.

Kindest, sb

I agree with you regarding the effort to keep latency to a minimum (and also acknowledge that there are lots of devices potentially "in the chain" that can contribute to delay). The issue of an artist or performer having delay (confusing) in their monitor is of course very important (which is why all performance monitor systems, including even stage wedges, usually have some method to adjust delay times). I still think you would be hard pressed to present a scenario where one wireless mic on a performer with x - delay vs. another with greater delay, would cause a problem for that performer, unless of course their monitor had excessive delay. What about the personal choice of the performer to have their vocal monitor dry while their vocal is in fact having large amounts of processed delay to go out to a PA system for example. Or, the opposite, a performer who wants their vocal monitor highly processed so it sounds right to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bash said:

I could clearly hear the latency at NAB. Why was I told it was (at NAB) 18ms (I was told at the same time it could be reduced).

Jose - have you measured it as 5ms? I understand that the latency will change depending on how you set the kit up.

If the latency is of such insignificance, why is everyone quite so tetchy about it?

Kindest, sb

Glenn had posted that the latency was 5ms on Facebook:

image.jpeg

I have not personally measured it, but for both ZHD tests I was a part of, if the latency was over 10ms, I would've most definitely noticed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About delay and wireless lavs. If you look at the math it makes sense to have a little delay on a lav that is put on the chest of talent. The camera will never be as close to the sound source "mouth" as the mic.  So if we are sticklers for accuracy a shoot with camera 2 meters from a talent should ideally be delayed by approximately 5-6ms to match the realism of sound traveling through air.

IMHO and a secondary degree in acoustics MS values are something that has very little to no importance in our business.

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...