Bertolomi Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VM Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Thomas Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDirckze Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 What is the latency of the ZHD system? And does it vary with aes o/p from RX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted April 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate C Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 The camera link uses stereo modulation and not XR or ZHD. But given that ZHD is a much cleaner modulation so spray and interference should be much less of an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bash Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted April 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bash Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bash Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 Agree with both previous posts that there are circumstances where cumulative delays become an issue. It can also depend upon whether the delay is short enough to register in the brain as a phase shift or long enough to be percieved as an echo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Frias Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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: 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted April 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted April 29, 2016 Report Share Posted April 29, 2016 Quoting Rado: "IMHO and a secondary degree in acoustics MS values are something that has very little to no importance in our business" That statement sits just fine with me. Thank you, Rado, for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.