Jump to content
Heizmann

Digital + Analog

Recommended Posts

I was wondering if having digital and analog wireless in the same setup can work fine all together. I own Zaxcom and Lectros, and for the moment I go all analog . But I'd like to try the Zax in digital. Just not sure if it can blend all good together or it's better to go 100 % on a side or the other. Is anyone work digital and analog and is happy to share his thoughts ? 

 

Cheers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Frido Beck said:

The Zaxcom wireless transmission is always 100% digital.

 

Yes, but you can use an analog output out if the receiver. I think that‘s what the OP was getting at

Share this post


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

 

Yes, but you can use an analog output out if the receiver. I think that‘s what the OP was getting at

I know, but thanks for clarifying. I was just commenting on the choice or words not reflecting the actual things he was getting at (quote: "if digital and analog wireless in the same setup can work fine all together"). He rather should have asked whether it makes a difference if by going analogue line level or digital AES3 out of the receivers into the recorder. He is actually already using Digital and Analogue wireless together if I read correctly. I think the actual difference between the two transmission schemes affect the workflow and end result more than the last step of going line level or AES3 out of the receivers, particularly when using them together (frequency planning etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jack Norflus said:

 

I use analog lectro and digital Zaxcom together all the time with no issues.

 

Off topic but Jack, how do you set delay between your lectros and zax. I have a zax boom and lectro wire and have never got them aligned to my liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Frido Beck said:

I know, but thanks for clarifying. I was just commenting on the choice or words not reflecting the actual things he was getting at (quote: "if digital and analog wireless in the same setup can work fine all together"). 

Sorry, should have been more clear. English is not my first language. And still pretty new with digital. 

 

So you don’t think it is a good idea to mix both if I understand ?

 

thanks

7 hours ago, Constantin said:

 

Yes, but you can use an analog output out if the receiver. I think that‘s what the OP was getting at

That’s what I meant, yes. Thanks. 

Constantin, I think you use some Zaxcom wireless ? Do you mix it with analog wireless ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Heizmann said:

That’s what I meant, yes. Thanks. 

Constantin, I think you use some Zaxcom wireless ? Do you mix it with analog wireless ? 

 

I used to, and sometimes I still do, but for various reasons on most jobs I have now gone fully to Lectro. There is absolutely no problem to mix digital and analog system, regardless of full digital like Zaxcom or digital hybrid like Lectrosonics or analog like some Sennheiser. 

It doesn’t really matter if you use a system‘s analog or digital outputs, either. As long as your recorder has good A-D converters and sample rate converters on every digital input. It’s kind of stupid though, to take a digital Zaxcom (or Audio Ltd) signal, convert it to analog, and then convert it to digital again at the recorder. It’s best to minimize conversions. They can, possibly, degrade the signal a bit and the process could add to the latency. 

 

Latency is the one big issue, but it can be dealt with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 5:44 PM, Constantin said:

 

It doesn’t really matter if you use a system‘s analog or digital outputs, either. As long as your recorder has good A-D converters and sample rate converters on every digital input. It’s kind of stupid though, to take a digital Zaxcom (or Audio Ltd) signal, convert it to analog, and then convert it to digital again at the recorder. It’s best to minimize conversions. They can, possibly, degrade the signal a bit and the process could add to the latency. 

 

Latency is the one big issue, but it can be dealt with

I remember a discussion regarding Zaxcom's 32 KHz sampling rate and how it's irrelevant because, among other things "in the real world" (so I was told) the analog output would be used and converted to 48KHz digital via the recorder. This raises the question whether SRC (32 to 48 KHz) is preferable to DAC/ ADC both in terms of quality and latency.

Thanks 

Share this post


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

 the analog output would be used and converted to 48KHz digital via the recorder. This raises the question whether SRC (32 to 48 KHz) is preferable to DAC/ ADC both in terms of quality and latency.

 

Now that doesn’t make any sense. I mean the original statement that it wouldn’t matter in the real world, because the SRC would bring it up to 48k. In terms of frequency content it would still be a 32k signal. 

But you‘re right that is an interesting question and I‘d be curious to hear if anyone has any insight. With an existing 48k signal coming out of the receiver I would guess that the SRC would be less detrimental to the signal than da/ad conversion, since it’s only 48k - 48k..

But with the 32k signal blown up to 48 who knows? My hunch is that it‘d be better to stay digital, but I don’t know

Share this post


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

 

Now that doesn’t make any sense. I mean the original statement that it wouldn’t matter in the real world, because the SRC would bring it up to 48k. In terms of frequency content it would still be a 32k signal. 

But you‘re right that is an interesting question and I‘d be curious to hear if anyone has any insight. With an existing 48k signal coming out of the receiver I would guess that the SRC would be less detrimental to the signal than da/ad conversion, since it’s only 48k - 48k..

But with the 32k signal blown up to 48 who knows? My hunch is that it‘d be better to stay digital, but I don’t know

 

Maybe I didn't word it correctly, so to clarify, nobody suggested that up sampling would improve audio bandwidth, I'm NOT asking about the merits of 32KHz vs 48KHz sampling, I'm wondering if it would make sense to connect a 32 KHz AES output from a Zaxcom receiver (32 or 96KHz, correct? or do they have 48KHz output options?) and have the AES input of the mixer/recorder do the SRC to 48KHz (which of course would add no HF audio information, just "useless data" and possible HF garbage) versus connecting the analog Zaxcom out (the "real world scenario" or, as you put it..."it would be stupid...") to an analog in and do a straight AD conversion. Would you be comfortable running varying sample rates digitally into a mixer handling all the SRC?

Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Werner Althaus said:

 

Maybe I didn't word it correctly, so to clarify, nobody suggested that up sampling would improve audio bandwidth, 

 

No no, I got that. I didn’t think you were suggesting that. I was referring to you first comment 

18 hours ago, Werner Althaus said:

I remember a discussion regarding Zaxcom's 32 KHz sampling rate and how it's irrelevant because, among other things "in the real world" (so I was told) the analog output would be used and converted to 48KHz digital via the recorder. 

 

without quoting it (which was perhaps stupid). I don’t know the context of that discussion, but it’s always a stupid statement to be honest, because it’s never true whatever the context. I know you were using that as a jumping board and I did find it interesting, because I hadn’t considered that the SRC might be just as detrimental and latent to the signal as the a-d converter. But I don’t know that and haven’t run any tests and without knowing how the manufacturer implemented the SRC it’s difficult for uscto know. Some SRCs convert to analog and then resample. If that were the case here it really wouldn’t matter anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Constantin said:

 

No no, I got that. I didn’t think you were suggesting that. I was referring to you first comment 

 

without quoting it (which was perhaps stupid). I don’t know the context of that discussion, but it’s always a stupid statement to be honest, because it’s never true whatever the context. I know you were using that as a jumping board and I did find it interesting, because I hadn’t considered that the SRC might be just as detrimental and latent to the signal as the a-d converter. But I don’t know that and haven’t run any tests and without knowing how the manufacturer implemented the SRC it’s difficult for uscto know. Some SRCs convert to analog and then resample. If that were the case here it really wouldn’t matter anymore

I couldn't find the relevant posts and didn't feel like digging because it was a rather unpleasant exchange IIRC.  

Anyway, my take on this would be that if the output of the digital receiver is anything but 48K I'd treat it like an analog device just to be safe. YMMV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Werner Althaus said:

Anyway, my take on this would be that if the output of the digital receiver is anything but 48K I'd treat it like an analog device just to be safe. YMMV.

 

 

So you mean that you would prefer going analog out of e.g. the Zaxcom receivers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Constantin said:

 

So you mean that you would prefer going analog out of e.g. the Zaxcom receivers?

yes, but this isn't about Zaxcom, I'm not up to the latest specs on digital outputs of receivers but if the AES output is 44.1, 32 or anything else other than 48KHz I'd use the analog output unless I had a chance to put the mixers' SRC circuit through its paces. Not all SRCs are created equal. If the manufacturer includes the SRC circuit in their design chances are that it'll perform well though. On the other side, the analog output of our lectro SRc and 411A receivers is not significantly degraded by a second pass of AD conversion so I trust it more than certain SRC scenarios, especially 44.1 to 48 or something similar. 32 or 96 to 48 might be okay, the math would support that. My concerns are not only related to immediately audible audio degradation but also how it affects audio restoration software like RX 6, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×