Jump to content

Audio Limited A10 2.6 firmware problem


Gimborano

Recommended Posts

Hello to everyone,

I spent the last hour testing the updated 2,6 firmware on my A10 RX and two TX.
I update everything from 2,5 to 2,6 version, using the last version of Mic2wav.
I have a problem with the second channel of the receiver: It shows plenty rf bars, but no audio signal at all, and the leds relative to the second channel on the rx stay blue and red.
The first channel works perfectly.
Changing frequency on that channel (tx and rx) did not help, and using the other tx to match the same frequency neither.
Of course a mic is conneted to the tx and its audio bar is modulating; and the internal recording function works well.
I used the restore function, but did not help.
Has anyone got the same or a similar problem?
Thanks in advance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How close were your transmittters to the receiver? Does moving them both over 2 metres away help?

 

if you swap frequencies on the receiver (so that RX1 is now tuned to TX2) does that change anything?

—sorry. Just seen that you have already tried that—

Edited by rich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

did ch2 work before you updated?

if you retune ch1, can you pick up both tx's?

you have double checked that you are trying to tune into the correct frequency i would expect. - you can get full rf from a transmitter on a frequency that is close, but not exactly right.

for this testing, you only have two transmitter powered up? nothing else that might be nearby causing problems, like a camera link or IFB transmitter.

how hot is the receiver? i have had ch2 behave like this when it got (very) hot. cooling it down brought it back to life.


and, have you contacted Audio Ltd? or your local distributor, who should be able to help you with swapping things around so you can eliminate things.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Rich,

Thank you for your advise!

I used 2.5 firmware till ten days ago, and the second channel worked flawlessly.

I confirm: channel 1 can pick both trasnmitters.

I have double checked and the frequencies perfectly match.

I have only txo tx powered up and the rx.

The problem shows up as soon as I switch the system son, so se Rx is cold.

I sent an email to Audio Limited service center in Berlin yesterday; as soon as the problem occured, just the time to make some test to investigate. I'm waiting thier reply.

I'll write here how it goes on :)

Thanks again!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

as Audio Limited Service suggested, I reinstalled firmaware 2.5 and everything seemed working right.

I then tried again firmware 2.6: when I switched the receiver on, both channel were working,I mean rf full, audio signal ok. The two channel were tuned on the same frequency. As soon as I changed the tuning of the second channel, and retuned the transmitter on that frequency, again  rf full, but no sound!

I'm now back to 2.5: after some test it seems working good, so I keep this version.

I'm writing back to Audio Limited service to report my experience.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I'm Baya, I've bought A10 system few days ago.i'm un west Africa. Please i would like to know if thé recording features will work for lavalier mics. I got the system from Gotham sound. Please excuse me for my bad English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that all A10 wireless mic transmitters now have the recording function and will record any source that it is connected to. Using the A10 recording feature is a violation of the Zaxcom patent but I don't know whether it is a violation when using the A10 outside the US since the patent only applies to the US. Someone else may have more information on this than I do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Constantin is correct on this  ---  I do know that when recording function was activated (for units sold in the US) it would only record when used with a boom microphone (with a lav connected it would not record). When Sound Devices acquired Audio, Ltd. this was the situation with US models. I don't know whether units purchased outside the US had this limitation. Re-reading the original question, the original poster states that the unit was purchased at Gotham Sound so it is most probably a US model and would adhere to what Constantin said  ---  recording function would only work with boom microphone. I find this all sort of ridiculous because the Zaxcom patent says nothing about what sort of microphone or source is used  ---  in terms of potential infringement of the patent on recording wireless, the type of microphone is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think outside the US the transmitters can always record audio. 

In the patent it stated that

“each performer is equipped with a local audio device capable of locally recording the respective performer's audio while also transmitting it to a master recorder.“

I‘m no patent lawyer and I haven’t even read the rest of it, but this does sound to me like the patent only refers to body-worn mics and transmitters. I‘m sure Audio Ltd. and now Sound Devices have raised this with their lawyers and feel sure enough to proceed. As far as I know Zaxcom also haven’t challenged this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Constantin, if it interests you, you certainly should read the rest of the patent(s) that Zaxcom has regarding recording transmitters. The descriptive text you site is accurate and correct but your conclusion that this means the patent only applies to body-worn microphones is not correct. It is true that the description specifically sites "body-worn" but this refers most directly to the transmitter (which must be capable of being worn on the body, unobtrusively and concealed, but does not require that it be worn on the body). The A10 transmitter certainly qualifies as a body-worn or body wearable device, regardless of whether it is on one's body, held in the hand, mounted on a fishpole, etc. Additionally, "the respective performer's audio" is not specified that this audio is produced from a lavalier microphone ---  how should we characterize the "performer's audio" when that audio is picked up by a boom microphone or a plant microphone or a hand-held microphone?

 

Again, I am not a patent lawyer either and these issues will need to be resolved in patent court, not in the court of public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn’t actually say „body worn“, I just inferred that. But to me the description I quoted above is pretty unambiguous. And it doesn’t matter, because Zaxcom has been known to bring to their competitors attention that they might be infringing on Zaxcom‘s patent, so I‘m pretty certain if that were the case here, Zaxcom would do so again. But apparently they are not. 

Or they are and Sound Devices has decided to ignore it. 

Either way, that’s probably all I can say about this

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...