Zaxcom Stereo ENG Wireless

Good question Charles!

I would also ask, are your analogue units UHF
and if so what brand and type are they??

Mike
www.mikewestgatesound.webnz.co.nz
 >> Stay informed about: Zaxcom Stereo ENG Wireless 

Do you drive to work or take your lunch? The scenario you presented is
definitely an apples and oranges comparison. However, in all fairness,
you did outline your configuration sufficiently that we could each draw
our own conclusions despite the fact that it was not a head-to-head
comparison. We'd all like our equipment to exhibit zero anomolies no
matter how we use it.

I agree, though, that Charles' questions and comments are right on the
money. What is the brand and model of the other unit? Also, if you
reversed the links were the results the same?

A couple of weeks ago I mic'd two go cart drivers and my Lectro 210
systems performed exactly the way they're supposed to. I got no
interference whatsoever from the go cart motors. Another sound person
had two other drivers mic'd with his Lectros -- I don't know whether he
used his 205s or 411s -- and he didn't report any interference either.
In our situation we weren't doing wireless to the cameras.

John Blankenship,
Indy



Brian Albritton wrote:
> i know this been covered in this forum before, but i just wanted to
> add my two cents on the EMI performance of the zaxcom digital
> wirelesses.
>
> i recently was on a job that put my cameraman in a go-cart, racing
> around a track while shooting other drivers. i had my stereo eng
> wireless going to his camera, and three analog wirelesses on the
> talent drivers ( all in different go-carts ). i sent audio from the
> wireless of whomever he was currently shooting to ch1 and had a boom
> of nat sound going to ch2. i had to stand on the side of the race
> track (no room for me in the cart!)
>
> i had nothing but mostly unusable ( except at close range ) audio on
> the analog lavs, probably because of the interference of the go-cart
> motors. the analog wirelesses had no problems before and after the
> go-cart race - just when the drivers were in the carts. after that
> part of the shoot we played back some tape and the boom going to ch2
> never had a hit! i was impressed by the reliablity of the camera link
> in that situation - i have encountered quite a few problems in the
> past working around engines/motors/machinery that produce
> interference.
>
> i have been quite happy with the performance of the unit overall. in
> my opinion, there are a few tweaks i would like to see in the user
> interface, but so far ( 2 months of use ) reliability and sound
> quality are solid on this unit!
>
> brian
 >> Stay informed about: Zaxcom Stereo ENG Wireless 

> I would also ask, are your analogue units UHF
> and if so what brand and type are they??

UHF, lectro 210s, sonotrim lavs

> Just curious where the driver's transmitter packs/antennas were located? If
> they were on the drivers belts buried in the seat of the go carts that might
> be a reasonable explanation as to why the performance was degraded as I
> assume your bag transmitter and the camera receiver where in a more elevated
> and unobstructed position.

the transmitters were located on the front belt of each talent under
their shirts. i was lucky that they all had untucked shirts - so a
quick switch to the front was possible when they decided to race the
go-carts ( or is it spelled go-karts? ).

> Do you drive to work or take your lunch? The scenario you presented is
> definitely an apples and oranges comparison. However, in all fairness,
> you did outline your configuration sufficiently that we could each draw
> our own conclusions despite the fact that it was not a head-to-head
> comparison. We'd all like our equipment to exhibit zero anomalies no
> matter how we use it.

i agree - i realize that the comparison was "apples to oranges"
because the digital rx and tx were fairly unobstructed and the analog
tx was attached to a body that soaks up signal. but you would think
that there wouldn't be such a difference in range/performance. at
times, the cameraman and talent were 100 meters away and as close as 5
meters. the only time i had usable lavs was when the pack of go-carts
was right in front of me. the digital was rock-solid all the way
around. my post was meant to show my increasing confidence of the
zaxcom as a camera link ( especially around situations that have been
problematic to me in the past like EMI from engines ), not show a
head-to-head comparison between the units. although i guess it is
coming across like that in my posts.

> Also, if you reversed the links were the results the same?

unfortunately, we had no time to stop the production for me to
experiment with different configurations. the producer only wanted
nat sound from the boom anyway, so they didn't care about the lavs at
that time and didn't want to stop the shoot.

that raises an interesting question for me though - does it matter if
it is the tx or rx near the source of interference? does it cause the
same kind of interference if one or the other is near the source of
the problem? in my situation, the analog TXs were near the problem and
the digital TX was with the soundbag. however, the digital rx mounted
on the camera was very close to the go-cart engines. would the
problem have been the same the other way around?

brian
 >> Stay informed about: Zaxcom Stereo ENG Wireless 

"Brian Albritton" wrote

> > I would also ask, are your analogue units UHF
> > and if so what brand and type are they??
>
> UHF, lectro 210s, sonotrim lavs
>
> > Just curious where the driver's transmitter packs/antennas were located?
If
> > they were on the drivers belts buried in the seat of the go carts that
might
> > be a reasonable explanation as to why the performance was degraded as I
> > assume your bag transmitter and the camera receiver where in a more
elevated
> > and unobstructed position.
>
> the transmitters were located on the front belt of each talent under
> their shirts. i was lucky that they all had untucked shirts - so a
> quick switch to the front was possible when they decided to race the
> go-carts ( or is it spelled go-karts? ).
>
<snipped<


Hi Brian!

Try to set up the same rig somewhere, and make sure the talent-transmitters
are so far away from you that they are "on the edge", and not too close to
each other ( don't put them on top of each other.. ).
Then turn off the bag-transmitter. In most cases you'll then have almost
double the distance you had with the bag-transmitter active.
Try out different positions for the bag-transmitter, try to keep it as far
away from your receivers as possible.

Sorry if I tell you the obvious here, and also sorry for my bad English!

Hans W.
www.haly-tek.com
 >> Stay informed about: Zaxcom Stereo ENG Wireless 

I had problems in all ocassions in that scenario. Cars are
transmitting many telemetry signals to boxes and I thought that was
the source of the interferences. Those races were F1 races, sorry if I
missunderstood the kind of race/cars involved in your case...

Fernando
 >> Stay informed about: Zaxcom Stereo ENG Wireless 

The ability of Zaxcom digital wireless to remove ignition noise is
excellent. Any short duration interference is completely eliminated.
This type of interference does not have to be considered a factor in
digital wireless transmission due to the error correction of the
digital system.

In the situation presented the most difficultly would be experienced
by the digital receiver being close to the go-cart engine. It is the
receiver side that has the sensitivity.

Thanks for posting the story.

Glenn
 >> Stay informed about: Zaxcom Stereo ENG Wireless