Zaxcom Stereo Link

I also would like to know once and for all what the status is with the
new off the shelf Stereoline TXs regarding level drift.
Are the new TXs perfectly stable? Obviously there was a problem with
the
older units but I am not convinced that there is not a 2 to 3 dB level
drift with
the newer TXs. I have an older TX that has upgraded photo cells and I
operate it
at 50mW. Shouldn't my TX perform like a new one? I am continually
experiencing a 2 to 3 dB drift.

There is something strange going on. There are a lot of older units
out there but
for some reason not every owner is complaining about the level problem.

Is that because there is not a problem with all of the older TXs or is
it that some
owners are just not noticing the problem or are there environmental
reasons why
some have level drift and others don't? Is the level drift problem a
symptom of
photo cell technology that we just have to accept at this point. I
might be willing
to accept that but I would like to be told that. The newer photo cells
seem to be
more stable but not 100 percent. At least my TX with the upgraded
photo cells
are much better but not 100 percent stable. Maybe the problem is with
the quality
control of the manufacturing of the photo cells. Possibly some cells
are good and
some are bad. Anybody have any answers? I would love not to have to
keep
adjusting the camera levels or should I say my cameraman would love not
having
to take the camera off his shoulder and change the levels so they are
reading zero
when sending tone. It is especially a pain when the camera has it's
rain jacket on
as it did in the recent Blizzard here in the Northeast.

All of that said I still when run and gunning prefer to use the
Stereoline link over going hardwired even with the level drift. There
are just too many advantages.

Andy

If you are recording on a camera w/analog audio tracks (still a lot of
Beta SP's out there), you have confidence playback all the time. On a
camera with digital tracks, it is very unlikely there will be any tape
drift or variance. Either it will be there (1's) or it wont (0's). With
digital tracks, I do a confidence playback at the start of the day,
during breaks if possible, and at the end of the day, But I'd check
meters as regularly as possible.


John Blankenship wrote:
> Marty wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> I mentioned that for analog tape which can vary from one tape to the
>> next. Monitoring the confidence playback is very important.
>>
>> But for a digital recording, minor variances in the tape formula,
>> ferrous particle density, bias level, etc., will not affect the
>> digital audio recording or playback (though it's always a good idea to
>> record, stop, and play back to verify proper functioning before you
>> start a shoot).
>>
>> Honestly!
>> Marty
>
>
>
> I guess my experiences are different from yours. On a large portion of
> the work I do it would slow down the process to demand a confidence
> playback check at each tape change. More likely, at tape changes, it's
> a rush to get the camera rolling again, therefore, my level checks are
> normally confined to confirming that the meters haven't drifted --
> which, as we both know, has nothing to do with tape formulation -- it
> only monitors the level sent to tape. Hence, my post. I certainly
> meant no offense whatsoever in my, "Just tryin' to keep you honest,
> here" comment.
>
> It's cool that you often have more flexible shoots where there is time
> for numerous confirmation checks, etc. I don't see too many of those.
>
> John Blankenship, C.A.S.
> Indianapolis
> (email: my initials at mw daht net)
>
> 
>