SHADYMILKMAN
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Posts
- 143
- Likes
- 40
It really isn't about ruggedness ... they are paired, and essentially useless without one another so unpairing them seems like a rare event anyways. its about data transmission and cleanliness. it looks like a clusterf*, when while your deprecating the old connection essentially due to the pairing, you're free to move forward in design and tech for connecting the IEM. the old design would seem like the new bottleneck. i just think its forcing the old pin arrangement in the new reference which clearly has higher demands as far as channel separation from the adaptation of the old 2 pin to the new 2x2pin *(which is garish), square peg/round hold. i would go for a single ended high bit rate (hbr) multichannel (up to 4 triad pair channels in some cases; 4x(3 pins; 2 channels - 1 ground)) connector that is small enough for the IEMs ... just my observation, if i could ask jerry i would: pm his email if you guys have it.
Quote:
Quote:
milkman, its not a digital link to the IEMs, its still analogue. there are some pinheader connectors with a finer pitch by 3m, molex etc, but not so hot for unplugging and plugging. repeatedly. the lemo/odu range have a right angle multipin connector that might be about the same size as 2 connectors and is locking. there are literally thousands of options actually, mainly connectors used for internal connections. but its a matter of finding one small enough that is rugged enough, not that the stock connector sets a standard there.
Greenleo, I know what you mean man, no dramas on the info. I for sure have carried larger rigs on a daily basis without complaint due to the SQ they bring, but yeah I have been working on bringing it down to 2 while increasing quality. there will be a way