Jump to content
RadoStefanov

First experience with Zaxcom qrx200 wide band RX

Recommended Posts

I would say that it can be on par, but it still seems to be a bit more "fragile" of a signal if that makes any sense.

I do know what you are saying, but i find when the "fragility" of the digital transmission is showing, the analog system has noise introduced by the low signal. I prefer the clan signal & dropouts personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zaxcom may well have been improving the components in the QRX100 over the time it has been available - there are 2 different looking rf boards in my other QRX100s that have been bought at different points over the last 18 months or so.

That could very be well the case. Many of the QRX100's - especially those sold right before the 2.0 changeover - had QRX200 components installed in their 100's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do know what you are saying, but i find when the "fragility" of the digital transmission is showing, the analog system has noise introduced by the low signal. I prefer the clan signal & dropouts personally.

I agree with that too. But I was simply hoping the QRX200 solves this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QRX200 and QRX235 have exactly the same performance. The only difference is the fixed 35 MHz filter vs the tunable 35MHz filter. (Or flux capacitor as we call it at Zaxcom).

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

i had 1 transmitter at 50mw and in XR mode and 3 receivers - 1 QRX200 in dual mode, 1 QRX200 in single mode and 1 QRX100 in dual mode. all fed from 2 dipoles via a PSC RF multi SMA -

One reason why the performance on the 200 didn't outshadow the 100 is because of the RF Multi. The unfiltered RF multi may be overwhelming the front end of the 200 - hence loosing some of the advantage of the new hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PSC explained the RF multi SMA to me as having enough gain to make up for its own losses thus what it presents to the front of the receiver is the same as what it would "see" with just whips. It is then up to the receiver's filter to do its job as usual.

Thinking out loud: Someone here mentioned crosstalk issues with the RF multi SMA. Is that where the problem lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PSC explained the RF multi SMA to me as having enough gain to make up for its own losses thus what it presents to the front of the receiver is the same as what it would "see" with just whips. It is then up to the receiver's filter to do its job as usual.

This was my understanding as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok. just done a few more walk tests.

this time comparing a QRX200 in dual mode with a QRX100 dual mode. both using receiver 2 AES out into a 788.

also, didnt have anyone to help out, so i was setting the 788 to record and using my sennheiser ifb to listen to when signal started to drop out.

first tests were as before - through my PSC rf box with some clip on dipoles to set a basic mark.

the QRX100 got to about 10 paces before the end of the road whilst the 200 got to where the pavement meets the main road - which i measured  - by counting paces back - to be 95 paces, so maybe 90 metres.

then i tried swapping out the PSC distro for a micron distro that has a 30MHz wide front end.

the QRX100 did about the same as before, but the QRX200 got me over the main road and to the fence of the building at the edge of the pavement - about another 30 paces.

 

it should be noted that for all these tests, i had the transmitter in my back pocket, and was walking away from the antennas, so there was less (of me) in the way to absorb rf.

so as i turned around to come back, range dropped off as you would expect. but the QRX200 seemed to get a usable - no drop outs rather than just picking up the signal - sooner.

i would say at best about 70 metres when walking back.

 

i also tried with whips, which meant i had to change my route so that i would have less of my house in the way of the whips - had to lift the bag up onto a speaker that i couldnt get far enough away from a wall to make covering the previous route useful.

 

walking away, the 200 went a bit further than the 100 - maybe 50-60 metres but again this was with less of me in the way of the transmission. walking back, the 200 got good signal back at least 10 metres sooner though only at about 25 metres.

 

though as i had the transmitter about waist height and the receivers at home at about the same height, there was a window and a few cars in between to bounce / block transmission - though that didnt change particularly during the tests.

 

also,all the tests were done at 50mw and in XR mode.

 

i did try when i was testing the dipole setup using Mono mode, and didnt lose as much range as i was expecting - maybe 5 metres with the 200, though there was a bigger difference to the 100 which was about 5-10 metres less than that.

 

of course, all this testing is great, but some work on the horizon requiring some actual use testing would be a far more useful thing right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been doing some wireless system testing, and so far, using only whip antennae (sic?) I'm having excellent results transmitting/receiving across the Los Angeles River.

 

--sent from one of my personal computing devices, using a web browsing program...

  can you tell which ones ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 so i was setting the 788 to record and using my sennheiser ifb to listen to when signal started to drop out.

 

To hear to signal coming back from the 788, the  IFB has to have a better range than the Zaxcom's ?
Anyway I am waiting to hear results from a comparison with Lectro or Wisy. From the tests I did last year the SrB and the MCR42 were very good. Really better than the others I tested (G3, 5212, Zax QRX100, audio LTD). The transmitter was in a room at the second floor. The Lectro and the Wisy allowed me to go down the stairs, go down and to walk 50 meters away the building. The other receivers were giving their first drop only in the same floor (20/40 meters) before the first drop : that is not so bad.
Manufacturers are working hard to simplify our work thanks !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To hear to signal coming back from the 788, the  IFB has to have a better range than the Zaxcom's ?

 

indeed. and fortunately, a dropout with the zaxcom sounds different to a drop out with my IFB.

i hit record as thats how im going to be needing my radios to work, in case there is any increase in rf from the 788 that isnt present in standby. probably not a real issue, but hard disk space is cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have done walking tests and came to the conclusion that they are worthless.

actual work is the best test.

amen.

 

now i just need some of this actual work that i hear so much about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amen.

 

now i just need some of this actual work that i hear so much about.

1899923_10203445884967698_234661538_n.jp

 

shared this on facebook two weeks ago.

Talents in a 34 ford 10 car lengths from the production van. Qrx200 vs qrx100. micplexer to sharkfins on drivers head rest.

 

In real world work i keep finding how much better the qrx200 is from qrx100.

another advantage is i dont have to buy a RX for hop. just used qrx200 in the block I want...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1899923_10203445884967698_234661538_n.jp

shared this on facebook two weeks ago.

Talents in a 34 ford 10 car lengths from the production van. Qrx200 vs qrx100. micplexer to sharkfins on drivers head rest.

In real world work i keep finding how much better the qrx200 is from qrx100.

another advantage is i dont have to buy a RX for hop. just used qrx200 in the block I want...

This looks great. Thanks Rado. Have you been able to do any more bag work or work with whips again? Or just dipoles in the bag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have not done whips in a while. I jump from cart to car to run and gun and back so I need a distro. If I get something stationary I would throw whips.

How have the dipoles in the bag been while run and gun? It seems like from people's posts that sharkfins seem to be where the QRX200 shines compared to the 100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could very be well the case. Many of the QRX100's - especially those sold right before the 2.0 changeover - had QRX200 components installed in their 100's

If this is true, and if there are some components that can install them in qrx-100 and improve some of the performance, why zaxcom not allow us to upgrade the hardware of the qrx-100? 
I do not expect it to work as qrx-235/200, but to justify the use of XR transmission. 
 
Anyway if someone sends the qrx to the factory, it will return with some new components. 
I'd pay to upgrade hardware to improve my qrx-100 performance. 
 
I'm not complaining, and I know they do above and beyond for their customers (including me), just do not really see an improvement using the XR transmission with qrx-100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking more than just a few swappable components. For the most part the only thing that is really similar in the 100 and 200 is the case - and that even changed colors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i spoke to my dealer today and asked what zaxcom had done when they repaired my QRX100 - he said that they had fixed a few dry joints.

it does look to me like they have replaced the rf board, but remember, i am not a zaxcom tech, i didnt take any photographs of the inside of the receiver before i sent it away to compare it to, and i dont have the receiver i bought at the same time to open up and compare it to.

 

if zaxcom had fitted a new rf board, i would expect them to have charged appropriately, but it doesnt appear that they have - ive not had the invoice from my dealer yet though, only spoken about it on the phone.

 

so until Zaxcom release a definitive statement about wether it is at all possible to update some of the hardware on the QRX100 to improve its rf performance, and also, what any improvement may be and its dollar to performance increase ratio, this is all just the kind of speculation that the internet is perfect for.

 

and i am pleased to have been part of that speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no hardware upgrade to QRX100 available. This is what we said when the QRX200/235 was released and it is still so today. The hardware is just too different.

 

Glenn

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

×