Eric Lau Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 I don't understand how? Mix8 and RX-12 need to use same serial port (only one in Nomad ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 I don't understand how? Mix8 and RX-12 need to use same serial port (only one in Nomad ). The rx12 does everything including scanning and auto-pick with its own internal cpu. The only thing that nomad is doing is acting as a conduit to the internal zaxnet transmitter that is within a nomad 10 or 12. When the rx12 is attached to a nomad you can have the rx12 send the frequency change commands to to the trx transmiters. If the rx12 is not hooked up to the Nomad you can still remotely change the frequency of the transmitters with nomad you just need to enter the frequency in zaxnet menu in nomad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 You can still use auto scan and you can still use auto pick. You just can't use auto change (the transmitters remotely) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 You just can't use auto change (the transmitters remotely) That is correct. For now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Woodcock Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Surely they could have made the serial port on the rx12 a pass through so you can plug both into the nomad. They shouldn't be sending the same data down the path should they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Surely they could have made the serial port on the rx12 a pass through so you can plug both into the nomad. They shouldn't be sending the same data down the path should they?Unfortunately its not that simple since it is an RS422 protocol. But stay tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vale Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 The better thing should have been if the RX12 had a Zaxnet antenna/module into it, so that it could act as standalone for all the Zaxnet operations and it should have been convenient for all that users (me included) that don't have a Nomad recorder, without the need of an external device, like the IFB200 or the QRX+Ifb. But I'm just speculating, I'm at the window to see how it will develop. v. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 It does seem to be a design oversight limiting how useful some of the new features will be to many people. I can't mix that many wireless on the nomad without the fp8, and I can't manually tune that many wireless on the nomad. Can't wait to see what they come up with to address this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 Glen and Howie, a request to think about an RX6 or 8, same width and depth (or deeper), but shorter / skinnier - perfect to work with smaller bag setups, like 442, 552, 633, 664, Cantar, etc... I know there's infinite variations of the same idea, but 6 or 8 is probably the sweet spot for many of us pack mule types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 IMHO. 3 or 4 qrx200s is a lot better solution. smaller and not as heavy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted January 5, 2015 Report Share Posted January 5, 2015 IMHO. 3 or 4 qrx200s is a lot better solution. smaller and not as heavy. I feel the control integration is done better on the RX12 and like the idea of built in DC / RF distro, not to mention general tidiness. Weight has never really been an issue for me, I've carried packs that have been close to or more than 100 pounds! ok ok, when I was younger and training to hunt people, not sound waves, but 5, 10 or 20 pounds, pretty much all the same in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prahlad Strickland Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Something that would worry me is having 6 wireless tied to a single device. If that particular dies. Having backups isn't as simple on trips on the road. With the qrx. At least when one dies u still have the others. Wot think? Maybe buying two empty shells? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Something that would worry me is having 6 wireless tied to a single device. If that particular dies. Having backups isn't as simple on trips on the road. With the qrx. At least when one dies u still have the others. Wot think? Maybe buying two empty shells? This is always a concern but it's not a new concern. People that use the Lectrosonics Venue system are faced with the same issue. My understanding is that the people that are using one box systems, like the Venue, also need to have individual receivers to provide backup and flexibility. Many years ago, several of the prominent manufacturers of wireless gear had quad boxes that held individual receivers --- this gave you the best of both worlds since you could pull an individual receiver out of the quad box and use it on its own. You can't pull a receiver module out of the Venue and use it alone but that's the trade-off you have with the fully integrated one-box units like the Venue and now the RX-12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 I would certainly never purchase an RX-12 when building up my one and only system, but now that I'm maturing into a personal preference, I'd like to have a "go bag" for the medium / typical job with a minimal of fuss and performance flexibility. I'd Ideally like to have an RX-12 for a cart and an RX-6 for a bag. If it has to be 3 QRX, that's ok too, but I'm comfortable having a single box solution too. I guess I've come to gain a certain amount of trust with Zaxcom equipment, having come into the brand relatively later in the game. I've never had a piece of Zaxcom equipment not power up on me (had one not want to turn off, but I'll take that any day over not turning off). An occasional reboot has been required. I've got some buttons that don't work well or the plastic front fascia's falling apart (IFB200), but everything has been working pretty well all in all, after some pretty rough Hawaii production life. I suppose if the Zaxmote software comes out soon, that could possibly take over a lot of the integration features that I'd want to see and maybe make using 3 QRX a better option, especially since I already own 2 (looking for 1 more B25 perhaps). Right now for larger jobs I have to split my wireless between Zaxcom and Lectro, this coming year I'd like to consolidate it down to 1 system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Something that would worry me is having 6 wireless tied to a single device. If that particular dies. Having backups isn't as simple on trips on the road. With the qrx. At least when one dies u still have the others. Wot think? Maybe buying two empty shells? Very valid concern. I know people put the rx12 in a bag but again compared to bunch of qrx200s the RX12 lacks on a few different levels: You can not break the rx12 modules down " for example using 3 modules in one wireless bag and the another 3 in a second bag". If the RX12 shell host device fails the wireless modules are worthless. Unles zaxcom makes QRX shell for each individual wireless module the RX12 looks like a dedicated cart system that can not exist in a single "NO BACKUP" workflow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundslikejustin Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Unles zaxcom makes QRX shell for each individual wireless module the RX12 looks like a dedicated cart system that can not exist in a single "NO BACKUP" workflow. You mean just like how Lectro VRT modules don't work without the Venue shell.....? Sennheisers digital 9000series offering is the same, along with being the size of a small car. If you absolutely need to retain redundancy/flexibility, buy multiple QRX's. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prahlad Strickland Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 I love the idea of a rx 6 Tom. id buy two. One with the maxx and one with the nomad. But it also keeps the eggs split a little for failures. And like u said smaller bag frame. I did a small gig with 7 wireless last week which is a lot for me. Would have loved to have the speed the rx12 offers with auto mapping. This is off topic but I ran the waves dugan on a laptop with an rme interface fed from a soundcraft board. Then across to the nomad for ISO. The mix was perfect in my oppinion. Highly recommend it ( rack form would make sense and not the way I rigged it. ) I'd used it for conferences with live sound work up until now. Anyways my point is. Rx12 plus Dugan for high wireless count. Would be amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Here is a little secret no one knows. The 6 receivers in the RX12 are totally independent of the central processor. Meaning, if there were to be a problem with the central CPU the 6 receivers would power up and receive at the last settings they were given. I think the RX12 is the only multi channel receiver to provide this type of reliability. It is very unlikely to have a total meltdown with RX12. Not that we have had a single failure in an RX12. Yet ;-) Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindrop Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 I feel the control integration is done better on the RX12 and like the idea of built in DC / RF distro, not to mention general tidiness. Weight has never really been an issue for me, I've carried packs that have been close to or more than 100 pounds! ok ok, when I was younger and training to hunt people, not sound waves, but 5, 10 or 20 pounds, pretty much all the same in my book. 5, 10 or 20 pounds the same after 10, 12, 14 hours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 5, 10 or 20 pounds the same after 10, 12, 14 hours? If you're not carrying it I would guess that the weight of qrx's, a BDS, a micplexer and all the cabling is pretty similar to the rx12, especially fully loaded. Haven't compared them though, just thinking about how much all that weighs in my bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 After 12+ hours I think it's called "Cruel & Unusual Punishment." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 You mean just like how Lectro VRT modules don't work without the Venue shell.....? Sennheisers digital 9000series offering is the same, along with being the size of a small car. If you absolutely need to retain redundancy/flexibility, buy multiple QRX's. Simple. I dont compare Zaxcom to the the rest. Technologically they are way ahead of everybody else. I keep zaxcom on a higher standard and always expect more. Exactly what I am saying and why I am not interested in the rx12 for bag work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arnold Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 If you're not carrying it I would guess that the weight of qrx's, a BDS, a micplexer and all the cabling is pretty similar to the rx12, especially fully loaded. Haven't compared them though, just thinking about how much all that weighs in my bag. Rado has compared it with his rig. There was a big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arnold Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Here is a little secret no one knows. The 6 receivers in the RX12 are totally independent of the central processor. Meaning, if there were to be a problem with the central CPU the 6 receivers would power up and receive at the last settings they were given. I think the RX12 is the only multi channel receiver to provide this type of reliability. It is very unlikely to have a total meltdown with RX12. Not that we have had a single failure in an RX12. Yet ;-) Glenn So, as long as one didn't want to alter any settings you could continue working without the rack? Unless the failure was power supply related? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Rado has compared it with his rig. There was a big difference. Have you seen numbers? Based on specs posted, I calculate about 1 pound difference. Noticeable, but not what I call big. You have to compare with 2 micplexers, BDS, and cabling, all that weighs more than the qrx's do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.