Jump to content

Zaxcom TRX 742 Case


KGraham045

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Glen Deakin said:

Yes seriously do tell. That looks really cool.  You should let zaxcom know about that and they should all be made like that.   Looks like part of it is this connector

http://www.neutrik.com/en/xlr/fx-spec-series/

Would that also work on the bottom of a internally cabled pole or only to a male xlr end at the top?

 

easy solution for you, glen.  I took it to audio services in toronto,  where javed made that spacer and attached the neutrik connector. I had two analog cones upgraded and left one stock.  I may have one of my aes cone changed soon.  there is an emc version of the spec series that I might try.  for interiors, we use the 742 attached to a cinela mount,  with the wider lwb cinela base.  for exteriors,  the 742 goes into a pouch, and is not on the pole, to keep the weight down.  microphones used this way are the sennheiser 8000 series microphones,  most often the 8060, but in small quarters we use the 8050.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use KTek Klassik poles with the KTA2 right angled adapter at the bottom of my pole. With the Portabrace TRX Pouch connected  directly to the adapter, I got huge amount of random handling noise. I was interested in the pouch for protection. It's overkill, and not useable how I intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

I got the xlr mod done to both my mono cone and my stereo cone and the difference is huge. The 742 does not move. I repeat does not move. 

Even when using the rubber o ring on the existing cone there was still a bit of movement.

The modification is top notch.  Very high quality. Would highly recommend sending cones to Audio Services in Toronto and getting the locking xlr mod done. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are constantly on the lookout for ideas to make our products better. Many software and hardware changes go into products. Some obvious and some not. The next time we do a redesign on the TRX742 I will keep this in mind as making an incremental mechanical change is not always possible. 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not speaking for Zaxcom in particular, but am offering a response to Matthias' puzzlement in general.

For a manufacturer to redesign some aspect of a piece of gear is far more complicated than a casual observer might imagine.  Let's examine it from the manufacturer's point-of-view:

There's the redesign process itself.

There's creating internal documentation and specifications for the redesign.

There's a potential patent search to make sure the new design doesn't bring any legal issues. 

There's sourcing the new components.

There's finding a backup source for the components.  If this is a proprietary design and you're stuck with a single source, that's a big red flag as both future cost and availability become an issue.

There's the situation of how to deal with  existing units.  Will it create a negative with customers if current devices  are not updated for free?  How much will you charge for an update?  Will that cost result in a general negative reaction?

Will the altered unit result in a pricing change, requiring you to issue new pricing policies for all distributors and dealers?

You now must maintain double inventory for that item, paying attention to sourcing  issues for both versions, as repair parts need to be maintained for alternate versions now, including units already in the field.

There's dealing with customers who prefer the previous design and claim you're nuts for having changed it.

There will be customers who prefer aspects of both designs and request -- sometimes even demand  -- a combo version.

And, then there will be someone with an "even better idea" who wonders why you haven't implemented it immediately.

-----

This is far from covering all the aspects of a change, but perhaps it'll give some idea why it's much more involved than, "Oh, that's a good idea -- let's do it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John I hear you. Though in this particular case (742) it´s "just" the housing of the cone alone that needs some redesign. No change in the actual TRX nor eletronics would be involved.

And if you look at the plugon-transmitters from the other manufactures - they all got some kind of securing mechanism to prevent the TX from rattling or falling off the pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Matthias Richter said:

John I hear you. Though in this particular case (742) it´s "just" the housing of the cone alone that needs some redesign. No change in the actual TRX nor eletronics would be involved.

And if you look at the plugon-transmitters from the other manufactures - they all got some kind of securing mechanism to prevent the TX from rattling or falling off the pole.

I understand your point, but keep in mind that even with "just" a cone housing redesign, all the issues I pointed out above (and more) apply to to that change.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...