Jump to content

Zaxcom's new High Density wireless


Jeff Wexler

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 hours ago, Philip Perkins said:

Actually the Cantar can Dante its way to 64 more (they say), pretty good trick.  (Has anyone done this?)

 

No recorder can "Dante its way" to more tracks --- more inputs and outputs, yes, but not more tracks. Track count is seriously dictated by many other factors with DSP (horsepower) being one of them. Personally, I have always felt that if you're doing more than 24 tracks you're probably not using a Cantar, Deva, SD 688, etc. or any of the most common production sound recorders. The exception could be, in regards to the SD 970, but the 970 is not a full mixer/recorder like the others I mentioned and requires a fully capable external mixer to feed all those tracks on the 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Philip Perkins said:

Cantar territory but way more tracks.....  Music recordists have taken notice...

 

To clarify the comparison: 

The Cantar has 24 track recording, and has been working and available for most of the past year.

The Deva 24 is promised to have 24 track recording, but it is unknown how long it will take to become available.

GT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did also have a Lectro Digital Hybrid set in play (411a + SMQV). It was set to different frequencies than the ZHD set, though I believe in the same block (block 26). We got pretty much the same results with the ZHD and Lectro sets. Again, YMMV.

That comes as a bit of a surprise to me. Reading through this thread I got the impression that ZHD would be far superior.

Was the SMQV on 250mW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Glen Trew said:

To clarify the comparison: 

The Cantar has 24 track recording, and has been working and available for most of the past year.

The Deva 24 is promised to have 24 track recording, but it is unknown how long it will take to become available.

GT

The Deva24 will have a minimum of 24 recording tracks and will be available for delivery later this year. All of the technical data is on the Zaxcom Web site for a feature by feature comparison to any product.

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wandering Ear said:

In the range tests, where were the antennas placed?  On the bag, or on a pole up in the air?  What was the foot traffic like?  Lot's of pedestrians, few pedestrians?

Gotham test on Saturday: Streets had moderate Traffic, Sidewalks had a few people, but nothing like what you'd see in manhattan. Antennas were mounted to the bag on 1 ft dinkum arms. When Jack did his best John Cusack impersonation while we were getting dropouts the signal quality definitely improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shastapete said:

Gotham test on Saturday: Streets had moderate Traffic, Sidewalks had a few people, but nothing like what you'd see in manhattan. Antennas were mounted to the bag on 1 ft dinkum arms. When Jack did his best John Cusack impersonation while we were getting dropouts the signal quality definitely improved.

Thanks.  I hope Jack was wearing that outfit too ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Constantin said:

That comes as a bit of a surprise to me. Reading through this thread I got the impression that ZHD would be far superior.

Was the SMQV on 250mW?

I forget what the exact power output setting was, but they were the same on all transmitters. It was either 50 or 100mW.

Regarding range differences, like I said YMMV. Manhattan is a very RF crowded environment. And it's hard to quantify exactly. The end of range artifacts are quite different in both systems, and so usable range may vary as well. All I'm trying to imply here is that ZHD range is at least comparable to that of Lectros based on that first test.

17 hours ago, Wandering Ear said:

In the range tests, where were the antennas placed?  On the bag, or on a pole up in the air?  What was the foot traffic like?  Lot's of pedestrians, few pedestrians?

For the Manhattan test, it was whips on a bag, a bit above waist level, lots of foot traffic, cars, buses, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all comparison tests - even between different zaxcom modulations - were all done with the same output power levels. 

And in every test I have done the ZHD range was at least equal to the SMQV/411 range - and in many cases it is better.

RF is part science part voodoo so the results would vary slightly from test to test. 

The bottom line is ZHD range is as good, and in many cases, better than any other system I tested it with. And the audio at the far end of the range is as good as the audio at close range. The audio doesn't start to get noisy and hissy like in some analog systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The maximum distance of any wireless system is a very subjective thing. There are so many variables that can effect performance that direct comparison to other systems can be difficult.

We have now been involved with many demonstrations that have shown line of site coverage far beyond that required by any production television show or feature. While 1000 feet plus with dipoles is easy to get with ZHD, the system excels in its ability to be used with multiple obstructions. Walls, cars, trash dumpsters, metal chairs ect., can all cause RF reflections and multi path problems that can limit the distance of analog and digital wireless systems. ZHD was designed not only to allow 100KHz channel to channel but also to eliminate the reflection problems and RF interference that can severely limit the distance of wireless transmitters. ZHD loves reflections and multi path conditions as they help to reinforce the signal rather than just degrading it. ZHD provides the same audio quality 10 or 1000 feet away from the transmitter.  I know that many people make distance the only criteria to judge a wireless microphone. I hope that as we begin to deliver ZHD that many people will be amazed at the audio quality, feature set and general wow factor that we have been excited to see when ZHD demos are given. As we move into the more frequency limited future I hope ZHD will be seen as not only as a comparable solution to older wireless systems but as a quantum leap into a new generation of wireless possibilities.

Glenn 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glenn said:

The maximum distance of any wireless system is a very subjective thing. There are so many variables that can effect performance that direct comparison to other systems can be difficult.

We have now been involved with many demonstrations that have shown line of site coverage far beyond that required by any production television show or feature. While 1000 feet plus with dipoles is easy to get with ZHD, the system excels in its ability to be used with multiple obstructions. Walls, cars, trash dumpsters, metal chairs ect., can all cause RF reflections and multi path problems that can limit the distance of analog and digital wireless systems. ZHD was designed not only to allow 100KHz channel to channel but also to eliminate the reflection problems and RF interference that can severely limit the distance of wireless transmitters. ZHD loves reflections and multi path conditions as they help to reinforce the signal rather than just degrading it. ZHD provides the same audio quality 10 or 1000 feet away from the transmitter.  I know that many people make distance the only criteria to judge a wireless microphone. I hope that as we begin to deliver ZHD that many people will be amazed at the audio quality, feature set and general wow factor that we have been excited to see when ZHD demos are given. As we move into the more frequency limited future I hope ZHD will be seen as not only as a comparable solution to older wireless systems but as a quantum leap into a new generation of wireless possibilities.

Glenn 

very well put sir. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no doubt in my mind that high density wireless makes perfect sense and could quite possibly become the standard moving forward, considering how quickly the spectrum is being gobbled up and sold off to the highest bidder.  

My only hope is that if a particular frequency range is no longer available to us, Zaxcom and Lectrosonics will offer a reasonable "retooling" rate to set our transmitter/receivers to the newest "flavor of the month" frequency range so we don't have to continually repurchase the same gear again and again.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jgbsound said:

There's no doubt in my mind that high density wireless makes perfect sense and could quite possibly become the standard moving forward, considering how quickly the spectrum is being gobbled up and sold off to the highest bidder.  

My only hope is that if a particular frequency range is no longer available to us, Zaxcom and Lectrosonics will offer a reasonable "retooling" rate to set our transmitter/receivers to the newest "flavor of the month" frequency range so we don't have to continually repurchase the same gear again and again.

John

 

They do currently.  I reblocked 2 of my Zaxcom transmitters not that long ago.  I believe the Zaxcom block changes were around $400, not sure about the price of the lectro change.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2016 at 1:03 PM, RadoStefanov said:

And Howy did it. ZHD in dual mode on 200 RXs

Bravo

Hi Rado, just to confirm; that will be a firmware update that will allow dual mode ZHD reception on the likes of QRX200 and the QRX212 modules? Oh and if so, is there a known timeline for its availability?

I'm poised to start getting finance sorted for a wireless upgrade, but wanted to wait and see if I'd need to hold off for a new QRX model to come out.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:

Hi Rado, just to confirm; that will be a firmware update that will allow dual mode ZHD reception on the likes of QRX200 and the QRX212 modules? Oh and if so, is there a known timeline for its availability?

I'm poised to start getting finance sorted for a wireless upgrade, but wanted to wait and see if I'd need to hold off for a new QRX model to come out.

Cheers!

Not Rado, but according to Zaxcom the new TXs are about 2 weeks away (per talking with them at last weekend's Gotham Sound event)

200/235/212 Rx will be able to do 2 channels of ZHD with the caveat of 200 KHz Tx channel spacing. I'm sure the firmware for the new modulation will be released with the new Tx.

-- If anyone has more up to date info, please correct 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Shastapete said:

Not Rado, but according to Zaxcom the new TXs are about 2 weeks away (per talking with them at last weekend's Gotham Sound event)

200/235/212 Rx will be able to do 2 channels of ZHD with the caveat of 200 KHz Tx channel spacing. I'm sure the firmware for the new modulation will be released with the new Tx.

-- If anyone has more up to date info, please correct 

This is right. New firmware will roll out when transmitters become available for sale, which should be less than 2 weeks away now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mosdeaf said:

Has there been any pricing information on the ZHD wireless? If the release is less than 2 weeks away I would imagine this info is available. 

Call your favorite dealer for exact pricing, but it will be about the same as current wireless, maybe $50 more.

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...