PTA

How are your QRX200's doing for you compared to your QRX100?

I think this would be extremely useful. If there was a way to send a command for a specific Tx to dump it's recordings onto the Nomad's cards in a separate folder, I would be for it. Re-record would be useful too as I would only use it for specific takes.

Are you using MicPlexer then since the RF Multi is problematic or changed to whips?

This is what I was told by Lectro a while back, opposite if the SRa.

What did this bag end up costing? I'm looking at one like this.

I disagree. If I'm in the road and my recorder goes down, I DEFINITELY want my backup recorder with me. If I'm working local, it maybe makes more sense to leave it at home as I could go home and grab it, but a Maxx or 633 is just about as small as any backup mixer now so why not bring it?

Is this 2 channel? I thought it was only 1.

Agreed. It seems the obvious upgrade from their LMa line of Tx's, which was a step below the UM400a's.

I think it is more the positioning of the display for me. It not being on the top makes it difficult for bag use, but maybe that's not what they were intended for. The size is impressive, although the SRb fits 2 channels into a box that isn't much bigger. It looks like a nice piece for mono hops to DSLRs or C300s though.

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.

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?

Thanks for the results! Let us know how it does in the field too.

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

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.

It does seem like the QRX200 and the QRX100, as of tests so far, don't show that big of a range difference, at least not what I and maybe others were expecting. Looking forward to more results and testing though that might show otherwise!

Anyone else out there have experience with the QRX200 in the field?

I know it depends on a lot, but how would you quantify stronger? Would you say you get 5-10 more feet or much stronger like 80-100 more feet?

Yeah, not sure. Maybe John can comment too if this was the case as he was reporting similar range between the old RX900 and the QRX200 in the bag.

That's good to hear. How come there wears some confusion in the beginning as to the QRX200 not being much different in the bag?

So MicPlexer in the bag with the QRX200 is way better than the QRX100? Is this with whips or dipoles on the harness?

From what I understand, there should be no range advantage between a TRX900LA and the LA2 transmitting at the same power. It is all in the Rx and modulation used.

I guess my confusion is how the old models seem to be behaving similar in range to the new QRX200 in whatever environment. I thought the example of "Hudson River Range" was to show how the new QRX200 outperformed other models IN heavy RF environments.

That's kind of unfortunate. I wonder what is happening here since range increases was where it was supposed to shine.

Rado, How did the QRX200 do in the bag today?

Well I'm now curious to hear more field reports. I was hoping for people to note a substantial difference on first tests. Maybe later tests will show different results. Keep us posted!