Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

" the tx antenna is usually only polarized vertically or horizontally and thus only the corresponding antenna on the rx is needed, "

not in practical usage...

maybe in theory, in a perfect, open space.

yes, you are misunderstanding this.

No, I'm not. I did say in ideal rf conditions. Again, I'll point out that most RX come with the antennae (see, I can do it, too) in the same polarization. And in real life, I mostly see this, too.

Thinking about the bouncy/reflective part just a bit more, I don't think it's so much a mis-understanding, rather I have worded it crudely and over-simplified it and mis-stated the underlying concept, but the actual point about diversity receivers helping in this case is still true.

This is becoming something of an academic discussion and I'm arguing for a side that I don't want to argue for. I know and understand the adavantages of diversity receivers, even though there may be some conceptual defeciencies, or rather my understanding thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lectro say:

" the signal arriving at antenna A is largely cancelled by a multi-path null, leaving little signal left for the receiver. The signal at antenna B remains strong and provides adequate signal for the receiver to produce a usable audio signal to noise ratio."

I said:

"...the diversity helps with the bouncing by identifying the primary wave and ignoring reflections."

Sure, in my version there's a bit more activity on the part of the receiver, but in essence in Lectro's version, too, the receiver uses the stronger signal. Like I said, crudely worded on my part

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool little test..... I enjoyed reading it... thank you..

 

  I would add that the actual environment this test took place in makes it difficult to gather any REAL information on range or quality of signal at distance.

  What I mean is, imagine looking out in this "school area" this test was done at.... If every RF signal in this area was colored, and a different color and intensity for each frequency, what would it look like?... A deep and dark Psychedelic nightmare?  or a very softly arrainged 8 color rainbow... very subtle.. who knows..

 

  You just cant see this.... maybe a frequency finder.... but visibly.. no..it would be nice but not just yet. (I used to see them at Dead shows...LOL)

 

  Who knows what was going on or how clean the freqs were... I do know I get results and distances around my home that FAR exceed what is normal on my normal LA jobsites... by a long shot...

 

I have had  Lectro, Comtek M216 or lettered frequencies, Sennheiser wireless or other types of wireless work great with very long distances, or,  not work great and your fighting to find open usable spots... at rather short distances... even having to change 216 or lettered frequencies, we seldom do this...The lectros we change often, thats normal these days...

 

  If there are TV stations, Police, Fire, Powerlines, Metal Fencing, towers, metal structures or other buildings, and a ton of other frequencies generated by who knows what as well.. you can suffer...you just never know.. Normally we all swim in a bath of that rainbow stuff I spoke of earlier..

 

 

What was going on during the test, a mystery... thus, hard to judge.. or  conclude anything..

 

 

Thanks again..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're absolutely right! It is hard to tell what the environment can and actually did entail that day. We knew it, because we were there. It was a random location on Earth. Just like any film you work on, it will always change.

 

These results are just based on this particular spot, and this given time. It wasn't meant to be an exact measurement of the capability in these pieces of gear. Just a very, very, general idea of what they could be capable of in a random location.

 

I'd love to read of other tests people do, but I haven't seen any. I was just hoping to start up a convo and maybe get some neat info out. Especially with what we did with the Nomads.

 

I'm glad you enjoyed though! :)

 

Hopefully we can go even farther with these tests and get a more elaborate article going. Until then, we're all on our own to relay any data we gather. Happy Testing!

 

-Sessoms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

My first distance check with the TX2040 was very similar to the range I got with the 2020 series a few years ago. At its 50 mW output, I was amazed then by how far the 2020 carried then. The 2040 carried as far on my first tests. In one new test, I got 1,100 feet through a relatively clear suburban setting with only a few parked cars, shrubs and trees and a ten foot high wooden fence.

 

No other wireless I have used has given me that range. A few days later, after a changing from 540.3 MHz to 540 MHz, the range of the TX2040 was down 60%. Us- ing the scanner software in the palm pilot, which links to the DX2040 receiver, I found nothing at 540 MHz. I bumped the frequency back up to 540.3 MHz and the range went back up to 1,000 feet. The take away message is that the scanner can let you know of blunt force problems like TV carriers, but can’t handle the little stuff that can make your life Hell. 

 

Regards,

 

Ty Ford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. I recently got a pair of Sen G2s and one of the first things I did was tested the range. Our street is about 100 yards long, and the signal became a little spotty at about 80ish yards, I think the signal dropped out completely at about 100. Pretty impressive, at least for me, having not used any higher end radios. The receivers were indoors next to the window, so I 

 

Sennheiser G3, I believe, has an even lower mw output, but nearly got the same range. it was about 100ft shorter before cutting out. Not bad, but the sudden loud hisses were a little annoying.

 

Both the G2 and G3 have produce 30mW. The squelch is set to low on mine and I get no hisses when the range gets thin - the signal simply drops out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry et al have made the point many times that so many factors affect the range of wireless systems, including those that we generally aren't able to measure, that you have to take what you find out in any given test with a grain of salt.  I have a walk test that I've used at my shop for 22 years now.  It tells me many things, but what it doesn't tell me is exactly how the set under test at the shop will perform in a different location on a different day.  That is why I recommend that you start with freq. usage research for your area in general and use freq coordination software like Freq Finder to pick good starting freqs for your units in the area they'll be used in (so your wirelesses aren't stepping on each other), then be ready to scan and refreq as necessary on location.   I OFTEN find that freqs that are clean at the shop are much less so elsewhere, not even that far away from here, and vice versa.

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walk tests are fun and are a simple test of a system. My main caveat is this: use exactly the same frequency on both units being compared. Otherwise you really are kidding yourself that the tests have any validity. As Philip says there are other factors also but this is the monster.

Best,

Larry F

Lectro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this was a general test for fun. I agree having the same frequency on all of the gear is the best way to go about it. That's why we did it, and for those not on the same block, we got extremely close. 

 

It was neat to see how they all did within this environment. My pick will always go to Zaxcom because of their TRX's recording ability. This allows for infinite range capabilities. I love it!

 

Sessoms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because of their TRX's recording ability.

TX recording is a very nice feature, but my main concern with wireless is a good range (with a good sound obviously)...On many shows, producers will be happy to have the recording security but they will really prefer to have no drops, and to have the sound recorded on their usual recorder.

The better will be to have both !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because of their TRX's recording ability.

TX recording is a very nice feature, but my main concern with wireless is a good range (with a good sound obviously)...On many shows, producers will be happy to have the recording security but they will really prefer to have no drops, and to have the sound recorded on their usual recorder.

The better will be to have both !

I recently saw Zaxcom wireless in action. I'd never seen or used Zaxcom wireless because no one where I live uses it.

I'm working on a Doc series with two other crews. The guy using Zaxcom was running, QRX100 into a PSC RF multi and Lectrosonic dipoles. I had 411a's with whips. We were working in the same area, I think the we were both running block 21. In some situations I was getting twice the range. Now I understand there are a lot of factors to consider.

But this did confirm what I always wondered and what many have said. Zaxcom wireless range sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TX recording is a very nice feature, but my main concern with wireless is a good range (with a good sound obviously)...On many shows, producers will be happy to have the recording security but they will really prefer to have no drops, and to have the sound recorded on their usual recorder.

The better will be to have both !

I recently saw Zaxcom wireless in action. I'd never seen or used Zaxcom wireless because no one where I live uses it.

I'm working on a Doc series with two other crews. The guy using Zaxcom was running, QRX100 into a PSC RF multi and Lectrosonic dipoles. I had 411a's with whips. We were working in the same area, I think the we were both running block 21. In some situations I was getting twice the range. Now I understand there are a lot of factors to consider.

But this did confirm what I always wondered and what many have said. Zaxcom wireless range sucks.

 

To justanross:

 

For you to come to this erroneous conclusion based on your observation of two crews working with wireless setups, Lectro and Zaxcom, would be laughable at best and a serious lapse in judgement and understanding at the worst. When you say "I understand there are a lot of factors to consider" were you in a position to be able to consider any of these other factors? Did you ask the person using the PSC multi-coupler if he has had any problems with that (as you probably know there was a period of about 3 months where Ron Meyer was trying to solve some rather serious problems with that unit)? Were you aware of all the devices the Zaxcom user had in their bag --- whether there were any possible interactions between a camera hop, for example, or an IFB in the bag? Your conclusion, which you say is shared by "many", that "Zaxcom wireless range sucks" is just patently and demonstrably untrue. I will add that I agree that the wonderful recording feature of the Zaxcom wireless is NOT a substitute for its RF performance, and that was never the intention. The recording feature will, however, save you like no other in those situations where there are serious and unsolvable RF problems because of the nature of the shoot.

 

Lastly, I will say that from a great deal of personal experience, I have not had any range problems in my work, and the people that I know who routinely use Zaxcom wireless in the bag have nothing but praise for the units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TX recording is a very nice feature, but my main concern with wireless is a good range (with a good sound obviously)...On many shows, producers will be happy to have the recording security but they will really prefer to have no drops, and to have the sound recorded on their usual recorder.

The better will be to have both !

 

I agree, and as I have said before, the recording feature is not there as a substitute for poor range as it is not needed for that purpose because the RF performance and range are more than acceptable on their own. The Zaxcom wireless do not have limited range and for the most part the recording feature is just an additional and redundant recording (never a bad thing in my opinion). The recording feature can save the shot when you are faced with recording dialog in a situation where range would be an issue no matter what wireless you were using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently saw Zaxcom wireless in action. I'd never seen or used Zaxcom wireless because no one where I live uses it.

I'm working on a Doc series with two other crews. The guy using Zaxcom was running, QRX100 into a PSC RF multi and Lectrosonic dipoles. I had 411a's with whips. We were working in the same area, I think the we were both running block 21. In some situations I was getting twice the range. Now I understand there are a lot of factors to consider.

But this did confirm what I always wondered and what many have said. Zaxcom wireless range sucks.

To justanross:

For you to come to this erroneous conclusion based on your observation of two crews working with wireless setups, Lectro and Zaxcom, would be laughable at best and a serious lapse in judgement and understanding at the worst. When you say "I understand there are a lot of factors to consider" were you in a position to be able to consider any of these other factors? Did you ask the person using the PSC multi-coupler if he has had any problems with that (as you probably know there was a period of about 3 months where Ron Meyer was trying to solve some rather serious problems with that unit)? Were you aware of all the devices the Zaxcom user had in their bag --- whether there were any possible interactions between a camera hop, for example, or an IFB in the bag? Your conclusion, which you say is shared by "many", that "Zaxcom wireless range sucks" is just patently and demonstrably untrue. I will add that I agree that the wonderful recording feature of the Zaxcom wireless is NOT a substitute for its RF performance, and that was never the intention. The recording feature will, however, save you like no other in those situations where there are serious and unsolvable RF problems because of the nature of the shoot.

Lastly, I will say that from a great deal of personal experience, I have not had any range problems in my work, and the people that I know who routinely use Zaxcom wireless in the bag have nothing but praise for the units.

Yes. I realize all this.

When we got a chance we played around a bit. We tried not using the PSC RF multi and whips. And yes he was using Zaxcom wireless to the camera so his transmitter could be a factor. But it was two blocks of separation from his other wireless.

There are other sound guys on this shoot who have similar stories about Zaxcom wireless range. They all mainly do bag work.

You work on a cart with powered antennas. As I have read on here and heard from others this is the best way to run Zaxcom wireless.

I'm sorry but I'm just not sold on there wireless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm working on a Doc series with two other crews. The guy using Zaxcom was running, QRX100 into a PSC RF multi and Lectrosonic dipoles. I had 411a's with whips. We were working in the same area, I think the we were both running block 21. In some situations I was getting twice the range. Now I understand there are a lot of factors to consider.

But this did confirm what I always wondered and what many have said. Zaxcom wireless range sucks.

Justan

For starters I use both Zaxcom and Lectro wireless in a bag and I can say from personal experience that the Zaxcom wireless range does not suck as you "confirm".

Is there a difference in range? Yes there is.

Is the range on the Zaxcom worse than the lectros? Not necessarily.

From my experience some times the range on my Lectro is great and my Zaxcom not so great but there are other times my Zaxcom range is great and my Lectros not so great. As you know with RF It all depends on location, block, frequency even time of day as well as dozens of other factors. So if your unscientific test would have taken place in a different location on a different day - or even if one of you had chosen a frequency just a few MHz in a different direction your results would have varied.

Also you said "in some situations" you were getting twice the range - does that mean in some situations he was getting a greater range? RF can be evil - a different location, or a different time of day can change the whole game. 

Also did you confirm the power level of the transmitters? Were they both set the same? Because if the guy running the Zaxcom system was outputting 50mW and your lectro was at 100mW that would also factor into a huge difference in range.

And the bottom line is were both of you able to get the job done with whatever system you were working with?

I'm guessing the answer is yes. If so then what's your beef?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There are other sound guys on this shoot who have similar stories about Zaxcom wireless range. They all mainly do bag work.

 
You work on a cart with powered antennas. As I have read on here and heard from others this is the best way to run Zaxcom wireless.
 
I'm sorry but I'm just not sold on there wireless."
 
Fine. Zaxcom isn't for you, I get it. Maybe it's not for all those other sound guys who also have stories to tell. But for you to come on here and "confirm" with your "tests" that Zaxcom wireless range sucks is just not proper nor helpful (and actually quite unprofessional with the greatest harm being done to your reputation, not Zaxcom's).
 
To clarify, you are correct that the majority of my work is cart based but I do not use powered antennas --- never have and probably never will. You are confusing the powered antenna system I use on the cart for the Zaxcom IFB-100 (2.4 ghz). The antennas I use for the Zaxcom Digital Wireless (talent and boom) are standard log-periodic (or whips when using the receivers in a mobile situation off the cart).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There are other sound guys on this shoot who have similar stories about Zaxcom wireless range. They all mainly do bag work.

You work on a cart with powered antennas. As I have read on here and heard from others this is the best way to run Zaxcom wireless.

I'm sorry but I'm just not sold on there wireless."

Fine. Zaxcom isn't for you, I get it. Maybe it's not for all those other sound guys who also have stories to tell. But for you to come on here and "confirm" with your "tests" that Zaxcom wireless range sucks is just not proper nor helpful (and actually quite unprofessional with the greatest harm being done to your reputation, not Zaxcom's).

To clarify, you are correct that the majority of my work is cart based but I do not use powered antennas --- never have and probably never will. You are confusing the powered antenna system I use on the cart for the Zaxcom IFB-100 (2.4 ghz). The antennas I use for the Zaxcom Digital Wireless (talent and boom) are standard log-periodic (or whips when using the receivers in a mobile situation off the cart).

I'm not disagreeing with you guys about the actual range testing.

Fine, my statement was harsh about Zaxcom. And I apologize.

But it's not like this hasn't been said before. It's what I heard, read and now saw.

Again, I am sorry. And I really hope this does not affect my reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. It's what I heard, read and now saw.

 

Once again what you saw was unscientific and an unreliable way to come to a such a conclusion.

If you want to do a real test you need to compare apples to apples. You need both transmitters on the same frequency, at the same location, at the same power level on the same subject with the same antennas, in the same bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<You need both transmitters on the same frequency, at the same location, at the same power level on the same subject with the same antennas, in the same bag.>>

 

Which is what we did in London - multiple locations (3) 

 

Quick dirty results: 

 

RANGE: (in descending order) - Wisycom, Lectro/Audio Ltd 2040, Zaxcom 

 

AUDIO QUALITY - Audio/Wisycom, Lectro SR/SMD, Zaxcom

 

-vin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a day to day basis, I used the zaxes trx900aa and rx900s on talent for 4 years (2007 to 2011) and never was impressed by the range, this might be un-scientific as much as you want (or, obviously, don't want) but as soon as I switched back to Lectros 411s and SMVs, it struck me not only did I buy way superior units in terms of range ***for my bag with whips antennas*** but also peace of mind when subjects would go to some distance I became nervous about with time with the zax units.

That is, and will ever be my two cents concerning these specific units I mentionned. Been there, used that, won't get the t-shirt.

As a cam hop with *exposed antennas on both tx and rx sides*, that's another story. But still, reliability, well... That discussion's for later...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also did you confirm the power level of the transmitters? Were they both set the same? Because if the guy running the Zaxcom system was outputting 50mW and your lectro was at 100mW that would also factor into a huge difference in range.

 

Small clarification: I believe this difference in power is only 3dB in terms of actual range. It isn't as much as you might think.

 

I'm of the opinion that more depends on local conditions, transmitter position, and receiving antenna height -- even more than transmitted power per se. I think both Zaxcom and Lectro have absolutely top-notch quality and both will deliver similar performance, assuming the same power and frequency block range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my current setup I get a very good range with my zaxcom on the cart or in a bag.

The zaxcom IMHO is a lot easier to use:

Digital so no intermodulation

Wireless gain, frequency and power control

And most importantly : TC recording.

Zaxcom wireless is a lot more then just wireless...I look at my transmitters as mini 702Ts.

 

Imho people should stop obsessing with range and know the limitations of their gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how relatively quickly this thread evolved, once again, into a Lectro vs Zax thread, especially when everyone knows that Microns are the best. ... No, I'm kidding. But I do wonder, Vin, how you arrived at this particular conclusion: 

 

AUDIO QUALITY - Audio/Wisycom, Lectro SR/SMD, Zaxcom

 

-vin

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...