Jan McL Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 This video is from a summer 2013 job. Zax's range is already magnificent (and I don't say that lightly); can only imagine how on a day-to-day basis improved range will make our jobs easier. This is the view from the cart: Camera and cast was up under the ship's antenna array. You can see a stand-in on the ledge if you look closely... From the same cart position, we earlier captured a stunt scene that went across and down in to a cargo hold just out of this pic's frame to the right. Beyond getting the dialog, my goal was to say the heck out of the way, particularly at this location where walkable space was limited and there was no rollable space at all. Great stuff, Zaxcom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldmixer Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Let me clarify. The hardware in the QRX200 and QRX235 is compleatly different than the hardware that is in the QRX100. As well as the hardware that is in the the LA2 and LT2 transmitters. So to upgrade the units would basically require changing out the entire unit with exception of the case. So it is not as simple as swapping out a few components or even a board. Ah! Ok then. Thanks for the clarification. With regards to the discussion of hardware upgrading, I feel it should be given due consideration ( not free but at cost +X) for particular now legacy units. That would appease recent purchasers, lengthen overall ownership, strengthen brand confidence, and improve resale when upgrading and or retiring. And offering qrx 200 faceplates at cost to qrx100 owners that upgrade and make the request I also feel would be a very feel good, high five buddy nice move to do. I take this suggestion back since it is clearly not possible. Thanks Jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 So if I have a QRX100 and trx900aa/sta that is used exclusively for a camera hop, it sounds like there is no benefit to upgrading firmware. Is this correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McL Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 The 4900 can get the new software, you just have to send it back. Dunno about the 900. Actually, the 4900 cannot take the new software. Oh well. At least the 4900's will get a good cleaning having taken 'em outta the rack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Jack, is the new modulation tech likely to be implemented into stereo transmitters at any point? At this point the modulation is only available for mono transmission. Not sure what, if anything, will change in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 So if I have a QRX100 and trx900aa/sta that is used exclusively for a camera hop, it sounds like there is no benefit to upgrading firmware. Is this correct? If you are only going to use the AA in stereo mode then no. If you are going to ever going to use it in mono mode than yes you should upgrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pindrop Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 All new guts then so why keep the same container that excludes the QRX200 having QIFB QRX200 + QIFB = QRX300? But having said that it all sounds like a great new development and thanks very much for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimPitot Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 At this point the modulation is only available for mono transmission. Not sure what, if anything, will change in the future. Thanks. Would a TRX900CL be any better feeding a qrx200 rather than a 100 - I'm assuming not? Edit: I think you just answered my question up thread. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Thanks. Would a TRX900CL be any better feeding a qrx200 rather than a 100 - I'm assuming not? Yes it will be better. Though you would most likely use the 235 with the CL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VM Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 I hope when these units get into the hands of the users people will start posting their own videos. And I am waiting to hear other tests, and comparative tests. If I am really impressed by the range, I noticed that you are doing a very good job : line of sight (transmitter in the pocket, not in the actress's back)), water reflexion, diversity LPDA antenna and I am sure that you have choosen a very good frequency. The last test I did was with many brands (Lectro, Zax, Wisy, Senn, Audio Ltd) , all at the same frequency. Inside a long concrete building. No drops with two models when going outside (150 meters) : Wisycom and very close Lectro SRB. Anyway I am still impressed by the video, I went to this place when I visited New York, that's a long distance.. Very good job and range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Of course they've lost a lot of resale value. I don't see why they should have. They will in the future, though, but that's true for any product. If you're in the market today for a used wireless, there is plenty of choice, but it's the same choice as last week. It'd be different if Zaxcom had significantly lowered the price of the newer systems, but as far as I know, they didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olphi Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 A brief "opinion piece": For those who think they made a "bad investment" by having purchased now "discontinued" transmitters and receivers quite recently, it boils down to this: If you purchased your wireless as a fiscal investment, then, yes, that investment has decreased some. However, if you purchased your wireless as an investment in your capabilities as a sound mixer, that investment just made a nice increase -- free of charge. When Lectrosonics introduced the B version of the SR receiver, any fiscal investment in an SRA took a bit of a downturn. However, in the interest of serving their customers, Lectro offered a great hardware upgrade price for existing units. The nature of the internal changes made this possible and they were quite generous to their users price-wise. Therefore, for a modest charge, those who bought SRA units as an investment in their capabilities as a sound mixer saw an improvement. In Zaxcom's case, the internal design has changed completely and offering hardware upgrades isn't a reasonable approach. In the interest of serving their customers they are giving sound mixers an improvement free of charge -- made possible because it's a software change rather than a hardware one. The bottom line is that our industry benefits from having a number of dedicated companies producing great products and working hard to serve their customers. Those products are improving, and technology sometimes allows startling changes in our approach to doing our jobs. We're the beneficiaries, not the victims. Unless, of course, you see sound gear as only a fiscal investment. However, in that case, about the only items in our industry that make much sense might be a few rare vintage microphones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 +1000 for John B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 I hope when these units get into the hands of the users people will start posting their own videos. sure will... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTA Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 I'm excited to see how the new modulation helps my QRX100's and will post results here! Am I bummed there is no hardware upgrade? Sure, but it makes sense if it's not possible and that's ok. I'm also curious as to how the QRX100 and 100 would do in a side by side test. I don't see why they should have. Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Really?as I explained above, yes, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTA Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 as I explained above, yes, really.Sorry, I didn't mean to be curt, but in my opinion, before Zaxcom came out with these new products, you could sell your LANC's, QRX100's, for a given price off of retail. Now that there are newer products for the same price with way more features, that same used price for the older products isn't as desirable. Just seems like the natural way of the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertolomi Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 and my last question: are the new wireless products ce confirmed? want to use them in germany.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Sorry, I didn't mean to be curt, but in my opinion, before Zaxcom came out with these new products, you could sell your LANC's, QRX100's, for a given price off of retail. Now that there are newer products for the same price with way more features, that same used price for the older products isn't as desirable. Just seems like the natural way of the market. I see what you mean, but I still think that the price is mostly governed by the quality of the product itself, and the availability of it. The new ones are not available used yet, so the older models are still the best you can buy. That will be reflected in a relatively high price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 I wonder how much the increased range will simplify my car to car rigging... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmaho Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 I really hope that Zaxcom will allow a trade-in. The TRX900LANC transmitter was introduced half-a-year ago and it seems to me it is a very short period to make them 'discontinued'. It seems to me not fair for the ones here (me included) that invested a lot of money on that. v. edit: I'm also guessing that, with these extended blocks on QRXs, my brand new MicPlexer became useless. All our existing Zaxcom radios will work as well as they have always done. So there is nothing in this new product introduction that makes our existing gear unuseable. It's sort of like Jeep just introduced a Cadillac. There's no reason Jeep would take back your Cherokee and upgrade it. I for one will be switching over all my Zaxcom radios for these new ones over time. I'll be selling all my existing radios on the open market and I will price them low enough that they will provide a great entry point for younger mixers who want to discover the joys of zaxnet, recording radios and digital modulation. I only have one question. It seems the Zax xtrs will either cover 500-600 OR 600-700 mHz. Since the 600 mHz band has a limited life, if I bought all 600 mHz xtrs (to match my existing block 26) are they easily convertible to 500 mHz if and when the time comes? Very excited about these new radios! Billy Sarokin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 I am a little baffled to hear that the QRX receivers have a sampling frequency of 32khz when the industry standard is 48. I know the human voice is not really creating content above 16khz ( maximum audio frequency reproduced by a 32khz sampling rate ), but the background is and we are not limited to recording the human voice. Also, the statement that the wireless is as good as a cable is then not correct. BUT the feature set of these units ( and the integration into the rest of the product line ) is quite interesting. Now a genuine question, what is the actual latency in these units going to be like? I mean the actual talent voice compared to receiver output in analog and digital. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Pascal, The DAC is 48khz. You can go analog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 If I remember correctly, the 32khz aes rate was chosen to reduce the processing power requirements. 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.