Jump to content

First experience with Zaxcom qrx200 wide band RX


RadoStefanov

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 298
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The RF Multi is not an option for Zaxcom wireless. If you put a wide band amp in front of the QRX200 you will ruin the performance of the receiver and its tunable filter. The multi also has too much gain and xtalk to be used with our receivers.

 

Glenn

Glenn,

 

It's unfortunate that something like the RF Multi/Mini is unsuitable for the QRX200. Can you recommend an antenna distribution system for it and other QRXs?

 

Would it be possible to design a MicPlexer with a variable front end filter for use with receivers such the QRX200?

 

Mark O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still curious about the operational details of the 35 meg filter..

So it sets itself automatically based on the selected frequencies? So it's up to the user to ensure the freqs are < 35MHz apart?

How does the scan routine work? Does it help the user facilitate this? For example, 1st scan picks the best freq on any block and then the 2nd scan is limited to be within 70 Mhz centered on the 1st freq?

If it's all up to the user inevitably some will end up not being aware of how the filter operates, experience poor performance and then blame the gear. Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Constantin.

 

What I wanted to say was that in my argumentation I was only considering Zaxcom products.

I guess (since I don't own one) that the PSC RF Multi could suit perfectly these needs, just was asking if Zaxcom thouhgt something to menage a antennas/power/ampli distro (like the MicPlexer now do) for multiple frequency blocks. 

power distro alone is a nuisance with multiple qrx receivers.  was hoping the 200 series would have some flavour of multi pin connector introduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rado, curious about the real life test. I recently did some test with a Qrx100 and the new modulation. When leaving the tX in one place ( meaning it doesn't move ) and I walk away with the receiver, the range was good, but when I did the opposite ( TX on a person moving ) I had quite different range ( approx 50% less ). I found that Zax TX ( or the RX, hard they say ) do not like reflection pattern change. Curious about how the range will be when in real mode and from a good distance. Keep posting your results. Thanks for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pascal - there was a software issue that affected the antenna switching - which has been resolved. Perhaps that is what skewed your results.

Hey Jack, I was curious about that too, so I just did a walk test with both of my QRX100's, one on the old modulation, one on the new modulation with the newest software (3.19) and got very similar results meaning that I couldn't tell a difference in any range. I then switched frequencies for each of them so they were swapped and also got the same results. Not sure why some people, including myself, aren't noticing a range difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First day went ok... a bit confusing compared to qrx100. it is definitely better... It did very well car to car. Van to 1932 steel Ford 4-6 cars in between. Driver was micked on the belt. No special remote antenna... check the picture...

 

1800337_10203428350209340_926935115_n.jp

 

 

I had a some unexplained range behavior "like dual mode working better then single mode"  I did not have time to troubleshoot since my main concern was the show. I need further testing next foir days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pascal, I need a bit more time testing.

 

Rado, curious about the real life test. I recently did some test with a Qrx100 and the new modulation. When leaving the tX in one place ( meaning it doesn't move ) and I walk away with the receiver, the range was good, but when I did the opposite ( TX on a person moving ) I had quite different range ( approx 50% less ). I found that Zax TX ( or the RX, hard they say ) do not like reflection pattern change. Curious about how the range will be when in real mode and from a good distance. Keep posting your results. Thanks for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jack, I was curious about that too, so I just did a walk test with both of my QRX100's, one on the old modulation, one on the new modulation with the newest software (3.19) and got very similar results meaning that I couldn't tell a difference in any range. I then switched frequencies for each of them so they were swapped and also got the same results. Not sure why some people, including myself, aren't noticing a range difference.

 

For the moment I also still haven't experienced on my QRX100 a big difference in range between USMONO or XRMONO modes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine arrived yesterday. Tomorrow will be my first day on set with two QRX200s and a single RX900 in a bag.

First impressions: The range didn't seem much different moving through the hallways of the building my studio is in. This was definitely not any kind of a definitive test. I've worked with RF long enough to understand there are a lot of factors at play. My "acid test" will be if the QRX200s help me get good audio on set.

I like these units for quite a few reasons. The wide band ability is awesome! You can set it so it scans the full range, the 500mHz range, the 600mHz range, or any specific block. You're not limited to staying within block boundaries, those are just the scanning choices. It wouldn't surprise me to see a continuously adjustable 35mHz scanning window added one of these days -- after all, this is Zaxcom gear and movement forward is a given.

Just to make it clear for those who don't constantly read up and educate themselves on new gear, the QRX200 receiver can tune within about a 200mHz window, but to use it in dual mode, the two frequencies must be within 35mHz of each other, however there are no block boundaries for where those two frequencies are located within the 200mHz spectrum.

Yes, a unit can receive an XR modulated signal on one channel, and the signal from a transmitter using the older modulation scheme on the other. That also means that if you were thinking of getting a QRX200, but your transmitters are still using 7.30 firmware and you're not in a position to take them out of service long enough to send them to Zaxcom to have them retuned for using newer firmware, they'll still work fine -- just without the benefits of XR modulation.

The encryption is not working with XR modulation yet, but will work with the older modulation. I'm guessing it won't be long before it'll function with either.

According to my postal scale, The QRX200 weighs 7/10 of an ounce more than an RX900 (the RX900 has a couple of pieces of Velcro on it, if you want to factor that in) -- RX900 = 9.6 oz, the QRX200 = 10.3 oz.

I like the display and the fact that the backlighting actually makes it readable (as compared to the wimpy backlighting on the RX900 series). Zaxcom listens, and responds.

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...