glenn Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Range is entirely dependent on the RF noise floor were you are working and line of site. If the noise increases 10 dB when the RX antenna is attached to the receiver then there will be no increase in range due to the new hardware. If there is no increase in the noise floor the the new RX can double the range if you compare QRX100 in dual mode to QRX200/235 in dual mode. The new modulation will always produce a increase in range or fewer dropouts as it is more like doubleing the transmitters power output. Here is the measured difference between the OLD and the NEW. Hardware advantage New RX hardware = +5 dB Dual mode difference = +4dB Software advantage New Modulation = +4.5 dB Adding 9 dB will double the distance of any radio system. Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Just to clarify... None of what I said in my previous post was a criticism of the QRX200. I'm just reporting my findings in my first use of the new system. I like these receivers and look forward to a great future with them. What Glenn stated makes total sense to me. During yesterday's shoot we were in a large house with dozens of people moving about,:upstairs, downstairs, inside, and out. Using 900 systems in locations such as major stadiums, I've had success over some really large distances and I imagine these new systems will fare well in such circumstances. One of the great levelers in wireless use is when obstructions and multipath signals come into play. Intersecting bodies absorb a lot of RF energy, and walls, doors, metal, and lots of production equipment make for some difficult, and unpredictable, circumstances. FWIW, most of the transmitters were 50mW, with only one having the benefit of Power Roll. I'll soon be using more of the higher powered units. My use yesterday was in no way a definitive comparison between the RX900 and QRX200, it was just some comments based on my initial results under wildly varying conditions. Overall, I'm a happy camper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted March 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Is the performance improvement in single mode as much as I expected? NOT REALLY in the BAG but definitely on the cart with sharkfins. Is the performance improvement in dual mode as much as I expected? Almost. Great improvement that would allow me to carry a smaller bag. Should you expect miracles? NO Is it better then qrx100? YES Is the upgrade a good idea? YES ... It might not be as mind blowing as Zaxcom's video but still is better then before. I was happy with Zaxcom even before the XR software modulation upgrade and the qrx200. so any improvement is good in my book. That's kind of unfortunate. I wonder what is happening here since range increases was where it was supposed to shine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Zack : " Can you give details why? " Glen has already said why, no further details (they are rather technical) needed... JB: " I don't think I've ever seen any Zaxcom whip antennas cut close to their published sizes. " there is way too much concern given to this, as reception differences (<1dB) are barely, if at all, perceptible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 I get better performance using my QRX100 with rfmulfi vs. the supplied whips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Orusa Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 I get better performance using my QRX100 with rfmulfi vs. the supplied whips.I see a substantial improvement using Lectro SNA600 antennae over whips on my QRX100. It just seems like the QRX100 doesn't like whips. The QRX200, on the other hand, seems to be performing like a champ on whips. Still, I look forward to a new wideband antenna combiner/amp system like the MicPlexer. Mark O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted March 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 I see a substantial improvement using Lectro SNA600 antennae over whips on my QRX100. It just seems like the QRX100 doesn't like whips. The QRX200, on the other hand, seems to be performing like a champ on whips. Still, I look forward to a new wideband antenna combiner/amp system like the MicPlexer. Mark O. Mark, What firmware do you have on your qrx200? Also how do you find dual mode? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Orusa Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead. I don't have any QRX200. I was just responding to what seems like a much improved performance using whips, compared to QRX100, based on what I've read in this thread. My QRX100 we're never that great with whips, but are very good with SNA600. I'm not using the XR modulation yet, either. Mark O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead. I don't have any QRX200. I was just responding to what seems like a much improved performance using whips, compared to QRX100, based on what I've read in this thread. My QRX100 we're never that great with whips, but are very good with SNA600. I'm not using the XR modulation yet, either. Mark O. I have noticed almost identical scans when comparing a qrx100 with whips vs sna600 in nearly the same position as the whips, but noticed a difference when bringing the antennas up above the bag. my point being, mark, you may be noticing the difference in antenna position more than difference in antenna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Orusa Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 I actually have the SNA600 in the front pouch right next to the QRX100. With two QRX100 and no antenna distro I've had one SNA and one whip per QRX and the SNA side is always showing a greater reception. I haven't tried dual mode. Mark O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 I actually have the SNA600 in the front pouch right next to the QRX100. With two QRX100 and no antenna distro I've had one SNA and one whip per QRX and the SNA side is always showing a greater reception. I haven't tried dual mode. Mark O. sounds like my observations don't apply to your situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Orusa Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 sounds like my observations don't apply to your situation.I remember Rado saying in another post how positioning the antennae up and out of the bag improved performance. I expected I would have to do the same, but have been pleasantly surprised how well they work in-bag. Mark O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTA Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beatty Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 I get better performance using my QRX100 with rfmulfi vs. the supplied whips. Are you using XR on the TRX900s w/ v3.x on the QRXs? Also, what flavor of TRX are you using (NC vs LT vs LA vs AA)? 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. This is also my concern. I don't think anybody has used LA2s w/ 200s yet and I'm holding out hope that this will be where range will be significantly improved upon in single mode vs. QRX100 w/ TRX900LA On the other hand, I can now see a clear advantage for hanging onto QRX100s vs 200s if your bag has a mix of blocks and you are invested in a wideband distro. As of now, the 200 series is limited to use with a micplexer in a specified block, so it nullifies any wideband advantages you would have if you are in a situation where remoting the antenna is your best bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek H Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Does the QRX 200 have stable firmware available yet? Following the Zax forums it seems like there were a lot of rapid fire firmware revisions in the last few weeks. Maybe when you guys submit your field reports here you should specify the firmware on everything. I agree, exact transmitter model numbers, RF power setting is also useful for those of us watching from the sidelines. Thanks, DH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 The QRX200 has no software issues we are currently aware of. Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTA Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 I think Rado put it well. If you're expecting a miracle machine, you'll likely be disappointed, but if you want a cutting-edge wireless system with a lot to recommend it, the QRX200 is certainly worthy of serious consideration. Zaxcom has a winner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldmixer Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Does the QRX 200 have stable firmware available yet? Following the Zax forums it seems like there were a lot of rapid fire firmware revisions in the last few weeks. Maybe when you guys submit your field reports here you should specify the firmware on everything. I agree, exact transmitter model numbers, RF power setting is also useful for those of us watching from the sidelines. Thanks, DH +1. The more precise the better. Maybe we should be considering adding those type of details in our signature? Would save the expected follow up questions and avoids thread confusion and crosstalk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 +1. The more precise the better. Maybe we should be considering adding those type of details in our signature? Would save the expected follow up questions and avoids thread confusion and crosstalk. That'd be one long signature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek H Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Can't wait to hear more feedback. If people are expecting a miracle machine I dare say it might be because of a certain video that was posted... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Rillie Posted March 13, 2014 Report Share Posted March 13, 2014 Couldn't help myself Insects have antennae, sound people have antennas. Regards, Jim Rillie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim M Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 Couldn't help myself Insects have antennae, sound people have antennas. Regards, Jim Rillie Interesting Jim, never considered that...although from what I know they unfortunately work nothing a like. Unless we don't yet know enough about them yet, maybe they function as old factory sensory organs and 10−6 Hz µHz microhertz transmitter/ diversity receivers lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted March 14, 2014 Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 Couldn't help myself Insects have antennae, sound people have antennas. Regards, Jim Rillie according to my dictionary, both versions are correct for our antennas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted March 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2014 Using the qrx200 with mixplexer I am discovering more and more range available. I was hoping to not have another piece of gear in the bag but the extreme range that qrx200 gives me with micplexer compared to no micplexer makes it totally wort it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.279748a58a2b862b7aa5f3b84126e232.png)
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.