Jump to content

Micplexer works better then psc d rf multi sma with new zaxcom wireless


RadoStefanov

Recommended Posts

Just got my micplexer from zaxcom. Compared to the psc rf multi sma "that I have been using for the last 2 months" the old micplexer performs a lot better.

I get less noise even though the micplexer amplifies the rf signal by 7dB.

I can now confirm that the wide band psc rf multi sma is not ideal for qrx 200/235.

Also the micplexer amplification gives me more stable signal and more range.

I can not speculate how good the micplexer II will work.

I know zaxcom are reducing the amplification in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting thanks.

Any idea how well the Micplexer might work with other manufacturers radio mics please, in mixed radio mic manufacturer scenarios?

Bit of a broad question I know, but on the face of it I can't see why it shouldn't be fine, except possibly for the 7db amplification which could be attenuated if it was a problem anyway, presumably?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shold work quite well as long as the frequency is within the 35MHz tuned window. The filter in the Micplexor will eliminate the RF gack that you don't want.

Thanks, yes of course given that they're within the 35Mhz range of the Micplexor.

Is 'Micplexor 2' due soon do you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting on Zaxcom's respose to a request for details regarding Lectrosonics' 25mhz and 50mhz filters in line with a PSC or other wideband splitter. I'm hoping that this will be a workable solution as the filters will allow a little more flexibility with swapping out blocks if the situation calls for it.

Wondering if we will ever see a tunable "RF mixer" with flexible routing, gain management, filtering & graphic display, all in an itty bitty box. I can dream right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rado: " ... amplifies the rf signal by 7dB. "

and thus also amplifies the noise by the same amount!

" reducing the amplification in it. "

one more time: the idea is not to add any gain, but only to make up for any losses.

pindrop: " Any idea how well the Micplexer might work with other manufacturers radio mics "

exactly the same...

RS: " 25mhz and 50mhz filters in line with a PSC or other wideband splitter. "

also the same...

RF is brand agnostic

" if we will ever see a tunable "RF mixer"... "

such technology exists, but not in either pricing or packaging that would suit our needs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thanks.

Any idea how well the Micplexer might work with other manufacturers radio mics please, in mixed radio mic manufacturer scenarios?

Bit of a broad question I know, but on the face of it I can't see why it shouldn't be fine, except possibly for the 7db amplification which could be attenuated if it was a problem anyway, presumably?

I remember micplexer working great with SRa and 411s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rado: " ... amplifies the rf signal by 7dB. "

and thus also amplifies the noise by the same amount!

" reducing the amplification in it. "

one more time: the idea is not to add any gain, but only to make up for any losses.

Senator,

In my case " if you did read my post" the extra 7dB did not amplify the noise possibly because of the 35mhz filter.

Also zaxcom digital handles rf noise a lot better then lectro.

The new wireless is able to tune a digital frequency even if there is significant amount of noise.

If you are talking about Lectrosonics your statement is correct but it does not really apply to the new digital Zaxcom modulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting on Zaxcom's respose to a request for details regarding Lectrosonics' 25mhz and 50mhz filters in line with a PSC or other wideband splitter. I'm hoping that this will be a workable solution as the filters will allow a little more flexibility with swapping out blocks if the situation calls for it.

Wondering if we will ever see a tunable "RF mixer" with flexible routing, gain management, filtering & graphic display, all in an itty bitty box. I can dream right?

Scott, I know I promised to test it but I can not find my filters.

I apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rado: " the extra 7dB did not amplify the noise possibly because of the 35mhz filter. "

actually it did amplify the noise, within its (35MHz*) bandpass.. but as you correctly noted: " digital handles rf noise " differently, and " is able to tune a digital frequency even if there is significant amount of noise. "

 

* we used to call devices that do this: preselectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, of course (I'm using brands to state which RF filter/splitter models I'm talking about, not suggesting RF exhibits brand loyalty, maybe try decaf tomorrow), but as discussed, a full 230mhz of RF is apparently no bueno on the QRX front-ends. 35mhz is advised, but *if* 50mhz works well enough, I'm sure plenty of folks would love to acutually use a couple of blocks in thier talent RF.

[quote name="studiomprd" post="253995" timestamp="1399995186"

RS: " 25mhz and 50mhz filters in line with a PSC or other wideband splitter. "

also the same...

RF is brand agnostic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible for me to know the specifications of other companies RF multi couplers. The front end of the QRX200 is as good as it gets with the tunable 35MHz wide window, a very high resistance to intermodulation and a .5dB noise figure.

 

Putting anything other than a Micplexer in front of the QRX will negate the benefit of our front end to some degree. The worst thing you can do is use a wide band front end that does an equally good job amplifying cell phones and walkie talkies with the RF from your wireless mics. 

 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I currently am using a micplexer with qrx200, qrx100, and srb, and the results are excellent. Doing walk tests, the micplexer increased range on all my radios by a significant amout.

I did not have the same experience with the psc rf-multi sma, and in noisy environments, the psc would reduce my range over whips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the improvement of range with the Micplexer and SRB being quite significant.

 

I currently am using a micplexer with qrx200, qrx100, and srb, and the results are excellent. Doing walk tests, the micplexer increased range on all my radios by a significant amout.
I did not have the same experience with the psc rf-multi sma, and in noisy environments, the psc would reduce my range over whips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread, be interested to read peoples experiences of running the PSC RF MULTI SMA with QRX100's (which I understand is quite a different beast to the QRX200). I have been doing so ever since they've been available, I can't say the performance I've experienced has been particularly worse than with whips alone.

My reasoning with the RF MULTI being that the advantage in bag mode of being able to quickly 'hot swap' from whips to shark fins outweighs a slight loss of performance when using whips alone. In very busy RF environments I totally understand Glenn's point about a wide band front end potentially amplifying everything in its frequency range which is certainly not good.

Have never asked the question but wondered whether PSC would (at a price of course) be interested in offering a mod to the RF MULTI so that you could choose to have the frequency band only two or three blocks wide? Unlikely I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek.

I wrote Ron from PSC with some proposed mods to the RF multi sma but never got a response.

I proposed smaller unit with 4-5 pairs of RF outputs and sma connectors on the side or on the bottom for easier bag implementation.

ALso 3-5db of gain IMHO will be beneficial for zaxcom RX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be interesting to see the 'increase in range' exhibited by using the Micplexer (35Mhz passband, 9db gain, 1-in-4-out) against using a somewhat-equivalent setup from Lectrosonics/Mini Circuits - The UFM50 (50mhz wide RF amp selectable 8dB gain) and the ZSFC41 (4 way splitter)...

I would also like to see this comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not impossible to know the specs of popular RF solutions. Many of the specs are posted.

As the Zaxcom RF solution does not allow sound mixers to work with multiple receivers across a wide bandwidth, but the receivers themselves function across 200mhz, it is realistic to assume many of the mixers will continue to look for the solutions they need.

It's not impossible to assume mixers will have older Zaxcom transmitters & QRX100s on a fixed block and also want to add to their system later with QRX200 systems and eventually RF distribution. Glenn, using your ideology, these mixers would be forced to stay in the 35mhz around their current block, almost completely negating the wideband capabilities of the QRX200s we are all wanting to get onboard with.

My first question to Zaxcom is how a 50mhz window will impact the performance (not a 235mhz window). Micplexer 1 uses a 40mhz window. A 50mhz window (as discussed) will ignore the cell phones and walkies you mention. 50mhz would at least give two blocks of spectrum to work in.

Another question to Zaxcom I've wanted to know about for a long time is WHY the systems were designed to be incompatible with wideband RF. It seems backwards to design a wideband system and then have them be incompatible with wideband RF distribution, unless an extra external filter is inserted into the path.

I'm sure there is a good reason, as you guys at Zaxcom are smart guys, I'm just curious as to what the reason is.

It is impossible for me to know the specifications of other companies RF multi couplers. The front end of the QRX200 is as good as it gets with the tunable 35MHz wide window, a very high resistance to intermodulation and a .5dB noise figure.

Putting anything other than a Micplexer in front of the QRX will negate the benefit of our front end to some degree. The worst thing you can do is use a wide band front end that does an equally good job amplifying cell phones and walkie talkies with the RF from your wireless mics.

Glenn

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...