Jump to content

Rode Wireless Go 2


Recommended Posts

Rode-Go2.sm.jpg

 

Considering this for the bag work I do. Selling my Zaxcom ERX’s and going with this. It’s so small I could have a two channel mix going to camera and using my ambient Nano Lockits for Timecode. Yes it’s two units on the camera but they are both so small and light it would still better then an ERX.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, justanross said:

Considering this for the bag work I do. Selling my Zaxcom ERX’s and going with this. It’s so small I could have a two channel mix going to camera and using my ambient Nano Lockits for Timecode. Yes it’s two units on the camera but they are both so small and light it would still better then an ERX.

You are aware that this is more geared towards the vlogging crowd, right?  I wouldn't just sell your ERX's and pick these up as you should rather test these for your use case first as there isn't much control over them in terms of features and range might be considerably less than what you're used to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the real-world range and reliability of the TX as it deals with bodies, objects, etc? IIRC, for some earlier Rode wireless system, TX output was like 10mW. And that's at 2.4GHz, which used to have like half the range of UHF. Anyone: feel free to correct me; is 2.4GHz tech better these days? I get that it'll be less of an issue for hops, and geez the price is attractive. And Rode says their TX can record as they transmit. So we'll have to see how the Zaxcom patent issues play out, won't we? Again, not an issue for hops.

 

Despite all that stuff, I'm really curious to see if these work for you Justan. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jim Feeley said:

Anyone: feel free to correct me; is 2.4GHz tech better these days?

DJI drones go 6 miles on 2.4Ghz. I have no clue how they did it. I have gone about 2 miles out, feels like it shouldn't work but it does. 

 

It can only be a matter of time before this trickles down to Wireless audio. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, codyman said:

You are aware that this is more geared towards the vlogging crowd, right?  I wouldn't just sell your ERX's and pick these up as you should rather test these for your use case first as there isn't much control over them in terms of features and range might be considerably less than what you're used to.


I do realize. Once I did some more digging about these units I have changed my mind. The battery life isn’t great on these units. 
 

I’ll wait until the Deity BP-TRX’s come out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rode states a 600 foot range as well. but that is likely in absolute clear unobstructed conditions (on planet Mars). April fools day is upcoming as well.

As Jim stated, I am curious of Zaxcom's plans on this.. another patent infringement case.

Either way, I am not selling the Lectros.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 11:40 AM, Rick Reineke said:

As Jim stated, I am curious of Zaxcom's plans on this.. another patent infringement case

As I see it, and I'm not a lawyer, it is an infringement on Zaxcom's patent. My hope is thatI Zaxcom will discuss this with them and there will probably be a reasonable licensing arrangement. I don't think anybody is up for any more lawsuits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen some posts on other sites by people wondering if the fact that the Rode having non-removable memory or it working in the 2.4GHz spectrum or it only being activated via an app have somehow gotten it around the patent(I'm betting 'no', at least on the last two of those points).  Or even that Rode has already struck a licensing agreement with Zax.  Or that Rode(and their parent company) just has a lot more money and they can afford to duke it out in court for a while.  

 

And I believe I read that they will not ship with the ability to record.  It will be part of a future firmware update.  Which may allow for them to be sold "legally" in the US without violating the patent(if there is no prior agreement with Zaxcom) and get it into the hands of a lot of users, then they release the firmware update.  Then the court battle ensues...  Pure conspiracy theory speculation on my part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jeff Wexler said:

It is unquestionably an infringement on Zaxcom's patent. I imagine Zaxcom will discuss this with them and there will probably be a reasonable licensing arrangement. I don't think anybody is up for any more lawsuits. 


I‘m not so sure how unquestionable it is: I‘ve heard that they don’t have TC and certainly their website doesn‘t mention TC. And I believe without TC there’s no infringement on any patents

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Constantin said:

I‘m not so sure how unquestionable it is: I‘ve heard that they don’t have TC and certainly their website doesn‘t mention TC. And I believe without TC there’s no infringement on any patents

The Tascam DR10 didn't have timecode, neither did Juicedlink.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Constantin said:

I‘m not so sure how unquestionable it is: I‘ve heard that they don’t have TC and certainly their website doesn‘t mention TC. And I believe without TC there’s no infringement on any patents

Zaxcom patents cover recording transmitters without timecode I believe. In any case, paying a license, increasing the price a little bit makes everything legal. Let's hope they work something out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jeff Wexler said:

Zaxcom patents cover recording transmitters without timecode I believe. In any case, paying a license, increasing the price a little bit makes everything legal. Let's hope they work something out.

 

Ah, well in that case you may be right about the unquestionability of this. I dimly remembered reading a patent description some years ago regarding a Zaxcom Virtual Multitrack Network (or something like that), and TC was a requirement for that, iirc, but maybe there was more. And more patents. 

Anyway, we will see. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the speculations that I’ve read is that because it transmits at 2.4GHz, it gets around Zax’s patent.

 

And something I’ve never understood, how Zaxcom has been able to (in the US market) also force manufacturers of “mini” recorders to disable the audio outputs on their devices while recording.  It shows two things: 1) Overreach by Zaxcom and 2) How bad the US patent system is to allow it.  Which I think is even more baffling than ‘just the recording’ part of the patent(disabling audio output).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RunAndGun said:

One of the speculations that I’ve read is that because it transmits at 2.4GHz, it gets around Zax’s patent.

Maybe Zaxcom's patent specify "UHF transmitters" or something specific to the point where Røde is just going to gamble with it?

 

Also, I was under the impression that the Zaxcom patent is coming up on expiration so I wonder if Røde will just sandbag the feature for the USA and then enable it once it is legally allowed?  I can't speak for Lectrosonics but I've kinda wondered if they'll just release a firmware upgrade for their mic packs that have microSD slots in them once the patent expires as I'd imagine it's just a matter of software since the hardware is already there waiting.

 

All in all, glad I went the production sound mixer route and not the legal one as all of this kind of stuff is mind numbing.  Also, I don't play golf so that would probably not go down too well in legal circles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rick Reineke said:

In  Zaxcom's infringement case with Teac NA, the Tascam recorder did not even have an internal transmitter, it only facilitated using it with a third-party external Tx. As I recall, a Sennheiser G100 series or Lectro. The 'Lectro' compatible model was discontinued and other was not to be sold in the US.

Yes.  I bought the version with TA5Fs from overseas.  It worked well with an outboard TX--we made some dual-pocket ankle straps to accommodate this, but the rig was clunky enough that you'd only want to use it in very low budge or Hail Mary situations.  If you are planning to do a movie etc this way you should get the right tool.  In the USA that still means Zax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rode enables simultaneous record-and-transmit on the Rode GO II transmitters available in the US (a feature that appears to require enabling through Rode's RODE Central Mac/Win software and may not be available at launch...just guessing on that last bit), then I'd guess that could be because of a couple of reasons.

Disclaimer: I am not a patent attorney (just so we're all clear 🙂). 

 

  1. Rode/Freedman is a lot bigger than Zaxcom, so they can probably "encourage" Zaxcom to talk. I'd think they wouldn't want to get into a bit legal battle where they'd have to spend a fair amount of money and and possible lose (at least in the US). 
  2. Tascam/Teac is also a lot bigger than Zaxcom, but their US sales aren't huge and the DR-10 body pack recorder isn't a core product for them.
  3. So Tascam may have thought, "Why keep fighting?" How many US sales of DR-10 recorders did they lose in the US because the US version didn't have pass through? I'd guess not all that many.
  4. Lectro, Audio Ltd, etc are direct competitors to Zaxcom, and unlike Tascam wireless is super important to each company (duh). So I can see why Zax wouldn't want to license their patent to those companies. And I can see why Lectro et al wouldn't want to spend lots of money (and esp lots of time) in a legal fight with a risk of losing.
  5. Rode's GO wireless isn't a direct competitor to anything Zaxcom makes. I mean is anyone considering a Zax system going to be choose a GO system over something from Zax? Yes, I recall a couple days ago someone here was considering replacing his ERX (IIRC) with GO II for a camera hop, but I think he changed his mind pretty quickly. So perhaps Zax will be more open to a chat with Rode about licensing.
  6. Rode will probably sell a zillion GO II systems. So even a low-cost-per-unit license could generate a lot of revenue for Zaxcom, and keep Rode from having an uncertain grip on their ability to offer what they see as a key feature in their inexpensive wireless system.

Bottom line: I have no inside information and I'm just guessing. I have no idea how this will really play out.

 

Credit cookie: How does Deity fit into all this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a patent attorney either, but have some direct experience with patent litigation.  Just because someone has a patent, does not mean it cannot be challenged, or subject to a "re-examination", which is not that uncommon.  The test for patents is obviousness, so the question is whether having a transmitter that also records not "obvious" to someone skilled in the art.  I don't really know in this case, or if there is something else key in the patent(s) besides recording such as linking the recording with timecode to the transmitted signal, etc.  In any event, this Rode product seems like a clever and inexpensive way for someone using a DSLR or iPhone to record decent audio in a no-brainer sort of way, but not a replacement for real productions, ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The patent has had quite a history going back to 2010. Just last year, Lectrosonics filed a challenge on the obviousness of the invention, or as the lawyers like to call it "objective indicia of nonobviousness". The interesting thing is that the patent court found in favor of Lectrosonics in that the original claims were invalid as described in the National Law Review:

 

"With respect to the original claims, the PTAB [patent court] deemed them invalid and determined that Zaxcom’s objective indicia evidence was insufficient.".

 

But Zaxcom brought forth new claims that the court found to be valid and so the patent was saved Zaxcom's favor as stated in the law review:

 

"The PTAB, however, reached the opposite conclusion regarding the amended claims, holding that they are valid in light of Zaxcom’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. The key to Zaxcom’s success was its ability to connect the amended claim language to the objective indicia of nonobviousness.  Specifically, the PTAB determined that Zaxcom sufficiently linked its evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness—i.e., expert testimony and awards—to the amended claim limitation directed to eliminating audio dropouts—i.e., the replacing of corrupted audio data that was remotely received with locally recorded data.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So again, I'm not an attorney, but I've covered courts and been professionally involved in copyright and trademark cases (luckily as an employee of a big corporation; in both cases we prevailed). That mainly means I have a PACER account and I know how to do searches on the USPTO website.

 

Below is the conclusion from the decision on a motion to amend in a Lectrosonics vs. Zaxcom case that was handed down in Jan, 2020. In the case (as I understand it), Lectro was challenging a Zax patent. Is it the same patent that relates to Rode's new GO II? I don't know. But there is some interesting stuff about how the USPTO viewed the challenge in this case.

 

And here's a link to the whole judgment:

https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Lectrosonics%2C Inc. v. Zaxcom%2C Inc.%2C IPR2018-01129 (Paper 33).pdf

 

Has anything happened in the dispute since then? I don't know, but the obviousness/nonobviousness issue has been debated. Did the patent judges come to the right decision? I have no idea. 

 

The "long-felt need and especially industry praise weigh heavily in the favor of nonobviousness" bit stands out.

 

[Edit- to be clear, it looks this whole legal thing and related legal things aren't over. The key point about how obviousness gets decided is still illuminating, though.]

 

Here's an excerpt from the conclusion:

 

 

 

Lectro_v_Zax_judgement_conclusion.1.2020.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Feeley said:

So again, I'm not an attorney, but I've covered courts and been professionally involved in copyright and trademark cases (luckily as an employee of a big corporation; in both cases we prevailed). That mainly means I have a PACER account and I know how to do searches on the USPTO website.

...

Has anything happened in the dispute since then? I don't know, but the obviousness/nonobviousness issue has been debated. Did the patent judges come to the right decision? I have no idea.

I have four patents, have worked for many years with corporate patent attorneys, have been on a patent review board and reviewed hundreds of patent  applications for a company, and with that, I still don't know dick about patents. It's madness.

 

Regarding your question (in bold), as you probably guessed, no, it isn't over. It probably won't be over until the patent expires.  Per IP watchdog "On May 26 [2020, four months after the judgement was made], Zaxcom filed an appeal brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that invalidated claims directed to Zaxcom’s award winning wireless microphone technology. "

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Feeley said:

So again, I'm not an attorney, but I've covered courts and been professionally involved in copyright and trademark cases (luckily as an employee of a big corporation; in both cases we prevailed). That mainly means I have a PACER account and I know how to do searches on the USPTO website.

 

Below is the conclusion from the decision on a motion to amend in a Lectrosonics vs. Zaxcom case that was handed down in Jan, 2020. In the case (as I understand it), Lectro was challenging a Zax patent. Is it the same patent that relates to Rode's new GO II? I don't know. But there is some interesting stuff about how the USPTO viewed the challenge in this case.

 

And here's a link to the whole judgment:

https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Lectrosonics%2C Inc. v. Zaxcom%2C Inc.%2C IPR2018-01129 (Paper 33).pdf

 

Has anything happened in the dispute since then? I don't know, but the obviousness/nonobviousness issue has been debated. Did the patent judges come to the right decision? I have no idea. 

 

The "long-felt need and especially industry praise weigh heavily in the favor of nonobviousness" bit stands out.

 

[Edit- to be clear, it looks this whole legal thing and related legal things aren't over. The key point about how obviousness gets decided is still illuminating, though.]

 

Here's an excerpt from the conclusion:

 

 

 

Lectro_v_Zax_judgement_conclusion.1.2020.png

Again, not an expert and no horse in this race but reading your link, it appears that the newly accepted claims included this as the central construct:  

 

said at least one remote recorder receiving said locally generated audio and remotely recording said locally generated audio as remote audio data; receiving said stamped local audio data, and replacing a portion of said remote audio data with said stamped local audio data.

 

As I suspected, this patent seems to require timecode and the substitution of locally recorded data with remotely recorded data based on that timecode sync, (and this interaction is throughout the analysis) which can be combined when there is data dropouts/corruptions/etc.  I don't know whether it is non-obvious but it is clever and potentially useful.  It seems to me that a system that does not use timecode would be outside of this entire discussion?    But then again, I might have missed something important.

Link to post
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...