Jump to content

Rode Wireless Go 2


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, zernicke said:

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.

 

Maybe. But we'd have to read through that long document I linked to as well as perhaps the documents in Zaxcom vs Teac and other cases, and through some of Zaxcom's other patents. I think this is at least some of them:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Zaxcom&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

 

And then --this is the hard part-- we'd have to understand everything and view it all through lawyers' and judges' eyes. 

 

 

Anyway, I'm interested to learning what informed users think of the Rode GO II system once they get their hands and ears on a system.

 

I'm not planning on buying one. But I think like all of us, I'll be asked about it. So advanced thanks to those of you who will try this system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I fast skimmed through the saxcom patents I notice this being pretty much repeated through out. 
 

audio input port configured to couple to an audio input device

 

But the Rode does not have an input port. They have audio input device directly on/in their device. 
 

Could it be that simple that Sax never thought about a built in microphone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Display Name said:

But the Rode does not have an input port. They have audio input device directly on/in their device. 

From Rode's website: "or they can be used as a beltpack with an external lavalier"

https://www.rode.com/microphones/wireless/wirelessgoii
 

2 hours ago, Justin Allen said:

Didn't Zoom also just release a wireless system that would also violate Zaxcom's patent?

Zoom released the F2, that is basically their take on the Tascam DR10
But..... they also released the Zoom F2-BT! Which adds bluetooth/timecode to the base model F2. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, codyman said:

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.

 

When I added an SRc wideband system with SMDWB transmitters several years, I was told by my dealer, at the time, that all Lectro had to do was release new firmware to activate(unlock) simultaneous transmitting and recording.  You'd still have the issue of no timecode, though.  Of course, there are ways to deal with that, but TC just makes life easier.

 

But I have a workaround for it all, right now.  I had cables made that split my lav's to simultaneously feed my Lectro belt packs and my Tentacle Track E's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Philip Perkins said:

Yes.  BTW, what ever happened to the "Instamic"--that too was a mini recorder with a mic in it, wasn't it?

It's still going strong and being updated and enhanced. It can either record locally (with no audio monitoring) or transmit via Bluetooth to a phone where the audio can be monitored and the audio is recorded to the phone; you can't record locally and monitor remotely. It has no I/O onboard, so no patching it to a TX.

 

They're great for what they are but I don't think they're terribly useful for most folks here other than a plant or "hail mary" mic. I'm hoping they release another version with 32 bit recording, since that would help mitigate the lack of monitoring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 10:16 PM, IronFilm said:

Zoom released the F2, that is basically their take on the Tascam DR10

 

But..... they also released the Zoom F2-BT! Which adds bluetooth/timecode to the base model F2. 

 

True.

 

But the F2-BT only gets timecode from an external timecode generator like the UltraSync BLUE.

 

Perhaps that's how Zoom skirted the timecode portion of the patent... since it not built-in...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zaxcom has reached out to Rode regarding the introduction of the Wireless Go II product and a potential license for our recording wireless patents. We have not had a response yet but are willing to begin a dialog to reach a deal that would be beneficial to both companies.

 

The result of the IPR cases (Patent office cases) filed by Lectrosonics against Zaxcom in an attempt to invalidate our patents was a clear win for Zaxcom. While our claims were amended, the court held that the amended claims were valid. All 3 of the patents challenged were upheld with all amended claims left standing. As a result Lectrosonics pulled the PDR from the market in order to minimize their liability in the upcoming litigation brought by Zaxcom.  

 

Today we are in the middle of an appeal to get back our original claims. While the IPR cases favored Zaxcom, the amended claims are not as ideal as they might limit our right to obtain a fair settlement from the court or arbiter.

 

Here are some of the issues we feel the patent court got wrong and led them to amend our claims: Can a wireless microphone be as large as a hiking backpack with visible straps and a video camera mounted to the forehead of the talent? Can a television transmission dropout system that requires a wired internet connection and rack mounted equipment from a television station be combined with the audio /video recording backpack to be a functional equivalent of a hidden and easily concealed bodypack recording transmitter? Can dropout replacement audio originate from any different source than the original bodypack recorder that both recorded and transmitted the audio at a singular place and time? Were the Zaxcom Motion Picture Academy Award and the Television Academy Emmy  both awarded for "Digital Recording Wireless" (as indicated by the titles of the awards) or for something unrelated?

 

Because we strongly disagreed with the PTAB ruling and the PTAB’s analysis, we have filed the appeal to restore our original claims. 

 

The benefit of the Lectrosonics’ challenge to our patents is that it strengthens our patent rights because it is presumed that they put forth the closest "prior art" that could be found by them and their attorneys in order to prove our invention was not new or novel. The success we had in court proved the opposite. We welcome a reasonable settlement with Lectrosonics but, despite multiple attempts, we have been unable to reach agreement with Lectrosonics. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm done discussing the patent issues. Beyond my area of knowledge, and several people on this board whom I like chatting with (and who build products I depend on) are personally involved (as we all know). And even more people here have really strong opinions about all this. I think patents and intellectual property in general is fascinating, but I hope I didn't get carried away and contribute to vitriol. If I did, I apologize.

 

But if anyone on this board buys a Rode GO II system, I'd love to know what you think of the system...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been backroom whispering, and a lot of online chatroom cacophony about the Rode Wireless Go II patent infringement issues. So far, there has not been any announcement from the company. From Rode's vantage, it is a smart business strategy to play mute in the hopes that all the dissonance will die out and possible legal challenges will not be pursued. Given the costly process of litigation for the patent owner, Rode perhaps has taken the higher ground in entrenching itself against possible lawsuits by playing mute. 

 

What appears to be missed here is the implications of the actions of Rode. It appears to be a clear patent infringement and it is not a simple one. While most people in the sound community have discounted Rode's product as not being a competitor to Zaxcom's products, nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to what this may imply for the future of the industry. In the short run, Zaxcom and Rode are in different leagues, but in a five-year timeline, it is shortsighted, not just from Rode's perspective but from the point of view of all manufacturers that are or may be competitors of Zaxcom. Assuming that Rode's infringement will be the last is being oblivious to the implications of such a move which opens door to many other low-end manufacturers copy-catting Rode's patent infringements and signaling a free for all to pending patents. In it is simplest form it is plain ignorance to discount what Rode has done. 

 

Any clear analysis of Rode's action will lead to this conclusion that when these low-end manufacturers are unchallenged it will ultimately lead one of the other competitors of Zaxcom to use one or more of these patents in the assumption that it is a ubiquitous feature in many products in the market. The end result of all that will distill to a reality that no patent owner would want to face, challenges in the courts that lead to lengthy battles that last years and leads to a mere exercise in futility.

 

So, what is the best response? Vigilance is the best answer, vigilance in the spirit of Robert Kearns, vigilance in the aggressive protectionism pursued by Apple on its designs because unchecked violations of patents land companies in victimhood. For the sound industry, this is somewhat new as it is most protected by the technology advancements that still linger in analog transmission and 40-year-old microphone designs that have not gone out of favor within the community. 

 

The hard truth is that change is coming, as it has happened with Aputure lights in the lighting industry, as it has happened with photography products where Broncolor and Profoto are struggling against cheap imitations, so shall we see Rode and other low-end manufacturers and ultimately higher-end sound equipment manufacturers playing the game of cost if the patents are not vehemently challenged at the on-set of infringement. This is why patent infringements must be met head-on without preliminary financial legal cost considerations with a sound perspective on the overall implications of what it may mean to the business of audio equipment manufacturers.

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

But if anyone on this board buys a Rode GO II system, I'd love to know what you think of the system...

 

Well I have, and I have done a few tests and have posted the wav files: https://drbadphil.com/testing-the-new-rode-wireless-go-ii

 

As I say, it's obviously not that relevant to professionals doing TV and film sound, but somewhere along the line it might be useful in some way. Anyway, perhaps one or two will find the limited tests (not some effusive unboxing/review) of some use.

 

Cheers,

 

Roland

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...