I see that Rode have responded to user requests with firmware which allows the new dual channel Wireless Go II to record directly onto the transmitter units, without the need for it to be paired with or transmitting to the receiver....making it immune to transmission dropout losses, and now 2 standalone recorder units. The 200m range is pretty good anyway, but this gives an added level of signal security. At a pinch these could act as self-contained recorder/spot mics too ?

Here's a video outlining the firmware update: https://youtu.be/yXuewOlvecg

General overviews: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=coSxxNIcHCs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S31ulptYCIY

Rode is getting a letter from Zaxcom's lawyers about now.

"Zaxcom Digital Recording Wireless Transmitters are protected under patent #’s: 7,711,443 & 7,929,902"

I'm sure Rode's legal eagles did their homework well before product launch...it's probably a copy of a Behringer device anyway...?

https://zaxcom.com/products/trxla3/

...somewhat similar form factor to the Zaxcom, but is that where the similarity ends ?

The Go is incredible value and well built, the app has been buggy , perhaps its better now.
I was thinking of buying a pair for my Music work
With the Rode Lavaliere.
I don't know wether to go for the 2ch unit or to have 2 separate devices for more flexibility.
Real life range is more like 70m and sq is good from the TX without a lavaliere, but the lav is easier to mount obviously.
I was worried by the GHz frequency and blocking by the body, but that is unfounded apparently
I don't like rechargeable usb devices and wonder about battery life in the field, but a pair of good radios of such tiny size and sq would be useful in the Portabrace bag for occasion narration or performance requirements.
Anyone tried em ?
Roger

That's for the lawyers to work out. We've been down this road before: Lectrosonics, Wisycom, Sonosax, Tascam. All of them were threatened, some of them ended up in court, the ones that did lost. Zax vigorously defends its patents. Watch this space.

Yes, I've had the new Wireless GO ii for about 5 weeks and, in contrast to the usual Youtube reviews - of which there are many - I did some tests on audio quality, with wav files you can downloand: https://drbadphil.com/testing-the-ne...wireless-go-ii

Battery life is as per the spec, as is range: there is still a significant impact if blocked by a human body (or, obviously) building, but it is a distinct improvement from the earlier version (which I also have). Far from an Audio Ltd, Lectronics etc., but, as you say, useful to have in the bag.

There is no doubt, go for the new 2-channel version not 2 of the original ones: much better range and, of course, on-board recording.

Cheers,

Roland

That's like saying "if it's grey in colour, is a microphone, is a few inches long...you must be infringing my patent"

A clear patent infringement is defensible...sour grapes about competitor success isn't

Litigation...the last refuge of the competition-fearing, market-share scared scoundrel.

Instead of "I'll see you in court"....just build a better product, the customers will decide who gets their loyalty dollar.

Obviously the Rode Wireless Go ii could record on the TX units anyway (even if having lost connection to the RX units), but the record 'always' function (i.e. recording as soon as turned on irrespective of the status of the RX unit) is indeed new.

Not sure how much use that will be in practice, especially if using both TX units and wanting them synced (e.g. for stereo): to do this accurately, you need to align each TX recording with the relevant channel recorded via the RX unit, be that manually or via Pluraleyes or similar software. Also, not sure why you would want to record without monitoring via the RX unit when the device has that capability (unlike other small body-worn recorders like the Tascam DR10C/L or the Zoom F2).

Cheers,

Roland

Don't forget it also has the capability of dual-level (ie 6dB down duplicate file, for overload protection) recording...so once levels are set you'd feel relatively secure of getting a good recording, even without monitoring...provided the battery lasts the distance

That's not right really. First, the safety channel is 20dB down. Second, the safety channel is only activated when using the TX units in 'merged' mode. Third, this doesn't work as a mic pad (though that is introduced in the new firmware - though what value pad it is Rode don't say). And, finally and most importantly, levels are only one reason for monitoring: the biggest issue for any recorder/transmitter of lav mic sound is poor quality audio arising from unwanted noise - most obviously from clothes rustling. This is a real issue and why I wouldn't want to forego monitoring: and, as I say, there is no need to do so given that the it is a wireless transmitter.

Cheers,

Roland

EDIT: Just to make it clearer, the 'safety track' feature only affects the RX output (e.g. to camera): it does not change the levels of the on-board recordings on the TX units. And I have just double-checked this is the case. All it does, therefore, is help users not overload a camera's mic input.

So in effect the 'safety' (or rather, confidence) recording is the one in the transmitter...while most users are still going to rely upon the receiver recording, after all...they bought a wireless radio mic, not a standalone mini lapel recorder !

That latest firmware video seems to hint that further signal processing eg compression, eq may be forthcoming in later firmware releases, and app-controlled ?

Well the 'safety channel' business is, as I said, all about helping users not overload camera, so not really at all helpful (not least as you lose a channel: either you use both TX units and their output is combined, with one channel output from the RX unit at 20dB down; or you use a single TX, with the same result at the RX).

But, yes, the backup is the on-board TX recording. This back-up mainly protects against drop-outs in the signal: you can listen to my audio tests to see how the on-board and transmitted signals differ.

As I said, the idea of using a lav mic without listening out for clothes noise etc. is alarming.

Cheers,

Roland

It doesn't matter what you, me or anyone else thinks about this situation, and I can assure you there was a LOT of discussion of it over on JWSound, especially re: versions of Wisycom and Sonosax gear available in Europe vs what can be sold in the USA. The courts in the USA have decided in favor of Zaxcom in this matter so far. I would prefer that Lectro, Wisy, Sax and Tascam could have made and sold their products as they designed them, but so far that is not the case. We will see how Rode navigates this--good luck to them.

Thanks Roland for your exhaustive tests
It seems the Rode lavaliere sq is not as good as the onboard omni!
Remember not to mount the TX on the rear of the victim but to place it on the side to prevent masking the 2.3GhZ signal.
Wonder what its like with a proper ECM lav or DPA ?
Roger

Thanks Roger.

No ECM or DPA to hand, but those slide guitar examples from the MixPre-3 should give a good idea of the effect of recording on to the on-board TX recorder (and, indeed, via the RX). The Rode lav mic normally sounds reasonable, so I wouldn't be put off it just by my test using one: and its output level is a good match for the Wireless GO ii. But, yes, the on-board mics of the Wireless GO ii are surprisingly good (and better than those in the previous version), and very usable if there are no visual constraints. Also, the fluffy windscreens are much better (they stay on).

Cheers,

Roland

The fluffies were designed by Dr Wolff who used to engineer Rycote’s kit
Rode is hoovering up many UK specialists

Before Rode introduced this model 2, the Chinese copycats at Comica (what's in a name...) invented the already stereo imitation called comica boomx-d d2. I have experience with two pairs and they are quite good. Very easy to operate and the stereo possibility is quite handy.
When I think about it... Rode invents something. Chinese copy it, but add new ideas. Rode releases a mark 2 and copies the new ideas of the Chinese copycats... Rather amusing, isn't it?

Rode would cloud the issue by saying they're improving stuff based on their customer's requests alone...but maybe that's just to conceal their 'plagiarism of the copycats' ?

Roger,

Do we know Chris Woolf actually designed this specific fluffy? It only differs from the previous one (pre-Chris) by its bayonet fitting.

Incidentally, is Chris exclusively working for Rode? One of the service engineers there mentioned the other day than he isn't on the staff list: that may simply reflect that he is still in the UK and/or that his role is a consultancy.

Who else has Rode hoovered up from here?

Cheers,

Roland

What are the 'new ideas' copied? Just the 2 TX units to one RX? The TX recording doesn't seem to exist on these earlier Chinese units, and surely that's the key additional feature of the Rode Wireless GO ii: well that, and the much increased range (again something quite different from these alternatives).

Cheers,

Roland

Chris Woolf is a consultant to Rode Roland but still UK based.
Tony Faulkner may be a consultant too I believe.
Rode is the biggest microphone manufacturer in the World now.

...and still they won't give us the Faulkner inspired M50 replacement !

Thanks Roger. Doesn't sound like a major brain drain from the UK then!

Cheers,

Roland

So the Aussies still need the Brits?

Not as monarchs...just to defeat at cricket

You haven't figured out how capitalism works yet? Really?

Only customers want competition. Corporations abhor the concept of competition. It makes them spend money they don't want to spend, and roll out new products they don't want to make. What corporations want to do with their money is to buy their competition. Because all corps. dream of becoming a monopoly, and it's way easier to buy their way to a monopoly than to compete their way in the marketplace.

But don't believe me. Ask an economist.

You're right Bruce....and coincidentally that seems to be Rode's modus operandum in recent years, acquiring competitors at a rate of knots and making them 'collaborators' : Soundfield, Event, Rycote etc Maybe in the end the consumer is the beneficiary of such predatory behaviour, if it results in a better, more feature laden (and reliable !) product ?

Then, in short order, China predates upon the predator.... and makes a cheaper copy...!

Not great examples at all (nor, indeed, a reasonable description of Rode's modus operandi):

Rode didn't acquire Rycote: Rycote was acquired by Vitec in 2018 and remains in their hands.

And Event was acquired by Rode in 2006: hardly 'at a rate of knots', or, indeed, a competitor (as Event made speakers).

Cheers,

Roland

Love what Rode are doing in the lower budget world!

There's a gaping hole in the mid-range priced wireless system that I would love Rode to try and fill. The price jump from 'prosumer' G3/4 radios to 'pro' Lectros and the sort is crazy. Similar to how the field recorder market was before Zoom smashed down price barriers with the (now legendary) F8.

Not hard to believe....

https://youtu.be/eabA0VJBdDk

https://youtu.be/EfTfNcnQTqc

Wonder if Schoeps/Senn would grant similar mfr-ing process access ...?