Lectrosonics. What is difference between 205/210/201/211?

[Avenger007]

I am trying to get the full breakdown on the lectro gear and see how the models break down. To my understanding, the 205 and 210 were similar models that were replaced by the 201 (an upgrade of the 205) and the 211 (an upgrade of the 210). In that respect, it seems the 201 is a better model than the 210 (I like the LCD interface) but yet carries a lower model number. Catch my drift?

So, is a 201 or 211 recommended? And is the 211 worth the extra cost? I like the BNC antenna connection, good for extending.

 

[Oleg 2]

201 did not replaced anything , it came as a cheap alternative receiver .
less proof front end filtering
quit problematic with internal battery life if you dont use rechargeable or lithium ( high current issue with alkaline s)
other wise same audio quality as all the others .
the 211 worth an extra cost as it better product .
the 205 or 200 have similar performers , the 205 is 30% more power consumption .
the 210 is nice as well but had allot of antenna noise switch issues , check if you buy these if they are ok .
205 and 200 had the best line of sight performers i had with any lectosonics or other receivers in the bag .
the only downside for you ( not for me ) its the high current and luck of internal batteries ,

 

[Avenger007]

So between a 201 and 210 which is the better buy concerning quality and dropouts. Or are they just the same but with different battery setups?

What is front end filtering? I'm not very familiar with wireless yet.

 

[marstaton4]

The 210 is better but the 201 has a built in spectrum analyzer and is a little smaller. If you work in ATL a lot you may be better with the 201 imo.

 

[Avenger007]

Thanks for the input guys.

Heres a different question. Why is the R400 unit significantly cheaper than the UCR401/411 units? Considering used UM400s cost $700 typically, couldn't you just use a laptop battery with a R400 and have a working 400 series 24bit wireless setup for under $1500?