New Rode Wireless

[puredrifting]

Sooo ... the Rode wireless go drops out at 3m when shooting outside if the TX isn't in line of sight with the receiver. This includes the TX being on the back of the talent when the talen is facing forward. Looks like I'll have to pass on this one yikes!

look at 06:50 https://youtu.be/UNfXmB_blwI

I saw this. I was tempted but I'm constantly in situations with documentary shooting where there are going to be bodies between me and talent and talent will often not be facing camera. No thanks Røde. I would lean toward the Deity or more Røde Video Wireless sets when I need to add more wireless systems to the stable. These are really only good for YouTubers and Vlogging IMHO.

 

[brettsherman]

I saw this. I was tempted but I'm constantly in situations with documentary shooting where there are going to be bodies between me and talent and talent will often not be facing camera. No thanks Røde. I would lean toward the Deity or more Røde Video Wireless sets when I need to add more wireless systems to the stable. These are really only good for YouTubers and Vlogging IMHO.

After trying out the Sennheiser XSW series (which has awful range - 20' line of sight drops out) and the Rodelink which works well sometimes but can fail in crowded environments, I'm going back to UHF, even given all the trouble UHF has. if you're not right beside the transmitter, I just don't trust any of the 2.4 Ghz systems. What's bizarre is that my Bluetooth headset and transmitter system for monitoring easily outdoes all of them in range and reliability. I'm looking at the Sony dual-channel package.

Though at $200. I just ordered the Wireless Go for specific situations - table discussions where I am right near the microphone, but want to be mobile and have a subtle microphone.

 

[KINOKS]

I saw this. I was tempted but I'm constantly in situations with documentary shooting where there are going to be bodies between me and talent and talent will often not be facing camera. No thanks Røde.

Exactly.

I presume this system will be bought by a lot of semi pros and amateurs expecting it to work without question and that consequently there will be "some" negative feedback from this crowd on the inter webs...

 

[scorsesefan]

This is a bit disconcerting. Judd is a trusted reviewer. He also states in the Youtube comments that the dropouts happened outside but at 6:50 in his video he appears to be in an office setting when dropouts occur?

 

[puredrifting]

With gear like the new Røde Go, I think it's always best to take a basic engineering viewpoint over YT reviewers or other single sample anecdotal experience.
At $200.00, some design compromises have to be made. For me, it's probaby more a case of, "Wow, those new Rødes perform amazingly well for being
so incredibly cheap", rather than, "Wow, bummer those new Rødes don't work as well as my twice as expensive Røde Video Wireless".

Same with lenses, lights, etc. It's like my Canon EF S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. Yes, it's a really cheap lens. Yes, it has a plastic mount. It's the slowest lens I own. Compromises had to be made
to sell it for $269.00. But the images I record with it with my XT-3, for video, are acceptable, the sharpness is decent, the distortion, workable if I am careful not to
place subjects at the edge of the frame. As long as you have realistic expectations for cheap products, they can be great.

 

[scorsesefan]

But dropouts are big. It would be as if your 10-18 suddenly went black momentarily. I don't think I've ever had one with my G3s or even G2s for that matter...

 

[jb.]

I've run into the same testing results as Judd with my kit. They _really_ don't like to be outside and on the other side of the talent's body. I could probably work around it for what I'm planning on using these for, but I think they're probably going back in favor of plugging along with my Sennheiser G3 standbys.

 

[Alex H.]

I've run into the same testing results as Judd with my kit. They _really_ don't like to be outside and on the other side of the talent's body. I could probably work around it for what I'm planning on using these for, but I think they're probably going back in favor of plugging along with my Sennheiser G3 standbys.

It’s all about managing expectations... kinda what Dan was talking about.

These little systems are not made to be hidden on talent, working at a distance. They’re made to be clipped to a shirt/sweater/jacket. They’re made to favor the built-in mic (the lack of a locking connector points to this). They’re made to work best within 5’-10’. They’re made for vloggers who literally sit right in front of the camera.

 

[jb.]

It’s all about managing expectations... kinda what Dan was talking about.

These little systems are not made to be hidden on talent, working at a distance. They’re made to be clipped to a shirt/sweater/jacket. They’re made to favor the built-in mic (the lack of a locking connector points to this). They’re made to work best within 5’-10’. They’re made for vloggers who literally sit right in front of the camera.

Absolutely... and nothing I said really contradicts that. For $199, they're a bargain and they're actually better in most ways than I expected. I just expected they'd be able to work a little better outdoors behind a body than they do.

For what they cost, if you can live with what they are, they're a bargain. The industrial design is stellar. I'm waiting impatiently for a Røde Go Pro with a locking connector and a little better wireless range (in exchange for a little bigger body).

 

[puredrifting]

It’s all about managing expectations... kinda what Dan was talking about.

These little systems are not made to be hidden on talent, working at a distance. They’re made to be clipped to a shirt/sweater/jacket. They’re made to favor the built-in mic (the lack of a locking connector points to this). They’re made to work best within 5’-10’. They’re made for vloggers who literally sit right in front of the camera.

In which case all of us audio oriented guys tear our hair out and yell, "Use a wired lavalier you lazy bonehead!" NEVER use wireless when you can use wired. Here it is, 2019, and wireless still relatively sucks for audio and for video. As the old saying goes, the most expensive wireless lav in the world still sounds like garbage compared to a $20.00 XLR cable.

 

[Noiz2]

Here it is, 2019, and wireless still relatively sucks for audio and for video. As the old saying goes, the most expensive wireless lav in the world still sounds like garbage compared to a $20.00 XLR cable.

Well not quite. A good digital system should be indistinguishable from a wire. But you are paying a pretty huge price tag for that compared to the cable. The other thing is of course you are using the wireless for dialog so you are not going to be using the whole spectrum, so even a limited spectrum does not mean it will effectively be worse on dialog.

Mostly I agree with you but you are using an argument that was valid some time ago but not so much anymore. The valid point is that if you are not going to throw gobs of cash at it then wired is a much better bet.

 

[KINOKS]

It’s all about managing expectations... kinda what Dan was talking about.

These little systems are not made to be hidden on talent, working at a distance. They’re made to be clipped to a shirt/sweater/jacket. They’re made to favor the built-in mic (the lack of a locking connector points to this). They’re made to work best within 5’-10’. They’re made for vloggers who literally sit right in front of the camera.

I can not agree with the sentiment of this statement as, structurally speaking, it favours Rode's marketing. Rode should have had a big, and by big I mean a BIG, warning sign about this systems usage capabilities. 200$, cheap or not, it doesn't matter, it was/is promoted as the "next best thing" in wireless audio. Besides Rode not mentioning anything about this (to my knowledge off course), no other reviewer also didn't mention it expect Judd, and even he didn't really put a red flag on it, he just mentioned it while it should have been like stressed in the video's title or something. TL DR; this is a big handicap and it should have been stressed by the manufacturer. This is not some xyz manufacturer from Alibaba, this is Rode.

 

[puredrifting]

Well not quite. A good digital system should be indistinguishable from a wire. But you are paying a pretty huge price tag for that compared to the cable. The other thing is of course you are using the wireless for dialog so you are not going to be using the whole spectrum, so even a limited spectrum does not mean it will effectively be worse on dialog.

Mostly I agree with you but you are using an argument that was valid some time ago but not so much anymore. The valid point is that if you are not going to throw gobs of cash at it then wired is a much better bet.

Few users outside of FT Sound Mixers buy good wireless like high end Lectro, Micron and Zaxcoms and all of those are really the only units that consistently have good sound. Even though they all have good sound quality, none are completely immune to RF hits, buzzes and dropouts from my experience. It's not the systems, it's the spectrum.
I still get irritated when I see people use wireless for sit down interviews, it's generally laziness and a bad decision. I had a sound pro who did exactly that, at a studio, about a year and half ago. He used a wireless lav on some kid testimonials for a project for Sony, inexpelicably, no boom and his Lectros had all kinds of noise issues and the shoot
had to be redone. Of course, me being the DP, I didn't know what was happening with audio, yet when the client called me and I listened to the camera masters, the sound from the Lectro system was bad, really bad, distorted, white noise fading in and out, def RF issues. Why the sound mixer didn't stop the takes to fix or better yet, switch to a wired lav
and boom, I'll never know, just laziness, I guess?

He was fired and since I had recommended him, it made me look really bad too. I'll take an XLR over any wireless, any time possible, I've been burned by wireless numerous times, often by pro sound mixers who assured me that they were using the best, they know what they're doing, they hit up all of the frequency maps and did
scans and lo and behold, I've almost had shoots completely fall apart because of wireless mic issues. That's why I hate wireless. Ironically, overall, I have had much better consistency and performance from my cheap plastic 2.4Ghz Røde Video Wireless over the past two years than I have had with sound pros using really expensive UHF units, I can think of
three shoots off the top of my head that almost fell apart because of UHF wireless and pro sound mixers. Of course, YMMV, but I know enough about sound to know what kinds of results to expect and I am often disappointed by wireless.

 

[puredrifting]

I can not agree with the sentiment of this statement as, structurally speaking, it favours Rode's marketing. Rode should have had a big, and by big I mean a BIG, warning sign about this systems usage capabilities. 200$, cheap or not, it doesn't matter, it was/is promoted as the "next best thing" in wireless audio. Besides Rode not mentioning anything about this (to my knowledge off course), no other reviewer also didn't mention it expect Judd, and even he didn't really put a red flag on it, he just mentioned it while it should have been like stressed in the video's title or something. TL DR; this is a big handicap and it should have been stressed by the manufacturer. This is not some xyz manufacturer from Alibaba, this is Rode.

One other reason that I don't accept free gear for reviews, I never have and I never will. Almost all YouTubers are given their gear and they claim that it doesn't influence their reviews. I'd like to believe that but as a reviewer myself, I have a hard time accepting that. Free gear means an expectation of at least a decent review and it blows me away that some of the YouTubers
are given $2,000.00 and $3,000.00 cameras, and $10k to $20k junkets all over the world for free even. That's really like trusting a government, thinking that they treat all of their citizens without bias and equally, which as history proves, is a joke. Just remember this next time you are watching a YT reviewer and are putting stock in their opinion and evaluation of a piece of gear.
The contest is 90% rigged, although there are a few YouTubers who don't accept free gear in exchange for positive reviews. Even if a reviewer gives a piece of gear a negative or neutral review, how are we supposed to take their professed impartiality when their opinion has essentially been paid for?

 

[ph2003]

One other reason that I don't accept free gear for reviews, I never have and I never will. Almost all YouTubers are given their gear and they claim that it doesn't influence their reviews. I'd like to believe that but as a reviewer myself, I have a hard time accepting that. Free gear means an expectation of at least a decent review and it blows me away that some of the YouTubers
are given $2,000.00 and $3,000.00 cameras, and $10k to $20k junkets all over the world for free even. That's really like trusting a government, thinking that they treat all of their citizens without bias and equally, which as history proves, is a joke. Just remember this next time you are watching a YT reviewer and are putting stock in their opinion and evaluation of a piece of gear.
The contest is 90% rigged, although there are a few YouTubers who don't accept free gear in exchange for positive reviews. Even if a reviewer gives a piece of gear a negative or neutral review, how are we supposed to take their professed impartiality when their opinion has essentially been paid for?

I find my self too it is hard to believes any of the YT reviewers now too, even they said they bought the gears with their own money. (Hey who knows if they really nought it or not?)

 

[George Loch]

The contest is 90% rigged, although there are a few YouTubers who don't accept free gear in exchange for positive reviews. Even if a reviewer gives a piece of gear a negative or neutral review, how are we supposed to take their professed impartiality when their opinion has essentially been paid for?

I personally think the YT reviews trend is negatively impacting what we do anyway. First of all, it is a false sense of creating worthwhile content. The dream of being a 'Fulltime Youtuber' is driving people to imitate the trend of reviews and vlogs that have no real substance to them. So much of it is mimicking what others are doing, even down to their introductions "Hey, what's up! Welcome to my channel...". Don't get me started on the family vlogs *shudder*. I celebrate the open platform (seemingly) that is Youtube. However, I don't see a lot of expansive utilization of its potential.

The other problem I have is the consumer mindset these reviewers and manufactures are driving. It is a spec-sheet, chart peeking approach that takes away from being creators. It has certainly taken its toll on me. "Oh no! My camera isn't 10 bit 4:2:2 120 fps. It's worthless and I would be wasting my time if I used it.". I have spent WAY TOO MUCH time watching gear videos, comparing options, and armchair configuring to the point where I spend far less time in the zone where the tools disappear. I am letting go of this.

BTW has anyone thought about how often 120 fps is used in narrative or documentary filmmaking? It really feels like a Youtube thing once I step back. It's like having a car that does 0-60 in 3 seconds – it's just nice to know you can do it. Give me a good composition filled with beautiful light that is creatively sequenced any day.

Imagine a world where we simplified all this gear back to pencil and paper or canvas and paint. We just focus on what's inside the frame. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

-gl

 

[puredrifting]

I personally think the YT reviews trend is negatively impacting what we do anyway. First of all, it is a false sense of creating worthwhile content. The dream of being a 'Fulltime Youtuber' is driving people to imitate the trend of reviews and vlogs that have no real substance to them. So much of it is mimicking what others are doing, even down to their introductions "Hey, what's up! Welcome to my channel...". Don't get me started on the family vlogs *shudder*. I celebrate the open platform (seemingly) that is Youtube. However, I don't see a lot of expansive utilization of its potential.

The other problem I have is the consumer mindset these reviewers and manufactures are driving. It is a spec-sheet, chart peeking approach that takes away from being creators. It has certainly taken its toll on me. "Oh no! My camera isn't 10 bit 4:2:2 120 fps. It's worthless and I would be wasting my time if I used it.". I have spent WAY TOO MUCH time watching gear videos, comparing options, and armchair configuring to the point where I spend far less time in the zone where the tools disappear. I am letting go of this.

BTW has anyone thought about how often 120 fps is used in narrative or documentary filmmaking? It really feels like a Youtube thing once I step back. It's like having a car that does 0-60 in 3 seconds – it's just nice to know you can do it. Give me a good composition filled with beautiful light that is creatively sequenced any day.

Imagine a world where we simplified all this gear back to pencil and paper or canvas and paint. We just focus on what's inside the frame. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

-gl

I think, in a farily abstract way, we are slowly getting back to your simplified world. The specs on all of the gear are so good now and overall, the capability of even the prosumer stuff like my XT-3
is good that it becomes a non-issue. I can say that for me, I look at work these days and I don't really notice or care what it's shot on for the most part, if the story looks interesting or good.

As far as 120fps, I personally think that unmotivated slow motion is one of the most boring, sanitized and pointless things happening in filmmaking. There are thousands of
people out there who shoot everything in slow motion and can't seemingly edit a video without slow motion and speed ramping. It's a shame because slow motion and speed
ramping are very cool, powerful tools when occasionally used tastefully on subjects that warrant using them, but people have this simplistic viewpoint that everything needs to be in slow motion to look interesting.

I have been shooting a documentary on some women athletes and we have shot a lot of it in 4K 60p but really none at higher than 60p and for the most part, I like slowing down the 60p by about
15% because it gives the b-roll a smoother, more flowing look and the sport we are shooting is all about the flow and form. But we are not using speed ramping and we are definitely not using
much slow motion, as there isn't a motivated reason to for 99% of the footage. Neat effects like slow motion lose all of their impact when everything is slowed down, then it just looks boring and
undynamic.

 

[Run&Gun]

Wireless is both a convenience and necessary evil. The biggest problem with wireless, like a lot of other things in life, your destiny isn’t always in your hands. You can plan and scan and still get screwed at the worst possible time. All it takes is one thing coming into your proximity or turning on that wasn’t there when you checked earlier. I don’t know how many times I’ve been in frequency coordinated venues and some asshole comes in, generally a local photog(meaning a local tv station shooter) who didn’t register because “he didn’t know” or “it’s shared gear” and steps on us during post game. Of course part of it is the venue’s lack of enforcement. Some stadiums and events have a check-in process and your wireless is checked and tagged before you enter and they’ll take your antennas or even receivers if it’s not.

My F55 will shoot up to 180fps HD internally. It’s rare when I go above 72. Most of the slow-mo I shoot is still 60fps max.

 

[KINOKS]

I personally think the YT reviews trend is negatively impacting what we do anyway. First of all, it is a false sense of creating worthwhile content. The dream of being a 'Fulltime Youtuber' is driving people to imitate the trend of reviews and vlogs that have no real substance to them. So much of it is mimicking what others are doing, even down to their introductions "Hey, what's up! Welcome to my channel...". Don't get me started on the family vlogs *shudder*. I celebrate the open platform (seemingly) that is Youtube. However, I don't see a lot of expansive utilization of its potential.

The other problem I have is the consumer mindset these reviewers and manufactures are driving. It is a spec-sheet, chart peeking approach that takes away from being creators. It has certainly taken its toll on me. "Oh no! My camera isn't 10 bit 4:2:2 120 fps. It's worthless and I would be wasting my time if I used it.". I have spent WAY TOO MUCH time watching gear videos, comparing options, and armchair configuring to the point where I spend far less time in the zone where the tools disappear. I am letting go of this.

BTW has anyone thought about how often 120 fps is used in narrative or documentary filmmaking? It really feels like a Youtube thing once I step back. It's like having a car that does 0-60 in 3 seconds – it's just nice to know you can do it. Give me a good composition filled with beautiful light that is creatively sequenced any day.

Imagine a world where we simplified all this gear back to pencil and paper or canvas and paint. We just focus on what's inside the frame. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

-gl

All gear review that I have seen on YT till now is blatantly NOT anywhere close to journalism. It's actually comic thinking it is. And in other instances it's repulsive: blatantly nice presentation from the reviewer, consumer and advertising friendly performance, nice edit and music, no real appositive readings of modes of reproduction and/or no structural opposition. All of it pretending it's unbiased reviewing and in case of events and such; reporting. It's the state of post industrialism, where we no longer differentiate between critical viewing and marketing media text's ie.: advertising friendly content has become such a norm that we no longer see it as such. And the advertising friendly content is there for one reason only, to advertise the products. I guess what is most troublesome is the fact that people don't see this in such a way. The content makers them self's are what they are and although the stile of presentation is unfortunate by it self, it really isn't the problem here.

I hate to break this to the interwebs: but as soon as you are payed either by the industry, you are supposedly critically "reviewing", and by this I also mean proxy not just direct sponsorship, you can not actually be critical in any true way or form. You can only be critical to the point the industry is allowing you to be. Proxy now days, even means that your content is allowed to be monetised on youtube. Just this fact alone makes you part of the industry. And this is very very unfortunate as youtube is the main video social platform and thus it's completely integrated into our culture. Again, it's the distopian future that 80's cyberpunk themes started exploring, and it comes in the form of Marques Brownlee's, Mr. Mobile's and for our crowd more specific the Eric Nasos's and Curtis Judd's of the so called gear tech reviewing crowd. Again I am not to saying they are pretending to be journalist, but one thing they are not admitting to is the fact, that they are basically the salesman's of the products they are writing about. Being a gear reviewer is actually a signifier of success and cultural status. And this is why it's so tricky for us, that are working in this industry, especially the ones that are not from the author segment but from the production, to not grab the opportunity by it horns and follow the line of success/money.

Actually structurally speaking, the gear reviewing format or genre is one of the best formats for promotion, as it's wrapped in a "critical" coding of the objects. Criticism is semioticaly speaking in the opposites with what ever it's talking about, so surely it can not be selling you the same thing it's critically writing about. You know what I mean? But when the "criticism" is only superficial and actually not critical at all, it just becomes a vehicle, a delivery system for propaganda so to speak. It's the same with major News organisations or just mainstream news. Journalism presents it self as critical, which it is actually not, and in this form it becomes left politics, right politics, industry, etc. propaganda. And we all know this actually, but with time we get used to it and it becomes the norm, and anything else that is actually critical gets discarded really quickly, firstly by the people them self's and if not that then by the system.

 

[Noiz2]

I hate to break this to the interwebs: but as soon as you are payed either by the industry, you are supposedly critically "reviewing", and by this I also mean proxy not just direct sponsorship, you can not actually be critical in any true way or form. You can only be critical to the point the industry is allowing you to be.

Well you have actually eliminated virtually all criticism and reviews of everything everywhere. Movie reviewers don't pay to see movies, theatre critics don't pay to see plays, book reviewers don't pay for the books they review. There is the rare YT channel that sort of "reviwes" tools and such that are completely unsponsored and they are doing it largely for fun and maybe consumer reports but out side of that every review ever written has some "compensation" from the industry or producer/ maker of whatever they are talking about.

What makes a difference I think is if the reviewer A) knows what they are talking about and B) has a reputation to protect. If both of those are there it doesn't matter if they are given stuff or not. The big problem with YT "reviews" is that most are done by people who have very little clue about the stuff they are talking about. Most are not really reviews but "un boxing" and feature over views. What a bunch of BS those are.

So like everything in life pay attention to the source.