Hi Robert,
The UCR411A's that we are talking about here are 4(?) years old. The
revision we are discussing does not fix a factory defect. The
description of the revision from FAQ96 is:
"Allows older audio boards, previously running earlier v1.x firmware,
to be used with the latest RF board firmware. Most notably, this adds
"mode 6" compatibility and slightly quieter diversity switching."
In working on the Venue firmware, DT figured out a little better way
to handle the diversity switch which he then incorporated into the
411A firmware late in 2005. This "upgrade" is not something that you
or we have to do to make the unit work properly. For a further
information about firmware see FAQ #96:
http://www.lectrosonics.com/faq/faq1byref.php?id=96
We have fixed many fundamental defects, RF, firmware and mechanical at
no charge after the warranty has expired when we felt the product was
wrong; this is not one of them.
As far as the SM and remote capability, no SM units were sold with a
promise of a future upgrade to remote capability. They were sold on
the basis of what they were at that moment, not what they could do in
the future.
The SM's that you sent in came in without an RA (return authorization
number) and without a cover letter. We found no notes about the SM's
from our service reps. Our standard procedure in such cases is to fix
the units and get them back to the customer and usually that is the
correct thing to do. In this case, assume we were negligent about note
taking, but agree that we were confused as to what to do with the
units. As you said, we accommodated you on the charges.
I would respectively ask anyone returning units to the factory to get
an RA and put it on the package. It's a free phone call and reduces
confusion. From this end, I will try to make sure that our service
people always provide one.
Best Regards,
Larry Fisher
Lectrosonics
On 22 Feb 2007 20:04:38 -0800, "Robert Sharman"
wrote:
>
>I honestly don't get Lectrosonics at all. I have a 744T. It recently
>had its firmware updated. I sent it in, and was charged NOTHING to
>have it updated. Not even return shipping. I'm guessing they needed
>to be "in the unit" also for this upgrade. Probably they are happy I
>am a customer, and when they put out a product, they support its
>improvements to their current customers. Or perhaps they want us to
>buy the keyboard or other accessories which require the new firmware.
>Either way, it makes sense.
>
>Lectro, on the other hand, feels they need to charge you to "upgrade"
>your 411 receiver? So just because you were one of the first people
>to support one of their new products, deal with its growing pains,
>etc., you are now penalized for not using your old gear until they
>solved the issues with the new gear? Same goes for the SM. In order
>to use the remote, which is expensive, you must "update" your older
>versions, for a fee. A $600 remote becomes very expensive when you
>have to update half a dozen SM.
>
>This said, I did send in my SM, told them NOT to upgrade them if there
>was a fee. They did anyway and charged me for it. After a VERY
>lengthy discussion with customer service, an accommodation was made.
>But shouldn't this just be normal business practice?
> >> Stay informed about: Lectro UCR411A firmware question to Larry 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
