Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Hey all,
Here's the posish: we have a whole lot of sennheiser wireless kit running around (microphones) in our church hall. We have a whole lot of base stations, most of which operate in the same range of frequency. Now, we have a little recording studio on the side where we record verious things during meetings - in order to avoid the complicated wiring, we have been using some of our 'spare' diversity recievers to pick up the signal running from the wireless tie, hand and headmics. The problem is that every time we buy new mics its kind of pot luck as to the frequency range we will get. Is there anyone who makes diversity recievers that have a wide UHF range so we could buy a whole load and not worry about the transmitter range? Any thoughts? M |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Hey all, Here's the posish: we have a whole lot of sennheiser wireless kit running around (microphones) in our church hall. We have a whole lot of base stations, most of which operate in the same range of frequency. Now, we have a little recording studio on the side where we record verious things during meetings - in order to avoid the complicated wiring, we have been using some of our 'spare' diversity recievers to pick up the signal running from the wireless tie, hand and headmics. The problem is that every time we buy new mics its kind of pot luck as to the frequency range we will get. Is there anyone who makes diversity recievers that have a wide UHF range so we could buy a whole load and not worry about the transmitter range? ** I seriously doubt you will find any UHF *mic* receives where the frequency range is wider than a few percent of the centre frequency. This is a result of the RF stages having to work without frequency tuning over the whole range the receiver is capable of. For example, an 840 MHz Sennheiser receiver might operate over a 32 MHz range or about 3.7 %. ......... Phil |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Phil Allison wrote: ** I seriously doubt you will find any UHF *mic* receives where the frequency range is wider than a few percent of the centre frequency. This is a result of the RF stages having to work without frequency tuning over the whole range the receiver is capable of. For example, an 840 MHz Sennheiser receiver might operate over a 32 MHz range or about 3.7 %. Ah ok. Whats the ideal then? Using radio scanners or trying to make sure that all our equipment operates in the 3.7% range? |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Phil Allison wrote: ** I seriously doubt you will find any UHF *mic* receives where the frequency range is wider than a few percent of the centre frequency. This is a result of the RF stages having to work without frequency tuning over the whole range the receiver is capable of. For example, an 840 MHz Sennheiser receiver might operate over a 32 MHz range or about 3.7 %. Ah ok. Whats the ideal then? ** Radio mics are always a compromise. The IDEAL is a length of nice mic cable !!! Using radio scanners or trying to make sure that all our equipment operates in the 3.7% range? ** Scanners are neither capable of high quality sound nor "diversity" operation - they are very handy for sussing out the local radio environment however. As you WILL need one UHF mic receiver for EACH and EVERY mic, there is no need nor advantage in a single model. ......... Phil |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
There is research going on right now into digital radio mics, although it is having problems because the data needs to be compressed to fit the radio channels, and currently the latency is unacceptable for use in live performances. d Not really so. Check out DB Technologies' digital wireless systems. I have one; great sound; no latency problem. I have a set, myself. It's awesome. Chewy |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
On Thu, 18 May 2006 08:34:21 GMT, Chewy Papadopoulous
wrote: There is research going on right now into digital radio mics, although it is having problems because the data needs to be compressed to fit the radio channels, and currently the latency is unacceptable for use in live performances. d Not really so. Check out DB Technologies' digital wireless systems. I have one; great sound; no latency problem. I have a set, myself. It's awesome. Chewy This is one of those products that works in the unlicensed ISM bands, and does not conform to the narrow channels that will be available for licensed systems. This means that it doesn't have the same degree of compression. Unfortunately this product is going to be subject to the vagaries of interference from WiFi and microwave ovens. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Phil Allison wrote: As you WILL need one UHF mic receiver for EACH and EVERY mic, there is no need nor advantage in a single model. yep point taken about the scanners...My issue with baser stations is that at the moment we need 2 base stations for every mic and they both have to be in the right freq range for the mic. ideally it would be cool to be able to buy a fully tuneable diversity reciever that operates between say 630 Mhz to 960 Mhz and just buy a whole load of those. M |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
we are using sennheiser ew 100 G2 boxes... whats the range like on
those akgs? M Geoff@home wrote: Many manufactures make wireless mic systems that can have many channels operating in the same band. Such performances depends on the selectivity of the receiver, and is what costs more. Try AKG WMS400 or better still WMS4000 series. Or the equivalent from many other solid manufacturers. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
oups.com... ** Beware - Google Groper As you WILL need one UHF mic receiver for EACH and EVERY mic, there is no need nor advantage in a single model. yep point taken about the scanners...My issue with baser stations is that at the moment we need 2 base stations for every mic and they both have to be in the right freq range for the mic. ideally it would be cool to be able to buy a fully tuneable diversity reciever that operates between say 630 Mhz to 960 Mhz and just buy a whole load of those. ** I seriously doubt you will find any UHF *mic* receives where the frequency range is wider than a few percent of the centre frequency. Is it Ground Hog day yet ????? ....... Phil |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
"Anahata" My Sennheiser EW100 G2 receiver has 1440 available frequencies in 8 banks of which at least one is user-tunable (the others are preset). How does that not give you enough frequencies? ** No where NEAR covers the whole UHF band. Sennheiser dishonestly consider steps of a mere 25 kHz to be new "frequencies"'. At that rate, the UHF band has 36,000 steps or more. Crapology. ........ Phil |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Geoff@home wrote: I've only ever tested out to 50m (metres, not miles) and never missed a beat. Reinforced concrete building with aluminium window frames to outside was worst case (workshop !). Er, i meant frequency range, sorry. M still good to know |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
wrote:
Here's the posish: we have a whole lot of sennheiser wireless kit running around (microphones) in our church hall. We have a whole lot of base stations, most of which operate in the same range of frequency. Now, we have a little recording studio on the side where we record verious things during meetings - in order to avoid the complicated wiring, we have been using some of our 'spare' diversity recievers to pick up the signal running from the wireless tie, hand and headmics. The problem is that every time we buy new mics its kind of pot luck as to the frequency range we will get. Is there anyone who makes diversity recievers that have a wide UHF range so we could buy a whole load and not worry about the transmitter range? Any thoughts? Some thoughts: 1. The wider the range possible, the wider the receiver front end has to be and the wider the transmitter final amplifier has to be. This means the greater the possibility of interference issues. So you really want to avoid having to use stuff with too wide a range. 2. You need to stop buying things randomly. When you buy new mikes, you need to order the range you want. You need to sit down, list out everything you have right now, and use the calculator on the Sennheiser website (or a desk calculator) and calculate out all the second and third order intercepts so you know what frequencies you can use and which ones you cannot. 3. If you do not have a plan for frequency allocation, and you do not follow that plan, disaster will eventually result. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Don Pearce wrote:
There is research going on right now into digital radio mics, although it is having problems because the data needs to be compressed to fit the radio channels, and currently the latency is unacceptable for use in live performances. I dunno, I have used the Zaxcom and it works pretty well. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Scott Dorsey wrote: Some thoughts: 1. The wider the range possible, the wider the receiver front end has to be and the wider the transmitter final amplifier has to be. This means the greater the possibility of interference issues. So you really want to avoid having to use stuff with too wide a range. Ok understood 2. You need to stop buying things randomly. When you buy new mikes, you need to order the range you want. You need to sit down, list out everything you have right now, and use the calculator on the Sennheiser website (or a desk calculator) and calculate out all the second and third order intercepts so you know what frequencies you can use and which ones you cannot. I agree, am working with their sound crew on this note (organisation) What do you mean by 2nd and 3rd order intercepts? 3. If you do not have a plan for frequency allocation, and you do not follow that plan, disaster will eventually result. Ok, makes sense..thanks M |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Don Pearce wrote:
This is one of those products that works in the unlicensed ISM bands, and does not conform to the narrow channels that will be available for licensed systems. This means that it doesn't have the same degree of compression. Unfortunately this product is going to be subject to the vagaries of interference from WiFi and microwave ovens. d Fair enough. FWIW, it's worked great in a variety of applications for me; who knows if I'm someday going to hear somebody's "audio chat" hashing up a performance! Chewy |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
wrote:
Geoff@home wrote: I've only ever tested out to 50m (metres, not miles) and never missed a beat. Reinforced concrete building with aluminium window frames to outside was worst case (workshop !). Er, i meant frequency range, sorry http://www.akg.com/products/powersla...uage,EN .html http://www.akgfrequency.at/ SR 4000 Receiver Bands MHz 650 - 680, 680 - 710, 720 - 750, 760 - 790, 790 - 820, 835 - 863 Carrier Frequencies: up to 1,200 per range I'm sure all other major wireless mic manufacturers have similar setups. geoff ( and yes, I do contract to an AKG distributor) |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
wrote:
Hey all, Here's the posish: we have a whole lot of sennheiser wireless kit running around (microphones) in our church hall. We have a whole lot of base stations, most of which operate in the same range of frequency. Now, we have a little recording studio on the side where we record verious things during meetings - in order to avoid the complicated wiring, we have been using some of our 'spare' diversity recievers to pick up the signal running from the wireless tie, hand and headmics. The problem is that every time we buy new mics its kind of pot luck as to the frequency range we will get. Is there anyone who makes diversity recievers that have a wide UHF range so we could buy a whole load and not worry about the transmitter range? Any thoughts? Sounds to me like you just need to buy your Sennheiser receivers from a place that will let you specify which range you are buying. Are they just sending you a random range, either A, B, or C? You should be able to specify when you order. If they don't let you specify, you are buying from the wrong place! -- Eric Practice Your Mixing Skills Download Our Multi-Track Masters www.Raw-Tracks.com www.Mad-Host.com |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Hi everyone,
This may be a bit off topic but here goes: I am a sax player and want to invest in a wireless in-ear monitoring system for myself in the $800.00 to $1200.00 range. I am currently looking at a used Sennheiser EW 300 IEM system for $600.00. Anyone have experience with these? In my price range it seems like it's either the Shure or Sennheiser. I am new to this group and am wondering if there are other groups I might post in as well. Regards, Hal "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... wrote: Here's the posish: we have a whole lot of sennheiser wireless kit running around (microphones) in our church hall. We have a whole lot of base stations, most of which operate in the same range of frequency. Now, we have a little recording studio on the side where we record verious things during meetings - in order to avoid the complicated wiring, we have been using some of our 'spare' diversity recievers to pick up the signal running from the wireless tie, hand and headmics. The problem is that every time we buy new mics its kind of pot luck as to the frequency range we will get. Is there anyone who makes diversity recievers that have a wide UHF range so we could buy a whole load and not worry about the transmitter range? Any thoughts? Some thoughts: 1. The wider the range possible, the wider the receiver front end has to be and the wider the transmitter final amplifier has to be. This means the greater the possibility of interference issues. So you really want to avoid having to use stuff with too wide a range. 2. You need to stop buying things randomly. When you buy new mikes, you need to order the range you want. You need to sit down, list out everything you have right now, and use the calculator on the Sennheiser website (or a desk calculator) and calculate out all the second and third order intercepts so you know what frequencies you can use and which ones you cannot. 3. If you do not have a plan for frequency allocation, and you do not follow that plan, disaster will eventually result. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Wireless systems
Hal wrote:
Hi everyone, This may be a bit off topic but here goes: I am a sax player and want to invest in a wireless in-ear monitoring system for myself in the $800.00 to $1200.00 range. I am currently looking at a used Sennheiser EW 300 IEM system for $600.00. Anyone have experience with these? In my price range it seems like it's either the Shure or Sennheiser. Both are okay. Vega models turn up used in that range also. The thing you need to worry about is frequency coordination. Get something that will work over a range of channels, make sure those channels are usable in your area and make sure they are going to stay usable. That means check HDTV allocations; they're moving UHF TV stations around so channels that were usable last week may not be okay in a year or two. The Sennheiser website has some info on what's going to be a problem in various major US cities. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Political | Pro Audio |