hello everyone.

i'm looking into having my video monitor go wireless. will this
interfere with sensitive condenser microphone recordings?

my basic instincts say to avoid it since it would put some sort of RF
into the air. but someone who actually knows something about
electronics would be able to say if it's in a different frequency
band.

right now i have my kvm on an rj-45 remote setup, but I'd like to go
wireless so i can take the stuff back and forth into an iso booth
easily.

will the real EE's please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.

question for EE's on rec.

Group: rec.audio.pro Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2004, 6:49pm (EST-3) From:
(xy)
hello everyone.
i'm looking into having my video monitor go wireless. will this
interfere with sensitive condenser microphone recordings?
my basic instincts say to avoid it since it would put some sort of RF
into the air. but someone who actually knows something about electronics
would be able to say if it's in a different frequency band.
right now i have my kvm on an rj-45 remote setup, but I'd like to go
wireless so i can take the stuff back and forth into an iso booth
easily.
will the real EE's please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.


Lots of variables. Depends on the transmitter output, distance from the
mic, some mics are more susceptable than others. Why not try it and see
what works for you.

Eric

question for EE's on rec.

Group: rec.audio.pro Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2004, 6:49pm (EST-3) From:
(xy)
hello everyone.
i'm looking into having my video monitor go wireless. will this
interfere with sensitive condenser microphone recordings?
my basic instincts say to avoid it since it would put some sort of RF
into the air. but someone who actually knows something about electronics
would be able to say if it's in a different frequency band.
right now i have my kvm on an rj-45 remote setup, but I'd like to go
wireless so i can take the stuff back and forth into an iso booth
easily.
will the real EE's please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.


Lots of variables. Depends on the transmitter output, distance from the
mic, some mics are more susceptable than others. Why not try it and see
what works for you.

Eric

Eric's response is right, but generally there should be no problem with
higher quality condenser mics, a lot of them are used with wireless cameras,
monitors, etc. There are a few bad old studio mics out there that have
serious rf problems but only a few. Most modern condenser mics have good
filtering for all but high power rf.

--
Josephson Engineering / Santa Cruz CA / www.josephson.com

Eric's response is right, but generally there should be no problem with
higher quality condenser mics, a lot of them are used with wireless cameras,
monitors, etc. There are a few bad old studio mics out there that have
serious rf problems but only a few. Most modern condenser mics have good
filtering for all but high power rf.

--
Josephson Engineering / Santa Cruz CA / www.josephson.com

standing up

While a neophyte at the rap game, I can tell you that you may run into
some problems depending on the technology used. It has to do with
these new 802.11g wireless "double the speed" base stations (the ones
with two antennas). While the normal single channel devices will
present no lower frequency noise, the two antennas together at slightly
diferent requencies might creat some noise that you could pick up.
This is similar to a beat frequency in the audio spectrum.

Hope this helps,

Girmann

On 2004-11-20 21:49:23 -0500, (xy) said:

hello everyone.

i'm looking into having my video monitor go wireless. will this
interfere with sensitive condenser microphone recordings?

my basic instincts say to avoid it since it would put some sort of RF
into the air. but someone who actually knows something about
electronics would be able to say if it's in a different frequency
band.

right now i have my kvm on an rj-45 remote setup, but I'd like to go
wireless so i can take the stuff back and forth into an iso booth
easily.

will the real EE's please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.

I'm looking into having my video monitor go wireless. Will this
interfere with sensitive condenser microphone recordings?

My basic instincts say to avoid it since it would put some sort
of RF into the air. But someone who actually knows something
about electronics would be able to say if it's in a different
frequency band.

There's always "some sort of RF into the air" -- radio and TV stations, computer
equipment, etc. Whether it interferes with a particular piece of equipment
depends on the susceptibility of that equipment.

The odds are pretty good that 802.11g equipment will have no effect on your
mics, or anything else.

There's always "some sort of RF into the air" -- radio and TV stations,
computer
equipment, etc. Whether it interferes with a particular piece of equipment
depends on the susceptibility of that equipment.

The odds are pretty good that 802.11g equipment will have no effect on your
mics, or anything else.

Just a second... since when have "wireless video monitors" used 802.11g?

Agreed, but that's what he said he was using. I don't believe 802.11g (which is
actually a unit that can handle all the 802.11 frequencies and formats) has
sufficient bandwidth.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'm looking into having my video monitor go wireless. Will this
interfere with sensitive condenser microphone recordings?

My basic instincts say to avoid it since it would put some sort
of RF into the air. But someone who actually knows something
about electronics would be able to say if it's in a different
frequency band.

There's always "some sort of RF into the air" -- radio and TV stations, computer
equipment, etc. Whether it interferes with a particular piece of equipment
depends on the susceptibility of that equipment.

The odds are pretty good that 802.11g equipment will have no effect on your
mics, or anything else.

Just a second... since when have "wireless video monitors" used 802.11g?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

William Sommerwerck wrote:
There's always "some sort of RF into the air" -- radio and TV stations,
computer
equipment, etc. Whether it interferes with a particular piece of equipment
depends on the susceptibility of that equipment.

The odds are pretty good that 802.11g equipment will have no effect on your
mics, or anything else.

Just a second... since when have "wireless video monitors" used 802.11g?

Agreed, but that's what he said he was using. I don't believe 802.11g (which is
actually a unit that can handle all the 802.11 frequencies and formats) has
sufficient bandwidth.

It's also specifically a packet-switching format, not something that can
be easily adapted for wideband video.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

It would typically be with a Neumann TLM-103 and Neumann KM-84 into an
HV-3 preamp.

This is good quality stuff, so I'm hoping the geniuses who build that
stuff would have figured out some good rf-rejection ideas to put into
this equipment.

Any thoughts based on these specifics?

In article ,
xy wrote:
It would typically be with a Neumann TLM-103 and Neumann KM-84 into an
HV-3 preamp.

This is good quality stuff, so I'm hoping the geniuses who build that
stuff would have figured out some good rf-rejection ideas to put into
this equipment.

Any thoughts based on these specifics?

Neumann has a different grounding system than most people use. The
chassis is not bonded to pin 1. You can either add a jumper to your
mike cable to bond the plug shield to pin 1 (and mark the cable), or
you can use special 3-conductor mike cables with the shield tied to
the chassis and split apart from pin 1.

This gives MUCH better RF rejection than conventional methods, BUT it
requires you to use the proper cabling.

Neumann has a white paper on this, I think.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott,

He said that he had his KVM hooked up through RJ-45. I assumed
(incorrectly?) that he meant Ethernet and that he could use wireles
ethernet to connect to this and the video monitors. I wasn't trying to
imply that that is what he was using - just identifying a rare case
that ^might^ get him into trouble.

--girmann

On 2004-11-26 09:30:49 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) said:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I'm looking into having my video monitor go wireless. Will this
interfere with sensitive condenser microphone recordings?

My basic instincts say to avoid it since it would put some sort
of RF into the air. But someone who actually knows something
about electronics would be able to say if it's in a different
frequency band.

There's always "some sort of RF into the air" -- radio and TV stations,
computer
equipment, etc. Whether it interferes with a particular piece of equipment
depends on the susceptibility of that equipment.

The odds are pretty good that 802.11g equipment will have no effect on your
mics, or anything else.

Just a second... since when have "wireless video monitors" used 802.11g?
--scott

William, not ^entirely^ true.

802.11g can handle 802.11g and 802.11b only. It cannot handle the
802.11a formats or frequencies. If you were to saturate the 54mb/s
stream, you could get 800x600 video at 14fps and 8 bit color without
compression. Of course, the entire channel isn't usable but there's
plenty of bandwidth there. Heck, just doing a back of the hand
calculation shows that a 9.6GB DVD (like the ones you get at the video
store) hold 2 hours of video (compressed) translates into 1.3MB/s or
10.6Mb/s. That is roughly 1/5 of an 802.11g stream - plenty of
headroom.

--Girmann

On 2004-11-26 08:38:13 -0500, "William Sommerwerck" said:

There's always "some sort of RF into the air" -- radio and TV stations,
computer
equipment, etc. Whether it interferes with a particular piece of equipment
depends on the susceptibility of that equipment.

The odds are pretty good that 802.11g equipment will have no effect on your
mics, or anything else.

Just a second... since when have "wireless video monitors" used 802.11g?

Agreed, but that's what he said he was using. I don't believe 802.11g (which is
actually a unit that can handle all the 802.11 frequencies and formats) has
sufficient bandwidth.

xy wrote:

hello everyone.

i'm looking into having my video monitor go wireless. will this
interfere with sensitive condenser microphone recordings?

my basic instincts say to avoid it since it would put some sort of RF
into the air. but someone who actually knows something about
electronics would be able to say if it's in a different frequency
band.

right now i have my kvm on an rj-45 remote setup, but I'd like to go
wireless so i can take the stuff back and forth into an iso booth
easily.

will the real EE's please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.

Wireless *video monitors* ?

That must eat up some bandwidth ! Sheesh ! Or are you simply referring to
some form of networking ?

I assume it's using the 2.4GHz ISM ( industrial scientific medical ) band
? Along with wireless networking, bluetooth devices and microwave
ovens. :-)

I doubt that you;'ll have a problem since transmit levels are regulated (
by law - not technology ) to a very low power.


You're more likely to have a problem picking up a local AM station to be
honest.


Graham

girmann wrote:

standing up

While a neophyte at the rap game, I can tell you that you may run into
some problems depending on the technology used. It has to do with
these new 802.11g wireless "double the speed" base stations (the ones
with two antennas). While the normal single channel devices will
present no lower frequency noise, the two antennas together at slightly
diferent requencies might creat some noise that you could pick up.
This is similar to a beat frequency in the audio spectrum.

No it isn't actually.


Graham

xy wrote:

It would typically be with a Neumann TLM-103 and Neumann KM-84 into an
HV-3 preamp.

This is good quality stuff, so I'm hoping the geniuses who build that
stuff would have figured out some good rf-rejection ideas to put into
this equipment.

Any thoughts based on these specifics?

Yup.

2.4 GHz is just 'way outa sight' for AF devices.

I doubt any audio frequency circuit would respond even if you shoved it up
the input XLR.

I'm not being facetious btw.


Graham

I started buying Mogami cables ever since they came out with their
"off the shelf" line at Guitar Center (yay!!!).

I would be real hesitant to chop up a Mogami and re-orient the pins.
Maybe Mogami makes a cable like you say?

Or Maybe the HV-3 could be config'd by the factory to achieve the same
effect?

xy wrote:

I would be real hesitant to chop up a Mogami and re-orient the pins.
Maybe Mogami makes a cable like you say?

Soldering isn't rocket surgery.

Or Maybe the HV-3 could be config'd by the factory to achieve the same
effect?

The issue is not at the preamp end, it's at the mic end:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Neumann has a different grounding system than most people use. The
chassis is not bonded to pin 1.


--
ha

xy wrote:
I started buying Mogami cables ever since they came out with their
"off the shelf" line at Guitar Center (yay!!!).

I would be real hesitant to chop up a Mogami and re-orient the pins.

No re-orientation needed. No chopping. Just add a jumper. The reason
you BUY good cables with proper connectors is to that they can be modified
and repaired as-needed.

Maybe Mogami makes a cable like you say?

Markertek will definitely make you one for about the same price as a cable
off the shelf. Or you can buy one from Neumann for a huge amount of money.

Or Maybe the HV-3 could be config'd by the factory to achieve the same
effect?

No. The issue is that the microphone case is not connected to anything
inside the cable other than the outer shield. There's no way to get that
connection inside the HV-3.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

the rj-45 box i'm using now is somewhat surprisingly not ethernet.
it's a belkin box that converts your kvm into a cat-5 signal via a
translator box, then reconverts it on the other end via another
translator box.

it works fine, but my next step is to go wireless so i can track
myself in my iso booth and then bring the stuff back out for mixing.

i'm hoping there will be a wireless keyboard/mouse powerful enough to
go through all that. then it's just a matter of rigging up the
wireless monitor.

they make integrated wireless kvm's, but they seem to cost about
$500-1000.

another idea is to simply put a second monitor, mouse and keyboard in
the iso booth, and simply switch the cat-5 cable whenever i need to go
into the iso booth.

that actually might be a bit easier, since even if I moved the
monitor, i would still have to hook up the power cable inside the iso
booth and go through the hassle of lugging the stuff in and out.

one cool tip that you guys probably already know (because i'm the
relative beginner here), is that LCD monitors don't emit rfi, so they
are good to have in recording situations compared to bulky CRT
monitors.

xy wrote:
the rj-45 box i'm using now is somewhat surprisingly not ethernet.
it's a belkin box that converts your kvm into a cat-5 signal via a
translator box, then reconverts it on the other end via another
translator box.

Okay. This is probably an impedance conversion gadget, mostly.

it works fine, but my next step is to go wireless so i can track
myself in my iso booth and then bring the stuff back out for mixing.

i'm hoping there will be a wireless keyboard/mouse powerful enough to
go through all that. then it's just a matter of rigging up the
wireless monitor.

This is non-trivial.

they make integrated wireless kvm's, but they seem to cost about
$500-1000.

I have never seen such a thing. I have seen KVM switches with wireless
remote controls, but nothing that allowed you to remote a monitor.
Certainly not at full VGA bandwidth.

another idea is to simply put a second monitor, mouse and keyboard in
the iso booth, and simply switch the cat-5 cable whenever i need to go
into the iso booth.

That would seem the easy way of doing things.

one cool tip that you guys probably already know (because i'm the
relative beginner here), is that LCD monitors don't emit rfi, so they
are good to have in recording situations compared to bulky CRT
monitors.

Just wait. They don't emit anywhere near as much RFI as a CRT, but they
sure do emit RFI and you'll find the switching supply for the backlight
can be a real pain as a noise source.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

xy wrote:

the rj-45 box i'm using now is somewhat surprisingly not ethernet.
it's a belkin box that converts your kvm into a cat-5 signal via a
translator box, then reconverts it on the other end via another
translator box.

it works fine, but my next step is to go wireless so i can track
myself in my iso booth and then bring the stuff back out for mixing.

Just having the kvm connection on a Cat5 *cable* doesn't mean it'll work
using wireless networking.

Wireless networking like 802.11 needs an ethernet protocol interface. I
doubt your kvm does this. The high cost of the integrated wireless kvms
suggests this is the case too.


Graham

In article writes:

I have never seen such a thing. I have seen KVM switches with wireless
remote controls, but nothing that allowed you to remote a monitor.
Certainly not at full VGA bandwidth.

Low power TV transmitter, perhaps? g

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

i could be misinterpreting, but:

http://www.kvm-switches-online.com/lv3500w-am.html



looks cool if you ask me!

In article znr1101649416k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

I have never seen such a thing. I have seen KVM switches with wireless
remote controls, but nothing that allowed you to remote a monitor.
Certainly not at full VGA bandwidth.

Low power TV transmitter, perhaps? g

Not at full VGA bandwidth. The cheap X-10 television remotes are pretty
solid out to 6 MHz, which is wide enough to carry S-PDIF audio when you
need a wideband audio link in a pinch. But it won't even come close to
VGA.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

xy wrote:

i could be misinterpreting, but:

http://www.kvm-switches-online.com/lv3500w-am.html

looks cool if you ask me!

That seems to do the job - but it's not the unit you're currently using
is it ?

I see it's limited to XGA ( 1024 x 768 ) resolution for the monitor btw.
Not surprising, given the bandwidth of a monitor signal.


Graham

Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article znr1101649416k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

I have never seen such a thing. I have seen KVM switches with wireless
remote controls, but nothing that allowed you to remote a monitor.
Certainly not at full VGA bandwidth.

Low power TV transmitter, perhaps? g

Not at full VGA bandwidth. The cheap X-10 television remotes are pretty
solid out to 6 MHz, which is wide enough to carry S-PDIF audio when you
need a wideband audio link in a pinch. But it won't even come close to
VGA.

My lovely Sony 21" trinitron monitor :-) has something like 200MHz video
bandwidth. It's a beauty. Nothing beats a great screen. Pure flat too. I
actually put a straight edge on it to check. Took a bit of getting used to
though. It looks funny to begin with when you're used to convex screens.

I still prefer it on 1280x1024. The letters get too small to read at
1600x1200.


Graham

In article writes:

My lovely Sony 21" trinitron monitor :-)

I still prefer it on 1280x1024. The letters get too small to read at
1600x1200.

When you get older, you'll like 1024x768 even better. g


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Pooh Bear wrote in message ...
xy wrote:

It would typically be with a Neumann TLM-103 and Neumann KM-84 into an
HV-3 preamp.

This is good quality stuff, so I'm hoping the geniuses who build that
stuff would have figured out some good rf-rejection ideas to put into
this equipment.

Any thoughts based on these specifics?

Yup.

2.4 GHz is just 'way outa sight' for AF devices.

I doubt any audio frequency circuit would respond even if you shoved it up
the input XLR.

I'm not being facetious btw.


Graham

27 MHz CB radio is way above audio frequencies as well, but but it
still gets into some audio installations. If it (RF of some
frequency) can get past the shielding and find a non-linear element
(like a PN junction, or an imperfect solder joint) then it can be
"detected" and whatever audio frequency signal or noise for which it
is serving (intentionally or otherwise) as a carrier can wind up in
the audio.
Of course what's shielding at one frequency may or may not be
shielding at some other frequency. This may work to your advantage or
it may not.

the weblink is for a planned future wireless idea i've been kicking
around. my current setup uses a wired rj-45 setup with two translator
boxes.

unitron wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in message ...
xy wrote:

It would typically be with a Neumann TLM-103 and Neumann KM-84 into an
HV-3 preamp.

This is good quality stuff, so I'm hoping the geniuses who build that
stuff would have figured out some good rf-rejection ideas to put into
this equipment.

Any thoughts based on these specifics?

Yup.

2.4 GHz is just 'way outa sight' for AF devices.

I doubt any audio frequency circuit would respond even if you shoved it up
the input XLR.

I'm not being facetious btw.


Graham

27 MHz CB radio is way above audio frequencies as well, but but it
still gets into some audio installations. If it (RF of some
frequency) can get past the shielding and find a non-linear element
(like a PN junction, or an imperfect solder joint) then it can be
"detected" and whatever audio frequency signal or noise for which it
is serving (intentionally or otherwise) as a carrier can wind up in
the audio.
Of course what's shielding at one frequency may or may not be
shielding at some other frequency. This may work to your advantage or
it may not.

That's why I didn't say 27MHz would be ok.

CB radios also push out more transmit power that 802.11 too.


Graham

I still prefer it on 1280x1024. The letters get too small to read at
1600x1200.

When you get older, you'll like 1024x768 even better. g


I know I do....


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

"Blind Joni" wrote in message

I still prefer it on 1280x1024. The letters get too small to read at
1600x1200.

When you get older, you'll like 1024x768 even better. g


I know I do....

Now that the prices of large LCDs are coming down, just get a bigger
monitor. A 19" LCD can make 1280 x 1024 pretty usable, even for the reading
glasses and bifocals crowd.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:51:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Blind Joni" wrote in message

I still prefer it on 1280x1024. The letters get too small to read at
1600x1200.

When you get older, you'll like 1024x768 even better. g


I know I do....

Now that the prices of large LCDs are coming down, just get a bigger
monitor. A 19" LCD can make 1280 x 1024 pretty usable, even for the reading
glasses and bifocals crowd.

As a late-forty-something, I've discovered the real secret with
using higher resolution (without wearing glasses) is to use larger
size fonts.

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

"Blind Joni" wrote in message

Now that the prices of large LCDs are coming down, just get a bigger
monitor. A 19" LCD can make 1280 x 1024 pretty usable, even for the
reading glasses and bifocals crowd.


I'm getting a 43" LCD month..I need to mix from the center of the
room and still see.

Are you bragging or complaining? ;-)

Are you bragging or complaining? ;-)


A little of both..missed a killer deal on Black Friday so now I am shopping
again.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Arny Krueger wrote:

Now that the prices of large LCDs are coming down, just get a bigger
monitor. A 19" LCD can make 1280 x 1024 pretty usable, even for the reading
glasses and bifocals crowd.

How would you, or anyone, characterize the difference
between LCD and TFT in pretty constant use. I've a 1024x768
15" TFT that I love and am looking at a good deal on a 17"
LCD, a size that I think I could handle at 1280x1024 (at
least for a couple more years) but I'm not sure I'd be as
happy with LCD as I am with the active TFT technology.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

In article writes:

Now that the prices of large LCDs are coming down, just get a bigger
monitor. A 19" LCD can make 1280 x 1024 pretty usable, even for the reading
glasses and bifocals crowd.

But then I'd need a bigger desk.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

As a late-forty-something, I've discovered the real secret with
using higher resolution (without wearing glasses) is to use larger
size fonts.

That works on things where you have full control over the layout, but
when I try to tell Netscape to not use a font smaller than I can read
easily many web pages come up with text overlaying the graphics. And a
lot of web pages use graphics as text so telling the browser to use a
large font doesn't work.

It's those inconsiderate people who make beautiful web pages!

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo