Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neil White]

a 5 pin headset wired as a stereo HS using the mic and ear from A and the other ear from B

That's a great idea. Put the panel into dual channel mode, set up the audio patch on the panel to route matrix 1 to Headset A and matrix 2 to Headset B. The Mic from headset A would need to feed both Matrix 1 and 2 sends, and then selecting "Use 2nd Audio channel on this port" when setting up keys would define what gets routed to each ear of the stereo headset.

Neil

[Pete Erskine]

Sometimes I find that having a comms system which isn't based around AES is more flexible for the specific events that I'm doing. Partly because it allows distribution of panels down existing audio infrastructure. I carry breakouts for CC or RTS matrixes that split a port into 3 XLRs (Send, Return, Data). Additionally, traditional analog interfacing allows me huuuuge cable runs on cat5 very easily.

Yes, this is an advantage.  I often work on TV events and can easily remote an Adam panel from the truck frame using that method over a DT12 mult.  The only advantages for Artist AES is noise immunity and 2 channels over 1 connection.  Sometimes the distance is an issue and that is why they make fiber extensions for the panels (PMX).

One of the reasons I'm interested in something like a Clearcom Eclipse Median is the sheer number of options for interfacing. You can connect a V series panel via traditional 4w+D, IP or via their 'DIG2' system which basically uses a single twisted pair for a panel. Meaning you can run a matrix panel over a single mic cable.

That was my favorite feature of the ClearCom Matrix Plus systems, the ability to connect a panel over a single mic line.  I was the third buyer of the original system and used it at the Barcelona Olympics Opening and ran panels all over the stadium that way.  Bandwidth was slightly limited but being digital and totally clean made up for it.

[Neil White]

Hi Pete,

The PRG artist system had the control panel for the comms tech mounted in the rack with the matrix. Do you think the system would be more flexible if this panel was separate from the rack? It would allow the user to position the rack wherever made most sense for installing cables and then set up a control area with master panel, laptop etc. It would also make sense if there were multiple identical racks that could be combined for larger systems, when a master panel with expansion keys in each rack would be unnecessary.

N

[Pete Erskine]

The PRG artist system had the control panel for the comms tech mounted in the rack with the matrix. Do you think the system would be more flexible if this panel was separate from the rack? It would allow the user to position the rack wherever made most sense for installing cables and then set up a control area with master panel, laptop etc. It would also make sense if there were multiple identical racks that could be combined for larger systems, when a master panel with expansion keys in each rack would be unnecessary.

Usually I like it separate.  On the Olympics I go for the max expansion panels.  A panel is always needed in the main rack and this one was just the right height for sitting.  Placed a table there and I was set and could change the patchbay easily.  I suppose it could be cleverly designed in a separate slide in rack case which could work in and out of the case.

[Chris Johnson [UK]]

So, On the subject of wireless comms:

Talk to me about Tempest. I've used it once, and had an extensive demo when it came out. But I have a few queries.

Typically, I'm using BTR700 or Pro850 units for wireless comms. But as you add more and more users, frequency coordination can become a headache, particularly if the production is also frequency heavy.

I did a job last week with 26 BTR700 & 800 users, spread accross 5 bases (I set some up for shared return) in London's west end, so much radio congestion from the myriad of theatres all around.

A product like tempest would have been perfect. But I have heard very mixed reviews. Technically, from what i've seen, it seems sound, and the new seamless roaming functionality looks excellent. But what is the real-world audio quality like? One of the reasons a lot of my clients love BTR700 is the large audio bandwidth. It really is a huge step up in quality from a duplex PMR setup. How is Tempest in this regard?

On the tempest front, how about HME DX210. Are you a fan?

[Pete Erskine]

But what is the real-world audio quality like? One of the reasons a lot of my clients love BTR700 is the large audio bandwidth. It really is a huge step up in quality from a duplex PMR setup. How is Tempest in this regard?

Both Tempest and the DX series suffer from low quality low bandwidth audio.  That is most users complaint.  Audio over digital also gets quickly distorted as you reach the fringe of the coverage area where analog systems get noisey but are still clear communication.

Given a limited area like a theatre or just the stage area both are acceptable despite the audio quality.  Tempest seamless roaming is a big step up in extending the coverage area.  a beltpack can be put into diagnostic mode where it displays the QOS for the to and from signals.  when it reaches 95% digital breaks up and sounds worse.  This way the coverage contours can be established and placement of the next base antennas can be optimized.

on a big show, not crowding the UHF bands is the main selling point for these technologies.  Years ago, my partner Larry Estrin substituted three DX200 systems for BTR800 and hme850 on the Madonna world tour.  Using Dave Clarke headsets made the difference as well. Look at the write up on the Madonna Tour comms HERE.

I used five tempest 2400 system on the Presidential debates with much success.  Two bases covered the theatre and a base each was allocated to the TV truck/moderator dressing area, and the 2 candidate dressing rooms.  Our one failure was in a theatre with two firewalls between the theatre and the dressing rooms.  We really needed another base for the space in between where stage manager waited for the candidates.  As it was they lost contact with the show at critical points.

[Neil White]

Both Tempest and the DX series suffer from low quality low bandwidth audio.

How does the Riedel Acrobat compare in environments where the 1.9gHz band is available for use?

Neil

[Pete Erskine]

How does the Riedel Acrobat compare in environments where the 1.9gHz band is available for use?

Acrobat works well.  Slightly better audio quality than Tempest/DX but way worse RF since it uses mostly off the shelf transceivers meant for phone systems.  Setup and adjustment of the transceivers takes a while and not really intended for one off rental use.  In the Beijing Olympics we had coverage in the 4 main VOMS and about 100' out into the stadium.  Barely enough to cross the short end zone but not enough for the length of the field.  At that time we only used 6 antenna locations and the system hadn't been used with more so we were reluctant to expand it during the Olympics.  Since then improvements have been made and I am eager to try it again. 

[Neil White]

Acrobat works well.  Slightly better audio quality than Tempest/DX but way worse RF since it uses mostly off the shelf transceivers meant for phone systems.

The ability to individually address each beltpack when using a base station interfaced to an Artist system via MADI looks quite powerful. Using Power Over Ethernet to connect the antennas to the base stations should also make it easier to remote antennas wherever needed for coverage compared to having to run RF cables.

[Chris Johnson [UK]]

Hmmm...

Confirms my suspicions.

In an ideal world, I'd want to only own DX200 and Tempest, because the systems are scalable, technically excellent, and dont rely on the UHF spectrum (which also saves licensing costs here in the UK). But audio quality is an issue. Good headsets are an improvement, and I normally have a soundweb in between things like Radio bases and the matrix to provide some software metering and EQ/compression/gating to improve audio quality. This may be a workable solution.

I'm happy to use BTR, but I'd never want to own it. Its just too clunky and inflexible.

I wouldn't touch DECT (1.9Ghz) with a barge pole. Although having remote key panels is cool, being only 2 keys means you could probably achieve the same results with 4 ch tempest systems

[ProSoundWeb Community]