Print

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

[Mike Willis]

Forgive the basic questions. I run sound for a group (actors and musicians) that has several older Audio-Technica wireless mics - a combination of System 8, System 10, and 200 Series. I'd like to replace them with some rack-mountable units, but the FCC auction has me leery and I'm fuzzy on a few issues. I did some Googling but couldn't find the info I was looking for. Here goes...

1. Which wireless spectrums are free and clear to use for the foreseeable future?
2. While I know that no-one can predict the future, what are the chances that further frequencies will be auctioned by the FCC? Or, in other words, are there certain frequencies which are legal to operate in now that I should avoid?
3. Is there a tool, besides Shure's wireless workbench, which allows someone to "see" what wireless frequencies are in use/should be avoided for any given venue? I'm specifically interested in something that's *relatively* simple to operate.

Many thanks --

[Ike Zimbel]

Forgive the basic questions. I run sound for a group (actors and musicians) that has several older Audio-Technica wireless mics - a combination of System 8, System 10, and 200 Series. I'd like to replace them with some rack-mountable units, but the FCC auction has me leery and I'm fuzzy on a few issues. I did some Googling but couldn't find the info I was looking for. Here goes...

1. Which wireless spectrums are free and clear to use for the foreseeable future?
2. While I know that no-one can predict the future, what are the chances that further frequencies will be auctioned by the FCC? Or, in other words, are there certain frequencies which are legal to operate in now that I should avoid?
3. Is there a tool, besides Shure's wireless workbench, which allows someone to "see" what wireless frequencies are in use/should be avoided for any given venue? I'm specifically interested in something that's *relatively* simple to operate.

Many thanks --

Hey Mike, welcome to the forum. For starters, the answer to many of those questions depend on where you're located. Armed with that info, we can make some *somewhat* more helpful suggestions.

[Mike Willis]

Hey Mike, welcome to the forum. For starters, the answer to many of those questions depend on where you're located. Armed with that info, we can make some *somewhat* more helpful suggestions.

No problem - I live in Dubuque, Iowa (zip: 52001). The group tours in the east part of the state. Thank you!

[Scott Holtzman]

No problem - I live in Dubuque, Iowa (zip: 52001). The group tours in the east part of the state. Thank you!

Welcome Mike.  This is going to be an interesting topic.  Are you asking as a pre-purchase question?  I know of nothing that alleviates at least a simple scan during setup. 

[Erik Jerde]

Forgive the basic questions. I run sound for a group (actors and musicians) that has several older Audio-Technica wireless mics - a combination of System 8, System 10, and 200 Series. I'd like to replace them with some rack-mountable units, but the FCC auction has me leery and I'm fuzzy on a few issues. I did some Googling but couldn't find the info I was looking for. Here goes...

1. Which wireless spectrums are free and clear to use for the foreseeable future?
2. While I know that no-one can predict the future, what are the chances that further frequencies will be auctioned by the FCC? Or, in other words, are there certain frequencies which are legal to operate in now that I should avoid?
3. Is there a tool, besides Shure's wireless workbench, which allows someone to "see" what wireless frequencies are in use/should be avoided for any given venue? I'm specifically interested in something that's *relatively* simple to operate.

Many thanks --

1:  700MHz equipment has been illegal for years now.  600MHz has been sold and testing roll-out has begun in some markets (see other posts on this forum for more info).  Below 500 is fine for the foreseeable future.  There's 2.4Ghz equipment but I'd stay away from that due to WiFi interference and all the other consumer stuff that runs in that band.  Shure has some 900Mhz as well as VHF (100's-200's) range equipment as well.  I'm not as familiar with the rest of the offerings out there but I'd expect the other big name players will have similar offerings (though I'm not sure about the VHF stuff).

2:  The 600MHz auction wasn't as big a success as some expected it would be.  This may make future auctions less likely but you never know.  In 10 years we could be going around on this again.

3:  The only way WWB really lets you "see" the spectrum around you is by using a compatible receiver (one with network connectivity these days) to do a scan of it's frequency range.  You can also import properly formatted scans from other RF scanners into it.  I believe Sennheiser has software with similar functionality.  IAS is another top end pro product used for coordination.

How many channels do you need?  Any need or desire for IEM systems as well?  You're in a low population area so that will make coordinating a lot easier on you.  You really do need to plan to coordinate at each location for best results.  You'll get best results with a software product that will do the intermod calculations for you instead of relying on scans by each receiver.  If you're using something like WWB it can scan, calculate, and deploy.  Then all you have to do is just sync your transmitters and you're ready to go.

Don't forget about antenna combiners and proper antennas.

[Ike Zimbel]

No problem - I live in Dubuque, Iowa (zip: 52001). The group tours in the east part of the state. Thank you!

I would give Shure ULX-D a long look. Without looking up the various 600 MHz re-pack charts, which can be found here:http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,164023.0.html (that means that some DTV channels that are currently above Channel 37 will be moved to a new channel below 37 or in the VHF band), I would venture a guess that in Iowa you are going to still have quite a bit of open spectrum. ULXD systems in H50 or G50 bands should be good for years to come and you can still keep the high density mode in your back pocket if things get tight, down the road. One of the guys on here, Ray Aberele, I think is a Shure dealer who I think covers your territory.

[Tim Weaver]

Fwiw, I am going to buy into the ULX-D myself. It's a great system and should be somewhat free from interference for quite a while.

[John Sulek]

I would give Shure ULX-D a long look. Without looking up the various 600 MHz re-pack charts, which can be found here:http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,164023.0.html (that means that some DTV channels that are currently above Channel 37 will be moved to a new channel below 37 or in the VHF band), I would venture a guess that in Iowa you are going to still have quite a bit of open spectrum. ULXD systems in H50 or G50 bands should be good for years to come and you can still keep the high density mode in your back pocket if things get tight, down the road. One of the guys on here, Ray Aberele, I think is a Shure dealer who I think covers your territory.

+1
I'm in the process of moving our UHF-R J5 stuff to ULX-D G50.
Seems to be the best option and we tour throughout the USA. I'll get a different band split locally for Miami, etc where there is not going to be much spectrum to be had for mics.

[Mike Willis]

Welcome Mike.  This is going to be an interesting topic.  Are you asking as a pre-purchase question?  I know of nothing that alleviates at least a simple scan during setup.

Scott, yes, I'm in the process of getting quotes for new wireless to replace what we have - mainly because I want units that are rack mountable, have locking transmitters, and so on. It's nothing complex - just two wireless handhelds and one earset mic. But we've had problems with interference using our AT mics that live in the 169-170 MHz range in the past. Can you elaborate on the scanning process? I'm aware of Shure Wireless Workbench, but I don't own it and have never used it. I'm not opposed to paying for it, but I'm wondering if it's overkill for my application.

[Mike Willis]

How many channels do you need?  Any need or desire for IEM systems as well?  You're in a low population area so that will make coordinating a lot easier on you.  You really do need to plan to coordinate at each location for best results.  You'll get best results with a software product that will do the intermod calculations for you instead of relying on scans by each receiver.  If you're using something like WWB it can scan, calculate, and deploy.  Then all you have to do is just sync your transmitters and you're ready to go.

Don't forget about antenna combiners and proper antennas.

Thanks Erik! We're not looking at many channels - just three. We're not using IEMs, but that is a possibility in the future. Since I've been using Shure for years, it sounds like WWB may be the best solution.

[Mike Willis]

I would give Shure ULX-D a long look. Without looking up the various 600 MHz re-pack charts, which can be found here:http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,164023.0.html (that means that some DTV channels that are currently above Channel 37 will be moved to a new channel below 37 or in the VHF band), I would venture a guess that in Iowa you are going to still have quite a bit of open spectrum. ULXD systems in H50 or G50 bands should be good for years to come and you can still keep the high density mode in your back pocket if things get tight, down the road. One of the guys on here, Ray Aberele, I think is a Shure dealer who I think covers your territory.

Ike, thanks for your input! I will look closer at ULX-D for sure. I was considering ULX-S, since that's what I have the most experience with and they've always worked well for me in the past. If ULX-D costs more (I haven't checked), how would you justify the cost difference?

[Ike Zimbel]

Ike, thanks for your input! I will look closer at ULX-D for sure. I was considering ULX-S, since that's what I have the most experience with and they've always worked well for me in the past. If ULX-D costs more (I haven't checked), how would you justify the cost difference?

Hi Mike, Maybe others here can answer that. I rarely see ULX-S in my travels. If you are really just dealing with three channels then any reasonable quality system with auto scanning should work for you.

[Tim McCulloch]

Scott, yes, I'm in the process of getting quotes for new wireless to replace what we have - mainly because I want units that are rack mountable, have locking transmitters, and so on. It's nothing complex - just two wireless handhelds and one earset mic. But we've had problems with interference using our AT mics that live in the 169-170 MHz range in the past. Can you elaborate on the scanning process? I'm aware of Shure Wireless Workbench, but I don't own it and have never used it. I'm not opposed to paying for it, but I'm wondering if it's overkill for my application.

Wireless Workbench is free to download from Shure's website.  A google search will take you there directly.

The problems you experienced down in the VHF band - were these while using your wireless stuff away from your home base?  Was the equipment fixed-frequency?  What works at home may not work elsewhere due to fixed, high power transmitters (TV stations, mostly) creating intermodulation products with 1 or more of your transmitters or even direct interference.  This is why you need WWB - you can enter the locale and it will use FCC data to determine potential interference from TV stations when computing useable frequencies.

[Erik Jerde]

Ike, thanks for your input! I will look closer at ULX-D for sure. I was considering ULX-S, since that's what I have the most experience with and they've always worked well for me in the past. If ULX-D costs more (I haven't checked), how would you justify the cost difference?

ULX-D is great but I'd have a real hard time justifying it in your location and with just 3 channels.  I'd check out QLX-D.  It's a lower price point (around 1K/channel).  It drops some of the higher end features that ULXD has but that you probably won't miss.  I think it sounds a lot better than ULX-S and it adds in network ports so you can along with WWB (which is free) scan and deploy easily.

[Ray Aberle]

(Ike, thank you for the shout out!)

Shure has two great lines right now, the QLX-D and the ULX-D. They're similar in features, but the ULX-D is about 20% more expensive. For that added cost, you get options for higher transmit power, advanced networking capabilities and multi-channel-1U systems (you can get 2ch and 4ch ULXD receivers, in 1U of space).

For your needs, though, I think the QLX-D would suffice. They'll start at $999 (MAP) for the QLXD24/SM58 system.

Advantages of ULX-D/QLX-D over ULX-S? Digital. You can use the rechargeable SB900A batteries that are being discussed right now in the Classic LAB. With the SB200 battery dock, you can even charge the batteries while they're still in the transmitter! Digital means you also have an encryption feature. You can digitally lock the transmitter, so your user can't accidentally turn the transmitter off and forget how to turn it back on. (The ULX-D also has an auto-mute mode connected to that-- you can set it so when the power switch is turned off, it just mutes the audio, and then when the user flips it back on, it's on immediately, as opposed to the 2-3 second delay from a normal power on.) I know that the ULXD and QLXD are compatible with each other; I would assume those advanced transmitter features are available to a QLXD receiver, but I haven't tried it. So you could do a hybrid- get a QLX-D receiver ($636) and then a ULX-D transmitter (starts at about $445).

The ULX-S has been out for some time. I would expect it to go EOL within the next year or so (ULX-P already has done so).

We invested in first QLX-D back in 2015, and wouldn't go back for the world. I've had no problems with drop outs whatsoever (within reasonable range, of course!). They sound great. Battery status on the receivers. Quick and easy to freq scan. Get yourself a UA844+SWB/LC to combine your antenna and power. We also have multi-channel ULX-D units, and being able to Dante those into the console is amazingly awesome.

Let me know if you have any other questions!

-Ray

[Jordan Wolf]

Mike,

I will second the QLX-D sentiments. I feel they are the direct modern replacement for the ULX-P model in features, form factor, and price range.

I routinely use UHF-R, ULX-D, and QLX-D in mixed capacities, and I think they're a great bang-for-the-buck.

I wish they came in the same form factors as the ULX-D dual and quad kits, though. Other than that, no complaints.

Ike, thanks for your input! I will look closer at ULX-D for sure. I was considering ULX-S, since that's what I have the most experience with and they've always worked well for me in the past. If ULX-D costs more (I haven't checked), how would you justify the cost difference?

[Patrick Riley]

Scott, yes, I'm in the process of getting quotes for new wireless to replace what we have - mainly because I want units that are rack mountable, have locking transmitters, and so on. It's nothing complex - just two wireless handhelds and one earset mic. But we've had problems with interference using our AT mics that live in the 169-170 MHz range in the past. Can you elaborate on the scanning process? I'm aware of Shure Wireless Workbench, but I don't own it and have never used it. I'm not opposed to paying for it, but I'm wondering if it's overkill for my application.

Wireless Workbench is free.
http://www.shure.com/americas/products/software/wireless-workbench/wireless-workbench-6
After you get it, look to Pete Erskine's demo videos for instruction

[Mike Willis]

Wireless Workbench is free to download from Shure's website.  A google search will take you there directly.

The problems you experienced down in the VHF band - were these while using your wireless stuff away from your home base?  Was the equipment fixed-frequency?  What works at home may not work elsewhere due to fixed, high power transmitters (TV stations, mostly) creating intermodulation products with 1 or more of your transmitters or even direct interference.  This is why you need WWB - you can enter the locale and it will use FCC data to determine potential interference from TV stations when computing useable frequencies.

Tim, yes, the problems we experienced were on the road, and yes, the receivers were fixed-frequency. Thanks for your help - I'm definitely looking into WWB. Cheers!

[Mike Willis]

Erik, Ray, and Jordan, thanks for recommendations regarding QLX-D. Sometimes it seems like there are so many different models to choose from, and it's not always clear what sets them apart from each other, even when you look at the product pages. And that's true, I think, not just of Shure, but many other manufacturers as well. I appreciate your comments and suggestions! And Patrick, thanks for the tip on WWD - I'll definitely check out Erksine's videos. Really appreciate everyone's help on this question.

[ProSoundWeb Community]