Print

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

[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]