Print

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

[Sean Chen]

With the QLX-D system priced at sweet spot for small touring application (fewer than 8 total wireless devices), I am starting to look at VHF and 900 MHz in addition to the typical UHF band options, in light of the uncertain UHF availability in the future.  One aspect of QLX-D that held me back for a while is the lack of true diversity, which I've come to take for granted in UHF-R and other products equipped with this feature. I am somewhat uncomfortable going back to predictive diversity systems, from experiences with gears such as SLX which had difficulties in certain venues, since I prefer placing receivers @ FOH where I can see signal and battery status, and some FOH spots do not have line of site to the stage.

What I've gathered regarding VHF vs. UHF/900 MHz:
* penetrates through non-metallic objects such as human or balcony, hence line-of-sight within the same room is not as crucial
* does not bounce off walls or ceiling as much, thus less susceptible to multi-path interference

Does that sound about right for the favoring the VHF band vs. the higher frequency bands for my application when choosing within QLX-D line?

Thanks in advance.

[Jordan Wolf]

...I prefer placing receivers @ FOH where I can see signal and battery status, and some FOH spots do not have line of site to the stage.

This is where the ability to network your receivers comes in very handy.

You can keep your WX rack(s) closer to the stage and still monitor/change things remotely.

[Ike Zimbel]

This is where the ability to network your receivers comes in very handy.

You can keep your WX rack(s) closer to the stage and still monitor/change things remotely.

This. Consider, if you don't have line of site, then you are automatically relying on either reflected waves or waves that have passed through objects for your signal. Just because RF can go through objects doesn't mean you should rely on it to do so.

[Jason Glass]

USA VHF TV band is quite predictable in which channels are occupied by TV signals (in the USA), while the 900-928MHz GSM band is is wildly unpredictable, since it includes dozens of other user types and transmission schemes, from professional intercom systems to consumer-grade wireless speakers and everything in between.  IMHO, 900 ISM is equally as unpredictable as 2.4GHz ISM (WIFI Band).  The only major drawbacks to VHF that I have experienced are physically larger antennas and a lower licensed power limit (50mW vs. 250mW), but those haven't been significant issues for my clients.  These are just my humble opinions, though...

With the QLX-D system priced at sweet spot for small touring application (fewer than 8 total wireless devices), I am starting to look at VHF and 900 MHz in addition to the typical UHF band options, in light of the uncertain UHF availability in the future.  One aspect of QLX-D that held me back for a while is the lack of true diversity, which I've come to take for granted in UHF-R and other products equipped with this feature. I am somewhat uncomfortable going back to predictive diversity systems, from experiences with gears such as SLX which had difficulties in certain venues, since I prefer placing receivers @ FOH where I can see signal and battery status, and some FOH spots do not have line of site to the stage.

What I've gathered regarding VHF vs. UHF/900 MHz:
* penetrates through non-metallic objects such as human or balcony, hence line-of-sight within the same room is not as crucial
* does not bounce off walls or ceiling as much, thus less susceptible to multi-path interference

Does that sound about right for the favoring the VHF band vs. the higher frequency bands for my application when choosing within QLX-D line?

Thanks in advance.

[ProSoundWeb Community]