ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: RF (UHF) curiosities  (Read 4065 times)

Nathan Riddle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2052
  • Niceville, FL
    • Nailed Productions
RF (UHF) curiosities
« on: August 01, 2018, 11:32:02 AM »

I have a number of questions that are mulling about in my head after working on this rack install (distro & combine) at a church.

I'll try to be clear/logical with my presented findings; but it's all jumbled in my head.

Info:

Before:
First, rack (senn RX Mics & AT TX IEMS) is slapped together all using 1/4 wave antennas.
Second, TX was in high power mode & in same rack.
Third, I ran WWB6 analysis on the frequencies; oh my goodness, half (6) of the 12 were incompatible.
Fourth, Rack was on stage and max of 50ft away from any TX/RX device

After:
-I of course installed RF Venue Distro4's for the RX. As per one of their blog posts I kept the RF cables 'disorganized.'
-I added a single combiner. I wanted to use RF Venue's Combine4; but I was trying to save a tiny bit of money for the client & use a 1/2 rack unit instead of full rack. This was a mistake because the AT combiner can't be racked with the AT TX units...  >:(

-(It was very late/long day) I hadn't yet installed the remote 1/2λantenna (or received them) but I wanted to make sure they were still up and running. So I slapped on 1/4λ on the front of the rack for the RX (distro4 has bnc couplers) with the TX on the back side hoping to just 'get-by' until I had finished correctly. This made the RX units in the rack fare even worse than before.
-I then turned down the RF power on the AT TX IEMS in the rack so the RX wouldn't get overwhelmed.
-This didn't help all that much.
-I then put the 1/4λ back on and it worked 'okay' (i'm assuming as well as before)

Later (another day)
-I did the RF coordination and the 1/4λ antenna farm looked good.
-So I tried the 1/4λ with distro. Still issues even after coordination.
-I then grabbed my DiversityFin and remotely located the RX and still used the 2x 1/2λ on the back side of the rack. Worked beautifully.


Questions:
1) Why did the original rack work at all?
2) After adding distro [still using 1/4 wave & same frequencies] why did it seem to work worse than when they had an antenna farm?
3) Having nearly finished (still need to remotely mount the 1/2λ RX antenna). Anyone care to peer-review anything RF-wise that I might have done poorly? I tried to stick to all the best practices that I know of.


Before images:
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 12:06:05 PM by Nathan Riddle »
Logged
I'm just a guy trying to do the next right thing.

This business is for people with too much energy for desk jobs and too much brain for labor jobs. - Scott Helmke

Nathan Riddle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2052
  • Niceville, FL
    • Nailed Productions
Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2018, 11:32:20 AM »

Freq before & front of almost finished rack.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 12:11:40 PM by Nathan Riddle »
Logged
I'm just a guy trying to do the next right thing.

This business is for people with too much energy for desk jobs and too much brain for labor jobs. - Scott Helmke

Nathan Riddle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2052
  • Niceville, FL
    • Nailed Productions
Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2018, 11:32:30 AM »

Noise floor RF Scans
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 12:03:56 PM by Nathan Riddle »
Logged
I'm just a guy trying to do the next right thing.

This business is for people with too much energy for desk jobs and too much brain for labor jobs. - Scott Helmke

Henry Cohen

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1220
  • Westchester Co., NY, USA
Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2018, 10:40:36 PM »

Questions:
1) Why did the original rack work at all?

Luck mostly. Also remember that IM calculations predict where IM products occur, not that they necessarily will be destructive.


Quote
2) After adding distro [still using 1/4 wave & same frequencies] why did it seem to work worse than when they had an antenna farm?

Likely a combination of factors:
- There are reasons why low cost combiners and multi-couplers cost only a few hundred dollars while higher tier products cost north of $1k; port to port isolation, IP3, IM suppression, linearity, noise figure to name a few.
- Both antennas had near field obstructions (the rack) thus couldn't work efficiently.
- The IEM TX antenna being so close to the rack, with a high composite RF energy level, could have been exciting the metal parts of the rack enough to act sympathetically as a passive radiator, again due to the fact the rack is within the the reactive near field of the antenna(s).


Quote
3) Having nearly finished (still need to remotely mount the 1/2λ RX antenna). Anyone care to peer-review anything RF-wise that I might have done poorly? I tried to stick to all the best practices that I know of.

A few observations:
- Get the antennas away from the rack and up high into free field [as much as possible], such as mounting on mic stands.
- Unless you can provide a proper counterpoise for a 1/4 whip, use 1/2 wave / dipole or directional antennas.
- Use a better quality TX combiner.
Logged
Henry Cohen

CP Communications    www.cpcomms.com
Radio Active Designs   www.radioactiverf.com

Nathan Riddle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2052
  • Niceville, FL
    • Nailed Productions
Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2018, 10:24:42 AM »

Luck mostly. Also remember that IM calculations predict where IM products occur, not that they necessarily will be destructive.


Likely a combination of factors:
- There are reasons why low cost combiners and multi-couplers cost only a few hundred dollars while higher tier products cost north of $1k; port to port isolation, IP3, IM suppression, linearity, noise figure to name a few.
- Both antennas had near field obstructions (the rack) thus couldn't work efficiently.
- The IEM TX antenna being so close to the rack, with a high composite RF energy level, could have been exciting the metal parts of the rack enough to act sympathetically as a passive radiator, again due to the fact the rack is within the the reactive near field of the antenna(s).

Thank you, that really helps since I'm guessing at best compared to knowledgeable guys/gals like you.

A bit like when I didn't understand sound/limiters. I can learn though :)


Quote
A few observations:
- Get the antennas away from the rack and up high into free field [as much as possible], such as mounting on mic stands.
- Unless you can provide a proper counterpoise for a 1/4 whip, use 1/2 wave / dipole or directional antennas.
- Use a better quality TX combiner.

Check, I plan on mounting on the stage walls about 8-10ft high on either side. (LMR-400 for the 50' run)
Check, using Sennheiser's omni 1/2 wave A1031U (They already had these not in use)
Danget, so I should have pushed for the Combine4 as a minimum?

Last related question:
Is concrete somewhat free field?
I'll be using wall boxes/plates to standoff the antenna from the wall as much as possible. But that will only be 2"-5".
Logged
I'm just a guy trying to do the next right thing.

This business is for people with too much energy for desk jobs and too much brain for labor jobs. - Scott Helmke

Don Boomer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 340
    • RF Venue
Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2018, 02:13:03 PM »

Don't worry so much about the noise floor by itself. The Distro 4 is probably supplying a little gain. So what s really important to staying on the air is the dynamic range. If you ran these again you would likely see that the Tx is stronger tha it was before.

I would highly recommend using a helical antenna for the IEMs.

If you are gonna stick with omni antennas for the receivers, they will be much happier about 6’ away from the wall a opposed to being directly mounted to the wall.

Logged
Don Boomer
Senior applications engineer
RF Venue, Inc.

Nathan Riddle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2052
  • Niceville, FL
    • Nailed Productions
Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2018, 03:05:50 PM »

Don't worry so much about the noise floor by itself. The Distro 4 is probably supplying a little gain. So what s really important to staying on the air is the dynamic range. If you ran these again you would likely see that the Tx is stronger than it was before.

Thanks Don! I love your gear, I was mainly in 'curiosity mode' (I don't know what I don't know).

I would highly recommend using a helical antenna for the IEMs.

While I agree, when I sent the quote to do this they were budget-savvy (hence the AT junk instead of Combine4) [Which I admit, I shouldn't have flexed there]. But I think the 1/2 wave's will work given the distance from the antenna to body pack will be less than 20ft.

If you are gonna stick with omni antennas for the receivers, they will be much happier about 6’ away from the wall a opposed to being directly mounted to the wall.

Dang, I was afraid of that. I did stress that the 1/2 waves should be substituted for LPDA's, but it's hard to beat free (already owned).

For future reference do LPDA's fare better being mounted to a wall since they have decreased sensitivity to the rear?

Logged
I'm just a guy trying to do the next right thing.

This business is for people with too much energy for desk jobs and too much brain for labor jobs. - Scott Helmke

Luke Geis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • Owner of Endever Music Production's
Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2018, 08:39:56 PM »

I am not an RF master, but I have been doing a LOT of studying lately since I seem to be using RF at every show I do lately.

My understanding is this:

1. More RF power is not better, it just helps in certain situations. Too much is not a good thing as it can make things worse.

2. 1/4 wave antennas I believe require a ground plane to really work at all and that ground plane is the wireless unit. When it is moves away remotely in any way, it looses ability.

3. Half wave antennas are actually REALLY good......... if properly deployed. They are usually best placed up as high as you can get them. As long as there is line of sight, they should work fine. The second plus is using as short a BNC cable ( at the correct ohm rating ) as possible. Thie reduces signal loss.

4. Directional antennas and distros do not guarantee better performance if the basic rules are not followed. Line of sight is key, short BNC runs are important and not having too much gain is also key. Aside from that, too much of a good thing is still too much. If you have a directional antenna and you are only 10' away from the receiver, you may not need a distro at all and using one may make the situation worse.

I have found that it is all about making things as simple as possible and following basic rules. If you are in an environment that is very dirty, you have to get the receiver as close to the transmitter as is practical using as low gain an antenna as you can. Next is making sure there is line of sight and nothing that can interfere with RF nearby. LED walls are not helpful..... If you can reduce the noise the receiver hears while increasing the opportunity that the transmitter is the only thing that gets through, you better the odds of a good experience. The answer is not always more of anything, but actually finding a way to lessen things.

Next, I have learned that boundaries play a HUGE role. The RF wave emits in two planes and the idea is to make it so that the antennas can only catch any one plane at a time. When near boundaries such as the floor or walls, there is a bounce that occurs and can come back at near the same power. This bounce can be heard by the receiver and will affect how it " hears " things. If significantly out of phase with either of the two planes, it will wreak havoc on RF diversity. You want the direct signal path to be what the receiver hears and preferably only able to " hear " the transmitter's signal.
Logged
I don't understand how you can't hear yourself

Henry Cohen

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1220
  • Westchester Co., NY, USA
Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2018, 09:59:28 PM »

1. More RF power is not better, it just helps in certain situations. Too much is not a good thing as it can make things worse.

Correct


Quote
2. 1/4 wave antennas I believe require a ground plane to really work at all and that ground plane is the wireless unit. When it is moves away remotely in any way, it looses ability.

1/4 wave antennas do in fact require a ground plane (or more accurately, a counterpoise), but any metal surface orthogonally opposed to the radiating element can be the ground plane; it doesn't have to be the receiver chassis.


Quote
3. Half wave antennas are actually REALLY good......... if properly deployed. They are usually best placed up as high as you can get them. As long as there is line of sight, they should work fine. The second plus is using as short a BNC cable ( at the correct ohm rating ) as possible. Thie reduces signal loss.

Any antenna performs better when up high above obstructions, regardless of type. Short coax cable is not nearly as important as using low loss coax (double shielded) of the correct size to minimize losses. It's far better to run a longer piece of low loss coax to get the antennas closer to the transmitters; at the distances we work, free space path loss is always greater (by a significant magnitude) than the loss through good coax. (And BTW, RG58, RG8X, and RG213 are not good coax types for UHF frequencies.)


Quote
4. Directional antennas and distros do not guarantee better performance if the basic rules are not followed. Line of sight is key, short BNC runs are important and not having too much gain is also key. Aside from that, too much of a good thing is still too much. If you have a directional antenna and you are only 10' away from the receiver, you may not need a distro at all and using one may make the situation worse.

Mostly correct, but see my comment about coax length vs. type above.


Quote
I have found that it is all about making things as simple as possible and following basic rules. If you are in an environment that is very dirty, you have to get the receiver as close to the transmitter as is practical
No; get the receiver's antennas as close to the transmitters as possible.

Quote
using as low gain an antenna as you can.
Not necessarily. A high gain passive directional antenna will provide off axis rejection which could be as critical to good reception, if not more so, than a unity gain antenna.

Quote
Next is making sure there is line of sight and nothing that can interfere with RF nearby. LED walls are not helpful..... If you can reduce the noise the receiver hears while increasing the opportunity that the transmitter is the only thing that gets through, you better the odds of a good experience. The answer is not always more of anything, but actually finding a way to lessen things.
Mostly correct, but there are finer points to this that are dependent on the given deployment.



Quote
Next, I have learned that boundaries play a HUGE role. The RF wave emits in two planes and the idea is to make it so that the antennas can only catch any one plane at a time. When near boundaries such as the floor or walls, there is a bounce that occurs and can come back at near the same power. This bounce can be heard by the receiver and will affect how it " hears " things. If significantly out of phase with either of the two planes, it will wreak havoc on RF diversity. You want the direct signal path to be what the receiver hears and preferably only able to " hear " the transmitter's signal.

Note sure what you mean by "two planes". If you mean the electric field and the magnetic field (the two fields are orhtogonally opposed), both are required for proper RF propogation and reception at the RX antenna. If you mean azimuth (horizontal) beamwidth versus elevation (vertical) beamwidth of the antennas, these parameters are a known spec of the antenna and are part of the decision making process about which antenna type is best suited to a given application. Both patterns need to be considered when determining antenna deployment so that as much far field freespace as possible is provided.
Logged
Henry Cohen

CP Communications    www.cpcomms.com
Radio Active Designs   www.radioactiverf.com

Larry Sheehan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • Georgetown, TX
    • San Gabriel Sound
Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2018, 11:06:08 AM »

distances we work, free space path loss is always greater (by a significant magnitude) than the loss through good coax. (And BTW, RG58, RG8X, and RG213 are not good coax types for UHF frequencies.)

Henry, could you please elaborate? If not these types, what are the correct cable types?
Logged
Larry Sheehan - San Gabriel Sound

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: RF (UHF) curiosities
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2018, 11:06:08 AM »


Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 



Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 20 queries.