ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 2.4 GHz Wireless Vs UHF Wireless?  (Read 2374 times)

Bill Garvin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
2.4 GHz Wireless Vs UHF Wireless?
« on: July 01, 2004, 12:59:17 pm »

I just saw an ad for a wireless mic using the 2.4 GHz range.  Is this the wave of the future as UHF gets gobbled up?  Are there any drawbacks to going with 2.4 GHz?

Thanks,
Bill
Logged

Jon Halverson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: 2.4 GHz Wireless Vs UHF Wireless?
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2004, 02:29:03 pm »

billguitarvin wrote on Thu, 01 July 2004 11:59

I just saw an ad for a wireless mic using the 2.4 GHz range.  Is this the wave of the future as UHF gets gobbled up?  Are there any drawbacks to going with 2.4 GHz?

Thanks,
Bill


 One major drawback is that as frequency gets higher and the wavelengths get shorter the signal doesn't go through walls and other obstacles as easy.  You need to be more diligent about keeping line of sight between transmitter and receiver to ensure good range.

 On the plus side antennas are smaller.

 jon
Logged

Bill Garvin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: 2.4 GHz Wireless Vs UHF Wireless?
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2004, 04:40:24 pm »

Thanks Jon. Good to know about it being more directional, and antennas being smaller.  I've been putting my current receivers on top of the PA stack to get good line of sight, as I tend to go out into the crowd.  Don't know if this is the best place, but so far haven't encountered any problems.

Thanks again,
Bill
Logged

Phillip_Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1584
Re: 2.4 GHz Wireless Vs UHF Wireless?
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2004, 05:13:01 pm »

billguitarvin wrote on Thu, 01 July 2004 12:59

I just saw an ad for a wireless mic using the 2.4 GHz range.  Is this the wave of the future as UHF gets gobbled up?  Are there any drawbacks to going with 2.4 GHz?

Thanks,
Bill


Hey Bill,

I am going to echo what Jon said, and expand a bit.  I was involved with the folks at Sabine back in the early days of their attempts to put together a 2.4ghz wireless system.  Suffices to say that it took quite a bit of effort to get it to work.

Things to remember about 2.4ghz.  Smaller wavelength = greater absorption by most materials, so you def need line of sight.

Also, the 2.4ghz band is HUGE, 100mhz b/t .3 and .5, so you can use lots of channels.

The sabine product also has a frequency scanner built into the software, to tell you what channels are open.

I think lectrosonics, and perhaps someone else also make systems in that range now.
Logged

Bill Garvin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
Re: 2.4 GHz Wireless Vs UHF Wireless?
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2004, 05:57:56 pm »

Thanks for the reply.  It's always nice to hear from someone who was involved in the 2.4 GHz design.  I think I read posts going back to 2001 or so saying Sabine was working on it, so sounds like a lot of time and hard work went into making it work.  A question, if I may, about the software that comes with the mic that has the frequency scanner.  Do I just load the software into my lap top and that will enable me to use my laptop as a frequency scanner, or do I need more than that?  How would this differ from Winradio?  I don't have Winradio, but just curious.  Also wasn't sure what you meant by "the 2.4ghz band is HUGE, 100mhz b/t .3 and .5, so you can use lots of channels".

Thanks,
Bill
Logged

Karl P(eterson)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1637
Re: 2.4 GHz Wireless Vs UHF Wireless?
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2004, 06:35:10 pm »

WiNRADiO (and pretty much any good analyzer) is a software/hardware solution that allows you to see a large block of the frequency spectrum (much larger than just wireless mic areas) and see _Everything_ that is going on (how to interpret it is a different, and very long, lesson). From that you can make judgments of where to place your radio signals. An "auto-frequency finder" basically just quickly scans through the available frequencies and finds the quietest for use. While this is surely helpful, it is not what a dedicated frequency scanner is. That being said, for average needs - a dedicated frequency scanner is not normally needed.

In any case, Sabine claims they have 70 and change channels available for use. The problem here can be interference, and that is why Sabine built in the frequency finder(s). Your average Wireless Access point will consume 11 of those channels. Two of them 22 channels. Your average 2.4Ghz phone will take 3 of those channels, and a spread spectrum phone about 8~10 (this information all from Sabine themselves)

So, lets just say you do a gig in an area where there are 3 access points, two cordless phones and a wireless video camera all in operating distance (which can be up to 1~2 hundred feet for a lot of those technologies, more for some and less for others) you could be down to 5~10 channels for use.

Now, while that is a worse case scenario, and in part true of any radio based system, you need to think about it.

I will admit however that it is a nice system, and most definitely deserves consideration.
Logged
TeamLeader.Technical Systems - CCH
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.091 seconds with 20 queries.