ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: Mac Kerr on January 22, 2014, 04:29:52 PM

Title: Corporate RF
Post by: Mac Kerr on January 22, 2014, 04:29:52 PM
This week I have been sitting backstage in lower Manhattan with a bunch of RF Q&A mics and some lavs. The PA is small, some d&b E12s on sticks, and some more as delays on a truss. There are 34 tables in the room, and each one has a Q&A mic. There are also 12 lavs. Here are a couple of shots of the RF racks before we left the shop, front and back. All the audio is connected to a CL-5 via Dante.

Mac

Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Milt Hathaway on January 22, 2014, 05:34:03 PM
Very nice. I really really like the ULXDs. Not having to ever worry about transmitter AF levels can be a very wonderful thing.

Ahh, the Corp world, where there's more money spent on the RF rack than on the console.
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Jerome Malsack on January 22, 2014, 05:45:19 PM
After all it is the quality of the source that makes the sound.  Mixer can be important to because of the routing and the control of the signals coming in. 

That is starting to look more like the rack of switching in the closet for a computer network.  It must be nice to replace that huge weight of audio cables with eithernet.   Is the color of the cables to any defined rolls?

The color code of the cables and defined rolls may be something to look into for troubleshooting. 

Have any of these devices started to see any IPV6 structures? 
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Scott Helmke on January 22, 2014, 05:58:26 PM
Mac, how much help is the ULX-D approach vs. traditional with respect to fitting in all those channels in a busy city? Big difference? Are you using the low-power/high-density setting at all?
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Pete Erskine on January 22, 2014, 06:31:04 PM
Mac, how much help is the ULX-D approach vs. traditional with respect to fitting in all those channels in a busy city? Big difference? Are you using the low-power/high-density setting at all?

Last time I did a show like (the same as?) that we were in the sub basement of a hotel with an absolutely clear UHF spectrum and used all the available UHF-R bands and it was simple.

The Networked audio is the real star.
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Cameron Stuckey on January 22, 2014, 07:01:17 PM
Embarrassingly, that's my chicken scratch on the UHF-R rack.  I'm surprised it's still there.
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Mac Kerr on January 22, 2014, 07:16:44 PM
Mac, how much help is the ULX-D approach vs. traditional with respect to fitting in all those channels in a busy city? Big difference? Are you using the low-power/high-density setting at all?

The ULX-D capabilities didn't really come into play. We are not running in Hi Density mode, we are at 10mw, and we ran a regular frequency coordination with IAS. We have 40 ULX-Ds, 8 UHF-Rs, and 1 BTR800, and we are in a part of Manhattan that is presently not too bad for RF. When the broadcasters move their transmitters back down to WTC things may be different, but here on the river right next to the World Financial Center we are pretty clear.

The resistance to creation of IM products in the ULXs may be making our job easier, but we would still be able to do it with UHF-Rs. This job wanted the extra security of the encryption, although the fact that we also have 8 UHF-Rs sort of negates that. This is a bit of a test run for a system of more ULX-Ds.

We did do a walk test with one of the mics at 1mw to see how it worked. As expected the RF was down somewhere between 10 and 20dB (should be -10dB), but we still had full bars everywhere in the ballroom. We stuck with 10mw because we could, and because of lack of experience at those low power levels.

Mac
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Rob Spence on January 22, 2014, 10:35:19 PM
Hmmm, ULX-D does Dante? Wow, missed that. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Justice C. Bigler on January 23, 2014, 02:26:21 AM
Hmmm, ULX-D does Dante? Wow, missed that. 

Yeah, you can even control the discovery and patching of the ULX-D from the CL, since version 1.61 (?).
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: David Sturzenbecher on January 23, 2014, 07:55:36 AM

Hmmm, ULX-D does Dante? Wow, missed that. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Currently only the two and four channel units have Dante. The singles do not.
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Mac Kerr on January 23, 2014, 08:19:21 AM
Currently only the two and four channel units have Dante. The singles do not.

With single units it probably doesn't make much sense to use Dante since it is back to 1 cable per device. You lose head amp control when you use Dante and only have digital gain. For some people that is an uncomfortable situation.

Mac
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Bob Leonard on January 23, 2014, 08:21:03 AM
Mac,
Do you ever work in the Boston area?
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Jens Palm Bacher on January 23, 2014, 08:26:34 AM
With single units it probably doesn't make much sense to use Dante since it is back to 1 cable per device. You lose head amp control when you use Dante and only have digital gain. For some people that is an uncomfortable situation.

Mac
I do some TV shows where we have started to use shared gain and receivers with digital out, but the OB guys get really uncomfortable when the vocal tracks in pro-tools do not "look right" gain-wise.
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Neil White on January 23, 2014, 09:08:43 AM
With single units it probably doesn't make much sense to use Dante since it is back to 1 cable per device.

Have you got the Dante network set up with separate Primary and Secondary switches with two connections to each quad receiver?
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Mac Kerr on January 23, 2014, 09:20:16 AM
Have you got the Dante network set up with separate Primary and Secondary switches with two connections to each quad receiver?

Yes. You can see the 2 switches in the top post. In addition to the 40 ULX-Ds we have a Rio3224 and a Rio 1608. The 1608 is in video for PB and Rec, the 3224 is in RF land for the UHF-Rs and the drive lines. everything is run with a redundant connection.

My earlier post should have said that singles would have 2 cables per device via Dante vs 1 cable with analog.

Mac
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Mac Kerr on January 23, 2014, 09:23:19 AM
Mac,
Do you ever work in the Boston area?

I work wherever they send me, lately not to Boston.

Mac
Title: Corporate RF
Post by: Jordan Wolf on January 23, 2014, 10:10:30 AM
Hey Mac,

There's a show here in Philly spec'd to have around 50 RF mics (down from the original 108) ; I was put on another show, but was hoping to try the ULX-Ds in High Density mode.  It was supposed to be 1-2 TX per breakout room, but I think some of the spaces were small enough to not warrant reinforcement.

Had I been put on that show, I was planning to zone the mics via Workbench since the high density mode drops the RF power.

What do you think of IAS?  It looks quite helpful for the pre-production and setup phases; have you found it lacking?  I haven't tried it out yet.
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Scott Helmke on January 23, 2014, 10:15:35 AM
Yes. You can see the 2 switches in the top post. In addition to the 40 ULX-Ds we have a Rio3224 and a Rio 1608. The 1608 is in video for PB and Rec, the 3224 is in RF land for the UHF-Rs and the drive lines. everything is run with a redundant connection.

We ended up buying two different colors of patch cables, for primary vs. secondary. Since you won't get a clear error message from a mixup it's saved a few headaches.
Title: Re: Corporate RF Coord software
Post by: Mac Kerr on January 23, 2014, 10:52:16 AM
What do you think of IAS?  It looks quite helpful for the pre-production and setup phases; have you found it lacking?  I haven't tried it out yet.

I like IAS, it is what I use. It has been the standard of the industry for a while, and users have confidence in it. That said, I have heard very good things about Wireless Workbench 6. On this show we did the coord with IAS, but are monitoring the RF with WW6. The biggest advantage to WW6 may be the price, it's free. For now, since I already own IAS, and I am used to it and confident in it, I'll be sticking to it.

Both WW6 and IAS can do zones, so you can increase the available frequencies by not doing IM for mics that are never going to cause IM. The software will just look for direct hits in other zones.

Mac
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Mac Kerr on January 23, 2014, 11:23:22 AM
We ended up buying two different colors of patch cables, for primary vs. secondary. Since you won't get a clear error message from a mixup it's saved a few headaches.

Color coding would be nice, but with a shop the size of PRG sorting the CAT5 cable isn't going to happen. With 10 devices in 1 rack it was pretty easy to make sure it was patched right. In a more spread out system I might be more inclined to insist on color coding, although the long runs are all going to be black.

Mac
Title: Re: Corporate RF Coord software
Post by: Jordan Wolf on January 23, 2014, 01:55:15 PM
I like IAS, it is what I use. It has been the standard of the industry for a while, and users have confidence in it. That said, I have heard very good things about Wireless Workbench 6. On this show we did the coord with IAS, but are monitoring the RF with WW6. The biggest advantage to WW6 may be the price, it's free. For now, since I already own IAS, and I am used to it and confident in it, I'll be sticking to it.

Both WW6 and IAS can do zones, so you can increase the available frequencies by not doing IM for mics that are never going to cause IM. The software will just look for direct hits in other zones.

Mac
So, does that mean IAS has the ability deploy its coordination information directly to the wireless devices in use, or must the programming be done manually (like when using ULX-Ps like I am today)?  I'll have to try out the 15-day demo and see what I think.  It's great to have more tools in the toolbox...knowing when to use them and why are the hard parts. ::)

Also, is that the Dugan control software on that laptop there?
Title: Re: Corporate RF Coord software
Post by: Mac Kerr on January 23, 2014, 01:58:27 PM
So, does that mean IAS has the ability deploy its coordination information directly to the wireless devices in use, or must the programming be done manually (like when using ULX-Ps like I am today)?  I'll have to try out the 15-day demo and see what I think.  It's great to have more tools in the toolbox...knowing when to use them and why are the hard parts. ::)

No, IAS does not talk to the hardware. It just does coordination.

Mac
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Jansen Lee on March 10, 2014, 09:25:37 PM
Sorry to dredge up an old post...

Mac, how were the antenna cables setup/distroed on the 10 ULX4Q receivers?  I know there are the cascade connectors, just curious about the upper limit on such a setup or larger.
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Mac Kerr on March 10, 2014, 09:50:28 PM
Sorry to dredge up an old post...

Mac, how were the antenna cables setup/distroed on the 10 ULX4Q receivers?  I know there are the cascade connectors, just curious about the upper limit on such a setup or larger.

I don't remember, but I see at least 2 antenna distros in the rack.

Mac
Title: Re: Corporate RF
Post by: Scott Helmke on March 11, 2014, 10:13:14 AM
The little gotcha on the built-in antenna cascading is that you can't mix frequency bands - the cascade output is bandpass filtered for that unit's frequency band. So if you've wisely chosen to split your system into two or more bands you will need a regular wideband antenna distro.