ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 01:41:40 pm 
Started by Anton Antonov - Last post by Keith Broughton
Hi all!

First of all I apologize for the English, greetings from Russia  ;)

I have 3 Shure ULXP SM58 sets, each have different frequency range (from 500 to 820 MHz). I bought Shure UA844 and now want to buy antennas. I have live sound with base-mic ranges up to 30 meters. I also work with the host of events that moves around the hall, so, it seems to me, I can`t use only directional antennas.
As I understand best way for me will be 1 directional and 1 omni-directional antennas (passive)
So, for dirrectional I have to use Shure PA805 and for omni Shure UA860SWB
At this moment all right? Or better will be use two Shure UA860SWB?

How did I read on this forum, the radio frequency anyway what is your antenna manufacturer. I see price for Sennheiser A 1031-U and Sennheiser A 2003-UHF is twice lower than Shure, are there any differences ? Can I save money and use Sennheiser set? Or the quality is lower and therefore it is cheaper?

Tnx
Anton
You might be surprised how well the directional  antennas receive signals that are off axis, if the transmitters are a bit closer.
Considering the price, you could start with 2 of the Sennheiser A2003s and see how they work.
The Sennheiser A1031 is,  in my experience, a good omni antenna.
Whatever you choose, make sure to use good quality antenna cable, keep the runs short and the antennas well up in the air!

 2 
 on: Today at 01:34:22 pm 
Started by Helge Dr. Bentsen - Last post by Keith Broughton
Someone told me today that one major difference between various digital mixing consoles is the quality of phantom power. The argument was that some desks had dirty phantom power resulting in more noise and lower quality sound in the higher frequencies on powered sources.

I've never heard about this in the past.
Is there such a thing as dirty phantom power?
Is there a reasonable explanation for why this is/is not an issue?
I am at a loss as to explain why someone would come up with "dirty phantom power"
It's nothing special. Just 48Vdc from the power supply.
Possibly, there might be a bad capacitor or some other defect in a specific console power supply but I have never heard of , or experienced, any "bad" phantom power.
Anyone else?

 3 
 on: Today at 01:19:18 pm 
Started by Jeff Schoonover1 - Last post by Jeff Schoonover1
I'm sorry, but the input to the xover IS disconnected.
I see what you're saying.  No matter what, this configuration will take two different cables to work.  A standard 4-conductor with 4-pole Speakons, and a special adapter cable for bridge mode with 1+ and 2+ at the Amp end (Negatives are not used for Bridge Mode) connected to 1+ and 2- on this diagram. 
Also, the Speakon in the diagram isn't drawn the way a Speakon is in real life.  Positives and negatives are across from each other, not next to each other on the actual part.  But it should work if connected by the diagram, not the number labels...  I'll fix the drawing later today.

 4 
 on: Today at 12:59:59 pm 
Started by Helge Dr. Bentsen - Last post by Helge Dr. Bentsen
Someone told me today that one major difference between various digital mixing consoles is the quality of phantom power. The argument was that some desks had dirty phantom power resulting in more noise and lower quality sound in the higher frequencies on powered sources.

I've never heard about this in the past.
Is there such a thing as dirty phantom power?
Is there a reasonable explanation for why this is/is not an issue?

 5 
 on: Today at 12:57:41 pm 
Started by Jeff Schoonover1 - Last post by Ivan Beaver
No it isn't!!!!!!

Here is what Bi-amp mode looks like.
I'm sorry, but the input to the xover IS disconnected.

YES, the common is hooked up to the xover-but SO WHAT?  There is no path for it to go, therefore none of the components in the crossover do anything-no matter how they are wired.

The common is hooked to the neg of the woofer and the biamp input-but it doesn't matter.

It will take a lot more convincing (which I don't see how it can be done) to convince me it would nto work.

Hooking a single wire to something does nothing, ONLY if there is a path to somewhere-which there isn't in this case

 6 
 on: Today at 12:45:42 pm 
Started by Tom Bourke - Last post by John Roberts {JR}
Glad you avoided disaster... 

Life gives us the test first, then the answers.

JR

 7 
 on: Today at 12:30:59 pm 
Started by Anton Antonov - Last post by Brian Adams
Hi, welcome to the forum.

The PA805 and UA860 are both good passive antennas. The PA805 is directional, which will give you more gain in the areas you need it. The UA860 is slightly better if you need coverage all around.

Don't forget the UA874, which is an amplified antenna and has more gain than you need, but can be dialed back to a comfortable level. It's also smaller than the PA805, which makes it somewhat easier to store and transport. They're cardioid, but they still work well from the back. I wouldn't necessarily rule them out because of their directionality.

The Sennheiser antennas are good too, and will work fine with your Shure gear. A possible reason they're cheaper for you is because you're closer to Europe. The Sennheiser A2003 is much smaller than the PA805, and doesn't have quite as much gain, but they're good antennas. I have a couple, but I only use them on IEM transmitters.

When I use PA805's I typically use them as transmit antennas, but I've occasionally used them on receivers with good results.

I have 2 UA860's and 4 UA874's in my inventory, but I find that I rarely (almost never) use the UA860's, even in situations when I need coverage to the sides and rear. The UA874's work well for me for basically everything I do.

 8 
 on: Today at 12:27:39 pm 
Started by Jonathan Woytek - Last post by Loren Miller

Well it was an optimistic question! Although it is amazing what is available for a couple grand now a days, I am hopeful with the way things are trickling down that lower latency, better pre's and global delays are within in the mere mortal's budget in a few years.

Happy thanksgiving,
Loren

 9 
 on: Today at 12:11:20 pm 
Started by Jeff Schoonover1 - Last post by Jeff Schoonover1
OH sorry if I was mistaken on that. Your schematic has a couple issues including the fact that the crossover inputs need to be on 1+/1- of the speakon. This allows one to use use a standard straight through 4 core speakon cable for both modes.. which is always a good idea. If you want to use a bridged amp when in fullrange mode that is fine but you need to make the wiring adjustment at the amplifier end and ideally with a patch panel in the amp rack if your amp doesn't have a dedicated bridged output connector.
LOL, No worries.  It's funny now :)
Yes, yes, yes, and yes!  I understand completely now.
I already have made the two cables, one for bridged, and one for 4-way, I was hoping to figure out how to use the same Speakon input with either cable and here we are, thanks! 
Patch panel - A good idea, I even have one I can use for this.
Just to be sure, here's your idea using one input.
Oh - What was the 20uF cap for in your drawing? Can I not connect 1- and 2-, run the tweeter's common back through the X-over like the woofers?  Thereby eliminating that switch as well?

 10 
 on: Today at 11:52:21 am 
Started by Tim Steer - Last post by Tim Steer
I need to get some cables made up for a bunch of generic, unbranded LED panel modules. Since the modules and receiver cards have no writing on them, it's proving difficult to identify the connector. Any ideas?

Edit: Apologies for the crappy photo. It's basically a ring of 10 small pins with two larger pins in the centre. It has the type of 'locking ring' typically found on various types of IP-rated lighting cables.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Page created in 0.142 seconds with 14 queries.