ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 10:03:38 pm 
Started by Jeremy Young - Last post by Jeremy Young
That new maverick fixture speaks to me on several levels. I could have a lot of fun with those and some of the new strike p38 blinders. Thanks for the link John!  Iím sure I wonít like the pricing but you canít argue the versatility.

What are your thoughts on deploying movers without truss?

 2 
 on: Today at 09:22:28 pm 
Started by Tim McCulloch - Last post by Henry Cohen
Short range and dropouts were indeed a problem.  The AV guys were nice but they were as clueless as I was about the Tempest.  They called the home office and the tech suggested moving the transceiver closer to the stage (which we did, up to the limit of the CAT cable in the package).  There were some corner reflector antennas and what looked like LMR400 but the corner reflectors had Type N connectors and the LMR didn't.  No instructions or manual packed with the gear and I was up against a rehearsal deadline to coordinate the client's SLX H5 system.  I never heard those until the client was on stage with them... so no chance to download and consult a Tempest manual.

It was a long & difficult 2 days and all of the various RF issues got fixed except for the Tempest.

Thanks for your help, Dan & Pete.  Your assistance is appreciated.

One more item to keep in mind to help the Tempest system suck less, is to null it on all directly connected 2-wire PL circuits. This will mitigate the doubling/echoing sound on the Tempest packs.

 3 
 on: Today at 09:18:01 pm 
Started by Gian Luca Cavalliini - Last post by Henry Cohen
Whereas signal attenuation through radiating (leaky) coax is comparable to standard coax of the same dimensions and general shield construction, the most significant factor with radiating coax is coupling loss.

If one considers a traditional UHF band antenna, the coupling loss - the transfer of energy from one medium (current in a physical conductor) to another (electromagnetic wave); in this case, the mathematical ERP value in dBm from the antenna to a point in space generally measured at one meter - will be about 20dB. In other words, whatever the effective radiated power level calculated at the antenna, one meter away will be about 20dB less.

Coupling loss with typical radiating coax tuned for UHF band will be about 78 to 82dB at one meter for 90% coverage (meaning that the radio system as fed by the radiating coax will provide 90% reliability as compared to an antenna at the same field strength). Coupling loss is such a significant factor that it is a standard specification provided by manufacturers of radiating coax. Given the tremendous coupling losses, radiating coax is generally used only in long narrow applications: hallways, transportation tunnels, train platforms, mine tunnels, catwalks and the like, where the portable radio device is never more than a defined distance from the coax. With modern engineering and manufacturing processes, radiating coax can be tuned rather tightly for a given frequency band(s) as well as a defined radiation pattern, both of which can reduce the coupling loss  by 3dB to 5dB.

Using radiating coax in non tunnel/hallway type locations usually does not work well unless a significant amount of TX power is provided, or very careful filtering and pre-amplification for RX, is utilized, and even then it will rarely be better than a proper antenna(s).

But in long hallway or pedestrian tunnel, radiating coax works great, given proper initial system RF gain structure. And yes, Jason, diplexing RAD outbounds and inbounds over the radiating coax works very well.

 4 
 on: Today at 09:17:38 pm 
Started by Frank Caridi - Last post by Frank Caridi
Hi Frank-

Watch out for The Anvil of Realityģ.

If I understand correctly you want to provide some music for a relative's party.  You own some equipment already and want to add a subwoofer.  You're not especially technical and have time/budget constraints.

I'd suggest you rent.  Everything.  A pair of subs with 12" tops, speaker poles or stands... and use your DJ controller/mixer/PC as the input source.  Keep the system in the same model line and brand, i.e. JBL SRX800 or EV ETX or Yamaha DSR/DXR, etc.

First this takes care of ALL your technical concerns - the manufacturer has done all that pesky science stuff for us.  Second this will allow you to audition the equipment without further obligation; if you don't like it you just saved yourself a potential mistaken purchase.  Third this helps make you look like a pro to your family or client - you'll go from setting it in place to making sound in a much shorter time than trying to kluge together a bunch of miscellaneous stuff.

Finally, renting means you don't have to make a PURCHASE decision right this instant.  It takes off some of the pressure and that will let you devote more attention to the music and presentation you'd like to give.

hey guys i appreciate the advise i thought about renting also called a place! but then i realized i rather have my own. i figured i can use it for when i have parties and bbqs at the house! you see i am somewhat of a gear junkie. i love audio! i come from a home audio back round recently i started getting interested into pro audio gear and sound. i also did DIY builds. i dont do this for a living or make money off of it i do it as a hobby. i decided to look for a forum for help i found this place for advice and experience. i did installs and automation programming.

so on that note i decided to go with the EV ETX 18sp for now eventually i will upgrade my mains but for now ill start with what i got! i will definitely let you guys know what i think!

here is some pics of the diy














 


 5 
 on: Today at 09:05:50 pm 
Started by Ivan Beaver - Last post by Dave Garoutte
I thought they were the new helium-filled cabinets.

 6 
 on: Today at 08:45:51 pm 
Started by Ivan Beaver - Last post by John Fruits
LOL, yeah, I got that part.  Was that just bad photoshop by someone who knew nothing about them or what. 

 7 
 on: Today at 08:39:07 pm 
Started by Andrew Broughton - Last post by Henry Cohen
This TX-8 was a prototype.  Production units are much quieter.

[RAD hat on]
The newest hardware version, the TX-8U has significantly improved IM supression and IP3 at all output power settings, though optimal input power remains at the 50-70 mW range.
[RAD hat off] 

 8 
 on: Today at 08:28:31 pm 
Started by Ivan Beaver - Last post by Ivan Beaver
That was a blast from the past, I remember the name Teri Hogan from following this forum long ago.
I was talking about the line arrays in the photo

 9 
 on: Today at 08:16:08 pm 
Started by Jeremy Young - Last post by John Fruits
Just to confuse you more, or perhaps guide you to a two stage expansion, Chauvet just introduced a new IP65 mover, in the Maverick series.  No word on price but the Maverick series is a step up from the Rogue series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cWXS6D-eHI

 10 
 on: Today at 08:02:01 pm 
Started by Peter Kowalczyk - Last post by Andrew Hollis

Sound systems can be thought of in three parts:
 - Inputs
 - Processing
 - Outputs

Inputs: Mics and DIs, Mic level vs. Line Level, Microphone directionality
Processing: Preamps, EQ, Busses (Aux vs. Group), Effects (Series vs. Parallel)
Outputs: Amplifiers, Line level vs. Speaker level, Speakers & Space & Output EQ

A noble cause, good luck!

I'd mind the semantics:

Mics, voices, instruments; these are not inputs. They are sources. Inputs are on consoles. A musician will not think of themselves as an input.
Vice versa for outputs (the physical thing on the console). Amps, speakers, recorders, etc are destinations.

When one refers to the mic, the console input, and the channel all as inputs, it makes for frequent miscommunication. It lacks specificity. Someone even in this thread suggested saying input's-to-outputs. I think that will make heads spin, it doesn't make much sense for signal-flow thinking.

This language makes even more sense in digital, as many consoles are routers.

Is an aux an input or an output? Neither is the best way to describe an aux; it's a source and a destination, depending on the perspective (analog out vs channel, respectively, for example)!

Also, you say "series and parallel processing." Call it what it is, insert or send (aux) processing. There is no console that says series or parallel on it, and parallel means something else to engineers anyway.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 15 queries.