Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gustaf Kempe]

Anyone using this system to have a measurment mic wireless? Like the letrosonics but 1/3 of the price. Thinking about getting one

[Jeremy Johnston]

I have to second Gustaf's question - it might not be a Lectrosonics piece, but for a tighter budget wireless system? Is the range sufficient?

Does it have decreasing performance with distance?

Does wifi traffic mess with it in real use?

Jeremy

Anyone using this system to have a measurment mic wireless? Like the letrosonics but 1/3 of the price. Thinking about getting one

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

I actually had this out on tour with me and also a UHF-R... Both with Heil RC35 capsules, this was the 'spare.'  Reason being, neither my monitor guy nor I could hear anything strange, in fact we both loved it, but our singer was hearing a delay in his IEM when using this system versus the UHF-r.  Maybe he's crazy, but it didn't matter if it was analog monitors, a 5d, or SD7, he consistently could hear what he could only describe as an 'almost comb filtery type sound'

UHF-R is an analog system, so other than some phase rotation through the circuitry, there is no latency.  The XD-V is a digital mic, and does have latency.  This is the same as in consoles - digital consoles have processing latency, analog ones don't.

IEM users are the most sensitive to this, and it manifests itself in exactly the way you mention - a perception of comb filtering between the bone conduction in your singer's head and the delayed signal from the mic, board, and any other digital devices in the chain.  IEMs make this worse, as the isolating function (just like plugging your ears with your fingers) makes the sound through your head louder.

FYI, the RF2 codec on the XD-V series has lowered latency from about 4ms to around 2ms, as well as greatly reduced interaction with WiFi (at some cost of signal resiliance).  If you have a V70 or V30, you will need to do a software update to get this.  V75s and the rest of the newer series come with the correct software, and RF1/RF2 is a software selection on the devices.

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

I have to second Gustaf's question - it might not be a Lectrosonics piece, but for a tighter budget wireless system? Is the range sufficient?

Does it have decreasing performance with distance?

Does wifi traffic mess with it in real use?

Jeremy

I'm told there are users who have used these for measurement. 

Is the range sufficient for what?  I own 4 channels, and I get about the same performance that I do with regular UHF gear.  Usual techniques of directional antennas and receiver placement apply.

Does it have decreasing performance with distance?  If you mean does the frequency response change over distance - no.  Digital is digital.  Does general RF performance fall off over distance, leading to eventual signal reliability issues?  Absolutely, just like Lectrosonics and everyone else.

Re Wifi:
I've posted extensively about this somewhere on the forum.  With the older RF1 codec, the mics DID significantly impact Wifi, but generally not the other way around.  With RF2, they've changed the transmit frequencies (and the number of simultaneous frequencies), and the frst 5 Line6 channels (which are not the same frequencies as WiFi channels of the same number) don't seem to interfere with WiFi.  The other 9 channels may interfere with some of the WiFi channels, though you're not likely using all the WiFi channels anyway, so this can easily be worked around.

I've found RF2 to be a significant improvement, and using good wireless practices they are as reliable as conventional UHF.  That, the fact that the Feds won't take them away from me, and their low cost for good quality have made me pretty happy.


Edit - here's one of the threads I mentioned:
http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,136098.0.html

[Doug Fowler]

Anyone using this system to have a measurment mic wireless? Like the letrosonics but 1/3 of the price. Thinking about getting one

I am, it works well. I use Countryman inline phantom power supplies, but your mic must be able to operate on 18v to do this. This, and a Shure TA4F belt pack cable gets it done.

No wifi problems, but when I'm measuring the venue is not filled with people.

It's not as slick as the Lectrosonics solution but it works well.

[Sam Feine]

I am, it works well. I use Countryman inline phantom power supplies, but your mic must be able to operate on 18v to do this. This, and a Shure TA4F belt pack cable gets it done.

No wifi problems, but when I'm measuring the venue is not filled with people.

It's not as slick as the Lectrosonics solution but it works well.

The only thing that the line 6 might not be good at is impulse or latency testing as it has a small (but measurable) delay between when sound hits the capsule and when it gets reproduced at the output. I think that is 4ms for wireless version 1 and 2ms for version 2.

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

The only thing that the line 6 might not be good at is impulse or latency testing as it has a small (but measurable) delay between when sound hits the capsule and when it gets reproduced at the output. I think that is 4ms for wireless version 1 and 2ms for version 2.

In every measurement scenario I can think of, this latency is irrelevant, as it is compensated for in software.  All dual FFT systems are relative to a test signal, and there's lots of latency in the air between the speakers and the mic. The extra couple of ms of the mic just gets added on to the compensation.

[Mac Kerr]

The only thing that the line 6 might not be good at is impulse or latency testing as it has a small (but measurable) delay between when sound hits the capsule and when it gets reproduced at the output. I think that is 4ms for wireless version 1 and 2ms for version 2.

To expand on what TJ said, when you are doing delay measurements you are comparing 2 different sources. The latency is the same for both sources, so the offset between them is not effected by the signal path latency.

Mac

[Gary Adrian]

Conclusion
I fully recommend giving these mics a look and listen, if you are in the market. In my opinion, the features and build quality represent an excellent value.

Please let me know if you have any questions about features I might have overlooked or omitted.
[/quote]

Anyone having any comment on short battery life?  Mine seem to drain batteries much faster than my UHF-R's.  One other thing I found was don't put your laptop near the receivers, as it can cause dropouts, if your Wi-Fi is on.

[TJ (Tom) Cornish]

Conclusion
I fully recommend giving these mics a look and listen, if you are in the market. In my opinion, the features and build quality represent an excellent value.

Please let me know if you have any questions about features I might have overlooked or omitted.


Anyone having any comment on short battery life?  Mine seem to drain batteries much faster than my UHF-R's.  One other thing I found was don't put your laptop near the receivers, as it can cause dropouts, if your Wi-Fi is on.

I don't have any UHFRs, but I agree that Line6's estimate of 8 hours is a little generous.  I've had trouble with the battery meter reading ghost voltage or surface charge such that when you first turn the mic on, the runtime indicates 3 hours, but quickly falls to 2 hours.  It does seem to be more accurate on the low end of the scale - if it says you have 20 minutes left, you probably do.  Usual best practice guidelines apply of always using new batteries at the beginning of the gig.  That being said, I did a week long conference with 5 IEM packs and 3 channels of Line6 wireless on half a box of batteries.

For the wi-fi interference - are you using RF2?  That will help, but it's not remotely surprising that a transmitter in the same band - your laptop - inches from a receiver will cause interference.  This isn't a flaw in the product, but a result of physics.  Remote antennas and/or good receiver placement are always critical.

[ProSoundWeb Community]