Print

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

[Mac Kerr]

How does IAS compare to wireless workbench for quality?  I have used WWB6 here in Las Vegas and had good results.  Others claim it does not work at all here.  I will admit that some of the set-ups it said would NOT work do.  I attribute that to our wireless being spread out over a very large area.  I normally deal with convention set-ups so I will have lots of rooms/zones with less than 5 microphones in them.

What do you mean by "quality"? They all use the same math to solve for IM products. It's not subjective, it's simple math. Some software has more features, or is easier to use, but the math is the same. The results will not necessarily be the same because there are so many possibilities that it is somewhat up to chance about which one the software calculates first. As you can see in Pete's video, he recalcs several times to get enough frequencies for his BTRs.

When you get a solution of some number of frequencies that is not a guarantee that you will have no problems, nor is a frequency set that shows issues a guarantee of failure. The fact that your frequencies may have IM problems doesn't mean that you will put the transmitters in a position where they create those IMs, only that the possibility exists.

As I have said here before, I prefer IAS, although that is largely because I am familiar with the user interface and have confidence in my ability to get results quickly with it. I have friends who prefer WWB6 because of the integrated scanning and inventory management. I find it too complicated, but it is a very powerful program, and if those are the features you want little else will fill the bill.

Used properly you can get good results with all the programs I am aware of, IAS, WWB, SIFM, RF Guru, Kaltman, and probably others I am not aware of.

Mac

[Pete Erskine]

From the video it looks like IAS has global settings for the spacing to avoid 3rd / 3TX 3rd / 5ths intermodulation products, where as Shure WWB6 has this information as part of each equipment profile. What information does IAS track in its equipment profiles? Do you have a default set of values for these parameters that works with most equipment or does it vary with the quality and performance of the systems?

Both IAS and WB have global as well as product specific profiles.  Product takes precedence unless the global is more conservative.  Such as you might want wider spacing - set it in global.

[Pete Erskine]

How does IAS compare to wireless workbench for quality?  I have used WWB6 here in Las Vegas and had good results.  Others claim it does not work at all here.  I will admit that some of the set-ups it said would NOT work do.  I attribute that to our wireless being spread out over a very large area.  I normally deal with convention set-ups so I will have lots of rooms/zones with less than 5 microphones in them.

Quality comparisons are like comparing Irish Peep Apples and Wagener  apples...they both do the job but are slightly different.

IAS and WB coordinations wont match with the same info.  The product profiles and exact mat methods are different.  Both will give you IM free coords.

WB has the edge when working with Shure products because after you coordinate it populate the frequencies to the Receiver and transmitters.

WB is a little less intuitive in it's operation and offers a bunch more tweeks than IAS.

Here is a video of the same coordination in   Workbench 6

[archive_2_NeilW]

WB is a little less intuitive in it's operation and offers a bunch more tweeks than IAS.

I have mostly used WWB6 and have found the inclusion groups to be a very useful feature. Here in the UK, the cost to license a single frequency for 48 hours in a given location is around £8, but the fee is capped around £50 per TV channel. It is in our best interest to fit as many mics or IEMS into as few TV channels as possible rather than having lots of spot frequencies spread across the whole available spectrum. I have used inclusion groups to constrain a given set of equipment to a particular TV channel or two. It is also useful where you have two sets of equipment with overlapping ranges and want to allocate them to two separate portions of the spectrum.

It looks like the same result could be achieved in IAS manually by only selecting frequencies in the appropriate TV channels to move into the co-ordination.

[Pete Erskine]

It looks like the same result could be achieved in IAS manually by only selecting frequencies in the appropriate TV channels to move into the co-ordination.

I tried that and it's a lot of extra work to make an inclusion zone to force the coord into an area.
IAS is much easier in that respect.  I may redo the video to include inclusions.

[archive_2_NeilW]

I tried that and it's a lot of extra work to make an inclusion zone to force the coord into an area.
IAS is much easier in that respect.  I may redo the video to include inclusions.

I've found it quickest to add my inclusion groups first, then as you add inventory there is the option to select which inclusion group it is part of.

I like that IAS provides flexibility about what order of equipment frequencies are calculated in, although this could probably be replicated in WWB6 by only selecting a group of frequencies to coordinate at a time, then locking those results and adding the next group of frequencies.

Do you ever change the channel and intermod spacing, for example for a mission critical solo handheld TX or similar?

[Tom Bourke]

Quality comparisons are like comparing Irish Peep Apples and Wagener  apples...they both do the job but are slightly different.

IAS and WB coordinations wont match with the same info.  The product profiles and exact mat methods are different.  Both will give you IM free coords.

WB has the edge when working with Shure products because after you coordinate it populate the frequencies to the Receiver and transmitters.

WB is a little less intuitive in it's operation and offers a bunch more tweeks than IAS.

Here is a video of the same coordination in   Workbench 6

Thank you for the video.  Seeing both side by side helps.  In the version of WWB I use there is a way to tell it to ignore different variants of inter-mod.  I also think the difference in TV stations, model pre-sets, and formulas used explains why some people have problems with WWB around here.  I use it mostly because it is free and we have a large pile of shure products.  The people who have the best luck with it are using on site scans.

[peter dakin]

as highlighted in the WW6 video, I've found non shure products, especially Sennhieser not as flexible and tricky to get desired number of frequencies, due to the fixed spacing and 3tx on 'more frequency' settings, as mentioned in video.
If you compare WW6 available freq to Sennheiser's WSM program, that latter offers more frequencies.
I always wondered if this was something Shure maybe factored in, to try and lead you more towards their products, as it is their FREE software after all.

If you wish, you can create your own profile which you can then edit, to make equipment more realistically flexible.

WW6 is the one I use, as mentioned mainly because its free but still very powerful.
IAS has allot of pro's (the band legend at the bottom is stella) and if I lived in the states, I'd probably have gone for it.

I wish WW6 had a wider range of equipment profiles/bands, its quite annoying having to create your own, such as Sennheiser equipment bands, as the one's included are mainly US ordinated. Obviously the top of the line profiles/bands are all there, but we come across a vast array of mid-range stuff (especially when co-ordinating with Artist's equipment).

[Matt Marcus]

What are you using to run IAS on a Mac? Parallels?

[Mac Kerr]

What are you using to run IAS on a Mac? Parallels?

I use VM Ware Fusion and XP, although I guess it's time to think about upgrading.

Mac

[ProSoundWeb Community]