Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums > Wireless and Communications

Frequency Coordination video example

<< < (3/5) > >>

Mac Kerr:

--- Quote from: Tom Bourke on August 29, 2015, 08:09:39 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: Neil White on August 29, 2015, 06:10:12 PM ---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?

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: Tom Bourke on August 29, 2015, 08:09:39 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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

Neil White:

--- Quote from: Pete Erskine on August 29, 2015, 09:46:17 PM ---WB is a little less intuitive in it's operation and offers a bunch more tweeks than IAS.

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: Neil White on August 30, 2015, 03:44:11 AM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version