ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Uhfr vs Ulxd  (Read 13225 times)

Dave Stevens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29660
Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2016, 02:37:48 pm »

I am talking about both measured and listening.

Doesn't matter what you measure, it matters what you hear.  I'm from the Sammy school rather than the Bob school.  If it sounds good, it is good.  What we hear and think sounds good isn't necessarily what Elvis wants to hear.  I don't expect everyone to agree with what I think sounds good.  Just like not everyone likes chocolate ice cream.

This is what I understand is the real shining light of the ULXD gear. 

A very informative thread, thanks to the OP and for starting it.

Can't someone in admin change Dave's status, please? ;>)

I'd like to keep the Newbie tag...    :o

It is a good thread, the plot is awesome, it really tells the story (and an excellent demonstration of usable measurement).   Density was the driving force to migrate at least the band channels to the D.  We took a hit when we lost 700 in not only the budget (approx $300k) but also in available space.  We're at 60 carriers active for mics, ears, IFB and comm.  Automation has another block locked out, 40 or so and another 30-40 around property.   The kids up in our radio shack ride herd over all of it.
Logged

Henry Cohen

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 915
  • Westchester Co., NY, USA
Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2016, 02:43:42 pm »

The switching on the D has a gigantic caveat of having a switching system that can throw to an antenna that's got worse reception.  That's one of the trade offs for this design in order to get the spectral density.
No. The target spectral density specification has no influence on the antenna switching design or the number of receivers. Target market and price point does.

Quote
Shure engineering is outstanding, I'm surprised they let this one by unless it was the tradeoff for the price point and frequency agility/spacing.  Then again, even at the top levels marketing and accounting often overrule engineering.
It was a target market and price consideration. Nothing slipped by them (that a firmware update couldn't resolve].

Logged
Henry Cohen

CP Communications    www.cpcomms.com
Radio Active Designs   www.radioactiverf.com

Henry Cohen

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 915
  • Westchester Co., NY, USA
Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2016, 02:45:49 pm »

It actually feels like the ULX-D is more a install unit then for the touring/rental world.
And that was exactly the target market. If Shure made any kind of error with the product, it was showing it to SR folks  :)
Logged
Henry Cohen

CP Communications    www.cpcomms.com
Radio Active Designs   www.radioactiverf.com

Dave Stevens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29660
Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2016, 04:14:02 pm »

No. The target spectral density specification has no influence on the antenna switching design or the number of receivers. Target market and price point does.
It was a target market and price consideration. Nothing slipped by them (that a firmware update couldn't resolve].

By tradeoff I mean a trade off in the application of the device in use, not the design.  That's the choice, pack the freqs tight and depending on the app you may or may not get switched to an "empty" antenna or get a traditional analog device and not be able to pack them in as tight.  I could see a market in the future, particularly when the next auction is complete, where a two receiver digital unit with monitored switching would be attractive.  Or better yet, something outside the UHF TV bands using whatever newfangled technology that might be down the road.

And that was exactly the target market. If Shure made any kind of error with the product, it was showing it to SR folks  :)

You've been here, it doesn't get any more install than we have.   ;D  The irony is when we use them installed with the antenna DA, there are issues.  When we used the outside units at events where the lifts are leveled out, side of stage (like in the rock days) they're great.  The driving factor now for the D here is for the ENG hell gigs.   Initially the word from above was only corded services, press splits, no freq coordination, radio at your own risk.  If you want to get it it's on a wire.  It only took about 5 mins into the first set up for that to be blown out of the water.  Client brought in their own wireless (only a couple) then complained when they couldn't find clear air during the event.  The Ds and some segregated blocks and coordination should help with that.
Logged

Diogo Nunes Pereira

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
  • Barcelona, sometimes...
Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2016, 04:58:27 pm »



Doesn't matter what you measure, it matters what you hear.  I'm from the Sammy school rather than the Bob school.  If it sounds good, it is good. 

Totally agree.

Forgive me for my ignorance, I'm European: I believe I know who 6o6 is, but who is Sammy?

Sent from my Xylophone using Tapatalk...

Logged
Diogo Nunes Pereira
elraval@gmail.com
--------------------------
"I envy not those who own charriots, horses or land. I envy only those who drink water from every spring." - Popular Song from Portugal

Jason Glass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680
    • CleanWirelessAudio.com
Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2016, 07:20:37 pm »

And that was exactly the target market. If Shure made any kind of error with the product, it was showing it to SR folks  :)
They did kind of nail it for instrument backline...

It sounds darned close to a cable and apparently does a decent job of loading instrument pickups. Form factor (4 x RX in 1RU) works well for multi-instrumentalists with small travel racks, and as noted here previously, you can pack channel freqs relatively tightly.

Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse the inevitable spelling and grammatical errors.

Samuel Rees

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1878
  • Washington, D.C.
Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2016, 09:09:21 pm »

I've been using ULXD and UHFR side by side for gigs this week in a corporate context and will many more times over the next several months. So far, the ULXDs have been a pleasure. In workbench they seem to show a lower noise floor so I can set my exclusion down lower for them than the UHFR. Not too important, just interesting. IR syncing happens twice as fast and twice as reliably. The whole deploy and sync is then twice as fast again for the fact that the IR sync receiver is accessible without opening the transmitters. I did 8 channels of one and 8 of the other and it was remarkable how much quicker the ULXD went. I've not had any better or worse RF performance show itself yet. Noise on the ULXD via Dante seems exceptionally low, as well.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 09:27:36 pm by Samuel Rees »
Logged

Dave Stevens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29660
Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2016, 03:59:12 am »


Totally agree.

Forgive me for my ignorance, I'm European: I believe I know who 6o6 is, but who is Sammy?

Sam Berkow, founder of SIA Acoustics and the guy that put Smaart on the map.  He sold to EAW then EAW sold to Jaime (Rational).  Jaime's approach is much the same as Sam's, measure, confirm with listening.  The difference in approaches is that the ears determine what is best and not the machine.  The machine is used to help find issues, confirm or refute findings.  By contrast Bob's approach (as I've experienced it) is like many others is to use the machine as the primary source, not necessarily listening to the system to decide or override the machine.  In SIM training I had we didn't listen to the results as a general rule until the end and it wasn't to confirm what the machine said.   At some gigs I've done with a SIM op in real time they make changes based on the output of the machine and not necessarily what it sounds like.  When I've had Smaart trainings listening was first and foremost. 

Two different approaches both of which will work well and give great results.   Like many things audio, it's a matter of personal preference.   I like the listening first approach as many, many years ago we used our least beat up 58, plugged into a channel repeating "test 1-2" until we moved enough knobs to make it sound something like a voice.   Hopefully with no feedback.  Or at least a little as possible.  Nearly 40 years later, much has changed.  These days I'm able to use a nearly new 58...     8)
Logged

Diogo Nunes Pereira

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
  • Barcelona, sometimes...
Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2016, 04:53:02 pm »



Sam Berkow, founder of SIA Acoustics and the guy that put Smaart on the map.

Thank you for enlightening me.

I do remember calling it SIA-Smaart. In those times the hire company I worked for in Portugal had a Windows machine that would be formatted every month so I could reinstall the 30-day trial.

Sent from my Xylophone using Tapatalk...

Logged
Diogo Nunes Pereira
elraval@gmail.com
--------------------------
"I envy not those who own charriots, horses or land. I envy only those who drink water from every spring." - Popular Song from Portugal

drew gandy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 268
  • Chicago and burbs
Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2016, 12:27:50 pm »

My primary show world these days is small corporate talking head stuff.  In my experience the ULX-D has sounded "just fine" and has had better than expected drop-out resilience.  I have no test data or even rough head to head comparison to hold up my observations but it just seems like the ULX-D (and QLX-D) has been really solid from an RF standpoint whereas I do still have issues from time to time with UHF-R. 
Shame on me for not being familiar with the design topology (I was surprised to hear that it's a rather dumb system as far as antenna switching goes) but I've discovered that there are only so many hours in a day and this leaky tin can that I call a head doesn't seem to retain all the info anymore.  Now, to be clear, most of the time the ULX-D shows up as loose kits with whip antennas (ant farms) whereas the UHF-Rs are often a mix of individual kits and racks of receivers with antenna distribution.  I use what they give me and often don't even have time to argue, as if it would matter. 


 These days I'm able to use a nearly new 58...   

This is in connection to another recent thread about 58s.  Dave, do the new ones sound significantly different from the old ones?  It's so rare for me to hear new and old ones next to each other and in front of the same noise sources. 
Logged
Remember, you can talk yourself into (or out of) anything.  That's how the human brain works...

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2016, 12:27:50 pm »


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.039 seconds with 24 queries.