Print

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

[Tim McCulloch]

All my work with RF in pro audio has been on the wireless mic receiver side.

We've added Senny G4 eW300 IEM systems and the cost of the official Sennheiser cabling is staggering.

The idea of RG-58 isn't sitting well with me but the boss likes that price.  Is LMR-240 acceptable or overkill?  Any supplier have better prices than others?

[Scott Helmke]

You can use all the same cables you use with wireless mic systems.

[Tim McCulloch]

You can use all the same cables you use with wireless mic systems.

Yeah, but those stay with the mic systems.  As this is new gear & packaging the boss wants it to have dedicated cabling so re-purposing existing inventory won't be done.  He doesn't see why CB radio coax isn't a proper choice and I don't have any *evidence* or recommendations by RF professionals to refute his desires.  My gut says "no, move up the food (price) chain".

[Nathan Riddle]

Obviously, I'm not an RF Guru like others here.

But in my readings, I had some thoughts regarding your post.

Use the foam/flex version of cabling (the dB loss is slightly more than the other kind, but it is less susceptible to kinks which cause permanent damage). Unless you have the appropriate tools to TDR the cable regularly.

According to this calculator, RG213 is equivalent to LMR-240 and RG9913 is equivalent to LMR-400
https://www.qsl.net/co8tw/Coax_Calculator.htm

So buy whichever is the cheapest...

FWIW I've had good success with my generic LMR-400 cable which can be had for much less than real LMR-400. But then again I use it a handful of times per year and presumably you'll be using it once a week.

[Rob Spence]

Tim, is this for internal cables for the rack or rack to antenna outside of rack?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Russell Ault]

He doesn't see why CB radio coax isn't a proper choice and I don't have any *evidence* or recommendations by RF professionals to refute his desires.

The simple answer is to this question is that CB radio (~27 MHz) operates at a lot lower frequency than the Sennheiser IEMs, and lower frequency = lower cable loss.

Let's use a 100' length of RG-58 as an example. In that cable, a CB transmission at 27 MHz would lose roughly 2 dB to cable attenuation. In the same cable a 550 MHz IEM transmission would lose over 10 dB to the cable, meaning that of your 50 mW output less than 5mW will show up at the antenna.

To get cable attenuation at 550 MHz down to less than 2 dB per 100' you'd have to use LMR-600 (or something like it), which is over 1/2" thick. Obviously shorter cables mean less loss (so you can use thinner, cheaper cable), but unless your TX antenna is mounted to the front of the rack (which is probably a bad idea) you can see why you have to spend a bit to keep your cable losses at UHF frequencies reasonable.

-Russ

[Nathan Riddle]

To get cable attenuation at 550 MHz down to less than 2 dB per 100'

Is this the general rule of thumb for long distances (greater than 100ft)?

IE. What is a typical suggested max dB loss for a given distance?
Or I guess a better question would be, how much signal does the TX antenna need to still work, which really asks how much signal above the noise floor does the RX antenna need?

I guess that just leads to 'do the math'.

30mW TX @ 50ohms = 15dBm gain
LPDA  TX = 6.5dBi gain (dBi ~= dBm -2.15) = ~8.5dBm

100ft @ 550mHz = 56dB loss
https://www.pasternack.com/t-calculator-fspl.aspx

= -32.5dB max signal at rx
= -52.5dB for noise floor with 20dB separation

Using the following spec from the manual and the power converter we get an incredible sensitivity.
Sensitivity (with HDX, peak deviation) < 4 μV, typ. 1.6 μV for 52 dBArms S/N
https://www.pasternack.com/t-calculator-power-conv.aspx
-102.91 dBm

Am I doing this right?

Maybee I should make my own thread...

[Rob Spence]

Is this the general rule of thumb for long distances (greater than 100ft)?

IE. What is a typical suggested max dB loss for a given distance?
Or I guess a better question would be, how much signal does the TX antenna need to still work, which really asks how much signal above the noise floor does the RX antenna need?

I guess that just leads to 'do the math'.

30mW TX @ 50ohms = 15dBm gain
LPDA  TX = 6.5dBi gain (dBi ~= dBm -2.15) = ~8.5dBm

100ft @ 550mHz = 56dB loss
https://www.pasternack.com/t-calculator-fspl.aspx

= -32.5dB max signal at rx
= -52.5dB for noise floor with 20dB separation

Using the following spec from the manual and the power converter we get an incredible sensitivity.
Sensitivity (with HDX, peak deviation) < 4 μV, typ. 1.6 μV for 52 dBArms S/N
https://www.pasternack.com/t-calculator-power-conv.aspx
-102.91 dBm

Am I doing this right?

Maybee I should make my own thread...

Every cable model has its spec for loss over distance for specific frequencies.

The different models of similar cable trade off things like diameter, flexibility, loss, resistance to interference, dialectical properties etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Henry Cohen]

All my work with RF in pro audio has been on the wireless mic receiver side.

We've added Senny G4 eW300 IEM systems and the cost of the official Sennheiser cabling is staggering.

The idea of RG-58 isn't sitting well with me but the boss likes that price.  Is LMR-240 acceptable or overkill?  Any supplier have better prices than others?

Russ provided a good overview, but I think a more clear way to view this is to understand the relative losses involved:
If one has, for example, 6dB of loss due to the coaxial cable, this is a somewhat negligible amount for a typical receive system where the RF power at the receiver, in the most general of terms, needs to be between -85dBm and -70dBm for reliable performance. 6dB is a relatively small percentage of power loss. On the other hand, 6dB is a significantly large percentage of loss for a transmitter that's only putting out +15dBm to +20dBm and will spell the difference between reliable operation and an upset artist.

Rule of thumb: Use the largest, lowest loss coax for transmit antennas, even if only 25'. LMR400, LMR400-UF, 9913F7, CQ106, PWS S9046 and S3018 are all very good candidates. And if you have the wallet for it, I use LMR600 for 100' - 200' runs. (For those of you that still use it for anything other than rack jumpers, RG58 and RG213 should be sent to the scrap yard.)

[Henry Cohen]

Is this the general rule of thumb for long distances (greater than 100ft)?

IE. What is a typical suggested max dB loss for a given distance?
Or I guess a better question would be, how much signal does the TX antenna need to still work, which really asks how much signal above the noise floor does the RX antenna need?

I guess that just leads to 'do the math'.

30mW TX @ 50ohms = 15dBm gain
LPDA  TX = 6.5dBi gain (dBi ~= dBm -2.15) = ~8.5dBm

100ft @ 550mHz = 56dB loss
https://www.pasternack.com/t-calculator-fspl.aspx

= -32.5dB max signal at rx
= -52.5dB for noise floor with 20dB separation

Using the following spec from the manual and the power converter we get an incredible sensitivity.
Sensitivity (with HDX, peak deviation) < 4 μV, typ. 1.6 μV for 52 dBArms S/N
https://www.pasternack.com/t-calculator-power-conv.aspx
-102.91 dBm

Am I doing this right?

Sort of.  First, be consistent with terms. "dB" is a relative measurement unit, akin to "foot" or "pound" and is not an absolute value. Absolute value is dB referenced to a standard, be it volt (dBV), SPL (dB-SPL), watt (dBW), etc. In the case of RF the standard is milliwatt and expressed as dBm. So an RF device's loss or gain is expressed as [-]XdB, but the actual RF output level of the transmitter will be expressed as [-]XdBm.

Secondly, no need to apply dBi to dBd conversion here as all measurements are relative to one, which is the isotropic antenna.

Now the math . . .

Let's take the wireless mic as an example.
Transmitter RF output = 50mW                      +17dBm
TX antenna mis-match loss                             -03dB
Salty water bag absorption loss                     -20dB
Free space path loss, 100' @ 550MHz            -57dB
RX antenna gain (dBi)                                    +06dBi
Coax loss                                                        -04dB  (a published spec by the coaxial cable OEM.)
Other insertion losses within rack                  -02dB
Total RF energy at receiver antenna port =    -63dBm

Jason Glass has a nifty Android app for this exact calculation, but IIRC his calculator also accounts for gain stage noise figure and RF environmental noise floor.

[Jason Glass]

Jason Glass has a nifty Android app for this exact calculation, but IIRC his calculator also accounts for gain stage noise figure and RF environmental noise floor.

Thanks, Henry.  It's not quite fancy enough to have useful and easy CNR functions, though!  I suppose if you measured the actual system noise and local noise then you could use the app to separately predict RSS and figure out the ratio.

Here's the web version of the app, which should run fine in any modern browser.  http://cleanwirelessaudio.com/Path_Loss_and_Received_Power_Calculator/main.html

[Don Boomer]

Salty water bag absorption loss                     -20dB

Hey Henry

I’m curious as to how you got this number. Are you just considering only the mic user or are you including an audience?  Line of sight?

Thanks

[Henry Cohen]

Hey Henry

I’m curious as to how you got this number. Are you just considering only the mic user or are you including an audience?  Line of sight?

This is considering the ERP loss due to just the person wearing the pack. Between the body absorption and the de-tuning of the antenna as it rests against the body, 20dB is about the minimum I observe on a regular basis. 30-40dB is not uncommon at UHF frequencies for "larger" talent.

[Don Boomer]

This is considering the ERP loss due to just the person wearing the pack. Between the body absorption and the de-tuning of the antenna as it rests against the body, 20dB is about the minimum I observe on a regular basis. 30-40dB is not uncommon at UHF frequencies for "larger" talent.

Thank you sir. What would you use for handheld?

[Jason Glass]

Thank you sir. What would you use for handheld?

I also eagerly wish to know your thoughts on this, Henry!  It's a million-dollar question in our line of work.

FWIW, when I was writing the app, I combed the web for weeks and researched everything I could find about absorption losses as a result of human tissue located within the near field.  The majority of what I found (that has credibility) was regarding mobile or cordless phones, a notable portion was regarding medical telemetry devices, and a small bit was very old military communications stuff.  Interestingly, I found very little about civilian commercial walkies. Anyway, most of it refuted my own observations and measurements over decades of dealing with artists who incessantly grip the microphone TX antenna.  My personal anecdotal examples were always operating between 470 and 800 MHz, and of course freq matters.  The mic manufacturers must know some serious mojo because I have never measured more than 60 dB loss from a full tight fist around a modern (age of wrapped flexible PCB helical) HH mic antenna referenced to free space in a clip on a mic stand.  And that 60 dB is actually quite rare.  Most often it's on the order of 10 to 20 dB, which just seems incredible to me, but measured and noted nonetheless.

I feel compelled to mention that my notes in the app all tend toward extremely conservative, so I went with the 50 to 90 dB recommendation for "surrounded by tissue" that is commensurate with the academic research that I found.  This hopefully assures the user no failure as a result of insufficient caution.

Please weigh in!

Sent from my mobile phone using Tapatalk

[Jason Glass]

The mic manufacturers must know some serious mojo...

Aargh.  It just now occurred to me that the counterpoise that is the mic housing most likely becomes the (far less efficient) radiator under antenna gripping conditions.  Not mojo or an ideal antenna, but rather a fortuitous "better than nothing" scenario.

Sent from my mobile phone using Tapatalk

[Diogo Nunes Pereira]

FWIW, when I was writing the app, I combed the web for weeks and researched everything I could find about absorption losses as a result of human tissue located within the near field. 

This link provides some info and links to academic research regarding body absorption of PMSE equipment. Hope it's helpful:

https://www.apwpt.org/terminologies-a--i/body-loss-effect/index.html

The pic below is taken from the article in APWPT's webpage.

This site also has lots of information about frequency bands and licencing scenarios in different countries, and many other topics of interest to members of this forum. It provided me with many hours of browsing and reading when I first found it...

Thanks for taking the time and effort to build the app, Jason. Also good to know there's a web version I didn't knew about...

D

Diogo

[Tim McCulloch]

End result - I liked LMR-400, the boss liked the LMR-240 (price).

Thanks for all the direct info and the very useful swerves.  Love this place!

[ProSoundWeb Community]