Print

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

[brian maddox]

BUT... RF performance is very important. hopefully someone has done some measurements of the 2 systems...

I know that there was a LABster[i would name said LABster, but i'm not sure i remember who it was] that did an impressive measurement of the Audio performance of the two systems, but i'm not sure i've seen a real comprehensive comparison of the RF performance.  I'd be curious as well...

[Barry Reynolds]

Even if everything else were equal, the high latency of this system makes it a non-starter for me.

While I’ve “read” that on occasion, I have not “heard” it in two years of use with 8-12 piece horn bands.  YMMV

[Russell Ault]

While I’ve “read” that on occasion, I have not “heard” it in two years of use with 8-12 piece horn bands.  YMMV

On its own, 5.84 ms might not be a problem (or it might; the last study I read on the subject said that acceptable round-trip latency for IEMs varies widely depending on the instrument being played and, to some extent, on the perceptiveness of the player), but it is going to eat up a huge chunk of whatever latency budget you're playing with. With digital wireless microphones and a more latent console (Waves plugins, anyone?) 5.84 ms might well break the "bank".

-Russ

[Barry Reynolds]

On its own, 5.84 ms might not be a problem (or it might; the last study I read on the subject said that acceptable round-trip latency for IEMs varies widely depending on the instrument being played and, to some extent, on the perceptiveness of the player), but it is going to eat up a huge chunk of whatever latency budget you're playing with. With digital wireless microphones and a more latent console (Waves plugins, anyone?) 5.84 ms might well break the "bank".

-Russ

Thanks for the details on how latency can compound.  My usage is merely A&H SQ-5 with the mi-909s on the outputs of an AR2412.  SQ has reduced latency than Qu, but we didn’t notice IEM latency with a Qu either. 

[Jason Glass]

While I’ve “read” that on occasion, I have not “heard” it in two years of use with 8-12 piece horn bands.  YMMV

As mixers, we rarely, if ever, perceive the same audible effects of latency in IEM as a singer does.  Same with brass, woodwind, and stringed instruments played closely to the ear or touching any part of the head (violin, viola, etc.).  Each person's anatomy is so unique that it's impossible.  What the savviest engineers do know is that shorter latency almost always gives those performers a more pleasant experience than longer, or at least makes it easier for the performer and mixer to work together to correct and compensate for anomalies inevitably caused bone conduction.

Sent from my mobile phone using Tapatalk

[DavidTurner]

This:
When latency gets over about 3 ms the singer I work for can’t stand it.

As mixers, we rarely, if ever, perceive the same audible effects of latency in IEM as a singer does.  Same with brass, woodwind, and stringed instruments played closely to the ear or touching any part of the head (violin, viola, etc.).  Each person's anatomy is so unique that it's impossible.  What the savviest engineers do know is that shorter latency almost always gives those performers a more pleasant experience than longer, or at least makes it easier for the performer and mixer to work together to correct and compensate for anomalies inevitably caused bone conduction.

Sent from my mobile phone using Tapatalk

[Andrew Broughton]

I know that there was a LABster [i would name said LABster, but i'm not sure i remember who it was] that did an impressive measurement of the Audio performance of the two systems, but i'm not sure i've seen a real comprehensive comparison of the RF performance.  I'd be curious as well...

Langston Holland
The review is here.

[Andrew Broughton]

Like the other poster in that thread, I too would like to know if there's an audible or RF quality difference between the 300 and 2000 series. I've used the 2000 more than the 300 but not noticed any difference other than build quality (and maybe max power output)? Certainly no difference that justifies the cost difference that I could hear or see.

[Steve Litcher]

Not sure if this applies to your situation but....

I know of a couple folks that opted to go PSM900 transmit and PSM1000 receiver.  It's a good bit cheaper.  You lose network control.  But you gain the ability to repackage your stuff to fly it MUCH more easily than the PSM1000 transmitters.  And you keep the diversity receivers, which does seem to make a difference.

Can you share more info about this? I have the PSM900T and P9R+ but am interested in going with the P10R+ if possible. My Shure rep says it's not possible - that the channels aren't a direct match (RF-wise). I'd love to know more, and even moreso, if it's truly possible to do.

[Scott Helmke]

Can you share more info about this? I have the PSM900T and P9R+ but am interested in going with the P10R+ if possible. My Shure rep says it's not possible - that the channels aren't a direct match (RF-wise). I'd love to know more, and even moreso, if it's truly possible to do.

I also know a church that did PSM900 transmitters with PSM1000 beltpacks.  It's the same companding and such, you'd just need to hand-program the beltpacks.  It's not something that would be very convenient in a touring situation, but in a stable installation scenario would be OK.

[ProSoundWeb Community]