ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?  (Read 816 times)

John Penkala

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« on: May 06, 2019, 11:26:41 am »

It looks like I am able to get more frequencies in this mode. I'm curious as to what the potential hazards might be when using HD mode. Any insight is appreciated.

-JP
Logged

Xiang Cao

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2019, 11:59:47 am »

higher latency
lower range
Logged

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6445
  • Audio Plumber
Re: Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2019, 03:51:48 pm »

higher latency
lower range

Because high density mode sets the power at 1mw you may experience reduced coverage, but in my experience it is good enough to cover a medium sized hotel ballroom in lower Manhattan. I have tested HD mode with 38 ULXD handheld transmitters at the Conrad Hotel successfully. We ultimately went with regular power because we had the spectrum available, but we tested the system in HD mode with no dropouts or low signal level indication.

I have no knowledge of any increased latency, since we did not measure latency in our test, and don't know where it would come from.

Mac
Logged

Dan Mortensen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 563
Re: Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2019, 04:56:09 pm »

A guy who I trust for advice about wireless told me that he discourages its use if not strictly necessary because if an interfering source should appear randomly at the exact wrong frequency, then a whole bunch of mics would be taken out rather than one. And, all would need to be quickly moved to new frequencies.

If you have to use a lot of mics in an area with not much bandwidth available, then your choices are limited.

Don't know about the latency and haven't checked for that.
Logged

Mac Kerr

  • Old enough to know better
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6445
  • Audio Plumber
Re: Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2019, 06:04:29 pm »

A guy who I trust for advice about wireless told me that he discourages its use if not strictly necessary because if an interfering source should appear randomly at the exact wrong frequency, then a whole bunch of mics would be taken out rather than one. And, all would need to be quickly moved to new frequencies.

If you have to use a lot of mics in an area with not much bandwidth available, then your choices are limited.

Don't know about the latency and haven't checked for that.

If something pops up it may take out 2-3 mics, but that is not so different than the 1-2 with full power ULX-D. Channel spacing in HD mode is 125KHz rather than 400KHz. It is unlikely anyone uses HD mode if they don't have to, so you can either go with 1/3 the number of mics in the available spectrum or take the risk that some interferance that would normally effect 1-2 mic will effect 2-3.

Mac
Logged

Henry Cohen

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 859
  • Westchester Co., NY, USA
Re: Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2019, 06:41:11 pm »

higher latency
lower range

With ULXD, there is no change in latency between standard and HD modes. This is only the case with Axient Digital and the Microflex series.
Logged
Henry Cohen

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

Jordan Wolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1329
  • Location: Collingswood, NJ
Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2019, 04:56:43 am »

It looks like I am able to get more frequencies in this mode. I'm curious as to what the potential hazards might be when using HD mode. Any insight is appreciated.

-JP
I really only consider HD Mode if I have a bunch of units in close proximity (think conference breakout rooms vs General Session).

This past week, a corporate event I did jumped from 30 wireless mics to 62 wireless mics almost overnight - 32 of them were concentrated on 2 adjacent floors in rooms next to each other.

I was limited in the selection of frequency bands I could choose due to the last-minute nature of things, but everything worked out well.

I had a mix of UHF-R kits (18 J5, 6 G1) and QLXD/ULXD (28 G50, 4 H50, 6 J50) and I still had no need for HD Mode eve though things were located so closely.

If spectrum had been more limited, I would have done things differently. Personally, Iíd lower Tx power and keep the default spacing, simply because there would be less interaction between units.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 04:59:33 am by Jordan Wolf »
Logged
Jordan Wolf
<><

"We want our sound to go into the soul of the audience, and see if it can awaken some little thing in their minds... Cause there are so many sleeping people." - Jimi Hendrix

John Penkala

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2019, 02:22:56 pm »

Because high density mode sets the power at 1mw you may experience reduced coverage, but in my experience it is good enough to cover a medium sized hotel ballroom in lower Manhattan. I have tested HD mode with 38 ULXD handheld transmitters at the Conrad Hotel successfully. We ultimately went with regular power because we had the spectrum available, but we tested the system in HD mode with no dropouts or low signal level indication.

I have no knowledge of any increased latency, since we did not measure latency in our test, and don't know where it would come from.

Mac





Thanks Mac and everyone else for their input. It's truly appreciated. For this show, I stopped counting channels at 226. Most of it was Shure wireless, Axient, ULXD, and UHFR. With the exception of a few glitches early on that were corrected quickly, all went well. Thanks again. -JP
Logged

Jordan Wolf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1329
  • Location: Collingswood, NJ
Re: Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2019, 09:43:49 pm »

For this show, I stopped counting channels at 226...
Thatís quite the frequency count - I hope you had some others to help wrangle!

Any way you can give us some more info about the gig and why so much RF was needed?
Logged
Jordan Wolf
<><

"We want our sound to go into the soul of the audience, and see if it can awaken some little thing in their minds... Cause there are so many sleeping people." - Jimi Hendrix

John Penkala

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 498
Re: Shure ULXD HD mode: What are the trade offs?
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2019, 08:30:10 am »

Thatís quite the frequency count - I hope you had some others to help wrangle!

Any way you can give us some more info about the gig and why so much RF was needed?

Jordan,
           This was a typical corporate show. There are a bunch of small breakout rooms. Each of which had up to 6 RF mics. There were 20 channels of Axient Digital in the general session. And, about 20 channels on the exhibition hall floor. PSM900 and PSM1000 IEM transmitters in PTP mode were used to feed remote speakers. There were also camera teams with Sennheiser G3 systems. Com was FreespeakII. This show's channel count was higher than normal but not extreme. When I get accurate preliminary information to base the coordination on, these shows go off without a hitch and are generally problem free. However, there are always going to be additional units deployed and guest media/news organizations who will need frequencies. The real problems occur when transmitters are used onsite that weren't advanced. The more accurate information you get in advance, the better.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 


Page created in 0.053 seconds with 22 queries.