Print

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

[Scott Helmke]

Very cool feature in the latest update of Wireless Workbench - you can now tweak how different zones are treated with respect to each other.  This is under the Tools-> Zones menu, it's a new tab on the popup where you add new zones.  Basically there's a matrix of all the zones you've created, and you can choose whether to worry about intermod and/or channel spacing between the zones.

Where this comes in handy is in a multi-stage situation - say you've got Stage 1 at one end, Stage 2 in the middle, and Stage 3 at the other end.  You can set it to worry about channel spacing between 1 and 2, and between 2 and 3, but maybe 1 is far enough away from 3 to not even care about channel spacing.  I could also see this being useful in creating zones to deal with when different shows are happening - create a zones for the different acts throughout the day, but only worry about about conflicts between ones performing at the same time.

[Mac Kerr]

Very cool feature in the latest update of Wireless Workbench - you can now tweak how different zones are treated with respect to each other.  This is under the Tools-> Zones menu, it's a new tab on the popup where you add new zones.  Basically there's a matrix of all the zones you've created, and you can choose whether to worry about intermod and/or channel spacing between the zones.

Where this comes in handy is in a multi-stage situation - say you've got Stage 1 at one end, Stage 2 in the middle, and Stage 3 at the other end.  You can set it to worry about channel spacing between 1 and 2, and between 2 and 3, but maybe 1 is far enough away from 3 to not even care about channel spacing.  I could also see this being useful in creating zones to deal with when different shows are happening - create a zones for the different acts throughout the day, but only worry about about conflicts between ones performing at the same time.

That sounds like it is a little more flexible that the zones in IAS. In IAS different zones only look for direct hits without doing intermods between zones. Also in IAS there are not different relationships between zones, it just does not allow direct hits, but ignores intermods with other zones.

Mac

[Scott Helmke]

That sounds like it is a little more flexible that the zones in IAS. In IAS different zones only look for direct hits without doing intermods between zones. Also in IAS there are not different relationships between zones, it just does not allow direct hits, but ignores intermods with other zones.

Previously the zones in WWB worked the same way as in IAS, at least as far as I could tell. No direct hits but you didn't have to worry about intermod between zones, which helps fit more channels.  But neither one had a way to do this sort of stuff, aside from drastic measures like temporarily deleting a whole zone so you can calculate another zone.  IAS would be slightly easier because it lets you export and import individual zones.  But this new WWB feature is much more useful.

[Aram Piligian]

Love the new WWB feature.  One of the use cases I already figured out is that for shows with a lot of breakout rooms, you can create a zone of 'spare inventory channels' (the backups in the storeroom) that is set to interact with all of the other zones, making deployment easy.

[Jason Glass]

I could also see this being useful in creating zones to deal with when different shows are happening - create a zones for the different acts throughout the day, but only worry about about conflicts between ones performing at the same time.

This is an enormously helpful aspect of the feature.  You can set up a "House Channels" or "Production Channels" or "Always Operating" zone as a foundation that all other sub-entities must interact with, while selectively isolating those subs from each other.  Fabulous.

IMHO, the only major feature that WWB lacks right now, preventing it from being the most versatile and capable coordination software for large channel counts, is an equivalent to the IAS "intermod bypass window".

[Philip Roberts]

IMHO, the only major feature that WWB lacks right now, preventing it from being the most versatile and capable coordination software for large channel counts, is an equivalent to the IAS "intermod bypass window".

The advanced zones looks to be a very cool feature, looking forward to having time/need to play around with it.

For those of us without IAS experience could you explain what the "intermod bypass window" does? Google doesn't find much helpful other than a post here from Jason glass that if I'm reading it right seems like it's similar to the Filter Selectivity setting in WWB's equipment profiles.

Thanks

Philip

[Jason Glass]

The advanced zones looks to be a very cool feature, looking forward to having time/need to play around with it.

For those of us without IAS experience could you explain what the "intermod bypass window" does? Google doesn't find much helpful other than a post here from Jason glass that if I'm reading it right seems like it's similar to the Filter Selectivity setting in WWB's equipment profiles.

Thanks

Philip

Intermod bypass window is indeed similar to the filter selectivity setting in WWB equipment profiles, except in IAS it overrides the math for the entire coordination of all equipment models (profiles) contained in a calculation run, whereas the WWB implementation sets these parameters on a per-profile basis.  WWB's inclusion of this in its profile parameters is actually more advanced than IAS and quite clever.  But not having a way to easily override those parameters on a global level as the user adds more devices to the coordination only leaves the user with the too-drastic option of entirely disabling IMD calculations of each order for each profile.

It's helpful to think of IAS IBW as a global setting for innumerable sweepable bandpass filters for the math, each of which centers on each frequency assignment in the calculation.  This takes advantage of the real-world tendency of mid to high end pro RF equipment to produce extremely low amplitude (and thus dismissible) IMD products when they're tuned far part in frequency.  This is due to many factors including high linearity of active stages, narrow bandwith bandpass tracking filtering, and good edge of tuning band LPF and HPF.

The settings can get you into trouble, though, because they require experience and some intuition to judge how narrow the window (filter bandwidth) can be before the calculations fail to accurately model the gear's actual behavior in worst-cases, and thus degrade the reliability of each frequency assignment.  For example, there is a big difference in the amount of far out-of-band IMD noise that eight P10T's will generate when combined with a PA821A vs. a Clair combiner, and endless variations of noise amplitudes possible dependent on each transmitter's power settings, antenna used, cable type & length, etc.

[Scott Helmke]

Intermod bypass window is indeed similar to the filter selectivity setting in WWB equipment profiles, except in IAS it overrides the math for the entire coordination of all equipment models (profiles) contained in a calculation run, whereas the WWB implementation sets these parameters on a per-profile basis.  WWB's inclusion of this in its profile parameters is actually more advanced than IAS and quite clever.  But not having a way to easily override those parameters on a global level as the user adds more devices to the coordination only leaves the user with the too-drastic option of entirely disabling IMD calculations of each order for each profile.

It's basically the result of how the workflows differ between IAS and WWB.  With IAS you keep adding things, and that's great if it's a situation where more and more wireless devices keep showing up.  With WWB it's assumed that you defined your whole universe from the start, and in return you get a complete calculation of everything all at once. 

So that window in IAS lets you start "cheating" as things get tight, basically.  What you get in WWB of (I think) similar value is that you don't have to be the one coordinating the least agile devices first, then the more agile devices, etc.  Of course if you've already handed out frequencies for those least agile devices, and then discover you need to move them to fit in something else, neither software is going to elegantly handle *that* problem for you. 

[Jason Glass]

Of course if you've already handed out frequencies for those least agile devices, and then discover you need to move them to fit in something else, neither software is going to elegantly handle *that* problem for you.

Agreed, although the right-click context menus in IAS have commands that make this not too bad.

If Shure were to add the feature shown in the attached graphic, WWB6 would become the gold standard for frequency coordination and an absolute monster of a program.  SHURE DEVELOPERS, TAKE NOTE!

[ProSoundWeb Community]