Print

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

[Michael Lascuola]

Things are getting out of hand!  Wireless mics, wireless IEMs, WAPs, wireless DMX lights...
Some gigs are crapshoot now.  I am completely new to RF analysis; is there a device that connects to an iPad or laptop that would allow me to make sure all of these devices stay in their lane?

Thanks in advance!

[Russell Ault]

Things are getting out of hand!  Wireless mics, wireless IEMs, WAPs, wireless DMX lights...
Some gigs are crapshoot now.  I am completely new to RF analysis; is there a device that connects to an iPad or laptop that would allow me to make sure all of these devices stay in their lane?

Thanks in advance!

I'm sure others with more RF experience (and higher day-rates) will be along shortly to expand on the price/performance ratio of higher-end options, but I've been plenty happy with my "cheap and cheerful" RF Explorer, at least as far as UHF wireless goes.

(I don't tend to bother myself too much with ISM band equipment. In most cases either it will work—perhaps after an automated channel scan—or it won't work, but either way analysis probably isn't going to help much. This, to me, is one more reason to avoid public-use spectrum if at all possible.)

-Russ

[Brian Jojade]

I bought the RF explorer, hoping it would help.  However, I've found it not to be all that helpful in reality.  Granted, my expectations may not have been in line with reality, but if you're expecting a device that clearly shows what frequencies are clear and which are in use, you may come off a bit disappointed.

[Andrien (No Last Name)]

I bought the RF explorer, hoping it would help.  However, I've found it not to be all that helpful in reality.  Granted, my expectations may not have been in line with reality, but if you're expecting a device that clearly shows what frequencies are clear and which are in use, you may come off a bit disappointed.

About the same here, the bandwitdh provided and the resolution is not really that useful other than for constant transmitting devices. If you want to try out tho, try RTL-SDR but with good TCXO, basically it is just a modified DVB-T tuner devices first. Anything better cost quite a bucks.

[Rob Bernstein]

Things are getting out of hand!  Wireless mics, wireless IEMs, WAPs, wireless DMX lights...
Some gigs are crapshoot now.  I am completely new to RF analysis; is there a device that connects to an iPad or laptop that would allow me to make sure all of these devices stay in their lane?

Thanks in advance!

I own an RF Explorer and utilize it when I have to deploy more than 2 wireless systems.
If you are looking for a magic pill that will show you the way, this takes you halfway there.
What you really need to do is use it in conjunction with something like Shure's Wireless Workbench software. Scan with the RF Explorer, export that to a file and then import that into WWB. Once you load your wireless mic inventory into WWB it will tell you the best frequencies to use. Yes, it takes a bit or work, and yes, you'll need to bring a laptop. But if you really need to know what frequencies to avoid this is the way to do it, IMHO.
I actually don't even need the RF Explorer anymore because my SLXD and QLXD wireless units will do a frequency scan and load that directly into WWB. If I have the receivers networked to my laptop (which I do) WWB will set the best frequencies for me. Awesome.

[Michael Lascuola]

Thanks so much for the replies.  I guess my searching was fruitless because what I want is not quite available. 
It might be less headache to replace our smörgåsbord of Xvive, Sennheiser, and Line6 with an all-Shure lineup; and use the Wireless Workbench software.

[Brian Jojade]

Thanks so much for the replies.  I guess my searching was fruitless because what I want is not quite available. 
It might be less headache to replace our smörgåsbord of Xvive, Sennheiser, and Line6 with an all-Shure lineup; and use the Wireless Workbench software.

Yes, brand loyalty in a wireless environment is certainly worthwhile.  It takes out many potential variables that you need to think about.

Shure's wireless workbench is one of the easiest tools to use.

Of course, the auto scan feature in many wireless mics can do a fine job as well, as long as nothing new gets added into the mix once the scan is complete.  But that's true for any situation you may run into.

[Rob Bernstein]

Yes, brand loyalty in a wireless environment is certainly worthwhile.  It takes out many potential variables that you need to think about.

Shure's wireless workbench is one of the easiest tools to use.

Of course, the auto scan feature in many wireless mics can do a fine job as well, as long as nothing new gets added into the mix once the scan is complete.  But that's true for any situation you may run into.

I agree for the most part, the tricky bit when using auto scan with multiple systems is doing it correctly so you avoid IMD issues. There is this whole "war gaming" scenario that I just don't have the stomach for.

[Russell Ault]

I bought the RF explorer, hoping it would help.  However, I've found it not to be all that helpful in reality.  Granted, my expectations may not have been in line with reality, but if you're expecting a device that clearly shows what frequencies are clear and which are in use, you may come off a bit disappointed.

About the same here, the bandwitdh provided and the resolution is not really that useful other than for constant transmitting devices. If you want to try out tho, try RTL-SDR but with good TCXO, basically it is just a modified DVB-T tuner devices first. Anything better cost quite a bucks.

The biggest limitation of the RF Explorer is that it only measures 112 points per sweep, and the sweeps aren't particularly fast. For constant-transmitting devices there are a few different work-arounds for achieving high-resolution scans across a large bandwidth (I personally take a similar approach to Rob), but as Andrien mentioned catching sporadic transmits is going to be problematic. Personally, I don't recall the last time an intermittently-transmitting device caused me problems in the UHF TV band, but I've probably just been lucky.

Thanks so much for the replies.  I guess my searching was fruitless because what I want is not quite available. 
It might be less headache to replace our smörgåsbord of Xvive, Sennheiser, and Line6 with an all-Shure lineup; and use the Wireless Workbench software.

Most of the participants in the Wireless and Communications forum (myself included) will tell you that ISM-band devices like Xvive and Line6 (and maybe the Sennheiser, depending on the model) do not belong in audience-facing applications. You don't want latency-critical, fault-intolerant devices like wireless microphones using a frequency range that you're sharing with every single audience member.

As for a replacement, both Sennheiser and Shure (as well as others) offer network-capable wireless microphone RXs of varying functionalities. Digital UHF wireless microphones tend to have fewer "gotchas" than their analogue cousins when it comes to frequency coordination (although there are typically other trade-offs involved).

I agree for the most part, the tricky bit when using auto scan with multiple systems is doing it correctly so you avoid IMD issues. There is this whole "war gaming" scenario that I just don't have the stomach for.

As long as all the channels you're auto-scanning are within the same frequency group you should theoretically be okay (because the manufacturer has already done the IMD calculations for you).

-Russ

[Andrien (No Last Name)]

As for a replacement, both Sennheiser and Shure (as well as others) offer network-capable wireless microphone RXs of varying functionalities. Digital UHF wireless microphones tend to have fewer "gotchas" than their analogue cousins when it comes to frequency coordination (although there are typically other trade-offs involved).

-Russ

2 biggest Digital gotcha is the latency and the noise they create when the signal break, it sound worse than the analogs. That's my 2cent tho, others could have different experience.
In software side, maybe IAS is a good alternatives (tho paid), but Workbench allows you to add other brands too to be included in the calculation and also create custom devices though finding the values for the intermod could be tricky.

[brian maddox]

Thanks so much for the replies.  I guess my searching was fruitless because what I want is not quite available. 
It might be less headache to replace our smörgåsbord of Xvive, Sennheiser, and Line6 with an all-Shure lineup; and use the Wireless Workbench software.

There is far more wisdom to what you're saying here than I think you even know. Hodge Podge RF systems are an ongoing PITA that NEVER really sorts itself out. And yes, using devices in the ISM bands is inherently problematic as well. Yes, replacing those units is costly, but think of the hours of time spent chasing your tail to get the "pile of weird" you've got now to work and then project that forward for the next few years and the cost starts to shrink a bit.

On another note... The best scanner you can use for an RF audio device is the device itself. It scans specifically the band it needs to, using the actual antenna and filtering that it will deploy in regular use.  So yes, if you can bring all your devices under one roof [the Shure roof is a pretty good roof] and then use WWB and good RF scanning and Deployment practices you're going to have a Much Better Time^TM

[Don Boomer]

I agree that you should take a tap off of your actual antenna system.  But when you use a receiver as a scanner you can only see the frequencies your receiver can tune to thereby missing any out of band interference.  So you are likely missing T-mobile 5g cellphone interference at the top of the band and on the bottom, interference from LED lighting, video walls and security radios.

I checked with one of the engineers on the WWB team and he told me if you input out of band info in addition to the regular data you will many times get a better result.

[Brian Jojade]

2 biggest Digital gotcha is the latency and the noise they create when the signal break, it sound worse than the analogs. That's my 2cent tho, others could have different experience.

Yes digital does add a tiny bit of latency.  That varies quite a bit depending on the mic itself.  Eg, in the Shure line, the GLX and ULX systems add 2.9ms latency. That's going to be nearly imperceptible in almost all cases.  However, their cheap GLX-D line has a latency up to 7.3ms.  Now we're getting up to the point where it could be noticeable if you combine it with the latency of going through a digital console.  Still, it's only like standing 10 feet away from the source, which often is where monitors get placed.

As far as noise from digital mics, that's something I've NEVER dealt with with any of the models/brands I've used.  Every one has simply muted gracefully.  Now, analog mics on the other hand have certainly become unruly when there's interference.  I used an analog system a couple weeks ago for the first time in a long time, and the reminder of how annoying it is to set squelch levels was fun.

[ProSoundWeb Community]