Print

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

[Peter Kowalczyk]

Hey Folks,

I recently started working as the Technical Director for our local community theater.  As such, I've inherited responsibility for their RF mic system, spec'd and purchased before I got involved.  It consists of:

Qty 8 Shure GLXD4R Receiver + 8 corresponding GLXD1 Transmitters
Qty 2 UA846Z2 'Frequency Manager'
Qty 2 PA805Z2 Paddle Antennas

AND

Qty 5 Audio Technica System 10 PRO (2 Ch per receiver so 10 channels)

We've had mostly acceptable behavior right out of the box, but nonetheless there are issues.   For example, we've had situations where a given transmitter and receiver don't communicate during one scene, and then work fine the next. 

Now, I've never met a 2.4GHz system I got along with, but I need to figure out how to work with what they've got.  Can anyone point me to any good resources on navigating 2.4GHz wireless audio? 

Thanks!

[Erik Jerde]

I've purposely avoided 2.4 GHz so I can't give you specific advice on those.  I do think it's admirable that you're trying to get that many channels to work together reliably.  If I was in your shoes I would do what you're doing now but also start laying the groundwork for replacement.  Depending on how beloved your predecessor was it may be easy or hard.  You'll have to figure out the best approach.  Not knowing those specifics I'd just start with a "We've got some reliability issues with the wireless.  I'm working on figuring out the best way to address those so that we can best use this investment.  That said it may be wise to look at replacing a couple money channels with more reliable product."  Hopefully you can prepare minds for the change and soften the blow by just doing a couple channels at a time.  Sell off the old stuff to some local band types and re-coup some of the cost.  I'd bet these were purchased because of cost considerations so more traditional band stuff may be a hard lump to swallow.  People just don't understand the real cost of wireless.  It may also be worthwhile to have a conversation about how much RF failure is acceptable.  Of course they'll say none but if you can properly educate them on the issues in play without going overly technical you may win the day.  One of those cases where quality communication and hand holding can really make the difference.  Hopefully being new you've still got the benefit of the doubt as a problem solver and not problem maker as well as also being a subject matter expert.  If you can leverage that now toward setting reasonable expectations that will hopefully help you out down the road.

Good luck, hopefully you'll get lucky and get all 18 channels to work together reliably with a packed house.

[Jeremy Young]

I have some of the AT units, line of sight is pretty important.  They can remotely locate their antennas from the rack mounted chassis with an Ethernet cable to help, and make sure those 5 unit are all connected with the link ports.  Keep them away from phones.  I had a groom put his mic in the same pocket as his lav belt pack TX and the signal disappeared. 

[Russell Ault]

{...} line of sight is pretty important. {...}

To add to this, if "accidental" destruction of the systems isn't an option (Erik's very thoughtful comments about the nuances of your situation notwithstanding), then about your only hope is to enforce best wireless practises to the maximum extent possible.

2.4 GHz is quite a bit pickier about line-of-sight than UHF is, in part because it is much more readily absorbed by water (including beings who are ~60% comprised of the stuff). Anything you can do to give your RX antennas as unobstructed view of the TXs are possible will likely pay some dividends (e.g. above the stage looking down might well be your friend). Also, with all the other noise happening in the 2.4 GHz band, TX/RX proximity tends to be much more important than with UHF wireless (i.e. don't put the RX antennas at FOH). Finally, I'm not familiar with the diversity scheme on either of those systems, but you may also find benefits in spreading your RX antennas out to maximize coverage and proximity (be prepared, however, for the possibility that separating the RX antennas might actually increase drop-outs, like it can for predictive switching diversity UHF systems).

-Russ

[Dave Garoutte]

Or. . . you could make sure they don't work well to help justify getting something better.

[Russell Ault]

Or. . . you could make sure they don't work well to help justify getting something better.

...hence my "'accidental' destruction" comment.

-Russ

[Brian Jojade]

Per the Shure website, the GLX-D advanced can run 11 channels with no WIFI in the area, or 9 channels with only a single WIFI channel in use. 

The system 10 pro specs up to 10 channels.

Chances are, you've got more than one WIFI channel in use around you and you're running 2 systems at or near their channel count capacities all in the same frequency range.

Whoever spec'd this system failed miserably.  You're well beyond the real world capabilities for reliable operation.

There's really not much advice to 'make this work' other than accept that it's not going to all work reliably together. Ever.  Pretending that some voodoo might make it happen is just a waste of everyone's time.  Be realistic.  Either reduce your channel count, or get different equipment.

[Russell Ault]

{...}
Whoever spec'd this system failed miserably.  You're well beyond the real world capabilities for reliable operation.

There's really not much advice to 'make this work' other than accept that it's not going to all work reliably together. Ever.  Pretending that some voodoo might make it happen is just a waste of everyone's time.  Be realistic.  Either reduce your channel count, or get different equipment.

I didn't mention this in my post because I figured it was self-evident, but of course Brian is 100% correct (if anything he may be understating things). My comments about "best practices" should definitely be read in the context of "making the best of a bad situation" (or, perhaps more accurately, "turd-polishing") rather than actual solution-finding.

-Russ

[Steve-White]

I'd start moving away from them 4 sets and one frequency manager at a time.  That stuff will probably never work with the reliability your situation demands.  I started with GLXD's for use in wedding ceremonies, first time out there were issues with 3 systems running, mic drop-out at 100' or so.  Fortunately for me that was a test gig and I did it pro bono so they didn't care.

I switched to QLX-D's and UA844+ antenna splitter and the problems all went away.

You may get away with 4 GLXD's in 2.4GHZ frequency bands, but not 8.  They automatically frequency hop around and in a room full of cell phones there just isn't enough open channels to effectively manage.

If I was using the number of channels that you are I would look at the ULXD series or higher.

It's not worth turd polishing. 

[MikeHarris]

Steve is right...was reluctant to say at first...best practice will be to get rid of them as the problems will never go away

[ProSoundWeb Community]