ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => Wireless and Communications => Topic started by: Dan Currie on September 07, 2016, 09:41:20 pm

Title: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dan Currie on September 07, 2016, 09:41:20 pm
I had a moment to do a small comparison of 4 uhfr and 4 ulxd belt packs transmitting at 10mw on the same frequencies.  All graphs are taken with the belt packs lumped together. 

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/12%20uhfr%20clustered_zps4jq37wtr.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/12%20uhfr%20clustered_zps4jq37wtr.png.html)
UHFR

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/13%20ulxd%20cluster_zpsw0hmjcak.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/13%20ulxd%20cluster_zpsw0hmjcak.png.html)
ULXD

The uhfr's are as I expected.  Noticeable intermods with quite a bit of unusable bandwidth.  What surprised me was how the well ulxd's interacted with their intermods most likely appearing below the noise floor.   
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Scott Helmke on September 08, 2016, 10:06:11 am
Nice test!

I did do something like it with just two packs each, and I recall noticing that the overall noise floor went up a bit when I was testing the ULX-D packs.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dave Stevens on September 10, 2016, 01:48:13 am
The spectral efficiency is outstanding on the ULXD.  We replaced 8 ch of aging series 3000 Sennheiser for the live band leaving about a dozen character mics on the 3k series.  They sounded good but the diversity method compared to the Sennheiser or the UHFR didn't work for the show.  There were too many dropouts.  Shure helped sort it out and our dealer worked it out so we could replace them with UHFRs.  It's a very large room, lots of steel, lots of other freqs (from DC to light...) and the predictive algorithm didn't work for the show.

We also do themed events in the room a few times a month.  These include the press conferences for most of the big boxing and combat sports events in town.  We use 8 or 10 units set up on the stage area, instead of through our packs, antenna system and radio shack on the 8th floor.  The big pressers can have 80-100 media outlets (a big boxing match last year had more than 100).  Lectro blocks get used pretty quickly and the clients aren't good at policing the freqs.  We reserve a portion of the space for the event and broadcast RF and that's where the ULXD shines.  We can cram everything in a narrow space and as an added bonus, re freq basically on the fly without firing up the IFR and IAS (or even WWB) for the times when some knucklehead doesn't follow the freq guide.  When used in this app the ULXD performance is exceptional. 
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: drew gandy on September 13, 2016, 12:06:08 am
The spectral efficiency is outstanding on the ULXD.  We replaced 8 ch of aging series 3000 Sennheiser for the live band leaving about a dozen character mics on the 3k series.  They sounded good but the diversity method compared to the Sennheiser or the UHFR didn't work for the show.  There were too many dropouts. 

You've got me curious.  Can you describe this issue a bit more?  It sounds like we might win on intermod performance but fail on account of the predictive algorithm?   
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dave Stevens on September 14, 2016, 02:07:20 pm
You've got me curious.  Can you describe this issue a bit more?  It sounds like we might win on intermod performance but fail on account of the predictive algorithm?

The D series method is such that when the device senses the performance of an antenna dropping, it switches to the the other antenna. It's a single receiver device that uses predictive switching baked into the chip.  The caveat is that the other antenna isn't monitored or polled prior to the switch.  That can lead to being switched to an antenna that has worse performance.  That is a contrast to the dual receiver diversity where the signals are actively polled where in theory the active circuit is the strongest.

If your app is a traditional side of stage or backstage set up, even with an antenna remote, it will likely work well for you.  For our primary show, it wasn't the right solution.  My understanding is that while our situation is not unheard of, others have experienced it, it's not common either.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Lee Buckalew on September 14, 2016, 08:58:37 pm
The D series method is such that when the device senses the performance of an antenna dropping, it switches to the the other antenna. It's a single receiver device that uses predictive switching baked into the chip.  The caveat is that the other antenna isn't monitored or polled prior to the switch.  That can lead to being switched to an antenna that has worse performance.  That is a contrast to the dual receiver diversity where the signals are actively polled where in theory the active circuit is the strongest.

If your app is a traditional side of stage or backstage set up, even with an antenna remote, it will likely work well for you.  For our primary show, it wasn't the right solution.  My understanding is that while our situation is not unheard of, others have experienced it, it's not common either.

From an audio standpoint the ULX-D is significantly better than the UHF-R.  The dual diversity antenna system of the UHF-R is where that model shines.  Certain RF challenges require a dual diversity system.  The correct tool to solve the problem at hand is often the tool that keeps working rather than the one that works better, but not all the time.

Lee
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dave Stevens on September 15, 2016, 02:55:45 am
The audio quality is subjective.  Once you get it into the desk and out into the room it's difficult to tell and in a good set of ears six/half dozen of the other.  I've been using UHFR as a handheld since they came out way back when.  These UHFRs are packs using DPA 4088s and 1/4" for the instruments.  While they're good, the radio performance isn't quite as solid as the Sennheiser is, which is what we still use for the character mics.   

The switching on the D has a gigantic caveat of having a switching system that can throw to an antenna that's got worse reception.  That's one of the trade offs for this design in order to get the spectral density.  Shure engineering is outstanding, I'm surprised they let this one by unless it was the tradeoff for the price point and frequency agility/spacing.  Then again, even at the top levels marketing and accounting often overrule engineering.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Diogo Nunes Pereira on September 15, 2016, 06:12:41 am
The switching on the D has a gigantic caveat of having a switching system that can throw to an antenna that's got worse reception.  That's one of the trade offs for this design in order to get the spectral density.  Shure engineering is outstanding, I'm surprised they let this one by unless it was the tradeoff for the price point and frequency agility/spacing.  Then again, even at the top levels marketing and accounting often overrule engineering.

Well, ULX-D price is almost half the UHF-R. I guess it's more expensive to produce a dual-receiver "true-diversity" unit such as the UHF-R, among other design considerations I'm sure.

The spectral efficiency is great though, and Having Dante output, CL/QL monitoring and a quad-receiver in 1RU are also neat features but there are some things in the ULX-D that i either miss or don't like:

. No power cascading is one. UHF-R racks lock a lot better from the behind.
. RF cascade limited to 2 units.
. No headphone jack for monitoring in the front panel... my last big show as RF Coord I actually took a QL1 to monitor the talent after installing the packs/before going on-stage.
. The tiny screen/menu structure is a pain. Now that I know my way around it I'm able to go fast with the weel, but whoever changed network/ID/dante setting knows what I mean.
. AES out would be cool

 It actually feels like the ULX-D is more a install unit then for the touring/rental world. I imagine Shure has to be cooking up a top-tier digital system. Someting that shows up in their webpage between the Axient and the UHF-R.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Lee Buckalew on September 15, 2016, 06:46:44 am
The audio quality is subjective. 

I am talking about both measured and listening.  The first quantitative, the second qualitative. 
In recording and broadcast use it is not hard at all to tell the difference for musical applications (orchestra with vocal soloist, opera, etc).  ULX-D does not just sound subjectively better, in fact it was the first Shure wireless system that rivals Sennheiser for sound quality.  ULX-D also sounds better than Axient.  Yes, I have had them side by side. 

But, like I said, sound quality is not the only performance issue to be considered, often it's not the first to be considered. 
I would think for most users both the difference in cost and the more robust RF performance vs. the superior spectral efficiency/density are the bigger factors because both systems sound good enough for most uses.

Lee
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: John Halliburton on September 15, 2016, 08:59:42 am
The spectral efficiency is outstanding on the ULXD. 
We can cram everything in a narrow space and as an added bonus, re freq basically on the fly without firing up the IFR and IAS (or even WWB) for the times when some knucklehead doesn't follow the freq guide.  When used in this app the ULXD performance is exceptional.

This is what I understand is the real shining light of the ULXD gear. 

A very informative thread, thanks to the OP and for starting it.

Can't someone in admin change Dave's status, please? ;>)

Best regards,

John
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dave Stevens on September 15, 2016, 02:37:48 pm
I am talking about both measured and listening.

Doesn't matter what you measure, it matters what you hear.  I'm from the Sammy school rather than the Bob school.  If it sounds good, it is good.  What we hear and think sounds good isn't necessarily what Elvis wants to hear.  I don't expect everyone to agree with what I think sounds good.  Just like not everyone likes chocolate ice cream.

This is what I understand is the real shining light of the ULXD gear. 

A very informative thread, thanks to the OP and for starting it.

Can't someone in admin change Dave's status, please? ;>)

I'd like to keep the Newbie tag...    :o

It is a good thread, the plot is awesome, it really tells the story (and an excellent demonstration of usable measurement).   Density was the driving force to migrate at least the band channels to the D.  We took a hit when we lost 700 in not only the budget (approx $300k) but also in available space.  We're at 60 carriers active for mics, ears, IFB and comm.  Automation has another block locked out, 40 or so and another 30-40 around property.   The kids up in our radio shack ride herd over all of it.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Henry Cohen on September 15, 2016, 02:43:42 pm
The switching on the D has a gigantic caveat of having a switching system that can throw to an antenna that's got worse reception.  That's one of the trade offs for this design in order to get the spectral density.
No. The target spectral density specification has no influence on the antenna switching design or the number of receivers. Target market and price point does.

Quote
Shure engineering is outstanding, I'm surprised they let this one by unless it was the tradeoff for the price point and frequency agility/spacing.  Then again, even at the top levels marketing and accounting often overrule engineering.
It was a target market and price consideration. Nothing slipped by them (that a firmware update couldn't resolve].

Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Henry Cohen on September 15, 2016, 02:45:49 pm
It actually feels like the ULX-D is more a install unit then for the touring/rental world.
And that was exactly the target market. If Shure made any kind of error with the product, it was showing it to SR folks  :)
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dave Stevens on September 15, 2016, 04:14:02 pm
No. The target spectral density specification has no influence on the antenna switching design or the number of receivers. Target market and price point does.
It was a target market and price consideration. Nothing slipped by them (that a firmware update couldn't resolve].

By tradeoff I mean a trade off in the application of the device in use, not the design.  That's the choice, pack the freqs tight and depending on the app you may or may not get switched to an "empty" antenna or get a traditional analog device and not be able to pack them in as tight.  I could see a market in the future, particularly when the next auction is complete, where a two receiver digital unit with monitored switching would be attractive.  Or better yet, something outside the UHF TV bands using whatever newfangled technology that might be down the road.

And that was exactly the target market. If Shure made any kind of error with the product, it was showing it to SR folks  :)

You've been here, it doesn't get any more install than we have.   ;D  The irony is when we use them installed with the antenna DA, there are issues.  When we used the outside units at events where the lifts are leveled out, side of stage (like in the rock days) they're great.  The driving factor now for the D here is for the ENG hell gigs.   Initially the word from above was only corded services, press splits, no freq coordination, radio at your own risk.  If you want to get it it's on a wire.  It only took about 5 mins into the first set up for that to be blown out of the water.  Client brought in their own wireless (only a couple) then complained when they couldn't find clear air during the event.  The Ds and some segregated blocks and coordination should help with that.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Diogo Nunes Pereira on September 15, 2016, 04:58:27 pm


Doesn't matter what you measure, it matters what you hear.  I'm from the Sammy school rather than the Bob school.  If it sounds good, it is good. 

Totally agree.

Forgive me for my ignorance, I'm European: I believe I know who 6o6 is, but who is Sammy?

Sent from my Xylophone using Tapatalk...

Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Jason Glass on September 15, 2016, 07:20:37 pm
And that was exactly the target market. If Shure made any kind of error with the product, it was showing it to SR folks  :)
They did kind of nail it for instrument backline...

It sounds darned close to a cable and apparently does a decent job of loading instrument pickups. Form factor (4 x RX in 1RU) works well for multi-instrumentalists with small travel racks, and as noted here previously, you can pack channel freqs relatively tightly.

Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse the inevitable spelling and grammatical errors.

Title: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Samuel Rees on September 15, 2016, 09:09:21 pm
I've been using ULXD and UHFR side by side for gigs this week in a corporate context and will many more times over the next several months. So far, the ULXDs have been a pleasure. In workbench they seem to show a lower noise floor so I can set my exclusion down lower for them than the UHFR. Not too important, just interesting. IR syncing happens twice as fast and twice as reliably. The whole deploy and sync is then twice as fast again for the fact that the IR sync receiver is accessible without opening the transmitters. I did 8 channels of one and 8 of the other and it was remarkable how much quicker the ULXD went. I've not had any better or worse RF performance show itself yet. Noise on the ULXD via Dante seems exceptionally low, as well.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dave Stevens on September 16, 2016, 03:59:12 am

Totally agree.

Forgive me for my ignorance, I'm European: I believe I know who 6o6 is, but who is Sammy?

Sam Berkow, founder of SIA Acoustics and the guy that put Smaart on the map.  He sold to EAW then EAW sold to Jaime (Rational).  Jaime's approach is much the same as Sam's, measure, confirm with listening.  The difference in approaches is that the ears determine what is best and not the machine.  The machine is used to help find issues, confirm or refute findings.  By contrast Bob's approach (as I've experienced it) is like many others is to use the machine as the primary source, not necessarily listening to the system to decide or override the machine.  In SIM training I had we didn't listen to the results as a general rule until the end and it wasn't to confirm what the machine said.   At some gigs I've done with a SIM op in real time they make changes based on the output of the machine and not necessarily what it sounds like.  When I've had Smaart trainings listening was first and foremost. 

Two different approaches both of which will work well and give great results.   Like many things audio, it's a matter of personal preference.   I like the listening first approach as many, many years ago we used our least beat up 58, plugged into a channel repeating "test 1-2" until we moved enough knobs to make it sound something like a voice.   Hopefully with no feedback.  Or at least a little as possible.  Nearly 40 years later, much has changed.  These days I'm able to use a nearly new 58...     8)
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Diogo Nunes Pereira on September 16, 2016, 04:53:02 pm


Sam Berkow, founder of SIA Acoustics and the guy that put Smaart on the map.

Thank you for enlightening me.

I do remember calling it SIA-Smaart. In those times the hire company I worked for in Portugal had a Windows machine that would be formatted every month so I could reinstall the 30-day trial.

Sent from my Xylophone using Tapatalk...

Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: drew gandy on September 22, 2016, 12:27:50 pm
My primary show world these days is small corporate talking head stuff.  In my experience the ULX-D has sounded "just fine" and has had better than expected drop-out resilience.  I have no test data or even rough head to head comparison to hold up my observations but it just seems like the ULX-D (and QLX-D) has been really solid from an RF standpoint whereas I do still have issues from time to time with UHF-R. 
Shame on me for not being familiar with the design topology (I was surprised to hear that it's a rather dumb system as far as antenna switching goes) but I've discovered that there are only so many hours in a day and this leaky tin can that I call a head doesn't seem to retain all the info anymore.  Now, to be clear, most of the time the ULX-D shows up as loose kits with whip antennas (ant farms) whereas the UHF-Rs are often a mix of individual kits and racks of receivers with antenna distribution.  I use what they give me and often don't even have time to argue, as if it would matter. 


 These days I'm able to use a nearly new 58...   

This is in connection to another recent thread about 58s.  Dave, do the new ones sound significantly different from the old ones?  It's so rare for me to hear new and old ones next to each other and in front of the same noise sources. 
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dan Currie on September 22, 2016, 02:37:33 pm
I had a moment to do a few more experiments...

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/UHFR%204%20Hi%20power_zpsj6wtzi6x.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/UHFR%204%20Hi%20power_zpsj6wtzi6x.png.html)
4 UHFR at 100mw

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/UHFR%204%20Hi%20power%20bundled_zpsvnoswdix.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/UHFR%204%20Hi%20power%20bundled_zpsvnoswdix.png.html)
4 UHFR at 100mw bundled together

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/697F7E42-9C8B-4929-90E7-264CC6484A09_zpspzpq8la2.jpg) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/697F7E42-9C8B-4929-90E7-264CC6484A09_zpspzpq8la2.jpg.html)

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/UHFR%204%20HP%20in%20trays_zpsqaxqjfgw.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/UHFR%204%20HP%20in%20trays_zpsqaxqjfgw.png.html)
4 UHFR at 100mw in the trays
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Riley Casey on September 23, 2016, 03:38:40 pm
I'm going to bet that current SM58s sound more like their 1970s counterparts than 4560s with 2440s on 2350s sound like modern speakers.  :P


This is in connection to another recent thread about 58s.  Dave, do the new ones sound significantly different from the old ones?  It's so rare for me to hear new and old ones next to each other and in front of the same noise sources.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: drew gandy on September 23, 2016, 09:32:28 pm
I'm going to bet that current SM58s sound more like their 1970s counterparts than 4560s with 2440s on 2350s sound like modern speakers.  :P

Yeah! Tell me about it. 
Of course, a lot of things in mic land have gone the other way.  Ever use a PGA58? 
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: brian maddox on September 24, 2016, 12:28:58 am

Thank you for enlightening me.

I do remember calling it SIA-Smaart. In those times the hire company I worked for in Portugal had a Windows machine that would be formatted every month so I could reinstall the 30-day trial.

Sent from my Xylophone using Tapatalk...

I've still got a set of floppy disks that say JBL-Smaart on them.  Not sure where JBL factored into the mix, but I used that version of Smaaet for a lot of years....
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dan Currie on September 26, 2016, 09:33:32 pm
On the Smaart topic...


(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/UHFR_zpskfztb5es.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/UHFR_zpskfztb5es.png.html)
UHFR

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/ULXD_zpskkr544vi.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/ULXD_zpskkr544vi.png.html)
ULXD

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/ULXD%20UHFR_zpsy8aefoiz.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/ULXD%20UHFR_zpsy8aefoiz.png.html)
UHFR/ULXD

The ULXD's are a little closer to 2.9ms but Smaart catches the peak just after it.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dave Stevens on September 27, 2016, 01:44:31 am
This is in connection to another recent thread about 58s.  Dave, do the new ones sound significantly different from the old ones?  It's so rare for me to hear new and old ones next to each other and in front of the same noise sources.

I'm going to bet that current SM58s sound more like their 1970s counterparts than 4560s with 2440s on 2350s sound like modern speakers.  :Pa

ERC's hit the nail on the head with that one.   :)

My comment on a "new" 58 was a comparison between a mic that was smashed, caked in stale liquor and various bodily fluids and a new mic out of the box.  Not between generations.  However, I did the bark test using a 15-20 year old 58 from my touring workbox and a couple year old 58 from the show.  I couldn't really hear much a difference.  I haven't been using 58s for mission critical lead vocal in 15-20 years.    So much has changed in both loudspeakers and ear mons that any difference may well be up to the reproducing transducer rather than the mic.  With the 58 capsules we use for events with either a UHFR or ULXD I don't hear much of a difference, if any and the guys out in the truck haven't noticed anything.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Merlijn van Veen on September 27, 2016, 03:44:02 am
On the Smaart topic...


(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/UHFR_zpskfztb5es.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/UHFR_zpskfztb5es.png.html)
UHFR

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/ULXD_zpskkr544vi.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/ULXD_zpskkr544vi.png.html)
ULXD

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/ULXD%20UHFR_zpsy8aefoiz.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/ULXD%20UHFR_zpsy8aefoiz.png.html)
UHFR/ULXD

The ULXD's are a little closer to 2.9ms but Smaart catches the peak just after it.

Dan any change you have a dB(A) weighting in your measurements?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dan Currie on September 27, 2016, 10:04:17 am
Dan any change you have a dB(A) weighting in your measurements?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

Merlijn,
  Nice catch!! There had to have been something going on with the pink noise generator.  I was thinking, 'wow...those filters are way higher than a TM400.'  Not sure when I'll see the gear again but I'm happy to look into it. 
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Riley Casey on September 27, 2016, 12:29:19 pm
" 4560s with 2440s on 2350s" That was an age test Dave.  You failed  ::)
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Scott Helmke on September 27, 2016, 01:27:31 pm
Merlijn,
  Nice catch!! There had to have been something going on with the pink noise generator.  I was thinking, 'wow...those filters are way higher than a TM400.'  Not sure when I'll see the gear again but I'm happy to look into it.

The actual response is pretty ruler flat, but with some weirdness in the phase trace.

Ultimately there isn't enough gain in the beltpack to use it with a battery powered Earthworks test mic, and Shure doesn't yet make a test/measurement mic head for the handhelds.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Diogo Nunes Pereira on September 28, 2016, 04:14:13 am
The actual response is pretty ruler flat, but with some weirdness in the phase trace.

Ultimately there isn't enough gain in the beltpack to use it with a battery powered Earthworks test mic, and Shure doesn't yet make a test/measurement mic head for the handhelds.

But isn't it true that wireless mics with analog companders aren't suitable for test and measurement rigs?

Ain't all the fuss around the TM400 about this being an hybrid (compander free) transmitter? Don't really fully understand the whole hybrid concept... yet.

Companders also have me a little confused, especially the ones with variable ratio; dependent on source dynamic range. How does the receiver know which ratio the transmitter applied in the first place?

This being said, I often use my pretty flat response, omni condenser, DPA4061 lavalier as a measurement mic attached to a Shure beltpack. I don't rely on it's magnitude/phase response though. Just use it for time-alignment and delay setting of loudspeakers. Am I doing something very, very wrong? Is the impulse response also affected by the compander?

Hope I didn't raised many off-topic questions...
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Lee Buckalew on September 28, 2016, 09:30:39 am
The actual response is pretty ruler flat, but with some weirdness in the phase trace.

Ultimately there isn't enough gain in the beltpack to use it with a battery powered Earthworks test mic, and Shure doesn't yet make a test/measurement mic head for the handhelds.

None of Shure's wireless systems are acceptable for test measurements. 

Lee
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Scott Helmke on September 28, 2016, 10:08:59 am
ULXD doesn't use analog companding, so it's a lot closer to being usable for measurement than Shure's analog products.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Scott Helmke on September 28, 2016, 10:12:43 am
Companders also have me a little confused, especially the ones with variable ratio; dependent on source dynamic range. How does the receiver know which ratio the transmitter applied in the first place?

The transmitter can usually send small amounts of data to the receiver - battery status, etc. So it would be possible to send compander status.

ULXD does something completely different with gain setting and companding, which is how Shure was able to put the "transmitter gain" setting on the receiver.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: DavidTurner on September 28, 2016, 01:56:41 pm

" 4560s with 2440s on 2350s" That was an age test Dave.  You failed  ::)

I have find memories of that set up. Please don't ruin them
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Lee Buckalew on October 03, 2016, 06:06:07 pm
ULXD doesn't use analog companding, so it's a lot closer to being usable for measurement than Shure's analog products.

It is not useable for accurate test data.  Shure will tell you not to do it.

Lee
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Aram Piligian on October 04, 2016, 12:02:23 am
For the curious, here's a comparison of the transfer function for the ULX-D pack (in red) and a direct wired connection (green). Pretty clear that it's unusable.  Excuse the crappy phone picture, I can update with a real screenshot tomorrow.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Scott Helmke on October 04, 2016, 12:05:34 pm
For the curious, here's a comparison of the transfer function for the ULX-D pack (in red) and a direct wired connection (green). Pretty clear that it's unusable.  Excuse the crappy phone picture, I can update with a real screenshot tomorrow.

It would be a desperation move, yes. That's what my trace looked like too, though mine was flatter up until it fell off a cliff around 20kHz.  Wonder how that phase trace came to be, though.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Don Boomer on October 05, 2016, 11:09:09 pm
None of Shure's wireless systems are acceptable for test measurements. 

Lee

Right. The data compression is the problem.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dan Currie on October 06, 2016, 05:05:46 am
It would be a desperation move, yes. That's what my trace looked like too, though mine was flatter up until it fell off a cliff around 20kHz.  Wonder how that phase trace came to be, though.

The phase trace is flatter on the ulxd.  Smaart just catches the peak a little early.  In both mine and Aram's screen shot the reference signal is leading the measurement. 
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Aram Piligian on October 06, 2016, 09:11:48 am
Somehow I totally missed your screenshots! 

I'll have to play with this again when I get a chance, but I do remember trying to get the delay dialed in as accurately as possible and couldn't really get it flat.  And besides, if it takes THAT much tweaking to get a useful measurement out of it, I might as well just run a cable and KNOW that I'm looking at solid data.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Scott Helmke on October 06, 2016, 10:17:01 am
There's often a sample rate mismatch between SMAART internals and a digital device under test - so it's basically just about impossible to set the delay exactly.  But usually that just means the top octave phase trace gently curves up or down.  The ULXD trace (I got the same thing) is some other weirdness.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dan Currie on October 26, 2016, 07:39:59 pm
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps3sir0ok2.jpeg) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps3sir0ok2.jpeg.html)
The graphics when using ULXD's via DANTE on a CL5 are kind of neat.  Note: 488.25 on the desk is really 488.025mhz. Battery life and antenna reception is a plus.
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Jordan Wolf on October 27, 2016, 12:42:53 pm
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps3sir0ok2.jpeg) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps3sir0ok2.jpeg.html)
The graphics when using ULXD's via DANTE on a CL5 are kind of neat.  Note: 488.25 on the desk is really 488.025mhz. Battery life and antenna reception is a plus.
Now THAT is cool!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Uhfr vs Ulxd
Post by: Dan Currie on January 04, 2017, 05:28:39 pm
ULXD G50 Bandpass

(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o111/dblogproductions/ULXD%20G50%20Q_zpsc5hzlheo.png) (http://s118.photobucket.com/user/dblogproductions/media/ULXD%20G50%20Q_zpsc5hzlheo.png.html)