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 => LAB Lounge => Topic started by: Jerry Ziarko on September 19, 2019, 12:51:21 pm

Title: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Jerry Ziarko on September 19, 2019, 12:51:21 pm
I am curious about how far technology has improved with IEM wireless rigs. I have some older units (Shure PSM700) that are still frequency compliant but wonder if new units such as Sennheiser G4 or Shure PSM 300/ 900 have advanced in sound quality to the point they should replace my trusty old technology. I do understand they have all moved off the 9v standard of years past, but looking for differences other than that. Thanks for any help!
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Brian Adams on September 19, 2019, 01:24:39 pm
I haven't used everything out there, but I think any of the newer stuff (of any quality) should be a step up from your 700 system. More and better frequency adjustment, better RF and power management, and better audio quality. Most run on AA's now, or proprietary rechargeable batteries. I'm so glad they got away from 9V batteries!

Sennheiser is kind of the standard for RF reliability. I don't think the audio of the G4 has less of a noise floor than the G3, but it doesn't seem to bother people too much. This is probably the most common system you'll see out in the wild.

Shure PSM300 is a good "value" IEM system, and it costs a little less than the Sennheiser G4. If you can accept the fairly basic feature set and 1/4" inputs, you can get a very durable system with metal packs that sounds great. You can also get plastic packs if you want, but I don't know why anyone would prefer plastic. With the metal packs you can use the SB900 rechargeables, which last about 6 hours and recharge super easily. I think the Shure rechargeables are the easiest to use out of any manufacturer.

PSM900 is a nice step up, and a more "professional" system than the 300. More features and a sturdier housing on the transmitter, variable RF power, wider tuning range, and the same metal housing and rechargeable batteries as the 300. And XLR combo connectors.

If you need to worry about meeting riders, PSM300 is unlikely to be as widely accepted as the G4 or PSM900, but probably moreso than your current system. All I ever see on riders is PSM1000, but most acts are a little flexible.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Robert Lofgren on September 19, 2019, 01:50:30 pm
The mipro 909 sounds great and it has a true diversity system.

I currently have four in my rack plus their active antenna combiner.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Barry Reynolds on September 19, 2019, 02:31:28 pm
The mipro 909 sounds great and it has a true diversity system.

I currently have four in my rack plus their active antenna combiner.

I have seven Mipro Mi-909.  Very happy.  Use with A&H SQ5.  No noticeable latency with either SQ or QU use.  And this is with picky musicians.  I just started using two of their antenna combiners.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Henry Cohen on September 19, 2019, 02:33:24 pm
have some older units (Shure PSM700) that are still frequency compliant . . .

Only if you're in parts of Europe, Asia and South America. Not in North America.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Mark Scrivener on September 19, 2019, 02:44:40 pm
I have a few PSM300 systems and have been quite happy with them. The noise floor is noticeable sitting in a quiet room, but once the band starts playing it is a non issue. The 1/4" inputs are mildly annoying -  I have to keep 1/4" to XLR cables on hand for patching it in to my mixer, but not a huge deal.

From what I understand I don't think the PSM900 offers any better fidelity, just better frequency management and a replaceable antenna on the body packs.

I guess the real question is what do you dislike about your PSM700? 
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Ike Zimbel on September 19, 2019, 05:08:13 pm
Only if you're in parts of Europe, Asia and South America. Not in North America.
There is the H3 band for PSM-700, 524-553 MHz. That's the only band that will remain compliant. That said, technology has definitely moved beyond the PSM-700.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Luke Geis on September 19, 2019, 05:32:31 pm
I have used the Shure PSM1000 on a few occasions and I don't think it sounds all that good. it is supposedly the best of the best too. The problem isn't so much quality of sound as much as noise floor, the dynamic range and the stereo separation.

The last few I have used all seem to have a similar issue. The Senny G3 and the PSM1000 both suffered from stereo separation issues and i feel it had compression or stuffiness to it that made the mix sound closed up. The G3 wasn't much better in terms of low dynamic range.

As far as the PSM700 goes, I have not used that model. I have only used the 300, 900 and 1000 series. The 1000 series is obviously better than the 300 and 900, but honestly, they all do not sound like your plugged into the mixer directly but will work just fine.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on September 19, 2019, 05:55:41 pm
I am curious about how far technology has improved with IEM wireless rigs. I have some older units (Shure PSM700) that are still frequency compliant but wonder if new units such as Sennheiser G4 or Shure PSM 300/ 900 have advanced in sound quality to the point they should replace my trusty old technology. I do understand they have all moved off the 9v standard of years past, but looking for differences other than that. Thanks for any help!
I last used PSM700s in 2009 and I donít miss them. Replaced with Sennheiser IEM 300 G3 units which work very reliably, but have a bit of an audio noise floor thatís just the way they are.  I havenít tried the G4 version yet.

Iíve also used PSM900s and they donít have the noise floor of the Sennheisers, but I donít really think theyíre better than the Sennheisers, either. 

If you search in this forum section you can read about my experience with the Lectrosonics Duet digital IEM system. Short answer - great RF features, but audio quality is not any better than analog (I thought it was worse - the digital artifacts drove me nuts) and theyíre big bucks.  If they do a second generation product, I would definitely give them a try, but until then Iím sticking with my Sennheiser G3s.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Jerry Ziarko on September 19, 2019, 08:16:14 pm


I guess the real question is what do you dislike about your PSM700?
Other than the 9v issue they seem to be fine, however not trying anything newer, it has me wondering. I have to be honest, I plugged into a cheap Behringer P2 with a stereo mix, and was blown away with the difference. Totally silent, with absolutely amazing separation. By reading some of the above posts it appears that wireless tech hasn't really grown all that much in that regard.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Ike Zimbel on September 19, 2019, 08:28:19 pm
I have used the Shure PSM1000 on a few occasions and I don't think it sounds all that good. it is supposedly the best of the best too. The problem isn't so much quality of sound as much as noise floor, the dynamic range and the stereo separation.

The last few I have used all seem to have a similar issue. The Senny G3 and the PSM1000 both suffered from stereo separation issues and i feel it had compression or stuffiness to it that made the mix sound closed up. The G3 wasn't much better in terms of low dynamic range.

As far as the PSM700 goes, I have not used that model. I have only used the 300, 900 and 1000 series. The 1000 series is obviously better than the 300 and 900, but honestly, they all do not sound like your plugged into the mixer directly but will work just fine.
The P10R+ is a whole new ballgame. These are the current PSM-1000 receivers (belt packs), and they sound amazing, particularly when it comes to separation and noise floor.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Luke Geis on September 24, 2019, 04:09:08 pm
I am perhaps picky, but I can tell a very stark difference between the pack and just plugging into even a phone. The stereo separation may be the best of the bunch, but it is still lacking. Noise floor with all of them can be optimized and really isn't an issue aside from some having less dynamic range than others. All in all, I think any stereo IEM setup that is available is going to do the task just fine. There really haven't been any major improvements to the technology in that past several years I think. The whole 8 driver, balanced armature thing is a bunch of malarky designed to separate you from your money too.

I think the bulk of making IEM's work is done at the mixer. You MUST have stereo mixes, you have to play god with the mix and you need to have a way to address bone coupling. Having the world's greatest earbuds won't get you too far if you don't have the mix itself nailed.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Nathan Riddle on September 25, 2019, 11:29:06 am
I am curious about how far technology has improved with IEM wireless rigs. I have some older units (Shure PSM700) that are still frequency compliant but wonder if new units such as Sennheiser G4 or Shure PSM 300/ 900 have advanced in sound quality to the point they should replace my trusty old technology. I do understand they have all moved off the 9v standard of years past, but looking for differences other than that. Thanks for any help!

For further research, if you desire.

https://soundforums.net/community/threads/sennheiser-ew-300-g3-vs-shure-psm900.2215/
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/for-those-who-have-tried-both-shure-psm-900-or-sennheiser-ew-300-g3.75049/
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: brian maddox on September 25, 2019, 04:09:31 pm
Other than the 9v issue they seem to be fine, however not trying anything newer, it has me wondering. I have to be honest, I plugged into a cheap Behringer P2 with a stereo mix, and was blown away with the difference. Totally silent, with absolutely amazing separation. By reading some of the above posts it appears that wireless tech hasn't really grown all that much in that regard.

The audio quality difference between the PSM700 and PSM900/1000 is STRIKING.  Going to Senn G3 or G4 is also VERY significant.

That's completely ignoring the enormous difference in RF flexibility and performance.

I stuck with my PSM600 when the PSM 700 came out because they sounded basically the same.  I tend to get pretty frugal when i'm spending my own money.  When i heard the PSM900 i immediately called my local dealer and ordered one.  That was shortly after they came out and i've not had a reason to replace it since.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Henry Cohen on September 25, 2019, 09:17:52 pm
There really haven't been any major improvements to the technology in that past several years I think.

The Lectrosonics Duet is a significant step forward in IEM design and has nearly the stereo separation you desire (85dB). To be sure, it's a work in progress, but I see a substantially better new generation digital IEM in the near future.

To some extent, I see the same attempt in the Mipro digital unit, but the TX is a bandwidth hog and the receiver doesn't quite have the selectivity it should have IMO, resulting in a system that is not very spectrally efficient.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Stephen Swaffer on September 25, 2019, 11:38:03 pm
How big of an issue is the spectral efficiency?  Obviously, it depends.  In my situation, rural Iowa 35 miles from Iowa City-the closest "city".  We typically use up to 8 channels of Shure SLX's along with 8 channels of MiPro mics.  Looking to get our feet wet with IEMs-but don't have anyone with any experience.  Likely will only do one mix on IEMs to share (this is for theater/musical work-mostly performing to  tracks).  Suggestions on a good starting point?

Current system is a QU32, QSC K12'2 ansd K10's using the SLX's to give an idea of where we feelcomfortable budget wise.  I've liked the MiPro mics other than the use and abuse they receive as rentals-so the MiPro IEM has me curious.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Luke Geis on September 26, 2019, 03:51:10 am
Stereo separation is one thing, and I feel overall dynamic range is another. I have not yet used a wireless IEM system that has the same overall quality as plugging an earbud straight into a headphone amp or the mixer's headphone out. I was fortunate enough once to be running sound for my own band utilizing an LS9-32 and being close enough to use the headphone out to create my own stereo monitor mix. This is a very rare occasion for sure. What I can say is that from a monitoring perspective, it is the best mix I have ever had in both terms of quality of sound and the mix in general. It had stereo separation and it sounded like the band as if we were in a studio. I probably looked like a total fool with a 32 channel mixer sitting 2' to my left and a set of earbuds running to my head, but it worked.

Having used IEM's on a couple of occasions that range from cheap to high end is that I have not replicated the same level of quality as when I was plugged directly into the mixer. The mixes in wireless IEM's are just more compressed, stuffy and lack that overall dynamic range that makes it sound like you are really there. The lack of stereo separation doesn't help. You can hard pan an instrument and it just doesn't seem to move away from the middle as much as it should. Now perhaps Lectrosonics has figured it out, the problem is that 99% of musicians will never get to use one; I included thus far. Granted I am not a touring musician myself and I don't typically deal with A national acts, so I tend to end up dealing with B & C national acts that except PA systems, not demand or dictate them.

I am pretty easily impressed too, as I like being able to find cheap alternatives to expensive problems. That only means that having used Shure PSM 1000's, I wasn't that impressed considering the money they cost. I find it pretty sickening that you can spend $2k+ on a wireless IEM unit and then need spending another $2k+ on some super wazo earbuds to extract the last 5%. I mean, what the literal hell...... It is not rocket science, it shouldn't cost $4k to replace a damn $1 per foot cable........ I DGAFF what anyone says, it is 100% BS. I work with many high-end musicians that have spent a small fortune trying to improve on something that shouldn't be that hard. I had one in particular that spent $2k on the Sensaphonics multi-driver, fitted earbuds and she felt it was only a marginal improvement over the $500 earbuds she started with. I about cried when she mentioned she started with $500 earbuds. I tried a technique I have with her and she did say it was an improvement, but I only work with her a few times a year, so dialing in a perfect mix and really getting it dialed in is tough for a one-off type event. The long and short is that you can throw a lot of money at a problem and never really fix it. It starts with the mix ( the tricks I use among other things ) and having time to work with artists to really dial it in. Stereo separation can be dealt with, lower dynamic range can be dealt with, it just requires tricks and techniques to make the mix sound more natural, open and real. This is not something that most average musicians can do. They work with random engineers and random systems and get fairly random results. The fix to solve the randomness is to spend more money on an IEM system that makes it easier to get good results, the problem is that it requires a LOT of money to do that.

Three rules to IEM mixes. Stereo, ambient mics along with a great overall mix and to absolve bone coupling. You do not need a $2k earbud and you probably don't need a PSM 1000 to get great results, what you need is to follow the rules. If you can get those three things nailed, then even a $5 pair of earbuds and a cheap $600 IEM system will provide stellar results.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: TJ (Tom) Cornish on September 26, 2019, 11:27:17 am
The Lectrosonics Duet is a significant step forward in IEM design and has nearly the stereo separation you desire (85dB). To be sure, it's a work in progress, but I see a substantially better new generation digital IEM in the near future.

To some extent, I see the same attempt in the Mipro digital unit, but the TX is a bandwidth hog and the receiver doesn't quite have the selectivity it should have IMO, resulting in a system that is not very spectrally efficient.
I could live with the poor battery door design and lousy battery life of the Duet, but the audio sounding like a 32kbps MP3 stream was the killer. Iím told there are FCC limits to channel bandwidth that are the main issue here.

The transmitter is a dual unit and the pack has diversity reception. I understand that some markets and events have very limited bandwidth availability, but when thatís not an issue, I would love to see a ďhigh qualityĒ mode where a pack could utilize two transmitter channels - one for left and one for right, which would double the bandwidth and hopefully significantly improve sound quality. I suggested this to Lectro during my eval last year and at the time it was off the table for the current-gen duet, but hopefully in the future it can work. 

I did like the size of the pack, and RF performance was amazing.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Jason Glass on September 26, 2019, 02:33:27 pm
I could live with the poor battery door design and lousy battery life of the Duet, but the audio sounding like a 32kbps MP3 stream was the killer. I’m told there are FCC limits to channel bandwidth that are the main issue here.

The transmitter is a dual unit and the pack has diversity reception. I understand that some markets and events have very limited bandwidth availability, but when that’s not an issue, I would love to see a “high quality” mode where a pack could utilize two transmitter channels - one for left and one for right, which would double the bandwidth and hopefully significantly improve sound quality. I suggested this to Lectro during my eval last year and at the time it was off the table for the current-gen duet, but hopefully in the future it can work. 

I did like the size of the pack, and RF performance was amazing.

It has its issues with low frequency, low volume content reproduction, and audible artifacts under certain conditions that many users find objectionable.

But I must respectfully disagree that it's anywhere near as bad as a low bit rate MP3.  Not even close.  Head and shoulders superior to that.  By a marathon of miles.  While simultaneously eliminating other annoying characteristics of many other high end IEM systems.  IMHO.

It's up to the engineer and users to determine which balance of characteristics is most suitable for the specific application.  As it always is.

FCC rules specifically and unequivocally limit the occupied bandwidth of a channel of equipment of this type and frequency band to 200 kHz maximum.  The manufacturer can't use two channels for a single stereo transmission because that's the law.  You can't blame any mfg for that.

Nor should you expect that to change in the foreseeable future.  And if it ever were to happen, utliizing more bandwidth for a digital signal requires a complete redesign of the transmitter and receiver, from the modulation methods and data compression algorithms employed, through hardware modulators, filters, amplifiers, and on and on.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Russell Ault on September 26, 2019, 03:09:39 pm
[...] The manufacturer can't use two channels for a single stereo transmission because that's the law.  [...]

I haven't read the FCC regs (although I'd guess that they're fairly similar to the ISED Canada regs), but isn't this basically what Telex did with the BTR-800? Am I missing something?

-Russ
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Mark Scrivener on September 26, 2019, 03:11:23 pm
I find it interesting that IEM systems have stayed mainly analog. I realize there is inherent latency in digital systems, but we have numerous well regarded 2.4 GHz digital systems for wireless mics and instruments, and surely latency is just as critical there....not to mention almost all of use digital mixers for live with no latency concerns. The latency of digital seems like a non issue here and could solve the bandwidth and noise floor limitations we find annoying. Of course there would be a development investment by the mfg and ROI questions, but seems like an opportunity.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: John Sulek on September 26, 2019, 04:59:32 pm
The P10R+ is a whole new ballgame. These are the current PSM-1000 receivers (belt packs), and they sound amazing, particularly when it comes to separation and noise floor.
+100
They do sound awesome.
 There were some incremental firmware updates to the original P10R packs and also a hardware upgrade to that model about a year or two out that made a vast improvement in the stereo separation and frequency response.
P10R+ is the next step in this continual improvement.

I have gone through all the psm models on tour over the years..600,700,900,1000. The improvements have been striking over the years.

You need to remember that one of the reasons touring folks love the psm1000 units is the frequency agility and rf robustness.
It doesn't matter how "golden" your mix is if the talent can't reliably receive it at their location.

Disclaimer...my primary client is heavily endorsed by Shure, but they are not deaf either. lol

Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Russell Ault on September 26, 2019, 06:03:47 pm
I find it interesting that IEM systems have stayed mainly analog. I realize there is inherent latency in digital systems, but we have numerous well regarded 2.4 GHz digital systems for wireless mics and instruments, and surely latency is just as critical there....not to mention almost all of use digital mixers for live with no latency concerns. The latency of digital seems like a non issue here and could solve the bandwidth and noise floor limitations we find annoying. Of course there would be a development investment by the mfg and ROI questions, but seems like an opportunity.

Total latency (i.e. from input to output) is a budget, and it's a budget that changes depending on the circumstances. The latency budget for a broadcast mix is basically infinite (as long as you sync the audio and video before distribution, that is); the latency budget for an FOH mix can be as much as 20 ms or more in large venues or less than 10 ms in small rooms. When you get into monitoring, where people are relying on what they're hearing to keep time, that budget gets smaller. The rule of thumb I've heard in general for monitors is a latency budget of ~10 ms, but that includes the ~6 ms propagation delay from wedge to ears. The latency budget for IEMs depends on what they're being used for, with singers and string players being the most latency-critical (they hear the sound of themselves being propagated through their bone structure as well as through the IEMs and the margin of error to line those two sounds up is very small); there are singers for whom 3 ms from mic to IEMs is too much. Humans also tend to be more forgiving of timing issues in a reverberant space, so with IEMs (i.e. a non-reverberant space) latency budgets tend to be smaller, often much smaller.

Since analogue IEMs have effectively no latency they have no "cost" to the latency budget. For a singer, this can make the difference between IEMs that work and IEMs that don't work, especially if you've already spent 2-3 ms on a digital wireless microphone and another couple of ms on a digital console.

-Russ
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Caleb Dueck on September 26, 2019, 08:40:28 pm
...we have numerous well regarded 2.4 GHz digital systems for wireless mics and instruments...

Really? 

IEM's and digital - there are more issues at play than simple latency. 
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Henry Cohen on September 26, 2019, 09:58:05 pm
I find it pretty sickening that you can spend $2k+ on a wireless IEM unit and then need spending another $2k+ on some super wazo earbuds to extract the last 5%. I mean, what the literal hell...... It is not rocket science, it shouldn't cost $4k to replace a damn $1 per foot cable........ I DGAFF what anyone says, it is 100% BS.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to create a very high quality audio link to begin with, and that's without considering the form factor and use constraints of an IEM receiver. For the sake of this discussion, "high quality" means performance comparable to a good quality wired microphone with whatever latency is deemed acceptable to the "A" level clientele.

RF system performance, any RF system, in today's RF congested and high noise floor environment, is determined primarily by receiver performance. High selectivity and sensitivity are the key factors, which are diametrically opposed to wide tuning bandwidth and small form factor, both of which are mandatory features in any top tier IEM product offering. High selectivity requires proper filtering, which in turn requires a specific volume (size) based on the frequency range of operation, and by it's very nature is band limited. Tracking filters are not very selective so sensitivity will suffer. Want some flavor of advanced diversity (dual receivers or phase correlation/comparison/combining); add more filters and DSP. Basically, take the same circuit in a rack mount receiver and cram it into a body pack. Then take the rack mount receiver's remote antennas that are just about in free field and make them a quarter wave (about 5MHz worth of decent VSWR and apply it across 60 - 120 MHz) and cram it up against a sweating salty water bag.

Then lets look at the business case: Given the paltry quantity of unit sales in our industry, 6 figures is considered great over the life span of this type of product, but more likely 5 figures, and I'm surprised the current top tier offerings are only $4k for a full link. The economy of scale for this sophisticated a product is a difficult balancing act. To put hings in perspective, a typical high end cell phone today costs between $500 and $1k, and that's only one half of the link, the other half costing about $2M per cell site. Any given popular cell phone model is selling in the scores of thousands every quarter. Compared to the current upper tier IEM offerings, the cell phone has miserable latency, mediocre telephony audio quality and requires at least one $120k base station and three $1.5k+ sector antennas (at just one cell site BTW) to function. 

Now, if a $4k/channel IEM link doesn't make sense for your business model, then it is absolutely the wrong product. You need to use the equipment that makes you money. But there is substantially more to this than merely the perception of what one thinks something should cost.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Tim Halligan on September 26, 2019, 10:38:19 pm
Given that IEMs in live music situations are primarily used as an alternative to wedges/sidefills, the fact that they may not be a completely transparent audiophile experience is a non-issue.

Certainly wedges never were.

Both wedges and IEMs are used to give the performer sufficient pitch and time cues in order to deliver a consistent, compelling performance.

The fact that everyone can have a stereo - or stereo enough - portable device which can deliver enough level, yet not be detrimental to other's stage experience (i.e. keeping stage levels under control) for the kind of dollars that we see these days is something of a revelation.

Certainly we want to give and get the best possible audio outcome, but for their given purpose good enough is good enough. Perfection would be nice, but is not necessary.

Cheers,
Tim

Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Philip Roberts on September 26, 2019, 11:01:32 pm
... but I see a substantially better new generation digital IEM in the near future.
Can you offer any comment on how near this might be?

Iíd love a PSM-D. Dante/WWB integration/SBC200 with a ULX-D like RF link.

I have two channels of Duet that seems to have killed its self over a bad power supply. I had no audio performance complains but the need for lithium batteries is a pain. The lack of complaints may be my users (church volunteer musicians) donít know how to communicate what they donít like.  I can also tell that physical build is no where close the the Lectro quality of 15-20 years ago. I was running their 200 series until about 18 months ago.

Thanks

Philip
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Jason Glass on September 27, 2019, 01:52:51 pm
I haven't read the FCC regs (although I'd guess that they're fairly similar to the ISED Canada regs), but isn't this basically what Telex did with the BTR-800? Am I missing something?

-Russ

BTR-800 carries two audio paths on two carriers, but since it is an intercom they are considered discrete channels that are not necessarily correlated.  A stereo program mix falls under the definition of a single audio transmission.  I suppose that this could be challenged by the lawyers.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Mike Caldwell on September 27, 2019, 02:38:45 pm
I find it interesting that IEM systems have stayed mainly analog. I realize there is inherent latency in digital systems, but we have numerous well regarded 2.4 GHz digital systems for wireless mics and instruments, and surely latency is just as critical there....not to mention almost all of use digital mixers for live with no latency concerns. The latency of digital seems like a non issue here and could solve the bandwidth and noise floor limitations we find annoying. Of course there would be a development investment by the mfg and ROI questions, but seems like an opportunity.

All other IEM discussion aside I would not consider buying any wireless IEM or mic that operates in the 2.4ghz bandwidth.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Mark Scrivener on September 27, 2019, 04:57:27 pm
All other IEM discussion aside I would not consider buying any wireless IEM or mic that operates in the 2.4ghz bandwidth.

The Shure GLXD systems are 2.4 GHz and are used by tons of guitar players in everything from local bars to touring bands. I've personally used one for years in all sorts of situations and have never had a problem on stage. I will confess that during sound check if I roam the venue to get a first hand impression I can experience dropouts, but never seen this while on stage. My current band is using 3 GLXD systems, including one for the lead vocal mic and it has been rock solid in everything from small cafes with tons of WiFi hot spots nearby and microwave ovens in the venue to bigger shows with tons of people and their cell phones.

I should also add that my use case for wireless is quicker load in and strike, less clutter on stage, and fewer trip hazards. I'm not interested in running all over the place during a show. For this the GLXD systems have been perfect.
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Brian Adams on September 28, 2019, 10:31:08 pm
The Shure GLXD systems are 2.4 GHz and are used by tons of guitar players in everything from local bars to touring bands. I've personally used one for years in all sorts of situations and have never had a problem on stage. I will confess that during sound check if I roam the venue to get a first hand impression I can experience dropouts, but never seen this while on stage. My current band is using 3 GLXD systems, including one for the lead vocal mic and it has been rock solid in everything from small cafes with tons of WiFi hot spots nearby and microwave ovens in the venue to bigger shows with tons of people and their cell phones.

I should also add that my use case for wireless is quicker load in and strike, less clutter on stage, and fewer trip hazards. I'm not interested in running all over the place during a show. For this the GLXD systems have been perfect.

I have a couple GLXD guitar systems because I'd worked with several well-known touring acts using them, and they all had great things to say about them. I love them, and my artists do too.

They work great almost everywhere, but one venue in my area has a really crowded wifi spectrum and they won't work from more than 5 feet away on any channel. Always bring a cable, just in case!
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Mark Scrivener on September 29, 2019, 02:32:58 am
...... Always bring a cable, just in case!

^^^^^^^ THIS is my golden rule with any wireless system. I don't care how high end of a wireless system it is, there is always a chance some local interference could shut it down. I always bring cables for instruments and backup wired mics for any wireless mics (along with cables ;-)
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Robert Lofgren on September 29, 2019, 03:18:31 am
The key to a more reliable 2.4ghz wireless is using proper antennas. While this is true for most wireless, the 2.4ghz band can be more crowded due to the close proximity of phones an APís. You canít expect stellar performance from builtin or whip antennas. You need to use a proper antenna distributor and directional paddle antenna(s) to get the expected results.

Iíve seen horrific antenna placements. Why putting antennas at ground level (where half of the signal goes down into Ďthe basementí). Or putting antennas at the backside of a rack, blocking most of the signal. Or even having the antenna lobe close to metal surfaces. How about extending the 1/4-wave antenna cable to elevate it, but not providing any ground plane. The list can be made long...
Title: Re: Question about advancements in wireless IEM
Post by: Jean-Pierre Coetzee on September 29, 2019, 03:55:02 am
Just a note here, I play on a small stage every week and use a Sennheiser G2 IEM for that. I would take even that (in mono) over a wedge any day of the week, granted there is a decent mix to go with it.

I also use a pair of in-ears that cost like $80 (R900 ZAR). I can definitely appreciate appreciate the need to a pair of good custom moulded drivers but these have good isolation and get plenty loud enough without distortion.

Give me a decent IEM mix that doesn't cut out and I will be happy even if it's a little noisy because it will be far and away better then a wedge