Please share your experience with wireless mics or com riding on 2.4 GHz. Common sense tells me that Wi-Fi and consumer wireless devices would cause chaos. However, digital transmission, frequency hopping, and the move of much of Wi-Fi to 5MHz may make this more viable than it appears. I am specifically looking at Audio Technica's System 10 Pro wireless mic systems, but don't want to limit your response to that. Also, we are talking about use in a sports arena with Wi-Fi capacity to accommodate 700 guests. Why look at 2.4 GHz? ... it completely avoids interference from news crew wireless in the TV bands.
2.4 GHz wireless audio
- Thread starterjborden5
- Start date
I don't have much hands-on experience with 2.4GHz but I can tell you that an arena is probably not a good environment for it, especially in any quantity.
2.4 is more susceptible to being absorbed by the human body, and doesn't transmit as far. Most importantly, arenas have high ceilings. High ceilings with walls far apart don't give the RF waves much to bounce off of. Instead of getting "channeled" toward the stage by the walls and ceiling of the room, the RF waves radiate outward as if it were outer space and don't get bounced back toward the direction of the stage.
Where 2.4 is really strong is in conference rooms and classrooms. If you have a university with a wireless mic in every classroom, the transmit/receive range is short enough that while you may be only limited to 8 mic's simultaneously, you could have 50 mic's in play in a single building. Each classroom only has to worry about wireless coordination with the classrooms adjacent to it. By the time you get to the third classroom or lecture hall down the hallway, that room is too far away from the first room to experience interference between the two systems.
2.4 is more susceptible to being absorbed by the human body, and doesn't transmit as far. Most importantly, arenas have high ceilings. High ceilings with walls far apart don't give the RF waves much to bounce off of. Instead of getting "channeled" toward the stage by the walls and ceiling of the room, the RF waves radiate outward as if it were outer space and don't get bounced back toward the direction of the stage.
Where 2.4 is really strong is in conference rooms and classrooms. If you have a university with a wireless mic in every classroom, the transmit/receive range is short enough that while you may be only limited to 8 mic's simultaneously, you could have 50 mic's in play in a single building. Each classroom only has to worry about wireless coordination with the classrooms adjacent to it. By the time you get to the third classroom or lecture hall down the hallway, that room is too far away from the first room to experience interference between the two systems.
One way to combat the band congestion is to keep the antenna and the receiver very close to the transmitters to reduce distance losses. That is partly why Audio Technica designed the receivers as a modular, split system. Another reason is to eliminate coax and splitter losses inherent at such a high frequency. In a small venue, the System 10 would probably work great, but in a large arena, you would lose the design advantages unless you can always place the receiver modules near the performers.
I'm surprised that you run into TV crews using vacant TV channels. They have some Part 74 channels available for their exclusive use. Perhaps making friends with a couple of the TV ENG operations/engineering people is in order. All of the stations have to coordinate together, so somebody has a list of who is running what.
I'm surprised that you run into TV crews using vacant TV channels. They have some Part 74 channels available for their exclusive use. Perhaps making friends with a couple of the TV ENG operations/engineering people is in order. All of the stations have to coordinate together, so somebody has a list of who is running what.
TimmyP1955
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
