Microphones Digital versus analog wireless?

[JLNorthGA]

We have (thus far) managed to not need wireless.
Now, all of a sudden, we have requests for them for two visiting acts - we don't have them. In one case, he'll be bringing his own (dodged that bullet) - but I don't know about the other act as of yet.

Digital wireless versus analog wireless. Analog is less expensive (much) - is digital worth it? Digital is more modern obviously. I don't want to buy a system only to have to change it in the future.

Our basic need is for a handheld (possibly two) and possibly a lavalier. Should I consider a dual channel?
Buy a handheld transmitter and then get a lavalier?

We are a Shure house - more or less. We have SM58 and SM57 microphones and are comfortable with them. Therefore we were considering getting a Shure wireless system.

 

[josh88]

Not the answer to your question but don't forget to check what frequency range the wireless that he brings in are. You may not have dodged a bullet if his aren't in the legal range.

Edit: here's what Sweetwater has to say on the matter.

You can look at an analog wireless system as basically sending your audio through the airwaves, with the wireless system doing its best to separate any noisy, interfering audio from your original signal. While pro-quality systems do this very well, there is at least the potential for signal quality loss. Digital wireless systems convert your audio to a digital signal right at the transmitter, and basically send a digital signal of ones and zeros to your receiver, which then decodes it into an analog audio signal. Because your receiver only deals with the digital data, it doesn’t even worry about noise or interference. It simply ignores anything that’s not a stream of ones and zeroes.

High-quality analog wireless systems can rival digital wireless systems in audio quality and ease of use, but as always you should factor in all of your needs when choosing a system.

 

[TheaterEd]

I Loved having two of these set ups http://www.fullcompass.com/product/356571.html

You can only use two at a time, but I was always able to manage with just the two for every day visiting acts.

 

[FMEng]

The difference in the resulting sound quality between analog and digital should be fairly subtle. Digital definitely has an edge, but it is small. There is also a difference in how they fail. An analog system will get noisy and failure might be marked with bursts of white noise. Digital fails by going silent.

One danger in shopping for digital is that there seems to be two tiers of systems emerging. The lower cost systems use the 2.4 GHz band, sharing it with a variety of consumer devices from wi-fi to baby monitors. In some environments, that might be fine. In others, it is a recipe forinterference from band congestion. By contrast, the higher cost systems use the white spaces in the TV spectrum, which are not shared with consumer devices. As long as proper coordination is done, TV channels are safer.

Another issue is that there is a political push to completely reshape the TV spectrum. Such a move could make today's wireless systems useless several years from now. It is impossible to tell if this will actually happen. Should it happen, the 2.4 GHz systems might be un-affected, making that decision harder.

Sorry, but there are no easy answers here. Analog, digital, high price, low price, TV band or 2.4.

 

[Stookeybrd]

By contrast, the higher cost systems use the white spaces in the TV spectrum, which are not shared with consumer devices. As long as proper coordination is done, TV channels are safer.

This is no longer true. TVBDs are for sale and in use. They are nowhere near the numbers of devices in the 2.4GHz range, but they are out there and operating. For instance, in JLNorthGA's area there is the pioneer city for White Space data. See here: http://www.spectrumbridge.com/ProductsServices/WhiteSpacesSolutions/success-stories/wilmington.aspx

For Shure wireless, and really any digital wireless the ULX-D cannot be beat. Digital mics give you a bunch of benefits over analog that cannot be ignore in today's wireless world. Improved battery life, improved spectral efficiency, wide tuning range and superior interference rejection. Going forward, for small time performance spaces and shows using digital wireless is absolutely the way to go. Find out the two reserved channels for wireless mics in your area, and purchase a wireless split that overlaps with one of the reserved channels. I would suggest the channel that is below TV37 because the smart money is on the 600MHz band being auctioned off and the 500MHZ to become totally packed with DTV. For ULX-D the G50 range is a fantastic option for almost the entire country because below 512 is for us and public safety and they don't take up too much of those channels.

 

[JLNorthGA]

This is no longer true. TVBDs are for sale and in use. They are nowhere near the numbers of devices in the 2.4GHz range, but they are out there and operating. For instance, in JLNorthGA's area there is the pioneer city for White Space data. See here: http://www.spectrumbridge.com/ProductsServices/WhiteSpacesSolutions/success-stories/wilmington.aspx

Thanks for the information. Quite helpful. To do a minor correction - Wilmington is about 400 miles away - we're in Western NC and you literally can't get there from here.

 

[museav]

Has anyone actually run into TVBDs being an issue? I figured the discussions regarding further frequency reallocations may have scared off many TVBD developers. But in regards to TVBDs, there are the two "safe harbor" channels and I believe NAB and others are pushing congress and the FCC to maintain two "safe harbor" channels that are free of possible TVBD interference for unlicensed, unregistered wireless microphones. For applications involving more microphones than can operate in those channels there are also the national registries, http://www.fcc.gov/help/overview-unlicensed-wireless-microphone-registrations.

Digital wireless do have some advantages, but one thing they also have is latency, I believe 2.9ms is the spec for the ULX-D. Not a factor in many systems but something to factor into the overall system latency in some situations. I have also had some university and corporate clients indicate that 2.4GHz wireless microphones are not an option as they already have their hands full maintaining their wireless networks without introducing additional potentially interfering sources.

 

[Stookeybrd]

Has anyone actually run into TVBDs being an issue? I figured the discussions regarding further frequency reallocations may have scared off many TVBD developers. But in regards to TVBDs, there are the two "safe harbor" channels and I believe NAB and others are pushing congress and the FCC to maintain two "safe harbor" channels that are free of possible TVBD interference for unlicensed, unregistered wireless microphones.

They aren't a problem yet, but I've been been part of shows where we invited TVBD prototypes to the event and run some real world simulations during the rehearsals. The results were... interesting. And not it our favor.

And every television market has two reserved channels for the sole use of wireless microphones. They are the first unoccupied channel below TV37 and the first unoccupied about TV37. That's a total of 12MHZ per market of dedicated wireless microphone spectrum. For systems like the ULX-D you can put them into high density mode for 47 channels of wireless in a 6MHz space. 96 digital mics in a perfectly protected piece of spectrum is pretty amazing to me. Certainly something everyone should be aware of going forward. As far as finding out what two channels are protected for wireless mics in your area firms like Spectrum Bridge and Telcordia are the approved database coordinators that will provide you with that information.

Thanks for the information. Quite helpful. To do a minor correction - Wilmington is about 400 miles away - we're in Western NC and you literally can't get there from here.

400 miles is nothing in the schemes of national wireless standards.

 

[dboomer]

Digital wireless versus analog wireless. Analog is less expensive (much) - is digital worth it? Digital is more modern obviously. I don't want .

Then you aren't looking in the right places. Digital should be much less expensive (apples to apples) as digital radios don't require much from the radio itself as the radio only has to send a thin stream of digital data as opposed to a big dynamic range of audio. There really are'nt the same kind of quality issues either. If you think about a reasonably distorted one and zero still look like a one and a zero.

Don Boomer
Line 6