Wireless Galaxy Audio Wireless Mic Help!!!

[Bodetacular]

Last year, my school purchased 8 Galaxy Audio AS-1000 wireless microphones for our musical (The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee). The frequency dropout and interference was so horrible that we had to put the receivers backstage, with Galaxy Audio paddle antennas, and run them to the board. I had to change the frequencies almost everyday and they still received horrible interference.

We also have 2 Shure wireless lavs (unsure of the model) that were bought when the school opened. They are about 10 years old and work flawlessly with the transmitters in the booth.

This year, we are in the process of producing a much larger musical (Hairspray) and require more wireless mics. My directors apparently did not learn their lesson last year and have decided to buy 4 Galaxy Audio DHT QUAD wireless microphones. To my surprise, they receive no frequency interference. On the other hand, i have no more stage inputs left so the transmitter must sit with me in the booth. The problem now is that they experience constant signal dropout.

My directors have spent most of our budget on costumes and the set. I am now being constantly yelled at because the mics don't work. I have thought up a few solutions to the problem myself, but my directors don't want to spend a lot more money. Any help thinking of solutions (cheap or expensive) would be much appreciated!

 

[chausman]

Is renting an option? How many more wireless do you need (apart from the Shures)?

 

[Bodetacular]

Is renting an option? How many more wireless do you need (apart from the Shures)?

Not really. My directors want to use the mics that they spent money on. We now have a total of 14 wireless mics (2 Shures, 8 AS-1000's and 4 DHT QUAD's). That's plenty enough mics for the show, I just need help with the dropout issue. The 8 AS-1000's are in the pit with the paddle's pointed at the stage. They are hooked into 8 of the 20 stage inputs that I have available. I would just put the DHT QUAD's in the pit also, but I'm out of stage inputs. We are also using 3 condensers for the chorus to sing in backstage, 4 border mics on the front of the stage, 2 condensers in the pit for the orchestra, and one dynamic for the piano as well as another dynamic backstage for more chorus singers.

 

[bishopthomas]

Last year, my school purchased 8 Galaxy Audio AS-1000 wireless microphones for our musical . The frequency dropout and interference was so horrible that we had to put the receivers backstage.

We also have 2 Shure wireless lavs (unsure of the model) that were bought when the school opened. They are about 10 years old and work flawlessly with the transmitters in the booth.

The old adage, "You get what you pay for," actually holds water. Who would have thought! Sorry, but you're pretty much stuck. It's a pain to try to educate the bean counters, so welcome to the club. As for your "no more stage inputs left" dilemma, how about running a snake out for this show?

 

[Bodetacular]

The old adage, "You get what you pay for," actually holds water. Who would have thought! Sorry, but you're pretty much stuck. It's a pain to try to educate the bean counters, so welcome to the club. As for your "no more stage inputs left" dilemma, how about running a snake out for this show?

I told them just that... But they still insisted on buying Galaxy because it was cheep. They told me that the school wouldn't pay for mics so everything was coming out of the theatre's budget. (ironically the principal just bought us a new $14,000 rain curtain...) Anyway, that was one thing that I thought of. The only problem is that we're **** near our of money. I have a friend that works for a pro light/sound company that is going to stop by next week. I'm hoping that we can either borrow from him or he'll convince them to spend the money.

 

[deadlygopher]

Since it sounds like you're stuck with the gear you have, you need to make sure you don't have any RF interference.

If you can find a way to get your receivers as close to the stage as possible, you'll probably cut down on RF issues considerably.

You say that you change frequencies often. Are you just randomly switching them until the problems temporarily disappear? If that's the case you need to do some frequency coordination. Download the demo of IAS and see if you can come up with a set of frequencies without any intermod issues. It may not be possible for you to use all of your mics. The computer may be able to find a set of frequencies, but make sure you test it in the real world.

 

[Bodetacular]

Since it sounds like you're stuck with the gear you have, you need to make sure you don't have any RF interference.

If you can find a way to get your receivers as close to the stage as possible, you'll probably cut down on RF issues considerably.

You say that you change frequencies often. Are you just randomly switching them until the problems temporarily disappear? If that's the case you need to do some frequency coordination. Download the demo of IAS and see if you can come up with a set of frequencies without any intermod issues. It may not be possible for you to use all of your mics. The computer may be able to find a set of frequencies, but make sure you test it in the real world.

I used Shure's frequency finder to find "stable" frequencies in my area for the AS-1000's. As for the DHT QUAD's, they come with an auto frequency finder that analyzes all of the frequencies in a group and automatically selects an "Interference free" frequency. I will definitely check out the demo though, thanks!

 

[deadlygopher]

I used Shure's frequency finder to find "stable" frequencies in my area for the AS-1000's. As for the DHT QUAD's, they come with an auto frequency finder that analyzes all of the frequencies in a group and automatically selects an "Interference free" frequency. I will definitely check out the demo though, thanks!

Just because the receiver doesn't find any traffic on a given frequency doesn't mean you won't run into intermod issues. Basically multiple wireless transmitters on different frequencies can interact to create nastiness on a third frequency. IAS and other similar tools are able to predict intermod issues between multiple wireless systems. The Shure tool is probably giving you a list of frequencies that won't have intermod issues with each other, but it doesn't tell you anything about what the DHT QUAD is doing.

This site http://www.bestaudio.com/Freq_coord.htm has some useful information about frequency coordination (mostly for really big systems though).

Good luck! RF issues suck.

 

[avkid]

Buy a cheap snake and then combine the antennas to get all the Galxay units on the paddles.

Ummm... AS-1000 are IEM systems, not microphones.

 

[Bodetacular]

Buy a cheap snake and then combine the antennas to get all the Galxay units on the paddles.

Ummm... AS-1000 are IEM systems, not microphones.

I just checked that... The units that we have aren't even on galaxy's website. They are AS-1000's; but they're made to be used with their personal monitor (kind of like a karaoke machine). The receiver is like a circuit board with controls on the front that you insert into the monitor. Apparently they put 4 of these receivers into a rack unit, distributed the antennas (from needing 8 to 2) and sold them for a short period of time until they realized that they were complete crap. So they made them into an IEM system.
As soon as I get a chance I'll put up a picture.

 

[FMEng]

Galaxy shows that model number as an in-ear monitor. I was hoping to look at a spec sheet. The problem is that low end (aka cheap) wireless systems are not designed to work with more than a few systems nearby. Eight is really pushing it and adding four more will just add to the misery.

Reputable manufacturers will specify how many systems of a given model can be used together. This specification is not the same as the number of channels. Note that Galaxy doesn't specify their products this way.

The fact that your older Shure systems are working fine says a lot doesn't it?

 

[Bodetacular]

Buy a cheap snake and then combine the antennas to get all the Galxay units on the paddles.

Ummm... AS-1000 are IEM systems, not microphones.

Also, putting them all on the paddles wouldn't solve anything. In order to get all of the systems on the paddles, it would require an antenna distributor. Each of the Galaxy system's antennas are already distributed (there are a total of 12 mics in 3 rack units. Each unit holds 4 mic receivers in which each receiver's 2 antennas are distributed so that the entire rack only requires 2 antennas). Basically, I'd be distributing the signal twice causing dropout and not to mention that I'd also be overloading the paddles with frequencies.

 

[Bodetacular]

Galaxy shows that model number as an in-ear monitor. I was hoping to look at a spec sheet. The problem is that low end (aka cheap) wireless systems are not designed to work with more than a few systems nearby. Eight is really pushing it and adding four more will just add to the misery.

Reputable manufacturers will specify how many systems of a given model can be used together. This specification is not the same as the number of channels. Note that Galaxy doesn't specify their products this way.

The fact that your older Shure systems are working fine says a lot doesn't it?

I told them to buy Shure, but they didn't listen. Now its going to cost even more to get the mics to work right. And the DHT QUAD's are on much lower frequencies than the AS-1000's. And for future reference, I would never suggest anyone to buy anything made by galaxy audio.

 

[chausman]

Basically, I'd be distributing the signal twice causing dropout and not to mention that I'd also be overloading the paddles with frequencies.

This is off topic, but is it possible to put too many frequencies on an antenna/paddle? Isn't each antenna already receiving all the frequencies it's designed to pickup, and then the receiver itself "decides" what it should be sending out? Does that make sense? I wouldn't think there is a limit, just how much the signal would be attenuated to much.

 

[derekleffew]

...And for future reference, I would never suggest anyone to buy anything made by Galaxy Audio.

FWIW, their HotSpot line of small personal monitor speakers has been an industry standard for nearly thirty-five years. It's the only product I've ever heard of from that manufacturer.

 

[museav]

I just checked that... The units that we have aren't even on galaxy's website. They are AS-1000's; but they're made to be used with their personal monitor (kind of like a karaoke machine). The receiver is like a circuit board with controls on the front that you insert into the monitor. Apparently they put 4 of these receivers into a rack unit, distributed the antennas (from needing 8 to 2) and sold them for a short period of time until they realized that they were complete crap. So they made them into an IEM system.
As soon as I get a chance I'll put up a picture.

Are you sure it is not an AS-QUAD, AS-QUAD, http://www.galaxyaudio.com/pdfs/AS-QUADcutsheet_v508.pdf and http://www.galaxyaudio.com/pdfs/AS-QUAD_Manual.pdf? That sounds like what you are describing, including using essentially the same receiver modules and transmitters used with the portable Traveler systems.

And the DHT QUAD's are on much lower frequencies than the AS-1000's.

The DHT-QUADs have 120 channels in the 655-679MHz spectrum while the AS-QUAD, assuming that is indeed what you have, has 96 channels on 640-664MHz. The AS-1000 IEM system operates on 64 channels in the 682-698MHz spectrum. So what makes you say the older systems you have operate on much higher frequencies than the 655-679MHz DHT-QUADs?

However, a potentially important aspect here is that the system having X selectable frequencies does not mean that you can use X simultaneous systems. I can't find anything that actually references using more than one of the AS-QUAD systems simultaneously, but the literature for the Galaxy HDT-QUAD with 120 selectable frequencies states that it supports a maximum of four quad units (16 transmitters) in a single use. The Shure SLX wireless system has 960 selectable frequencies yet Shure identifies a maximum of 12 compatible systems per band and a total of 20-26 compatible systems using multiple bands while the nicer ULX systems are a maximum of 20 compatible systems per band and 62 total and the less expensive PGX systems suggest a maximum of 5 simultaneous compatible systems. And those are all maximum systems without any other internal or external RF sources, real world applications would often support less than the maximum number.

Have you talked to Galaxy regarding using two of the AS quad units simultaneously, not to mention using them in conjunction with the Shures and the DHT-QUAD? I could be wring but would not be at all surprised to find out that what you have was never intended to function with that many systems operated simultaneously.

And for future reference, I would never suggest anyone to buy anything made by galaxy audio.

You might want to make sure it is not a matter of user error or poor equipment selection before placing the blame on the equipment. This seems likely to be a case of the problem being misapplication of the equipment rather than of the equipment itself.

FWIW, their HotSpot line of small personal monitor speakers has been an industry standard for nearly thirty-five years. It's the only product I've ever heard of from that manufacturer.

While the HotSpot is what they are best known for, Galaxy Audio has been offering a range of products for years. Their CheckMate SPL meters are probably second in popularity for a basic SLM only to the Radio Shack meter and I have a CRICKET polarity/continuity tester in my test kit. That being said, many of their products are 'value' products. And that could be the problem here, someone may have made a decision based on price without consideration for the actual application.

 

[FMEng]

This is off topic, but is it possible to put too many frequencies on an antenna/paddle? Isn't each antenna already receiving all the frequencies it's designed to pickup, and then the receiver itself "decides" what it should be sending out? Does that make sense? I wouldn't think there is a limit, just how much the signal would be attenuated to much.

Antennas are tuned devices. They are designed to work within a defined frequency range. You have to make sure that the channels used by your receivers fall withing the antenna's operating range. Typically, the performance falls off near to the beginning and end of the antenna frequency range.

As for splitting, (at risk of gross over simplification) when done passively (no power applied) you lose 3 dB for every doubling of the number of spigots. 3 dB isn't much loss, but I would start to think twice about a 6 dB loss.

Active splitting (power applied) eliminates the losses by using signal amplification. That isn't all good, however. The catch is there is another stage where noise is added and intermod products can be made. A poorly designed active splitter can cause as much trouble as a poorly designed receiver. A good active splitter can work well.

 

[DrPinto]

Would it make sense to have a second mixer backstage for just the wireless mics? That way your wireless receivers are right there on stage.

Just thinking out loud...

 

[chausman]

FMEng, thanks for explaining that.

Would it make sense to have a second mixer backstage for just the wireless mics? That way your wireless receivers are right there on stage.

Just thinking out loud...

For wireless, no. The band/orchestra that would be an option. For wireless Mics, you want to have control over each mic individually. For a band, you can (usually) set them and just adjust show by show with a single channel FoH, but with actors, they usually need more help. What I would do is out the band (or at least keyboards and guitars) together with a sub-mixer and run that into the main mixer only using one channel on the snake instead of possibly 5 or more. Then, put the wireless closer to the stage and run them all individually through the snake.

 

[DrPinto]

FMEng, thanks for explaining that.



For wireless, no. The band/orchestra that would be an option. For wireless Mics, you want to have control over each mic individually. For a band, you can (usually) set them and just adjust show by show with a single channel FoH, but with actors, they usually need more help. What I would do is out the band (or at least keyboards and guitars) together with a sub-mixer and run that into the main mixer only using one channel on the snake instead of possibly 5 or more. Then, put the wireless closer to the stage and run them all individually through the snake.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I would put the second mixer back stage with an operator that would be responsible for only the wireless mics. Maybe in a spot where he/she can see when the actors enter and exit the stage (or with a video monitor). The output of that board would be run to the main mixer. That way the backstage mixer operator can concentrate on mixing the wireless and turning the mics on and off at the right time while the booth operator can concentrate on how the mix sounds in the house. Just a thought.