Galaxy DHT-QUAD

lparks1

Member
Hey Everyone.
Quick Question. We are looking to purchase a 16-channel wireless systems for our theatre company producing 5-6 shows per year.

I know Galaxy Audio does not have, say, the same "brand name" as Sennheiser or Shure -- but We can outfit a pretty well-to-do 16 channel system with Galaxy's DHT-QUAD. I did a check through the IAS software and getting 8 channels in band D & L should not be a problem.

Question I have now is: Does anyone know the sound quality of the DHT-QUAD? Are they prone to bad behavior (drop outs, etc)?

With this system, we would use the antenna distro box and paddles -- rather than the built in antenna.

I know they may not last as long as a more expensive system -- but would they work?
 
Hey Everyone.
Quick Question. We are looking to purchase a 16-channel wireless systems for our theatre company producing 5-6 shows per year.

I know Galaxy Audio does not have, say, the same "brand name" as Sennheiser or Shure -- but We can outfit a pretty well-to-do 16 channel system with Galaxy's DHT-QUAD. I did a check through the IAS software and getting 8 channels in band D & L should not be a problem.

Question I have now is: Does anyone know the sound quality of the DHT-QUAD? Are they prone to bad behavior (drop outs, etc)?

With this system, we would use the antenna distro box and paddles -- rather than the built in antenna.

I know they may not last as long as a more expensive system -- but would they work?

The real question is whether that product is capable of 16 systems operating together. Most reputable manufacturers specify how many systems will operate together, but Galaxy does not. The lack of spec is troubling. It is not a matter of how many channels (frequencies) can be tuned by the receiver. Rather, it is how selective the receiver is, and how prone it is to intermodulation products.

Generally speaking, 16 channels is very hard to do in the less expensive products. The reason is that improving selectivity in a receiver is labor intensive and expensive. It's hard enough to do with top of the line receivers.

At the very least, contact Galaxy directly and find out if they guarantee the product can do 16 simultaneous systems. Better yet, focus on a product that specifies the capability, and you likely will need a bigger budget. Otherwise, you might very dissappointed in the results. With wireless mic systems, there is no such thing as a bargain.
 
Thanks for the reply. I actually did call them about this, and they told me that it was certainly possible to do 16 channels, and I also found a PDF online from Galaxy that shows a sample 16 channel system exactly as I wanted to set this one up:
http://www.galaxyaudio.com/pdf/DHT-QUAD_Manual.pdf

It also says this: The group and channel system provides an
optimum frequency spread when using multiple receiver/transmitter systems. Up to
4 DHT-QUAD units, providing up to 16 individual receiver/transmitter sets, may be
used in a single installation.

ALSO, since they have 2 bands - I thought we could run 8 in each band and even increase our chances. From what I can tell, when they say "120 channels" they are referring to already spaced channels in groups - so each of those 120 are spaced at least 1Mhz apart, etc. At least, that's the way the frequency chart here (even though it's not for the same system): http://www.galaxyaudio.com/pdf/AS-1000Manual.pdf
 
Last edited:
If that "120 channels a meg apart" is even for a two-bandsplit system, I'd be really skeptical. A 60-meg-wide front end on the receivers is just asking for trouble.

If I were to recommend wireless for a theatre right now, here's what I'd push (this is from an engineering/operating standpoint; I don't sell anything) -- Sennheiser EW100G3 radios in an appropriate bandsplit for the location, MKE2 capsules, antenna splitters and directional antennas.

In addition to the RF problems of cheaping out on wireless, a big thing for me is mechanics. If the transmitter pack takes a fall, I don't want it to break.
 
If that "120 channels a meg apart" is even for a two-bandsplit system, I'd be really skeptical. A 60-meg-wide front end on the receivers is just asking for trouble.
There are two band-splits for the DHT-QUAD: D, which is 584MHz - 607MHz and L, which is 655MHz - 679MHz. That is roughly 23MHz front-end for both systems - about the same as the Sennheiser G3's -- so in terms of channels, they both should be somewhat similar in the amount of channels that can be ran.

Basically, I love the G3's -- but a good G3 system with 16 channels is at least $12,000. We can do the Galaxy for a little over $7,000. Like I say -- I understand that they may not be as well built or rugged as the more expensive units, I just wonder what the sound quality is like? I have no experience with Galaxy Audio wireless products.
 
There are two band-splits for the DHT-QUAD: D, which is 584MHz - 607MHz and L, which is 655MHz - 679MHz. That is roughly 23MHz front-end for both systems - about the same as the Sennheiser G3's -- so in terms of channels, they both should be somewhat similar in the amount of channels that can be ran.

Basically, I love the G3's -- but a good G3 system with 16 channels is at least $12,000. We can do the Galaxy for a little over $7,000. Like I say -- I understand that they may not be as well built or rugged as the more expensive units, I just wonder what the sound quality is like? I have no experience with Galaxy Audio wireless products.

I have never used the Galaxy wireless mics but I used to have one of their IEM units. I would describe the performance as inconsistent and the sound quality as sort of hollow and generally unpleasing compared to wired or a better quality wireless system. I replaced it with a Sennheiser 300 IEM system and have never looked back. The difference is night and day. While Galaxy is a major step up from something like Nady, it is nowhere near on par with Sennheiser, Shure, Audio-Technica or even the mid-high level MiPro.
 
I would not recommend the Galaxy especially in attempting to run 16 channels. You could look at renting a system when you need it

7k is still alot of money, and if you buy it and then dump it you are going to wind up spending a lot more money.

you could keep checking some of the used sites and see if someone is upgrading and you can get a deal on a quality used system

Sharyn
 
Personally, I'd steer clear of the Galaxy units. Their lack of comprehensive RF specifications is troublesome to me, though my gut tells me the system will probably "work" regardless. The real question is how well. Not having used them it is hard to say for sure.

Why not just save your pennies for the real deal, so you don't have to re-buy your gear in two years?
 
How about the AT systems? I found that the 3000 series is fairly cheap (really not much more than the Galaxy units). It seems we should be able to get 16 channels in their 3 available bands.

It seems that we should be able to tether up to 16 units together with 1 set of antenna's by following the chart I created below. Basically, linking Antenna > 4 channel distro > 4 x 4 channels distro's > 16 receivers. Problem is, I don't know if that will result in too much of a lose of signal or not...

Attached is a chart showing somewhat how this might work. Grey are antenna, black are the ATW-DA49 distro the yellow are the receivers. Thoughts?

34r.jpg

With this system we could also only purchase receivers as needed and build the system over time with minor adjustments.
 
Last edited:
How about the AT systems? I found that the 3000 series is fairly cheap (really not much more than the Galaxy units). It seems we should be able to get 16 channels in their 3 available bands.

It seems that we should be able to tether up to 16 units together with 1 set of antenna's by following the chart I created below. Basically, linking Antenna > 4 channel distro > 4 x 4 channels distro's > 16 receivers. Problem is, I don't know if that will result in too much of a lose of signal or not...

Attached is a chart showing somewhat how this might work. Grey are antenna, black are the ATW-DA49 distro the yellow are the receivers. Thoughts?

View attachment 4573

With this system we could also only purchase receivers as needed and build the system over time with minor adjustments.

If I remember right, the antenna distros from AT and Shure both are designed to amplify the signal so that you could do exactly that.
 
It might also be better and cleaner to run 8 in D and 8 in C band and use the AEW-DA660D splitter. It seems to have a much cleaner "pass-through" - only needing 4 to run all 16 receivers and cleaner cabling. I dunno... :neutral: Is there an advantage to the AEW-DA660D?

Also just found this. Apparently, there new 3000b series has many frequency selections:
Band C 541.500 – 566.375 MHz 996
Band D 655.500 – 680.375 MHz 996
Band E 795.500 – 820.000 MHz 981
Band F 840.125 – 864.900 MHz 953
Band G 721.500 – 746.375 MHz 996

Band I 482.000 – 507.000 MHz 1001
Band U 606.000 – 631.000 MHz 1001 (cannot seem to find any places to buy these in the U band)

One thing I'm not understanding. AT's frequency finder tool seems off. If I enter 47403 for zip is says 6 channels in band D are available and if I enter 47401 is says none in band D. both zip codes are for the same city (Bloomington).
 
Last edited:
It might also be better and cleaner to run 8 in D and 8 in C band and use the AEW-DA660D splitter. It seems to have a much cleaner "pass-through" - only needing 4 to run all 16 receivers and cleaner cabling. I dunno... :neutral: Is there an advantage to the AEW-DA660D?

Also just found this. Apparently, there new 3000b series has many frequency selections:
Band C 541.500 – 566.375 MHz 996
Band D 655.500 – 680.375 MHz 996
Band E 795.500 – 820.000 MHz 981
Band F 840.125 – 864.900 MHz 953
Band G 721.500 – 746.375 MHz 996

Band I 482.000 – 507.000 MHz 1001
Band U 606.000 – 631.000 MHz 1001 (cannot seem to find any places to buy these in the U band)

One thing I'm not understanding. AT's frequency finder tool seems off. If I enter 47403 for zip is says 6 channels in band D are available and if I enter 47401 is says none in band D. both zip codes are for the same city (Bloomington).

If it's like Sennheiser's tool, it doesn't just have a regional lookup table of usable frequencies; it converts the given location (zip code) to lat/lon coordinates and does interference calculations at that exact location based on data from the FCC database. In your case, my guess is zipcode 47401 is closer to an interfering transmitter site, even just close enough to raise the level perhaps 1 dB over the maximum interference threshold.
 
If it's like Sennheiser's tool, it doesn't just have a regional lookup table of usable frequencies; it converts the given location (zip code) to lat/lon coordinates and does interference calculations at that exact location based on data from the FCC database. In your case, my guess is zipcode 47401 is closer to an interfering transmitter site, even just close enough to raise the level perhaps 1 dB over the maximum interference threshold.

I could be wrong, but I doubt that the sites actually figure out the signal strengths at your location, but rather take a best guess at it. That kind of calculation is pretty resource intensive and requires the use of topographical map data. Better to use TV Fool to figure out the signal strength at your exact location. See the FAQ/my site. :)
 
I could be wrong, but I doubt that the sites actually figure out the signal strengths at your location, but rather take a best guess at it. That kind of calculation is pretty resource intensive and requires the use of topographical map data. Better to use TV Fool to figure out the signal strength at your exact location. See the FAQ/my site. :)

Well, best guess is what I meant. My point was that, whatever calculation it is, it's location-dependent, or really polar-distance-dependent (something like txpower * azimuthgain / lineardistance^2), something along those lines. Whether I run the calculation in zipcode A or zipcode E in my city gives different results because the distances and az angles are different.

Even here in Dallas, that's usually close enough.
 
Well, best guess is what I meant. My point was that, whatever calculation it is, it's location-dependent, or really polar-distance-dependent (something like txpower * azimuthgain / lineardistance^2), something along those lines. Whether I run the calculation in zipcode A or zipcode E in my city gives different results because the distances and az angles are different.

Even here in Dallas, that's usually close enough.

Gotcha, makes sense. I suppose that would work for the majority of the country, though not so much here in SW Virginia...the mountains make radio, ahem, interesting.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back