@Jay Ashworth Greed is apparently not only a powerful motivator but a powerful anaesthetic as well.
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.
New Mic Packs and Transmitters
- Thread starterBrenden Friedel
- Start date
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.
The airwaves are a finite resource. As such, they are a precious commodity and people that think like lawyers and financiers are going to treat them that way.
This really isn't all that different from a common stream or river in ye olde days. Everybody needs the water. If somebody upstream builds a dam or decides to use it as an open sewer then everybody downstream suffers. So the regulators step in and try to set up rules for sharing. Eventually somebody invents the waterwheel and wants to commercialize the use of the stream so the laws get tweaked to make that a possibility. Then somebody decides there's money to be made moving cargo up and down the river and they start making money off of it. The lawmakers want in on the deal so they tweak the laws and add new taxes. They learn eventually that all that commerce on the stream is hurting the original users so the EPA gets created and figures out more stringent ways to share.
Right now we're in the bottled water phase of commercialization of the airwaves thanks to smart phones and an ever-increasing desire to stream cat videos. All the little users that just wanted to drop a line in their favourite fishing hole are being moved to a reservation. But now I'm mixing metaphors. The point is, history has a way of repeating itself.
This really isn't all that different from a common stream or river in ye olde days. Everybody needs the water. If somebody upstream builds a dam or decides to use it as an open sewer then everybody downstream suffers. So the regulators step in and try to set up rules for sharing. Eventually somebody invents the waterwheel and wants to commercialize the use of the stream so the laws get tweaked to make that a possibility. Then somebody decides there's money to be made moving cargo up and down the river and they start making money off of it. The lawmakers want in on the deal so they tweak the laws and add new taxes. They learn eventually that all that commerce on the stream is hurting the original users so the EPA gets created and figures out more stringent ways to share.
Right now we're in the bottled water phase of commercialization of the airwaves thanks to smart phones and an ever-increasing desire to stream cat videos. All the little users that just wanted to drop a line in their favourite fishing hole are being moved to a reservation. But now I'm mixing metaphors. The point is, history has a way of repeating itself.
Well, we're still using Senny Gen I stuff so we've gotten our money back out of it and all our purchases had been in mostly in B band so now we're replacing it. We were lucky we didn't buy into the C band but that was more serendipity than planning.
By "autonomous" I mean that an agency can't simply wake up and decide to do something new or different from what was authorized. Sometimes Congress is broad in their authorizing language and sometimes it is very specific, so YMMV. In this case, both Congress and the FCC were informed that these TV band changes would create havoc with our uses and both considered the use so minor (monetarily) as to be mostly inconsequential to the desired outcome (more money for the Treasury and to service providers). The FCC has proved to be a bit more sympathetic (the new Part 74 rules that allow large uses, regardless of production of TV, movies, etc to apply for protective licensing) but still must provide maximum financial return to the Treasury within the scope of the laws.
I work with a number of regulatory agencies, providing audio services for streaming and archiving of public hearings on regulations. It's not quite the way the process is presumed to be, at least with the agencies I directly serve. Some are probably worse...
To review, any wireless mic transmitter that is capable of tuning in the 600 MHz band will be illegal to operate at all after July, 2020. Such equipment either has to be modified by the manufacturer, or retired. If you have wireless mics that cannot tune in the 600 MHz band, you can use them legally for the foreseeable future. In the coming months, I would expect the manufacturers to publish lists of the affected models.
On the bright side, at this rate wireless users can only get screwed once more before it's not gonna matter. Won't be any spectrum left to continue the 7-year full-system replacement cycle with.
JD
Well-Known Member
Still have a bunch of G1 Sennheiser, good stuff! What I still use is in the A band, so for now it's safe. But, having any wireless equipment is like a game of doge-ball. You never know when the FCC is going to start throwing that ball again. "Cramming" is now the problem as more and more equipment runs in a smaller and smaller space. I only wish there would be a solid set-aside band so that you didn't have to worry about buying new equipment. Not going to happen as the "free" usage market has no lobby to stand up for them. Even the manufacturers (I believe) secretly smile, knowing that when users get chased out of a band, sales increase! So, here is my "more realistic" dream, based on the manufacturers doing the right thing: Separate the RF module so that it can be changed out by the user when the rules change and offer new modules at a reasonable price. Buying a new mic & receiver is a $600+ expense. When that mic gets banned, getting a $50 or $100 trade in doesn't cut it. I would rather buy an upgrade module for $75 and keep using it.Well, we're still using Senny Gen I stuff so we've gotten our money back out of it and all our purchases had been in mostly in B band so now we're replacing it. We were lucky we didn't buy into the C band but that was more serendipity than planning.
By "autonomous" I mean that an agency can't simply wake up and decide to do something new or different from what was authorized. Sometimes Congress is broad in their authorizing language and sometimes it is very specific, so YMMV. In this case, both Congress and the FCC were informed that these TV band changes would create havoc with our uses and both considered the use so minor (monetarily) as to be mostly inconsequential to the desired outcome (more money for the Treasury and to service providers). The FCC has proved to be a bit more sympathetic (the new Part 74 rules that allow large uses, regardless of production of TV, movies, etc to apply for protective licensing) but still must provide maximum financial return to the Treasury within the scope of the laws.
I work with a number of regulatory agencies, providing audio services for streaming and archiving of public hearings on regulations. It's not quite the way the process is presumed to be, at least with the agencies I directly serve. Some are probably worse...
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
Well, they can't do first-adjacent in TV, can they? What happened to white-space radios?
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
Virtual channels aren't really pertinent here.
The question is "can they put transmitters in the same market on channels 16, 17, 18, and 19 without interference?"
The question is "can they put transmitters in the same market on channels 16, 17, 18, and 19 without interference?"
That was answered in my first sentence. The short answer is yes they can. The reason I mentioned virtual channels is that their use is why most people have no idea what RF channels are being used in their area. They think they do but, most of the time, they are wrong.
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
Gotcha.
I was not aware that ATSC tolerated sequential channels (a slightly worse thing than "first-adjacent", which was what I said, and which means "Tampa is on 14, and Orlando is on 15") at all... how did they test that?
I was not aware that ATSC tolerated sequential channels (a slightly worse thing than "first-adjacent", which was what I said, and which means "Tampa is on 14, and Orlando is on 15") at all... how did they test that?
White space "TV Band Devices" are still a thing. I read elsewhere that CMU has applied for a testing permit for a number of relatively high RF output devices, in multiple geographic areas.
Silicon_Knight
Active Member
That would be nice, but I've never seen it. It feels like you quickly gather a collection of SM58 heads for the HHs and the WL185 mics for the lapels (since they all come with new ones attached). Best advice is to eBay any extra parts - there are still a lot of people willing to purchase the 600MHz equipment (for use outside the US? or they just don't care about the FCC?)
Actually, the lav packs ordered without a receiver DON'T come with a mic.
I don't find that I have too many WL185- they do wear out over a few years with heavy use. Capsules on the handhelds though, I think I've only ever had to replace once (excluding screens and foams).
I don't find that I have too many WL185- they do wear out over a few years with heavy use. Capsules on the handhelds though, I think I've only ever had to replace once (excluding screens and foams).
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
Well, with the creeping popularity of the mic drop -- does *your* rental book say that all microphone damage will be paid for by the renter at retail price? -- maybe there *aren't* too many 58 capsules.
Not that a 58 takes a lot of damage falling 5 ft to a stage floor anyway...
Not that a 58 takes a lot of damage falling 5 ft to a stage floor anyway...
Brenden Friedel
Active Member
Could you message me?
Silicon_Knight
Active Member
We are a Shure shop, and we'll be replacing a group of our existing analog ULX mics in the M1 band (600MHz) with something new - I'm currently leaning toward the QLX-D as being the next best replacement. The ULX-D might seem like a logical choice based on the model number, but it seems a bit of an overkill for what we need, and the Quad receivers are an interesting idea - just too pricey for the churches and community theaters with which I'm working.
Similar threads
