New TV Frequency Problems

[Aaron Becker]

I know this isn't exactly the right place to voice this opinion - but nobody should be buying wireless right now unless you're using it every day and can justify the loss within the next 3-5 years. The ever changing RF environment is so awful right now that renting really does make more sense for a lot of houses. Make sure to run the cost analysis prior to purchasing anything in the wireless realm, because it seems RF gear is depreciating faster than new cars and boats these days!

 

[FMEng]

I know this isn't exactly the right place to voice this opinion - but nobody should be buying wireless right now unless you're using it every day and can justify the loss within the next 3-5 years. The ever changing RF environment is so awful right now that renting really does make more sense for a lot of houses. Make sure to run the cost analysis prior to purchasing anything in the wireless realm, because it seems RF gear is depreciating faster than new cars and boats these days!

I don't think it's that dire. Once the repack is finished, on July 3, 2020, we should have a long period of stability. The FCC will have taken all of the TV spectrum that they can. The only way it could change is if they did away with broadcast TV entirely, and Congress isn't going to allow that for the foreseeable future.

Now, the FCC is going after C-band satellite (3.7-4.2 GHz) to hand over to the wireless gluttons. That won't affect consumers or wireless mics, but it will make life tough for commercial users.

 

[Aaron Becker]

I don't think it's that dire. Once the repack is finished, on July 3, 2020, we should have a long period of stability. The FCC will have taken all of the TV spectrum that they can. The only way it could change is if they did away with broadcast TV entirely, and Congress isn't going to allow that for the foreseeable future.

Now, the FCC is going after C-band satellite (3.7-4.2 GHz) to hand over to the wireless gluttons. That won't affect consumers or wireless mics, but it will make life tough for commercial users.

It might not *seem* that dire right now, but we've said this time and time again. We've been through this time and time again. Unless you truly have a need for wireless, it's a gross waste of money. We might be safe for a few years, and if that's the period of stability you refer to, then I agree. Beyond 2022-2023, I'd say we will have our white space chopped or restructured again. But, this is all my cynical opinions.

 

[KBToys82]

I'm in NJ in the Metro NYC area as well, and there has defiantly been a distinct change even since October. I run a 10 Sennheisers in the most in the A, and a couple in the A1, B ( Duplex Gap) and have had to retune them for the last couple of shows each time. The AT you have are less agile if i recall, those the Gen 3 stuff might tune in .025mhz increments, most that i've worked with in schools systems have Gen 2 stuff which tunes in .125mhz incrememnts and getting them to work in the tighter spectrum has been a loosing battle.

Best bet is to fiddle around with WWB (wireless workbench 6; from Shure) and see if it can work out 12 frequencies for your area.

Let us know your specific zip and some of us may be able to assist more specifically to your use case.

If you don't have proper antenna distro and placement, now (well a year ago ) would be the time to optimize everything else about the RF environment you do have control over.

Those $2k per channel ULX-D's from sure are looking better and better.

Zip is 07628.

I haven't fully tested it out, but I've been able to get 8 channels out of the 6MHz left over, with the other 4 going at the very beginning of the channels with no interference.

I just recently bought 2 Bodymics brand active antenna's which is feeding 5 different distros. Currently I have the antenna's set to -6db. Before I reconfigured the channels, I was getting antenna reception on 10 of the 12 AT units, now nothing at all when powered off. Last step to checking this out is having them all powered on stage and testing it out.

 

[mbrown3039]

So, I turned on my wireless mics a few weeks ago after not using it since March to notice that 9 of them were getting a signal when nothing was on....

Check the RF Venue website for dealers in your area and see if any of them are offering scanning services. We've begun offering them here in Vegas and haven't come across a venue yet where we didn't show them something they didn't know.

Also, chances are you're getting stepped on by the noise floor of the station's signal, not their actual signal (if you know what I mean). RF has brand-specific band pass filters available on their website that help clean that up dramatically.....good luck, m

 

[DuckJordan]

All the doom and gloom yet I still see tours coming in with racks of 20-40 wireless units all playing nicely in the sandbox.

 

[FMEng]

All the doom and gloom yet I still see tours coming in with racks of 20-40 wireless units all playing nicely in the sandbox.

Users of a large number of channels are eligible for using licensed spectrum, so they may not be squeezing all of that into a couple of 6 MHz channels. Below is a paragraph of the FCC's writing on the subject:

Wireless microphone users that are eligible for a Part 74 license historically have included broadcasters and motion picture and television program production entities. In 2014, the FCC added two new categories of eligible entities: “large venue owner or operators” and “professional sound companies”. To be eligible for a license under these new categories, an applicant must routinely use 50 or more LPAS devices (that is, uses 50 or more such devices for most events or productions), where the use of such devices is an integral part of major events or productions. See FCC 14-62.

Since Part 74 frequencies are used by broadcasters, and I'm a broadcaster, I emphasize the need for a license. We tend to hunt down sources of interference and have the FCC on speed dial.

But, it's also true that the higher up the price scale you go for wireless mics, the more spectrally efficient they become. Shure's digital systems are breaking new ground and can fit a high number of mics in 6 MHz, but you have to pay the price.

 

[RonHebbard]

All the doom and gloom yet I still see tours coming in with racks of 20-40 wireless units all playing nicely in the sandbox.

And you still see alcohol and / or drug crazed / dazed kids speeding Daddy's Audi, BMW, Tesla, et al through stop lights and stop signs or should CB take a page from ProSound's LAB? @TimMc Care to comment?
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard

 

[DuckJordan]

And you still see alcohol and / or drug crazed / dazed kids speeding Daddy's Audi, BMW, Tesla, et al through stop lights and stop signs or should CB take a page from ProSound's LAB? @TimMc Care to comment?
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard

My anecdote of still seeing large numbers of wireless is to take the doom and gloom with a grain of salt. I think a healthy conversation about the future of microphone frequency is a good thing but to not focus too hard on the re-organization of wireless spectrum.

 

[josh88]

I'm working with broadway tours each month, and see plenty of wireless coming and going and have been talking quite a bit with everybody involved. I'm not super concerned for the next chunk of time. We bought new wireless about 4 years ago and are set for awhile. If we get 10 years out of them (2026) and another auction comes up, well thats about the lifespan we projected anyway. I'd never recommend a school doing 2 shows a year buy a whole rack of wireless, but a few to run assemblies etc, wouldn't bother me at all. We use all 16 channels that we have only 4 or 5 times a year and they've more than paid for themselves already.

 

[Ben Stiegler]

So reading one of the replies and my original post, I should clarify one note.

My question about spacing was in regards to frequencies since AT already checks for intermod. If I put one unit at 560.000, what is the next lowest frequency I should use? The AT units go up by .025MHz, meaning if it wasn't an issue, I could put 3 packs at 560.000, 560.025 and 560.050MHz, but since I doubt transmitters and receivers are that fine tuned to differentiate between .025MHz, what distance would you feel comfortable with?

Its not that simple as with linear algebra, due to the nth order intermod products. But if you have to do it this way, think 200 or 400 Mhz spacing for analog, and 100Mhz for digital. 3000 series has been thru 4 generations, and earlier gens are probably lots more spectrum-hungry.

 

[TimMc]

Its not that simple as with linear algebra, due to the nth order intermod products. But if you have to do it this way, think 200 or 400 Mhz spacing for analog, and 100Mhz for digital. 3000 series has been thru 4 generations, and earlier gens are probably lots more spectrum-hungry.

Ben, are you sure you meant MHz? 400 megs is a big tuning spread...

 

[macsound]

I used to work at a hotel that had about 65,000 sqft of ballroom space that was 10-30ft underground. We used any and all wireless with nary a problem. We even had another ballroom for about 500 people that was on the other side of the street, still underground but past about 40' of cement. So we could share the same 20 frequencies in the same "building" because the ballrooms were so well insulated.

In the same hotel, all of the regular meeting rooms were along a main street 5 stories up. Those rooms were all about specific paddle orientation so we weren't shooting down the street or directly into the hotel across the street.

 

[Jay Ashworth]

We just upgraded from 18 channels of analog Shure to 16 channels of QLX-D (plus the 4 channels of analog we were allowed to keep using due to freq). We use the entire setup about 10-12 productions a year, being a rental house, so about 100 nights a year.

WWB6 got all 20 receivers assigned to safe freqs, even considering we're 10 miles from the Ruskin antenna farm and we have T-mob renting our roof.

 

[NickVon]

The QLX4 stuff from Shure seems to also be the only "consumer"/prosumer full digital UHF spectrum stuff that exists. I'm puzzled as to what is holding up Sennheiser in particular who also develops products in the 700-900$ USD price range at that class of product. Does anyone know of any other products that the QLX4 can compete with?

THE ULX4 are dynamite if you got the cash, but the QLX seems like the right price/features rich option now for all the tightened spectrum particularly in urban/metro areas.

 

[macsound]

I too am very interested in the current state of Sennheiser and AKG.
Are there patents they have to engineer around? Are they restructuring their lineup?
I have 1 of the D1s and know of 1 speechline install and while both are fine, the frequency band always makes me nervous. Also that neither of their "digital" offerings work with the desktop software, only iOS apps. And why is D1 $300 and Speechline $1200.
AKG still seems to be selling wireless that's tunable to illegal frequencies and their only digital offering is 2.4ghz.

We all use and tend to love Shure but there's nothing wrong with competition and options.

 

[Jay Ashworth]

The QLX4 stuff from Shure seems to also be the only "consumer"/prosumer full digital UHF spectrum stuff that exists. I'm puzzled as to what is holding up Sennheiser in particular who also develops products in the 700-900$ USD price range at that class of product. Does anyone know of any other products that the QLX4 can compete with?

THE ULX4 are dynamite if you got the cash, but the QLX seems like the right price/features rich option now for all the tightened spectrum particularly in urban/metro areas.

We're calling that "prosumer" now?

I assembled the 8-pc receiver rack, and have handled all the transmitters; I don't know that I'd use it on Broadway/Btour, but it seems perfectly serviceable for any use short of that to me... I think our 16 channels cost us over 30 grand, with 16 lavs and 8 handhelds, not including Twinplex mics.

 

[FMEng]

I think Shure saw the potential in sales caused by the TV repack, and invested in the research and development to create a digital system that could be used in several product lines. Doing linear digital in narrow RF bandwidths, with spectrally clean transmitters, is not simple. The number of systems that can fit into 6 MHz is impressive. It was probably a substantial financial commitment. Sennheiser just hasn't done the engineering, or they were too focused on other markets.

AKG has been bled to death by Harmon and the sale to Samsung. Their older products are great, but the recent ones are just derivative. I don't consider any Harmon companies serious players anymore, and think twice about buying their products. The last dbx product I bought died just out of warranty, and I heard similar stories from others.

If you've worked with QLX-D equipment, I doubt you'd call it prosumer. It's thoughtfully designed and well made, and competitive at its price point. I recently bought 5 systems. My second choice was Sennheiser EW100 G4. Both are nice, but I don't regret paying a little more for QLX-D.

 

[NickVon]

I guess I condsider the QLX prosumer because where it falls between the <300 stuff and hte >2000 perchannel stuff. But you're right the fact that you can easily use 16channels in a single band damn near anywhere I guess really classifies it as "baseline pro" pro gear maybe?

 

[FMEng]

I guess I condsider the QLX prosumer because where it falls between the <300 stuff and hte >200 grand perchannel stuff. But you're right the fact that you can easily use 16channels in a single band damn near anywhere I guess really classifies it as "baseline pro" pro gear maybe?

Huh? A single QLX-D system, including a transmitter, mic and receiver is just shy of $900. Perhaps you are confusing it with Shure's BLX or GLX. Either that, or we have a rather different view of what's expensive.