Wireless Shure ULX-D
- Thread starterChris15
- Start date
Stookeybrd
Active Member
Frequency management. I can cram a lot more mics into a lot smaller spectrum with the digital models. I believe 14 transmitters into 6Mhz, and if I am feeling dangerous I can lay one on top of an analog signal that would otherwise be no-man's-land.
Plus encryption. Super high end corporate gigs until recently wouldn't use wireless unless it was encrypted, and Lectrosonics was the only professional option. I like to see some competition in the field.
Analog RF modulation techniques always have certain non-linearities that can be avoided by digital modulation. Even the best analog RF systems have certain colorations that can be avoided in the digital realm. However, one big difference is that anything digital will add latency. The latency of the ULX-D is tiny and under most circumstances will not cause any issues at all unless adding to more latencies elsewhere in the system.
The one place I could see ANY amount of latency creating an issue is for users of in-ear monitors. Even pretty small latencies can cause comb filtering between the sound in the singer's head (via bone conduction) and that from the in-ear monitors. It can make it hard or near impossible for them to hear themselves at reasonable sound pressure levels. This could lead to sound levels being too elevated in the in-ear monitors, resulting in hearing damage without the subject being aware of it.
As more digital equipment winds up between the mic and the in-ear monitor becomes prevalent, I predict some unintended fall out. Sometimes digital has its place, and sometimes it doesn't, despite the pronouncements of the marketing folks.
The one place I could see ANY amount of latency creating an issue is for users of in-ear monitors. Even pretty small latencies can cause comb filtering between the sound in the singer's head (via bone conduction) and that from the in-ear monitors. It can make it hard or near impossible for them to hear themselves at reasonable sound pressure levels. This could lead to sound levels being too elevated in the in-ear monitors, resulting in hearing damage without the subject being aware of it.
As more digital equipment winds up between the mic and the in-ear monitor becomes prevalent, I predict some unintended fall out. Sometimes digital has its place, and sometimes it doesn't, despite the pronouncements of the marketing folks.
So the generally accepted latency budget when IEM is involved is 6 ms.
This taking away half of that, so add a digital console and you're gone - no room for digital snakes, external processing, or a digital IEM unit.
What continues to confound me is that manufacturers are rolling out systems with digital transport such as this but NOT providing a digital audio output...
Yes I know there can be SRC delays that can mean it's actually less latency to drop back into the analog world but it just seems ludicrous to be forced back to an analog output..
Alas, just my 2 cents..
This taking away half of that, so add a digital console and you're gone - no room for digital snakes, external processing, or a digital IEM unit.
What continues to confound me is that manufacturers are rolling out systems with digital transport such as this but NOT providing a digital audio output...
Yes I know there can be SRC delays that can mean it's actually less latency to drop back into the analog world but it just seems ludicrous to be forced back to an analog output..
Alas, just my 2 cents..
Similar threads
