Wireless Spare frequency help?

sdauditorium

Active Member
Hey all, I'm hoping someone is feeling generous and can help with out calculating a few spare frequencies. We just picked up two Sennheiser IEM systems. I had spare frequencies in the A and G bands; however, we ended up with A1 band systems.

I've attached current frequencies of our 27 wireless mics, and yes, we'll be replacing the three B band systems next year. We're located in Brussels, WI 54204. Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

  • Wireless System Info-0.jpg
    Wireless System Info-0.jpg
    69.7 KB · Views: 1,511
A1 band is below the A band at 470 to 516Mhz. If the above chart is clean of inter-modulation problems, then you should be able to pop these in. My own thoughts would be to use the Sennheiser chart and look for frequencies down near the low (470) area as 500+ is a proverbial wasp nest with that many units operating.
 
I had downloaded it and as a purely self-taught, half-time auditorium director, couldn't figure out exactly what I needed to do after playing with the program and reading the manual for a while. I'm not taking the easiest way out without having tried all known options.
 
@themuzicman, I've started doing the frequency coordination for my local church and community theater (including while touring with a church production), so I'm still trying to learn as much as I can about this. Being mostly a Shure shop, I've been using Shure's WWB6.

My question is how did you do this freq coordination without knowing the brands/models of the microphones? It looks like you assumed that they were all Senn Evol G1s? Don't most mics vary in their spectral widths between brands/models?

I'm not questioning the accuracy of your results, just trying to understand your approach so that I can improve my own game!

Thanks!
 
@themuzicman, I've started doing the frequency coordination for my local church and community theater (including while touring with a church production), so I'm still trying to learn as much as I can about this. Being mostly a Shure shop, I've been using Shure's WWB6.

My question is how did you do this freq coordination without knowing the brands/models of the microphones? It looks like you assumed that they were all Senn Evol G1s?

IAS has a number of pre-made manufacturer presets built in, additionally I have created many of my own. When the original post asked for A, A1, and G range I know immediately that it's a Sennheiser pack because Shure doesn't follow that nomenclature. I also know that the A1 is only available on 300 and 500 series Evolution wireless, so I knew the rest of the wireless is most likely Evolution series as well as most folks try to buy the same series. The A band is NOT the same on the XS (XS it's 548-572) and on the 2000 series they have expanded bands that overlap their other bands and then some which is why you see Evol G1 listed for everything. G1 mics can talk to G3 mics, they are the same, and have the same companding and all that. I didn't bother going down to G3 because G1 had the bands I needed and it was first alphabetically. I didn't feel like Googling the ranges else I would have just inputed them in a generic profile.

If you look closely, you'll notice there's just a GENERIC where the A1 band stuff is, I haven't build a user defined model for them yet. If I encounter them on a gig I'll take the time to enter that (I try to enter all their frequency presets when I make them, so it gets time consuming). When you don't know the profile of a microphone, IAS can default to a generic profile.

Don't most mics vary in their spectral widths between brands/models?

This sentence is perplexing, as I don't know what you mean by spectral width. Most RF microphones have around a 200kHz bandwidth, that's my default when I coordinate. Some can go as low as 125kHz, but it really doesn't matter because the tracking filters on the input side of your RF receiver aren't going to be going that narrow. It's FM so this is a fixed bandwidth, unlike

The major difference between brands and models are in the companding circuit, not in the transmission bandwidth (when talking regular analog FM wireless, NOT hybrid digital). That's why I can take a Sennheiser G3 transmitter and tune it to a 3732 receiver and it makes the right sounds, it just sounds garbagey - evolution series and 2000 series use sennheisers "HDX" companding, and the 5000 series (including 3732/SK5212/SK5012/SK50) use their "HiDyn" companding.

This major reason is why manufacturers like Lectrosonics can make the SSM transmitter work with 3732 - normally it's an uncompanded digital microphone and fits that signal into the same bandwidth, but the hybrid circuitry has a companding emulator that emulates the HiDyn companding and lets it work with the Sennheiser stuff.

And as far as caring about transmission bandwidth - spacing between Tx, Rx, and projected intermod products are far more important than the transmission bandwidth of a given wireless microphone. When coordinating the program is looking at all possible frequency combinations and their resultant intermod products. You need to space them appropriately far away from your transmitter so things don't get stepped on.
 
Great info, thanks. Although my question may have not been very clear or precise, your answer is similar to what I was expecting (deep experience, some reasonable guesses and focus more on intermod than inter-channel interference). I've done quite of bit of work with Shure equipment, but very little with other Manufacturer's. However, I have looked at the the equipment profiles in WWB6 for some various brands/models and there seemed to be some significant variance (even between some of the analog only Shure mics - e.g. UHF vs UHF-R vs SLX vs ULX).

I haven't had an opportunity to dig much further or play what-if games to see if those variances really meaningfully impact the number of available channels in a given band, so I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. There is always something new to learn!
 
I've done quite of bit of work with Shure equipment, but very little with other Manufacturer's. However, I have looked at the the equipment profiles in WWB6 for some various brands/models and there seemed to be some significant variance (even between some of the analog only Shure mics - e.g. UHF vs UHF-R vs SLX vs ULX).

I haven't had an opportunity to dig much further or play what-if games to see if those variances really meaningfully impact the number of available channels in a given band

So I misspoke a little -- I popped open a spreadsheet of all the models IAS covers and while the vast majority default to 200kHz, there are a few that go higher and lower but not many. In particular, most IEM's had a little more (my guess is that they are accounting for possible Tx above 50mW).

On the flip side of this -- I generally only use Sennheiser for RF Mics and Shure for IEM, so I can't comment too specifically on Shure's lineup vs lineup compatibility. It wouldn't be surprising if they aren't as inner-operable as Sennheiser (my guess is American V German engineering mentality). I generally only use Shure RF Mics when the job demands Dante compatible RF systems (and the budget doesn't allow for 9000 or a smaller pack than the huge 6000/9000 series packs).

That being said, I've had a few gigs in the last few months where I was running 48 channels of Sennheiser and 24 channels of Shure (on top of RF ICom and IEM) and I coordinated them the exact same in IAS - I defaulted to as many pre-built profiles as possible, but leaned on the Generic profile for the majority of my Sennheiser stuff (i.e. Sennheiser SK50's and SK5012's only transmit 16 frequencies, and they can be set to a wide variety of possibilities by the RF techs back in the shop, so all of these get a Generic profile and I have to enter their frequency combinations by hand upon coordination). The problems I had were not the fault of the coordination, so I know at least there is some logic behind IAS's default programming combined with using generic profiles, combined with a decent brain behind the keys typing things into the program.
 
So I misspoke a little ... program.

Great info, thanks! This is still just a hobby for me, but I'm always looking to improve my understanding of the tools/technology, and these types of discussions help me understand how others (most of whom are vastly more experienced than myself) approach similar problems.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back