ULX-D or other Digital Wireless for Musicals?

Hi All,

I am looking to request funding for a major upgrade to our current wireless system for musicals. My question is if anyone has experience working with Shure ULX-D or other digital wireless systems on shows requiring 20-30 transmitters?
I have experience with SLX and UHF-R systems but haven't ventured into digital wireless mics. I appreciate your thoughts,

Ryan
 
We install a lot of ULXD and QLXD into theaters, typically ~24 receivers of ULXD for a musical setup. It's a sizable investment if you go ULXD, but you can squeeze an incredible number of those transmitters into a small slice of frequency spectrum. Regardless of what happens with the 600MHz auction coming up (or whatever auctions may inevitably follow in the next 10-15 years you'd like to still be using those wireless systems for), you should safely be able to find a large enough slice of spectrum to put your microphones in so you aren't forced to replace them the next time spectrum gets reallocated.

With the often-changing spectrum, I wouldn't consider analog wireless anymore. I priced up a quote for UHF-R versus ULX-D a short while ago. Roughly same price for a dozen systems and antenna distribution, but with analog UHF-R, you need 75MHz of spectrum for 40 transmitters. With ULX-D, you can squeeze 47 transmitters into just 6MHz of spectrum in high-density mode. Also worth noting is the physical size. A dozen-system rack of UHF-R would be ~80lbs, and with ULX-D would be ~40lbs.

I highly recommend if you go ULXD, get the rechargeable batteries and the chargers. You'll save yourself a lot of time not having to change batteries or pull batteries out to charge them, and you'll save a lot of money in batteries.

Anything in particular you want to know about digital versus analog?
 
Last edited:
Thanks so much for your advice Mike! I guess if I had one other question it would be, what is the most common issue that arises with digital wireless systems? I know how to troubleshoot most analog problems at this point, but I am interested to know what to expect to pop up from a digital system like the ULX-D system.
 
Latency. Analog is instant. Digital take time. Usually this is so minimal it's imperceptible, but poor overall system design can with a large number of network hops and/or A/D (analog-to-digital) and D/A conversions can make it a problem, particularly if you're running in-ear monitors (which I assume you aren't).

My recommendation is that for this number of systems, go with something that has a digital transport such as the ULXD quads. The quads have Dante transport natively built-in, which is very convenient for the number of cables you need to worry about if you have a console with Dante functionality. If you don't, just keep in mind that more A/D and D/A conversions is bad.

An example of a poor system design would be taking the analog outputs of the receivers, spitting them analog into a signal processor I/O frame, which then has to turn the signal into Cobranet to talk to another DSP frame, and then gets translated back down to analog somewhere before hitting your console. Each conversion adds latency. Too much latency and people will become discombobulated that their voice coming out of the their mouth is noticeably delayed when it plays back into their in-ears.

The ideal design is that you either go analog straight into your console off of the receivers, or go Dante off of the receivers into your Dante network, and in as few network hops as possible, get your receivers talking to your console via Dante. More network hops may force you to turn up the latency for your Dante network.

Let's say you put 7 quads in a rack. You minimize your latency by having all 7 quads plug into a network switch dedicated for Dante, and then having your console plug into that switch. Or go from that switch on-stage to a switch near your console, and hook your console up to that. You will unnecessarily add latency into your system by connecting the Dante connection up to your first quad, then looping it through that quad into the next, and into the next, and into the next. This will transmit audio, but by the time you get to the 7th receiver, it your digital audio signal has to hop through the first 6 receivers and 1 or 2 network switches before hitting your console.

---

As for RF transmission and integrity, modern digital wireless systems have substantial improvements in reducing drop-outs and interference due to inter-modulation. If you do what Wireless Workbench tells you to when you log into your wireless receivers and perform an RF scan and frequency coordination, you should not encounter much in the way of issues. You can also actively monitor your wireless systems and see an error log of interference or RF overload (for example, if your transmitter ends up right next to your antenna or you use active antennas and turn the antenna gain up too high).

Generally when I get phone calls for non-functional wireless systems these days, it's a broken mic element, or someone turned off the receivers in addition to power sequencing the system down, and didn't realize that they then needed to flip the power switches on their receivers back on (got that call this morning).

Calls about drop-outs or interference are few and far between, both in our installed systems and when we rent equipment out.
 
With the often-changing spectrum, I wouldn't consider analog wireless anymore. I priced up a quote for UHF-R versus ULX-D a short while ago. Roughly same price for a dozen systems and antenna distribution, but with analog UHF-R, you need 75MHz of spectrum for 40 transmitters. With ULX-D, you can squeeze 47 transmitters into just 6MHz of spectrum in high-density mode. Also worth noting is the physical size. A dozen-system rack of UHF-R would be ~80lbs, and with ULX-D would be ~40lbs.?

The changes to the frequency spectrum are well known and we have plenty of time to prepare, especially if you are living in a suburban/rural area. I go with Analog just because the reliability issues are well known and interference is account for and track down when issues arise - if you have questions with the reliability of analog look no further than companies like Radioactive Wireless who are investing in better use of traditional analog technologies (RF Intercom doing nifty things with AM) as opposed to developing new digital transmission methods.

I'm not against digital RF, I just haven't had much luck with digital RF. I run 95+ channels of RF every day, the last time I tried to drive a digital rig (60 channels) it crashed and burned hard, however I have had the best experiences with dummy proof digital when I had 6-10 channels and inexperienced ops setting it up.

long story short: experienced people setting up a semi involved system should stick to analog, less experienced folk setting up basic systems may enjoy the ease and painlessness of digital.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back