Wireless Mic Software Idea

[icewolf08]

Generally, for us if there are issues with sound (or any other show critical aspect) more than just the sound crew need to be involved. Using a computer based system ties the deck crew to a display instead of paying attention to what is going on around them.

We seem to have a pretty effective system. Our FOH engineer has a clearcom beltpack attached to the wall and a handset. If he needs to talk to anyone he can literally pick up the phone, ask if he is clear, and then talk to whoever he needs to. The SM can also patch out the sound channel so that everyone else doesn't have to listen if that is better. But this works even on a one channel system, as the SM always wants to know what is going on. If the SM needs to get in touch with the engineer, a couple flashes of the call light works just fine.

Now, I know that a lot of schools, specifically high schools, don't always have enough wireless mics to put on every cast member, but that is what you have dressers and mic dressers for. By the time you finish tech, they should know what they are doing and who gets what mic. They should have run sheets that tell them this. The engineer shouldn't have to worry about weather or not someone got their mic. If there is a problem with a mic, the engineer should be able to take 10 seconds to jump on coms and say: "swap out so-and-so's mic" and then wait for the tech to say: "they are going to be in Spare 1" Even in a show where we had 300+ LX cues, there was enough time out of standbys for the sound engineer to take care of issues like that on coms.

Coms is for relaying show critical information, and sound issues are definitely show critical. I would imagine that most sound engineers don't want an extra screen to worry about, especially when you are doing a big show with lots of mics, a full orchestra and such.

 

[Hughesie]

we run two lines to all of our can points
ra and rb

both can be used seperatly but we have never had to and only have one master station
we don't need another one anyone normally

 

[j_blinker]

The new Sennheiser G2 system has recently made a an ethernet based system that sends HUD information from the reciever to a PC where level, battery, and mute information is indicated on a very user friendly screen. I completely agree that you shouldn't be wondering who's wearing which mic by the time the curtain goes up, but if that's how you run shows then learning to deal with a com phone-set is probably the most realistic solution. It's easy to make your own that you can keep in the tool case. Using an internet based IM sounds like bad idea, only because you're depending on connection to a server on the moon (or somewhere else equally unaccessible) to keep your show on it's feet. But many local network based messengers exist that would be able to do exactly what you were describing. If there's no way to plan your mic moves 2 laptops and a wireless router would make the kind of system you want possible. For those who say glancing away from the stage or listening to a com for a couple seconds is a major problem some sort of ginseng based power drink might help bring your brain up to regular operating speeds. I hate is as much as the next guy, but people keep giving me coms to do any communicating might need. If I ever find myself with mics making unplanned moves I might just steal you're very interesting idea.

 

[Hughesie]

well, our FOH rig during productions already has a rack computer operating with BSS audio's "soundweb" software
so that could used

also i looked at the g2 software and hardware, it's strange isn't. it uses infa red between the recivers and the master station, i like the shure system, it allows you to monitor the system in the way i suggested. the G2 system is good but the infa red is not so good.

i think the g2 thing is called Net 1, or something

still for all this cost i could just buy another master station....

 

[Chris15]

still for all this cost i could just buy another master station....

I'm not in the mood to completely re read the entire thread, but I'm going to assume you mean you could get another comms master station. Assuming that I've read this correctly, there are 2 separate circuits installed - ie. 2 lots of 3 pin XLR everywhere, right? You want to run 2 circuits. Simple. A master station sounds very expensive to make it happen. Now I'm not sure what this will do to call functionality, but you can get circuit 2 working by making a simple lead. Connect pins 1 & 2 but leave pin 3 unconnected. Plug one end into circuit A, the other into circuit B and voila, circuit B now has power, but there is no audio link between the two.

Option number 2 involves a separate power supply, ask if you want to know about that.

Otherwise, you could use the trick that allows telephones to work on party line and then just have one backstage & one at the desk. Can't ring though... Incorporating them into comms ain't that hard...

Hope some of that at least a] makes sense and b] is useful.

 

[Hughesie]

yeah i didn't know you could do that
we have both connected in because our master station has a ab and a+b
it might be something for us to try, the only problem with that is when the stage manger needs to talk to sound. eh im just being picky i will try that out and see how that goes

now with this not connecting the third pin thing, could i just tape the cable so that is temporary or do i have to bend/remove the third pin

and is the third pin the bottem one?

 

[Chris15]

yeah i didn't know you could do that
we have both connected in because our master station has a ab and a+b
it might be something for us to try, the only problem with that is when the stage manger needs to talk to sound. eh im just being picky i will try that out and see how that goes

now with this not connecting the third pin thing, could i just tape the cable so that is temporary or do i have to bend/remove the third pin

and is the third pin the bottem one?

Soln. for the SM. Possible, not all that hard. I'll think about how one does it best...

Pin 3 is much simpler. Don't remove it or anything. Just don't solder anything into it when you make the cable. And on 3 pin XLR, it is the bottom one.

 

[Eboy87]

Let's see, one show I worked had channel A for the SM to call cues to everyone on, while channel B was for the audio crew. On that one, I was at FOH (with the Clear-Com handset -- those things are wonderful), while my A2 was on the deck as wireless wrangler.

As far as wireless software, I know Shure has WirelessWorkbench. Supposedly, it also allows you to connect a USB RF scanner, and will select the frequencies for you. It networks with the Shure UHF recievers (or is it the UHF-R?). I personally haven't used it (yet), but I'm sure someone here has. So, in essence, there is software specifically to make the wireless wrangler's job easier. I believe Sennheiser and AKG also have their own versions.

That being said, it would be nice for the RF tech to monitor the mics via the software GUI, and be able to select a particular mic to monitor via headphones from the computer's headphone jack. I have no idea if that's been done already, but it'd make trouble shooting much easier.

 

[Chris15]

As far as wireless software, I know Shure has WirelessWorkbench. Supposedly, it also allows you to connect a USB RF scanner, and will select the frequencies for you. It networks with the Shure UHF recievers (or is it the UHF-R?). I personally haven't used it (yet), but I'm sure someone here has. So, in essence, there is software specifically to make the wireless wrangler's job easier. I believe Sennheiser and AKG also have their own versions.

That being said, it would be nice for the RF tech to monitor the mics via the software GUI, and be able to select a particular mic to monitor via headphones from the computer's headphone jack. I have no idea if that's been done already, but it'd make trouble shooting much easier.

The impression that I had was that with wireless workbench, you connected one of the receivers and it used that to do the scanning. I believe it works with the new UHF-R series and the U series, the U series needs an interface box though, the UHF-R series is natively ethernet. As far as the idea of streaming audio, I think it could be an unpleasant load on the connections. I think we'd agree that it would not b worth listening to if it had come through a parallel port, but with ethernet, it could be an option. I think that if / when we get to a point of radio mic receivers and other equipment coming with cobranet or ethersound or something on the back of them, then this could be a very feasible solution. Until that point, I'd have thought it a bit hard. If one wanted that sort of thing, I'd think it wouldn't be that hard to make up a switch panel with a headphone socket and the audio from each receiver brought to a switch, then to a mixing resistor (so you can have more than one at one) and then possibly to a small amp (depends on your signal level) and then to the headphones. Or you get really crafty and wire it into the wrangler's headset - simple two pot mixer to control the two volumes.

 

[Andy_Leviss]

Now I'm not sure what this will do to call functionality, but you can get circuit 2 working by making a simple lead. Connect pins 1 & 2 but leave pin 3 unconnected. Plug one end into circuit A, the other into circuit B and voila, circuit B now has power, but there is no audio link between the two.

This solution will leave channel B unterminated. To derive a second channel from a single-channel mainstation, you not only need to lift pin 3, but need to add a properly wired terminator to channel B.

If you want to roll your own, you can find a wiring diagram for a ClearCom terminator here.

Call lights should then work properly within each channel; ClearCom call lights use a DC voltage imposed onto the audio line (pin 3).

 

[Hughesie]

actually, i have never made my own cable or anything

any ideas for doing without creating a cable

would taping pin 3 work?

 

[Eboy87]

Chris, admittidly, I don't know much about Ethernet. From what I understand, it would be possible; think of iTunes. I know it's not that good of an example, but there, I can have it running on a desktop in my room, while another instance is running on my laptop downstairs connected via WiFi. I can play songs from my "desktop library" on my laptop over the network, even while I cruise the internet and print a paper. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years or so, we have wireless software that can allow us to monitor a specific reciever.

 

[Hughesie]

the technology is around but i reckon as others have said there is no market for it

 

[Chris15]

actually, i have never made my own cable or anything

any ideas for doing without creating a cable

would taping pin 3 work?

I'm sorry but I think the answer is that it wouldn't work. As you plug in a taped connector, it will either not go in or it'll push back the tape as it goes. Also, I'd have thought you'd in essence want a gender bender. I'm presuming that the outlets are all male or all female, can't remember which it should be at the moment. So an off the street cable wouldn't work too well...

Worst comes to worst, I might be able to make up the required cable with a terminator and post it down to you...

Chris, admittidly, I don't know much about Ethernet. From what I understand, it would be possible; think of iTunes. I know it's not that good of an example, but there, I can have it running on a desktop in my room, while another instance is running on my laptop downstairs connected via WiFi. I can play songs from my "desktop library" on my laptop over the network, even while I cruise the internet and print a paper. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years or so, we have wireless software that can allow us to monitor a specific reciever.

I never said it wasn't possible. But when you talk of iTunes and such, it's not streaming. The file is there, it's not a case of happening now. Any sort of latency in the mic case would be a right pain to deal with... Problem number 2 that I can see: Basically I'm guessing that the UHF-R in essence has a ethernet connected RS232 port or at least something conceptually similar. Data doesn't need much bandwidth or high speed but audio does. Having said that, it's probably linked into the micro in the receiver. Now I'm guessing that the micro doesn't do anything with the audio. I don't think there are micros that run fast enough and are powerful enough to cope, though I could be wrong. So it would mean that you'd need a second interface I'd think... BUT, what I would think a reasonably simple option would be to stick an output such that you daisy them all together and plug your headphones in to it. Then using the software, you click on which receiver you want to listen to. That would be reasonably simple to do - a switched line out of a micro ain't hard...

 

[Hughesie]

I'm sorry but I think the answer is that it wouldn't work. As you plug in a taped connector, it will either not go in or it'll push back the tape as it goes. Also, I'd have thought you'd in essence want a gender bender. I'm presuming that the outlets are all male or all female, can't remember which it should be at the moment. So an off the street cable wouldn't work too well...

Worst comes to worst, I might be able to make up the required cable with a terminator and post it down to you...



I never said it wasn't possible. But when you talk of iTunes and such, it's not streaming. The file is there, it's not a case of happening now. Any sort of latency in the mic case would be a right pain to deal with... Problem number 2 that I can see: Basically I'm guessing that the UHF-R in essence has a ethernet connected RS232 port or at least something conceptually similar. Data doesn't need much bandwidth or high speed but audio does. Having said that, it's probably linked into the micro in the receiver. Now I'm guessing that the micro doesn't do anything with the audio. I don't think there are micros that run fast enough and are powerful enough to cope, though I could be wrong. So it would mean that you'd need a second interface I'd think... BUT, what I would think a reasonably simple option would be to stick an output such that you daisy them all together and plug your headphones in to it. Then using the software, you click on which receiver you want to listen to. That would be reasonably simple to do - a switched line out of a micro ain't hard...

yeah chris that might have to be it

how hard is it to make a cable anyway, i might be able to do it

 

[Chris15]

yeah chris that might have to be it

how hard is it to make a cable anyway, i might be able to do it

How good is your soldering? That's what will get you... Otherwise, this sort of cable isn't that hard to make...

 

[Hughesie]

Soldering yeah, about that

i have never done it before

 

[avkid]

Soldering yeah, about that
i have never done it before:neutral:

Out of here now, we don't know you!!
What do they teach you in school down there?
But seriously, these will help:
http://www.kingbass.com/soldering101.html
http://www.epemag.wimborne.co.uk/solderfaq.htm

 

[Hughesie]

well all my sound and light experiance is, self taught

 

[ruinexplorer]

Honestly, labeling your mics and getting a good cue sheet to your A2's would solve the majority of these issues. Granted, I have worked in the AV industry and do not have an experienced technician helping me (usually just a meeting coordinator that I had to give basic instructions prior to the meeting on mic operation). At that point, I have to use my pfl and check who is talking. In most cases, you need to have control of where your mics are going, so a computer program that tells you who has what is already making you play catch-up.