Jack Norflus Posted May 26, 2016 Report Share Posted May 26, 2016 http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/95049/dem-gop-conventions-max-out-wireless-chs#.V0cXSl_7kRI.facebook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Feeley Posted May 26, 2016 Report Share Posted May 26, 2016 Oh geez. Well hopefully this will generate a bit more high-level discussion... #timetobuycanarestock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted May 26, 2016 Report Share Posted May 26, 2016 This is going to be more of an issue going forward, especially for special events and sports. Maybe we'll rename our profession to RF mixers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted May 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 20 hours ago, Wandering Ear said: This is going to be more of an issue going forward, especially for special events and sports. I've already experienced this at big events. When 600mhz goes away the issue is going to be compounded with the rights holder taking a majority, if not all, of the spectum space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted May 27, 2016 Report Share Posted May 27, 2016 37 minutes ago, Jack Norflus said: I've already experienced this at big events. When 600mhz goes away the issue is going to be compounded with the rights holder taking a majority, if not all, of the spectum space. Markets with a lot of broadcast stations are going to have a very hard time. I had a hard enough time the other day fitting 14 channels of intermod free wireless together around the TV stations here, I can only imagine how it's going to be once the stations are repacked and I'm limited to 2 1/2 blocks. Let alone an event with hundreds of channels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted May 29, 2016 Report Share Posted May 29, 2016 We will need lots of wires. Invisible wires. Of infinite length. That are weightless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Hall Posted May 29, 2016 Report Share Posted May 29, 2016 Here's a possible solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Q0cyJSs04 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izen Ears Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 What was the article talking about happening in four years? No UHF freqs left available for us?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted June 3, 2016 Report Share Posted June 3, 2016 For me the main take away is that unlike the 700MHz deal this situation is really chaotic and unpredictable, and will depend on a lot of factors local to specific cities (like who buys what when). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codyman Posted June 6, 2016 Report Share Posted June 6, 2016 I originally thought that all these wideband transmitters/receivers were going to be our savior in crowded RF markets like Los Angeles, but now with the news of not only the 600mhz going bye bye but also parts of the 500, I'm not sure what everyone is going to be able to do. It's just going to be a huge pray and scan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 High density digital wireless is the only viable solution at this point. The Zaxcom ZHD transmitters should be shipping soon. I'm sure the other manufacturers are working on high density solutions but this can only be accomplished in a pure digital software platform. At this point, other than Zaxcom, the only viable digital units are from SHURE and Sennhesier, and now more recently from Audio, Ltd. The offerings from SHURE and Sennheiser have been designed primarily for fixed installations, one of the reasons why Zaxcom has pretty much owned the digital wireless space for production sound for the last 10 years or more (I don't remember when I got my first digital wireless). The latest offering from SONY, the DWX series, looks promising and is a pure digital wireless. SONY doesn't yet have the receiver side worked out for our specific use --- their priority has been, of course, to integrate with their video cameras, which has not proven to be very useful for us. Any way you look at it, the situation sucks for most mixers who have had to invest heavily into wireless over the last several years because of the increasing demands placed on us in production (wiring everybody all the time, wireless booms, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codyman Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jeff Wexler said: High density digital wireless is the only viable solution at this point. The Zaxcom ZHD transmitters should be shipping soon. I'm sure the other manufacturers are working on high density solutions but this can only be accomplished in a pure digital software platform. Hopefully a dual channel slot receiver with ZHD will be coming soon too. Once they have that all figured out, it's going to be hard to beat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 The HD wireless thing may eventually be the only way to get a lot of wirelesses working, but to a small fish like me the take away for now is to wait and see exactly how this rolls out locally. If and when I need those HD wirelesses I'm sure someone will be willing to sell them to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werner Althaus Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 As far as a solution I agree that the fully digital High Density approach is the way forward. Any word on how much per channel? But I also have to wonder whether the frequency coordination should be more stringent in weighing each requestor's application. You don't need lossless, latency free audio for everything, move broadcast IFB to the specified 944MHz band, move other coms to cell phones, VOIP, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted June 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 9 hours ago, Werner Althaus said: As far as a solution I agree that the fully digital High Density approach is the way forward. Any word on how much per channel? ZHD wireless is the same price as non ZHD wireless. 9 hours ago, Werner Althaus said: But I also have to wonder whether the frequency coordination should be more stringent in weighing each requestor's application. There are a handful of guys who the frequency coordination for large events and I know several of them have been in contact with Zaxcom regarding ZHD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werner Althaus Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Jack Norflus said: There are a handful of guys who the frequency coordination for large events and I know several of them have been in contact with Zaxcom regarding ZHD. I was just imagining that a frequency coordinator gets a number of channels requested per operator. Instead of granting them until all spectrum is gone maybe it'd be better to defer granting all but the most critical channels ,mics and IFBs that need to be full fidelity, 100% reliability and real time (not every wireless com or PL needs to be in theUHF/VHF spectrum, move some of those communications to VOIP or cell phones for example. ). That way the valuable UHF spectrum would be reserved for mics and IFBs that need it. When I work with RF guys at large venues their list of frequencies usually include a lot of channels that don't need to be located in the ever shrinking UHF band. Not sure how realistic it is but shouldn't someone ask "Do you really NEED all those channels?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted June 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 28 minutes ago, Werner Althaus said: I was just imagining that a frequency coordinator gets a number of channels requested per operator. Instead of granting them until all spectrum is gone maybe it'd be better to defer granting all but the most critical channels ,mics and IFBs that need to be full fidelity, 100% reliability and real time (not every wireless com or PL needs to be in theUHF/VHF spectrum, move some of those communications to VOIP or cell phones for example. ). That way the valuable UHF spectrum would be reserved for mics and IFBs that need it. When I work with RF guys at large venues their list of frequencies usually include a lot of channels that don't need to be located in the ever shrinking UHF band. Not sure how realistic it is but shouldn't someone ask "Do you really NEED all those channels?" I absolutely agree but that would involve manufacturers building reliable products that will yield decent range in those frequencies. And it would involve the end users selling off that gear and reinvesting in new gear. Given that some shows can actually require a hundred or more channels of full fidelity wireless audio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBJersey Posted June 7, 2016 Report Share Posted June 7, 2016 I am somewhat lucky in that I live on a geographically isolated island so have been largely immune to these problems; however I am also a radio ham so well aware of the constantly rising RF noise floor. I am surprised to see high density wireless being the proposed solution to these problems when most other technologies are going in the opposite direction with spread spectrum. There is a lot of discussion in the UK at the moment for the use of the 'white space' between UHF digital TV channels with the suggestion that radios would be GPS equipped and automatically switch to the allocated channel blocks depending on their location. What I find more interesting is spread spectrum, which allows wireless devices to operate at levels well below the noise floor. Essentially one radio mic could use many 10's or 100's of Mhz of spectrum and share that same spectrum with multiple devices all in the same block. It would just be variations in modulation and clever software based decoding that allows this to work. The tech is so robust that it could cross channels already in use by TV with little ill effect. As far as I am aware, the technology for very broad spread spectrum communication is already here, it's the regulations on traditionally channelised spectrum that prevent its use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.