franky03 Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Dear wise JWers, Can someone please explain if there is a noticeable difference in range when using 216mhz vs 682mhz? Im guessing the higher the better... but thats the theory.. I did do some reading: http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/site/af9d127e26abf498/ But if anyone can chime in I would appreciate... Im looking into alternatives to the Comtek system (I like them and usually rent them... but $$$). Pretty much every other manufacturer offers 10mw transmitters over varying frequencies and 300' feet range line of sight... but there must be differences in "real life" scenarios (I know, I know, you get what you pay for). Still, these look interesting, stylish and possibly a replaceable longer antenna for the tx (sorry for the b&h link): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/492031-REG/Anchor_Audio_TOUR_60_TOUR_60_6_User_Wireless.html Now 682-698mhz are in the tv channels here in Canada but this system has some flexibility and using the Shure frequency finder it would seem i would be ok Uncharted territory I know... Good value? Or too much trouble? Thanks, Franky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 " Im guessing the higher the better... but thats the theory.. " it depends... " Uncharted territory I know.. " not really... even HAM's have been using these frequency bands for many, many years... " 10mw transmitters over varying frequencies and 300' feet range line of sight.. " YMMV " differences in "real life" scenarios " thus: YMMV " using the Shure frequency finder it would seem i would be ok " there are lots of variables besides TV broadcasters that can affect interference results... Anchor makes fine, quality products, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 The lower the frequency the better the range, typically. 10mW is not a lot, but offers good range with very clear line of sight. I'd be reluctant to use 10mW in 600 range or 216 range. You get what you pay for, and if they don't work well, they'll notice and it will reflect poorly on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 " 10mW is not a lot, but offers good range with very clear line of sight. " 10mw is radio mic standard in Japan, where radio mic's, and tour guide systems, are very popular... The Anchor products have been designed for a purpose (and in USA, that freq/power is allowed for that purpose!) Their tour guide sy6stems are popular, rugged, and quite reliable for their intended purpose. there are different propagation characteristics (advantages/disadvantages) for different frequencies (or frequency ranges), and a lot of "it depends" is involved... as always, a very major factor is antennae (sic). power, not so much... As an Amateur Radio operator (HAM) I have been able to work significant distances with less than one watt of power on frequencies like 144 mHz, 220 mHz, and 450 mHz, when at least one of the antennae (sic) were well positioned (repeater, up high). and inter-state, even inter-continental on 28 mHz, 21mHz, and even 14 mHz when atmospheric conditions (including sunspots!) were right, even though I couldn't work someone across town! and mostly, I could multiply my power (Linear amp) many times over, with no noticeable difference at the other end. " You get what you pay for, and if they don't work well, they'll notice and it will reflect poorly on you. " OTOH, if the client is not willing to pay properly for them...maybe they also get what they pay for..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 OTOH, if the client is not willing to pay properly for them...maybe they also get what they pay for..? Touché Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franky03 Posted September 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 The lower the frequency the better the range, typically. 10mW is not a lot, but offers good range with very clear line of sight. I'd be reluctant to use 10mW in 600 range or 216 range. You get what you pay for, and if they don't work well, they'll notice and it will reflect poorly on you. The comtek 216 system as far as i know is the most widely used on sets... And it is 10mw... What are you using? Franky The lower the frequency the better the range, typically. 10mW is not a lot, but offers good range with very clear line of sight. I'd be reluctant to use 10mW in 600 range or 216 range. You get what you pay for, and if they don't work well, they'll notice and it will reflect poorly on you. The comtek 216 system as far as i know is the most widely used on sets... And it is 10mw... What are you using? Franky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 The portable unit is 10mW - and if you're close to set and the listeners are too, then it's great. I own one. But for cart work on "bigger" stuff where you might not be so close, and where clients and your crew can be spread far around, I'd think most people are using basestations with higher outputs. Robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek H Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Unless you use a base station which is capable of 100mW or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Mills Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 The portable unit is 10mW - and if you're close to set and the listeners are too, then it's great. I own one. But for cart work on "bigger" stuff where you might not be so close, and where clients and your crew can be spread far around, I'd think most people are using basestations with higher outputs. Robert +1 my BST units are 50mw, and I can remote the antennae for better range. My main concern on the anchor system is the permanent antennae on tx unit.. do they make a Base Station at higher wattage? if so..then some shoots may see these.. though I have no idea where to rent the inevitable extras I might need.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franky03 Posted September 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 The antenna is removable. They do make 100mw base tx. Good point about the extras... Specific question: which group of frequencies go trhu walls better? My old comtek 72 arent very good at that... Franky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 " Specific question: which group of frequencies go trhu walls better? " UHF, generally... warning: unreasonable expectations ahead.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franky03 Posted September 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Thanks Senator No unreasonable expectations here. I mostly do bag stuff and this summer half my shoots were in a typical suburban house. My 72s are so so in that scenario so i usually rent 216 and they do better... Hence my question... A nice thing about the Anchor audio tx is the replaceable antenna, is going to a longer (I guess1/2 wave) antenna a good idea? Franky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 " is going to a longer (I guess1/2 wave) antenna a good idea? " better placement is a better idea... and someone's expectations seem a bit close to unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franky03 Posted September 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 To get slightly better results going from 216 to 682 is unreasonable? To get slightly better results going from 1/4 wave to 1/2 wave is unreasonable? Hmmm, maybe i should ask the actors to shout instead so that the director/script/clients hear them! Lol Franky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 " To get slightly better results going from 216 to 682 is unreasonable? To get slightly better results going from 1/4 wave to 1/2 wave is unreasonable? " it depends, and it depends... I'm thinking the expectations of perfect coverage (reception) throughout and outside a "typical suburban house" without proper budget, adequate planning and, especially, good antennae and placements may be unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) this caught my eye today as I was still thinking about power, frequency bands, and antennae (sic): we are still clearly receiving (VHF) signals from 2 x Voyager satellites out in deep, and interstellar space... thats about 12 billion miles (19 billion kilometers) and about 9.5 billion miles (15 billion kilometers) from our sun, transmitting with about 22 watts of power (think refrigerator light bulb) and By the time the signals get to Earth, they are a fraction of a billion-billionth of a watt. Data from Voyager 1's instruments are transmitted to Earth typically at 160 bits per second, and captured by 34- and 70-meter NASA Deep Space Network (DSN) stations. Traveling at the speed of light, a signal from Voyager 1 takes about 17 hours to travel to Earth. http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/september/nasa-spacecraft-embarks-on-historic-journey-into-interstellar-space/#.UjIpqX8k7gU it is all about the antenna... it takes more than 17 hours for 22-watt radio signals, moving at 186,000 miles per second, to cross the vast distance between the spacecraft and the giant antennas on Earth that are needed to collect the data. in fact, " Using NASA's Deep Space Network, JPL continually tracks Voyager and calculates its position on the sky, which is known as the ephemeris. Since the VLBA has the highest resolution, or ability to see fine detail, of any full-time astronomical instrument, NRAO astronomers believed they could locate Voyager's ephemeris position with unprecedented precision. This is unrelated to Voyager's distance from the Sun or position relative to the heliosphere. The initial observations, which were made on February 21, placed Voyager very near, but not precisely at its predicted location. The difference was a few tenths of an arcsecond. An arcsecond is the apparent size of a penny as seen from 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) away. The second observations on June 1 produced similar results. "It is possible that these observations are at the milliarcsecond [one-thousandth of an arcsecond] level, or better," said NRAO scientist Walter Brisken, who led the observations with the VLBA. At 11.5 billion miles -- Voyager's approximate distance at the time of the initial observations -- one milliarcsecond would be roughly 50 miles across. Voyager's main transmitter shines at a feeble 22 watts, which is comparable to a car-mounted police radio... In a remarkably sensitive complementary observation, the NRAO's Green Bank Telescope (GBT), which is the world's largest fully steerable radio telescope, easily detected Voyager's signal, picking it out from the background radio noise in less than one second.... The 100-meter GBT is located in the National Radio Quiet Zone and the West Virginia Radio Astronomy Zone, which protect the incredibly sensitive telescope from unwanted radio interference. " http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2013/voyager/ even so, notice interference is still a factor! Edited September 12, 2013 by studiomprd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franky03 Posted September 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Interesting :-) Reading this, i coulndt help but think that you are the Sheldon Cooper of this forum Franky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Mills Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 so.. no problem! just get yourself some dish antennae for each client.. I am thinking they'd make nifty hats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwstudios Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 The major issue with UHF frequencies are high coax losses with a remote antennas. Not a problem when antennas are directly attached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 13, 2013 Report Share Posted September 13, 2013 Coax losses are " Not a problem when antennas are directly attached. " that is technically correct... but there are other problems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traut Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 My understanding is that, all other things being equal, lower frequency = greater range. I am very pleased with the performance of my BST 216 with Phase Right antenna. I rarely need to remote it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franky03 Posted September 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Today I tested briefly the Williams Sound 2.4ghz Digi-Wave Tour guide system (sorry for the b&h link): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/745321-REG/Williams_Sound_DWS_TGS_10_DWS_TGS_10_Digi_Wave.html The tx and rx are pretty slick and very small Although the rx have no antennae, the range was nice, about the same as my Comtek 72 if not a little better. The sound is ok, not great (slightly muffled, the specs state 150hz-11khz), not good enough for a scratch track. The biggest downside I found was the latency. Its not that big (I would say about 5ms) but I found it distracting when you are near the original source and can hear both. Not sure I can live with that. All in all an informative test, and a free one at that I still think the Anchor Audio would be better for me (especially since they also have a base station to provide wider range)... but to test those I have to buy them, arghhh... Franky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 " 150hz-11khz, not good enough for a scratch track. " why not ? especially for dialog... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franky03 Posted September 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 You're right Senator... they would definitely know it is a scratch track! But specs aside (they dont tell the whole story) I would describe the sound of this device as boomy and muffled... especially compared to the G3 I was running at the same time... Franky 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.