Jump to content

RFVenue Diversity Fin vs. Two 'Sharkfins'


Matt Brodnick
 Share

Recommended Posts

I had them both on jobs (feeding two sets of RX) and didn't notice any diffs in practice.  One advantage to the 2-fin deal is that you can dismount one of them and move it elsewhere (than a setup with the 2 of them mounted together) to get more coverage in some situations--this helped me in the past.  The Venue dipole fin is very convenient and compact.  In practice I've been using them interchangeably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Zaxcom wireless 2 fins are the better solution. A "fin" has multiple elements so there is more consistant RF levels vs a dipole that has sharper peaks and nulls as the transmitter is moved. Never in my opinion use a dipole over a fin unless you need omni directional coverage. The fin will also do a better job getting rid of interfering signals that are not in the intended direction of your wireless transmitters.

 

Glenn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that the above review on Trewaudio suggests they might not be the best idea combined with Lectro receivers. I kind of fancied one, but I use Lectro SR.

Let's not forget that what we're talking about is not really comparing the use of 2 antennas vs. 1 antenna. Using 2 shark fin-style antennas is the norm for all wireless sets that have diversity receivers. Some people use Yagi-style antennas and a few have been known to use helical antennas. The RF Venue antenna IS 2 antennas --- 1 shark fin and 1 dipole. The obvious advantage for many of us is the simplicity of having a ONE-piece antenna vs. 2 pieces. The RF Venue represents that not so common practice of employing 2 TYPES of antennas feeding a diversity receiver. It is possible that the performance will be different when using Lectrosonics receivers compared to Zaxcom or Audio, Ltd. receivers because they each use a different type of diversity reception. Lectrosonics use what is referred to as antenna diversity and Zaxcom uses receiver diversity. I do not like the way some people refer to receiver diversity as TRUE diversity --- both methods work, obviously, and neither is truer than the other, just different. That said, I prefer receiver diversity, having had the longest experience with Audio, Ltd. and Zaxcom wireless. Someone with a lot more knowledge than I have can weigh in the relative advantages or disadvantages in terms of performance, but it is safe to say that there can be differences in the way in which the 2 methods interact with the receiving antenna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lectrosonics use what is referred to as antenna diversity and Zaxcom uses receiver diversity. I do not like the way some people refer to receiver diversity as TRUE diversity --- both methods work, obviously, and neither is truer than the other, just different. 

 

In that case, what if multiple receivers of different diversity types are being coupled together into something like an RF Multi? Will this favor a certain antennae setup? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, what if multiple receivers of different diversity types are being coupled together into something like an RF Multi? Will this favor a certain antennae setup?

No. A good RF signal is a good RF signal. The antenna differences that have been outlined here, and in other threads, still apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...