Members Zeromus-X Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Random musing, but I was thinking about this the other day at a show. With the prevalence of inexpensive, good-quality powered speakers, it doesn't seem like it'd take much of a budget increase to have a transmitter which plugged into the mains output of your mixer, and a receiver built into a powered subwoofer. Both devices are already powered (or very close to power), so batteries wouldn't be an issue, and a dual-band wireless system is nearly as reliable as a big fat cable for people to trip over. You could further this idea by placing a transmitter in the sub and a receiver in the top, and it'd give people an incentive to buy tops and subs from the same manufacturer. Powered speakers already have a power connection running to them. It seems like it'd be easy enough for a manufacturer to offer a "linkable" package -- say, their subwoofer has a wireless transmitter and their tops have a wireless receiver, for example. This would encourage people to buy the same brand of tops and subs, would simplify cabling, and the power is already there, so there'd be no batteries to worry about. Likewise, continuing on that point, adding wireless snake functionality couldn't be that far behind. A snake box with an encrypted wireless dual-band transmitter would need to be plugged into the wall to operate, but it'd completely eliminate the need for a hundred feet of snake. This would be something for the small venue market due to the reliability of wireless over long distances, but it can't be an expensive thing to add to an already digital format, such as the StudioLive. It just seems like, as advanced as wireless networks are nowadays, it's completely wrong to be running hundreds of feet of cable between devices for audio reproduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pro1-54 Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Probably doable, won't sound as good as wired, and is an FCC nightmare.My opinion. I have used a Shure PSM 700 to run a PA stack that was 500 ft away - dragon boat race start line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Axisplayer Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 After the last five years of trying to keep nine wireless units working from zip code to zip code without issue, I wouldn't begin to trust FOH to wireless. I am happy to have Cat 6 for FOH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zeromus-X Posted August 17, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 "Won't sound as good as wired"? I don't buy that one. If the board is digital and processing the audio anyway, it's easy enough to send a digital signal wirelessly to the module in the speaker (or from the snake). AD/DA converters are in everything nowadays and cost just about nothing. As far as the FCC, again, it's a wireless digital signal only capable of short-range transmission. If I can set up a wireless router in my house, I don't see why I can't set up a mixer with a wireless router integrated into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reson8tor Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Wireless is still pretty iffy for a mission-critical role like that. "Freespace" optical transmission (line of sight, optical laser) could be a better way to go. It has the potential to be much more reliable, more secure, and the only thing you'd have to worry about would be things like rain or fog that would probably shut down the performance anyway (well, you'd have to be careful about pyros and smoke effects). Check out this QSC white paper (PDF, 2mb): http://www.qscaudio.com/tsg/faqs/freespaceoptics.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zeromus-X Posted August 17, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 You're still thinking big. I'm thinking small to medium bars and clubs, indoor venues with less than 50'-100' line of sight from FOH to the speakers themselves. A Peavey mixer with a dedicated "Channel Link" feature with 10 selectable channels, and the same "Channel Link" function on their tops and subs, would be simple to create, and would ensure that a user who purchases that Peavey mixer would likely think strongly about going with the same line of Peavey tops, subs, monitors, and snake box. (Obviously an "industry standard" for this would be even better, but let's face it, that won't happen in our lifetimes.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members karlw Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Disclaimer: the link below points to a thread on another forum, where one of my company's products is discussed. I only point to it because A) it's relevant to this discussion, and B) it's a review by a third party, in an application related to what the OP is asking. http://www.soundforums.net/live/threads/1915-Lectrosonics-D4-System Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zeromus-X Posted August 17, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 That's basically the direction I'm going, but it's a $4,000 wireless solution. That's more than the cost of many small sound rigs. Look at the StudioLive and its iPad control. It requires a computer connected via Firewire, and a standard $30 wireless router. Using this setup, you can control all the settings on the StudioLive directly, from anywhere within range of the router. The limiting factor here is that the router doesn't connect directly to the StudioLive. Slap an ethernet jack, or a wireless antenna, on the back of that StudioLive, and have it transmit the mixed audio from the output channel. Stick a wireless antenna at the speaker end which receives it, powered by the internal amplifier so there's not batteries or external power involved. There should be no latency (or virtually no latency -- definitely not anything we'd perceive). The only thing the speakers would need to do would be a digital > analog conversion, since the mixer is sending out a digital signal. Why does this cost $4,000 for an audio solution when I can outfit my entire house with a streaming audio network for less than a hundred bucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members karlw Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Here's another relevant thread, this one about wireless network control at large events: http://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,4212.0/topicseen.html As for why the D4 system costs $3750 compared to home wireless routers costing $100? Totally different technology designed for different things. Data rate & latency for two things. The D4 (or any wireless) is actually designed for audio in & out. Shuttling high-quality audio from point A to point B with minimal, constant latency is not trivial. But of course then there is cost of manufacturing: wireless routers are made in China by the 10s of thousands in a single production run. Ours are made in the 10s per production run. Not that you need to care, but it does make a difference in the street price. There are of course digital wireless systems, like AKG & Line 6 for instance that are less expensive. But they aren't multiple channels in a single box. The D4 is designed for field work, so it is small and portable, and tough, etc. Apples to oranges. I just pointed out that thread because you're not alone: people DO want to have wireless connections between consoles & speakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 I think Karl hit the nail on the head. It's in large part the reliability and latency. If my wireless to speakers worked even 10x better than my home router it would suck for what I do. IF I need to send wireless, I'll use a good analog link like an AT M3 or PSM-700 or one of Karl's products, with proper antennas and frequency coordination. I will also do the tech dance and say a prayer to the wireless gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bajazz Posted August 17, 2011 Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 Actually I think I've seen such systems for small venues, think it was a cheap brand... THAT said, reduced quality is no issue, there is no problem to deliver undistorted digital signal on short distances. I think it is the reliability and frequency issue that is the bottleneck. But not much of a problem. I see lots of improvement potential in the sound business, and you see a lot of new products. But it takes time, you can't change how sound people and musician thinks and works over the night. Tchnology has alway been slowed down by habits. Take the digital mixer: You would think that such a product could be developed for a totally new generation of SE and re-do the controls and user interface, but no: It looks very similar to the old analog consol. In fact the same old knobs are there, very little have changed. For example: What if you could have several modes where one mode were "Sound Artist" mode where you could use a touch screen and have icons like guitars and drums: drag them upwards to raise level (which of course is auto gain) and sideways to pan. double click to get the instrument (channel or subgroup) in detail mode where you can draw a eq or modify it with your fingers, add effects by drag-and-drop from e fx list etc etc.... But no. I guess it's a bit like redefining the interface for driving a car: Risky business, most because people won't be the first to check it. Offer a alternative gear shift as an option, and people choose the old one! Also take the BOSE PAS, who was different. In the end it is a small PA: A/B it with a skilled engineer against other small PA's and he will get about the same sound out of it, most people won't be able to hear the difference. In my business: Soloacts, it took many years before any of them (those I know) considered it when they was about to get a new PA. Same for me, because I knew nobody who used it. It wasn't until I tried it and gave it a chance I found that it worked well. Same with lots of other things, like digital wireless, headset mics, led lights etc.... Change takes time, lots of time!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 It's really nothing special. I've done this several times with IEM's plugged into a powered speaker. No, it didn't sound as good as wired, but did solve the problem of needing announcements and dinner music in an adjoining room to a main hall. As for a real product, yes there was a cheap wireless FOH system. It was made by Phonic for a few years and came in mono and stereo versions. I swear it had been discontinued, but appears to still be available It's basically a glorified analog IEM system. The ones I looked have a large chunk of operating frequency in the "forbidden zone". They are 614 - 865 Mhz. For performance you couldn't tell from wired you could do this now with a Line 6 digital guitar rig. It's just a bit awkward as you'd need the belt pack at the mixer and the receiver at the speakers. None of these are truly wireless as you have patch cables to both the receiver and transmitter and have to have power for the receiver and a cable running to the speaker. With all that, unless there's a physical obstacle, you may as well run a cable and have reliability and guaranteed clear sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BillESC Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 Wireless FOH is doable but there is a loss of band width. For example Audio Technica's M-3 has a frequency range of 60 Hz to 13 kHz (+/- 3 dB), no highs, no lows, sounds like Bose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 Wireless FOH is doable but there is a loss of band width. For example Audio Technica's M-3 has a frequency range of 60 Hz to 13 kHz (+/- 3 dB), no highs, no lows, sounds like Bose. Hint... look at the +/-3dB response of a typical speaker for the applications we are talking about and you will see that the M3's response is not the dominating factor. Would I use it for full bandwidth A circuit type stuff? Probably not but for the stuff being discussed here it's not a big deal. It's also a far cry from Bose (at least the 802/902 which is where that saying derived from.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 Wireless FOH is doable but there is a loss of band width. For example Audio Technica's M-3 has a frequency range of 60 Hz to 13 kHz (+/- 3 dB), no highs, no lows, sounds like Bose. That's why I suggested a Line 6 digital system. They claim 10Hz-20kHz response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zeromus-X Posted August 18, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 And why is there a loss of bandwidth? I can send a 30 Hz signal from my laptop wirelessly to my home stereo receiver through its internal wireless connection and a $30 router. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reson8tor Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 You're still thinking big. I'm thinking small to medium bars and clubs, indoor venues with less than 50'-100' line of sight from FOH to the speakers themselves. No, I'm thinking for us little guys too. It just isn't here yet in an off-the-shelf package. I work in an area in the rural outskirts of Seattle that's thick with both "experimental" RF wireless stuff by the big computer outfits, and also a very heavy footprint by the U.S. Navy. Just a bad place to do any kind of wireless RF with confidence, especially going forward. The idea of a line-of-sight laser that can do this, is very attractive to me. Even at my small-time production level. I don't see why this couldn't be packaged by someone like Line6, Sennheiser, or any of the other players at an affordable cost, because it's totally self-contained, and doesn't seem all that high-tech. Just point the thing at the receiver, and you're done. No channel freqs to worry about, and it sounds from that white paper like there is channel capacity to spare. Someone tell me... why isn't this a good idea, and the way forward? Why couldn't someone sell a version of this for $500 as a prosumer package? If nothing else, think about taking everyone else *off* your RF channels, by using a system like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dcastar Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 We already are "there". Sennheiser has a system. http://www.sennheiserusa.com/professiona-wireless-speaker-transmitter-g3_ew-300-g3-series_503132 Package deal : http://www.agiprodj.com/sennheiser-wireless-remote-speaker-system-2.html Only problem I see with it, is that is only goes 80hz - 18kHz. Need some bass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 Actually I think I've seen such systems for small venues, think it was a cheap brand...THAT said, reduced quality is no issue, there is no problem to deliver undistorted digital signal on short distances. I think it is the reliability and frequency issue that is the bottleneck. But not much of a problem.I see lots of improvement potential in the sound business, and you see a lot of new products. But it takes time, you can't change how sound people and musician thinks and works over the night. Tchnology has alway been slowed down by habits.Take the digital mixer: You would think that such a product could be developed for a totally new generation of SE and re-do the controls and user interface, but no: It looks very similar to the old analog consol. In fact the same old knobs are there, very little have changed. For example: What if you could have several modes where one mode were "Sound Artist" mode where you could use a touch screen and have icons like guitars and drums: drag them upwards to raise level (which of course is auto gain) and sideways to pan. double click to get the instrument (channel or subgroup) in detail mode where you can draw a eq or modify it with your fingers, add effects by drag-and-drop from e fx list etc etc....But no. I guess it's a bit like redefining the interface for driving a car: Risky business, most because people won't be the first to check it. Offer a alternative gear shift as an option, and people choose the old one!Also take the BOSE PAS, who was different. In the end it is a small PA: A/B it with a skilled engineer against other small PA's and he will get about the same sound out of it, most people won't be able to hear the difference. In my business: Soloacts, it took many years before any of them (those I know) considered it when they was about to get a new PA. Same for me, because I knew nobody who used it. It wasn't until I tried it and gave it a chance I found that it worked well. Same with lots of other things, like digital wireless, headset mics, led lights etc....Change takes time, lots of time!! Bajazz, It's obvious from your comments that the pro sound industry doesn't get it. You think we are all bumbling idiots that don't understand our industry. It's also obvious from your comments to those of us here who do design this stuff that you do not have much of a grasp of the REAL technology and the underlying limitations of real hardware in a real marketplace with real regulatory restrictions and real outside interference. You sound to me like a technogeek who knows what's best for society and that society is stupid for choosing their own workflow rather than your vision. I find this somewhat offensive personally, but of course you are free to develop the "correct" solutions for all of the idiots out there who are buying what the market (as a whole) has evolved to. For example, still not seeing the SAC systems on tour, nobody I know of personally has found this to be the "best" approach to mixing a typical live show (typical as in what the MARKET deems typical). It's not that it CAN'T work, it's that the majority do not see it being any better than their traditional solutions. Now when the user interface is better defined, say maybe a very large touch screen or set of touch screens that present the necessary (to the general user) information in a way that's more suitable to the typical workflow of a typical show, things might change. Until then, I don't see folks voting with their wallets on solutions like SAC. Same applies to digital consoles, the most successful ones have by far addressed the user interface (and the reliability issues) in a way that suits the marketplace demands. The unsuccessful ones have come and gone and will continue to come and go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zeromus-X Posted August 18, 2011 Author Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 Getting better... but still lacking in bandwidth, requires batteries, and costs ten times too much. Again, I can stream wireless audio and video with no perceivable latency from my laptop to my TV while sitting on the couch, and it involves a $30 router and a $15 wireless USB dongle. The ability to stream wireless audio to a PA speaker shouldn't cost any more. At least with a digital mixer -- an analog mixer would obviously require conversion to digital, which would add an extra step. If it seems like I'm being stubborn on this, it's because I genuinely don't understand what the reason is behind why this is so difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 We already are "there". Sennheiser has a system. http://www.sennheiserusa.com/professiona-wireless-speaker-transmitter-g3_ew-300-g3-series_503132 Package deal : http://www.agiprodj.com/sennheiser-wireless-remote-speaker-system-2.html Only problem I see with it, is that is only goes 80hz - 18kHz. Need some bass! Anyone notice that it's the standard 10/30mW W/L bodypack transmitter with an "input pad" internal to the transmitter? Maybe the bias voltage defeated. Not rocket science, and subject to the same limitations that the AT's M3 and even the 3000/4000/5000's are. In fact, we have been "there" with similar products for about 30 years. One thing about the IEM transmitters, they are already set up for balanced line level input with metering for confirmation of send status. The IEM receivers will generally deliver stereo line level unbalanced output BUT a trick that can be used for many units is to send left in phase and right out of phase (single board send with one connector wired 2+ and the other 3+) and then the left headphone out will go to pin 2 and the right to pin 3 and now you have balanced wireless transmission. There may be some HF non-linearities but for driving sources where you need >+6dBm (or so) this is a way to get another 6dB of drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members agedhorse Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 Getting better... but still lacking in bandwidth, requires batteries, and costs ten times too much. Again, I can stream wireless audio and video with no perceivable latency from my laptop to my TV while sitting on the couch, and it involves a $30 router and a $15 wireless USB dongle. The ability to stream wireless audio to a PA speaker shouldn't cost any more. At least with a digital mixer -- an analog mixer would obviously require conversion to digital, which would add an extra step.If it seems like I'm being stubborn on this, it's because I genuinely don't understand what the reason is behind why this is so difficult. The reason it's not as easy as you think is because you are not looking at the difficulty in bandwidth in a commercial environment like a downtown commercial district, and that you don't know how much latency you have currently (what's the video latency, if that's undefined, all you can determine is relative difference. Usually, video lags audio and we have to delay audio relative to video when transmitting both via wireless. I'll bet there's relative latency compensation built into your system and you don't know it. Then there's the reliability. Routers and networks are so freekin unrelaible (in real time) that unless it's all dedicated hardware and closed network, it's going to be problematic in enough envioronments that it will make running cable seem easier. That's my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Flogger59 Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 No, I'm thinking for us little guys too. It just isn't here yet in an off-the-shelf package.I work in an area in the rural outskirts of Seattle that's thick with both "experimental" RF wireless stuff by the big computer outfits, and also a very heavy footprint by the U.S. Navy. Just a bad place to do any kind of wireless RF with confidence, especially going forward.The idea of a line-of-sight laser that can do this, is very attractive to me. Even at my small-time production level. I don't see why this couldn't be packaged by someone like Line6, Sennheiser, or any of the other players at an affordable cost, because it's totally self-contained, and doesn't seem all that high-tech. Just point the thing at the receiver, and you're done. No channel freqs to worry about, and it sounds from that white paper like there is channel capacity to spare. Someone tell me... why isn't this a good idea, and the way forward? Why couldn't someone sell a version of this for $500 as a prosumer package? If nothing else, think about taking everyone else *off* your RF channels, by using a system like this. Lasers are great, until the balloons and confetti start falling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KF650SB1000 Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 IF you not wanting to run a snake through where people could trip over it... Also this would give you a nice small compact, fit amost anywhere set-up. However it wouldn't give you wireless to the speakers. Here is my Item list: Allen & Heath iDR-16 (16x8 stage box) - $5000iPad 2 - $500-830iLive MixPad iPad App: $100iLive Tweak iPhone app: FreeCisco Small Business Wireless Router: ~$2004 Space Shock Rack: ~$300Total price: ~ $6000 FYI: iDR-32 (32x16) is $7000 As of right now, I wouldn't want to have everything WiFi from the mixer to the speakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members abzurd Posted August 18, 2011 Members Share Posted August 18, 2011 So that's $13,000 For $3500 you can do this same thing and gain a Macbook Pro in the process. I've used this set several times including outdoor concerts for a few thousand people. StudioLive 16.4.2 = $1800Ipad = $600Macbook Pro = $1000Router = $100Ipad app = freeVSL app (runs on macbook) = free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.