[SML] Big bunches of mics: digital or analog?

[mouse at fieldmousepro.com]

In my work as an audio engineer, I split my time between theater, 
concerts, sports stadiums, corporate meetings, and church work. In all 
of those venues, the wireless gear is either digital or moving that way. 
About 3/4 of it is Shure in various models from $200/channel to 
$2,000/channel. The other 1/4 is Sennheiser & Lectrosonic, with an 
occasional older Sony or Audio Technica thrown in.

All that to say: In my experience, the degree to which it works (or 
doesn't) has never been down to whether it was analog or digital, so 
don't fret over it. The newer stuff has much better frequency scanning 
and coordination capabilities, either built-in or through free software 
like Shure's Wireless Workbench. Digital wireless tends to be more 
efficient with the RF bandwidth, so it can get better audio in a smaller 
chunk of frequency. That's a broad generalization, though.

The biggest difference in price from one unit to the next is going to be 
the performance of the RF circuits; how well it rejects nearby 
interference, how little signal it can receive and still not drop out, 
and how well it uses its diversity receivers.

The QLX-D line is one of the newer ones that I haven't yet had personal 
experience with, but it's solidly in the middle of the pack. Shure says 
that it's exactly same as the ULX-D but without Dante, encryption, and a 
couple of other features.

Latency is something that only really becomes a problem for singers who 
are using in-ear monitors or headphones. Your eardrums receive your own 
voice internally through bone conduction with no delay. When you add 
your own voice via in-ear monitors with a slight delay, it can cause 
some disconcerting effects when the two signals mix together because 
both of the signals are so pure. Without in-ear monitors, your ears are 
much more forgiving of natural latency that you hear all the time.

That said, singers use digital microphones (with some latency), mixed 
through digital consoles (that add some latency), and listened to via 
wireless in-ear monitor packs (which add more latency) without any 
problems on a daily basis. The thing to be mindful of is if the latency 
starts to pile-up too much beyond that.

Finally, don't worry about what'll be available in 50 years. By that 
time, the FCC will have sold off what remains of our dwindling usable 
frequencies, and we'll all go back to using wired mics again. *wink*

Stephen



On 2024-03-12 5:58 pm, Jon Ares via Stagecraft wrote:
> Going out to those who use 12-24 wireless mics at a time (a la
> singy-dancy skits) - How do you feel about digital UHF mics? Like
> Shure gear?  We've got a couple of QLX-D handhelds we use for general
> PA stuff, and *I* can't sense any latency, at least for the talking
> heads, and the occasional singer.... but those of you who do lots of
> musicals or such.... have you used a bevy of QLX-D packs? Any latency
> that just makes it a "bad idea?"
> 
> If it's a "bad idea," what's a "good idea" that's still available, and
> looks to be available for the next 200 years? (Which will be about the
> time the PTB give me the go-ahead to replace them.)