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

[Jon Ares]

Thanks for your thoughts, Stephen.  My research shows what you've
written, but I appreciate hearing it from an experienced user.  Wasn't
sure if the latency was really too much of an issue, and it makes a
lot of sense that in-ear monitors would really be the stickier one (we
don't ever use those, but never say never). I did wonder if all the
digital processes (stage boxes, boards, DSP) would add up to something
annoying.

We don't have Dante (using A&H SQ7 and A&H stage boxes via SQ-Link) so
no worries on that.

 - Jon

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 8:59 PM Stephen Lee via Stagecraft
<stagecraft at theatrical.net> wrote:
>
> 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.)
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> For list information see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> Stagecraft mailing list
> Stagecraft at theatrical.net
> http://theatrical.net/mailman/listinfo/stagecraft_theatrical.net



-- 
Jon Ares
www.arescreative.com