# New Mic Packs and Transmitters



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 20, 2017)

So I was hoping to find a thread but no luck. I am in need of 20 pack and transmitters by Shure that are good quality for a reasonable price. Any ideas?


----------



## np18358 (Jul 20, 2017)

Do you perhaps have a specific price you were looking to spend total, or even per channel?


----------



## FMEng (Jul 21, 2017)

You really need to talk to a very knowledgeable dealer, because this an expensive purchase with many potential land mines. In order for 20 systems to work without clobbering each other, only certain models will do that. Only the higher end products will work in that quantity. Note that it has little to do with the number of channels the unit will tune. It is conceivable to have a unit tunable to 100 channels, but it'll only work in a room with six systems. The other factor is the TV band repack, so the systems have to be chosen to work on the channels that will be open after the TV stations move around. And you will need antenna distribution. A pair of antennas on every receiver won't work due to IF leakage.


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 21, 2017)

np18358 said:


> Do you perhaps have a specific price you were looking to spend total, or even per channel?


So right now we have 18 slx and 2 ulx receivers and transmitters that have been abused for the past 12 years we are looking to replace all of them we would love to all at once but the price of that is way too much. realistically we can spend around 2-3k a year on mics and packs. its just a matter of what we can get for our price that will last. (Also 6 of our slx bands are about to be illegal)


----------



## KBToys82 (Jul 22, 2017)

Shure and Sennheiser are having a cash back option when you trade in 600 frequency units. I personally prefer the Audio Technica's because I've never had an issue with our rentals (knock on wood) and just purchased 12 units.


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 22, 2017)

KBToys82 said:


> Shure and Sennheiser are having a cash back option when you trade in 600 frequency units. I personally prefer the Audio Technica's because I've never had an issue with our rentals (knock on wood) and just purchased 12 units.


We want to stick with shure just because we do not want to have to get new fins. Also where did you see the cash option for mics in the 600


----------



## JD (Jul 22, 2017)

As hinted above, don't buy any analog system that runs above 600 Mhz. 700 Mhz is already illegal and 600 is already being infringed and will be illegal as of 2021.


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 22, 2017)

JD said:


> As hinted above, don't buy any analog system that runs above 600 Mhz. 700 Mhz is already illegal and 600 is already being infringed and will be illegal as of 2021.


yes were trying to replace are 6 transmitters in the 600 range first


----------



## np18358 (Jul 22, 2017)

I agree with the above recommendation to speak with a dealer who specializes in Theatrical Sound. I have worked with the Shure ULX-D and they are truly excellent, and seem like they would be a natural progression based on having some of the (incompatible) ULX S/P. Crystal clear audio, and they are rechargeable directly from the transmitter, which is a plus.


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 22, 2017)

np18358 said:


> I agree with the above recommendation to speak with a dealer who specializes in Theatrical Sound. I have worked with the Shure ULX-D and they are truly excellent, and seem like they would be a natural progression based on having some of the (incompatible) ULX S/P. Crystal clear audio, and they are rechargeable directly from the transmitter, which is a plus.


I looked at those and i saw they run over a 2.4 ghz frequency so im nervous about wifi getting invloved


----------



## TimMc (Jul 22, 2017)

Brenden Friedel said:


> I looked at those and i saw they run over a 2.4 ghz frequency so im nervous about wifi getting invloved



According to Shure's brochure for the ULX-D model line the available RF frequency range (split among multiple blocks) is 470-932mHz, availability depending on country of sale/use.

http://cdn.shure.com/brochure/upload/39/ulxd-brochure-english.pdf the frequency specs are on page 8.


----------



## np18358 (Jul 23, 2017)

ULX-D does not operate in the 2.4 band. It is as @TimMc described in blocks. It can however tune many more mics per TV channel than the older RF (ala SLX and ULX s/p), enabling you to really search around for good frequencies. Good frequency coordination is essential to good system operation. Getting enough clear frequencies can be difficult, especially in an heavily RF saturated environment, so this feature is definitely a plus The GLX-D is AFAIK the only Shure offering in the 2.4 band (I could be incorrect as they seem to have many, many different systems.).


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jul 23, 2017)

If by "getting new fins", you mean "replacing my log-periodic combiner antennas", you may need to do that anyway, depending on what freq range they are rated for...


----------



## AudJ (Jul 23, 2017)

Brenden Friedel said:


> Also where did you see the cash option for mics in the 600


https://wirelessrebate.shure.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvZ3uwN-f1QIVQ2V-Ch31zQPpEAAYASAAEgKd9_D_BwE


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 23, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> If by "getting new fins", you mean "replacing my log-periodic combiner antennas", you may need to do that anyway, depending on what freq range they are rated for...



Fins. They are rated 470- 698


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 23, 2017)

np18358 said:


> ULX-D does not operate in the 2.4 band. It is as @TimMc described in blocks. It can however tune many more mics per TV channel than the older RF (ala SLX and ULX s/p), enabling you to really search around for good frequencies. Good frequency coordination is essential to good system operation. Getting enough clear frequencies can be difficult, especially in an heavily RF saturated environment, so this feature is definitely a plus The GLX-D is AFAIK the only Shure offering in the 2.4 band (I could be incorrect as they seem to have many, many different systems.).


You are right I got confused. I checked out the ULX-D and used them before in our environment and they are really good it is just the price


----------



## np18358 (Jul 23, 2017)

Perhaps consider the QLX-D??. Again, I am not sure about the compatibility with your existing antenna distribution system, but I am sure that Shure, given the fact you are sticking to their products, could provide you with information.


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 23, 2017)

np18358 said:


> Perhaps consider the QLX-D??. Again, I am not sure about the compatibility with your existing antenna distribution system, but I am sure that Shure, given the fact you are sticking to their products, could provide you with information.


I was actually looking into the BLX series. My antenna distribution system is compatible with most if not all series by shure


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 23, 2017)

RF antenna distribution does not observe brand names, the internals are similar whether it's made by Shure, Sennheiseer, Lectrosonics, etc.
DC power can create issues though, many receivers will make power available on their antenna inputs to power inline amplifiers, and Sennheiser's ew series will provide power from the splitter to power up the receiver over the antenna cable with the ASA-1 splitter.
The photo you've posted is of an active LPDA antenna, is that the particular model you have or just a concept explaining image?

Summary - you may well be able to run mics from a different manufacturer using your current antennas and distribution, depending on specific models.

I fear your budget and your scope are not well aligned, when you want 20 concurrent systems, the BLX end of the product range is going to leave you with disappointing results...


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 23, 2017)

Chris15 said:


> RF antenna distribution does not observe brand names, the internals are similar whether it's made by Shure, Sennheiseer, Lectrosonics, etc.
> DC power can create issues though, many receivers will make power available on their antenna inputs to power inline amplifiers, and Sennheiser's ew series will provide power from the splitter to power up the receiver over the antenna cable with the ASA-1 splitter.
> The photo you've posted is of an active LPDA antenna, is that the particular model you have or just a concept explaining image?
> 
> ...


So the antenna is the same model and everything. I cant see what frequinces it supports but i know mine does 448 to 620mhz and are distributors are shure ua844swb. What do you recommend we get foroure budget I can try to see if i could up it a little more. But we at least need 6 new packs to replace are illegal ones


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 23, 2017)

I'm not in a position to give you the advice you need, I'm not up to date on the current state of the US regulatory environment and I work in the wrong currency.
Depending on your context and the procurement processes that entails, you may be best served by talking to a reputable dealer in your local area. If you have to go to tender on your purchase though, that will change things, and a consultant, while seemingly expensive in the short term may be able to bring a better long term outcome, AND is probably better at making a business case to your powers that be around the realistic budgets to achieve what is required...


----------



## MNicolai (Jul 24, 2017)

If you go w/ BLX, you need to select the BLX4R receivers. The non-rackmount versions rely on a built-in antenna and cannot be connected to do an antenna distribution system. The -R models have BNC's on the backs for connection to an antenna distribution system.

As stated earlier, antennas are manufacturer-agnostic. You can use one manufacturer's distribution amp and antennas with another manufacturer's transmitters and receivers. If you were mixing and matching DA's and antennas you may have to worry about DC bias on the coax cables to power any active antennas or in-line amps but sounds like if you leave your antennas and DA as-is, this is a non-issue for you.

Given the ever changing RF landscape, I would _highly_ recommend going with QLX-D instead because of the high channel count you want. In an ideal RF environment, in the woods, miles from any broadcast stations or UHF cell towers, you can max out BLX at 23 systems if nobody else is on your frequencies. If someone hops into your spectrum as the desperation for available RF space grows in the coming 3 years, you may be stuck with system you cannot use reliably. With QLX-D, you can use up to 60 systems in one band, 129 across multiple bands. You may not ever have any intention of using all of this RF space, but you will have flexibility when the church across the street from you goes out and buys their own 12 channels of BLX. With QLX-D, you can even park a network switch in the wireless rack and use Wireless Workbench on your laptop to run an RF scan and automatically coordinate your frequencies with each other and with any other users in your area.

An investment now is an insurance policy later. Pay less now, risk full system replacement later at the mercy of your neighbors, your regional broadcasters, T-Mobile, and the FCC. You may end up spending the same amount of money either way if your BLX units end up being sacrificial in a couple years and you have to replace them with ZLX (or whatever Shure's newest favorite three letters are), but RF surprises tend to happen when they are not budgeted for.

Re: 600 MHz and re-usability of equipment
In terms of your existing antennas and distribution amplifiers, the only devices that are required to not be capable of tuning into prohibited spectrum are transmitters_. _It does not matter if your antennas, DA's, or receivers can tune up to 698 MHz. You can reuse them without modification. What you cannot reuse come the conclusion of this 39-month transition period are any existing mic transmitters or PSM transmitters that tune into prohibited spectrum unless they are modified to be band-limited such that they cannot operate in that spectrum. In areas where a new licensee want to start broadcasting in their newly purchased spectrum and there are no other licensed users currently preventing them from doing so, they can begin broadcasting whenever they like and you will have to vacate any existing 614 MHz operations you may have to give them right of way.

As always, regardless of what you do, get a quote. You will almost always receive a better price direct than if you go all "Add To Cart" on Sweetwater's website without talking directly with a sales representative.

EDIT: Threshold of prohibited spectrum really isn't 614 MHz like I previously said. 614 MHz is the lower threshold of this auction but TV 37 has been off-limits for some time already.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jul 24, 2017)

Mike: You can't *use* them, even below 608, if they're capable of tuning above 608?

Or you simply *can't use them above 608*?

A separate issue from whether they can be sold or rented...

[ Edited to correct upper limit ]


----------



## FMEng (Jul 25, 2017)

The FCC Report and Order says that operating any wireless mic capable of tuning the 600 MHz band is illegal after July 13th, 2020. FCC-17-95A1, paragraph 46. Basically, they don't trust users to stay on the correct frequencies, so they want the equipment to prevent illegal operation. They do make an exception for older equipment that the manufacturer has modified to prevent tuning the 600 MHz band, and re-certified under the new rules. In some cases, a firmware update and a new sticker might do the trick. For your reading enjoyment, all 83 pages....
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-95A1.pdf


----------



## MNicolai (Jul 25, 2017)

You will not be able to use or sell transmitters that can operate in prohibited spectrum, whether you tune above those frequencies or not. If you have receivers that can tune up to 698 MHz, that's kosher because they can only listen to what's out there on the airwaves and will not impede the activities of a licensed user. Your belt packs and handhelds and PSM transmitters are what will need some love and band-limiting if you wish to continue using them.

The FCC has a put a framework in place to permit manufacturers to both field and factory-modify transmitters to band-limit them down strictly to unlicensed spectrum. It's possible manufacturers will not implement this across all or even any product lines, but I suspect you'll see the usual suspects offering modifications to the product lines and existing bands that it makes sense to. This presents some logistical issues such as how/if to track which transmitters have been modified and whether to issue new serial/FCC ID stickers, but it sounds like some process will come together and we may see modifications becoming available end of this year.

If the transition goes smoothly and it's 18 months before we see all kinds of 5G cellular devices on the market, the pressure on manufacturers to offer every flavor of backwards compatibility will be less as manufacturers have already been reducing their 600 MHz sales for some time now. In which case we may see modifications more on the higher cost wide-band systems and less so on the consumer grade wireless that would almost certainly require trip to the factory and back to leave you with a system that can't tune to very many frequencies.

If, Apple announces that the iPhone 8 is going to support 5G or something like that happens, then we're off to the races and it'll be a nuclear arms race for networks to get their 5G cell towers online. For the time being though, the target date for 5G going online is 2019 and the only thing keeping T-Mobile from spraying all over anyone every region is that there are no 5G devices yet in the wild except some prototypes. This is just speculation at this time though but Qualcomm's already parading their new chipsets around for this.


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Jul 25, 2017)

MNicolai said:


> If you go w/ BLX, you need to select the BLX4R receivers. The non-rackmount versions rely on a built-in antenna and cannot be connected to do an antenna distribution system. The -R models have BNC's on the backs for connection to an antenna distribution system.
> 
> As stated earlier, antennas are manufacturer-agnostic. You can use one manufacturer's distribution amp and antennas with another manufacturer's transmitters and receivers. If you were mixing and matching DA's and antennas you may have to worry about DC bias on the coax cables to power any active antennas or in-line amps but sounds like if you leave your antennas and DA as-is, this is a non-issue for you.
> 
> ...





Thank you! I am actually lokking to increase my budget a little and use the rebate option to get the QLX-D


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jul 25, 2017)

FMEng said:


> The FCC Report and Order says that operating any wireless mic capable of tuning the 600 MHz band is illegal after July 13th, 2020. FCC-17-95A1, paragraph 46. Basically, they don't trust users to stay on the correct frequencies, so they want the equipment to prevent illegal operation. They do make an exception for older equipment that the manufacturer has modified to prevent tuning the 600 MHz band, and re-certified under the new rules. In some cases, a firmware update and a new sticker might do the trick. For your reading enjoyment, all 83 pages....
> https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-95A1.pdf


As much as I hate to admit it, yeah, I think people who use this category of equipment are largely appliance operators.

I'm not sure that this permits FCC to make this change, and if someone challenged it as an "illegal taking", I think they'd win, but that's a separate issue, and anyone big enough to a) know that and b) do it, is Clair Brothers, and they're probably turning over their stock every year or two anyways.

(I think FCC is entirely entitled to say "don't operate there", but not to retroactively retract the type acceptance, which is effectively happening here.)


----------



## FMEng (Jul 25, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> As much as I hate to admit it, yeah, I think people who use this category of equipment are largely appliance operators.
> 
> I'm not sure that this permits FCC to make this change, and if someone challenged it as an "illegal taking", I think they'd win, but that's a separate issue, and anyone big enough to a) know that and b) do it, is Clair Brothers, and they're probably turning over their stock every year or two anyways.
> 
> (I think FCC is entirely entitled to say "don't operate there", but not to retroactively retract the type acceptance, which is effectively happening here.)



Consider that they made every analog TV set in the country go instantly obsolete. They also killed off a lot of radios with narrow banding. Fighting the rule would cost more in lawyers fees than replacing some hardware, and there's a good chance the FCC would win.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jul 25, 2017)

Well, they did, but they also gave away free converters to make those sets work for the rest of their natural lifetime. And there were lots of sets out there with the new tuners.

In this case, the existing hardware *can support* the new rules; it's merely the FCC trying to reduce it's already nonexistent enforcement/burden, and there's no real way to convert the hardware.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think that's a valid analogy.

Each individual screwee, though, is probably small enough to ignore.

For FCC; perhaps not for manufacturers.


----------



## MNicolai (Jul 25, 2017)

It's about money and politics. If the FCC wasn't pulling the strings you can bet the telcos would be lobbying congress until this auction was forced by legislative mandate.

But on the bright side it could've eaten up twice as much spectrum. Now Shure/Senn have at least another 5 years to work on the cure for spectrum cancer before the next round of auctions.


----------



## Calc (Jul 26, 2017)

Does anyone know if Shure sells transmitters without capsules on them anywhere? I'm looking at replacing a fair number of SLX's with QLX's, and would like to save some money and re-use capsules on the handhelds.


----------



## Rod Reilly (Jul 26, 2017)

I think that anyone trying to get 7 plus years out of new equipment really (REALLY) needs to go Digital over UHF/VHF. As a major Shure user (almost 150 SLX and ULX in rental) I think QLXD is the "affordable" answer. List is 1200 each, Sweetwater are at $973. On 6 units we could offer 10% less delivered. These will work with your existing antenna distro. For most of us - well me at least - the extra 70% for the ULXD is just a stretch too far.


----------



## JD (Jul 26, 2017)

Rod Reilly said:


> I think that anyone trying to get 7 plus years out of new equipment really (REALLY) needs to go Digital over UHF/VHF. As a major Shure user (almost 150 SLX and ULX in rental) I think QLXD is the "affordable" answer. List is 1200 each, Sweetwater are at $973. On 6 units we could offer 10% less delivered. These will work with your existing antenna distro. For most of us - well me at least - the extra 70% for the ULXD is just a stretch too far.


But to think these bands are immune from the FCC induced problems is simply not true. The problem is "cramming", meaning, as free frequencies are taken away, more and more equipment is being forced into less and less space. This is true with analog and digital. Simply look around at how many other devices are in people's hands and you see the root of the problem. Most newer digital devices really haven't addressed "collision detect", they simply walk to other frequencies. We can all deal with cell phones cutting in and out, but the same would not be acceptable for live performance audio.


----------



## Rick Cutler (Jul 26, 2017)

With the Shure Rebate, you don't have to send the Capsules in, just the transmitter. Then order the new ones with whatever capsule you want. 

Also, I love the ULX-D4Q quad receiver in one rack space are awesome! Networkable and Dante Audio out for your future upgrades! Good Luck!


----------



## MNicolai (Jul 26, 2017)

Calc said:


> Does anyone know if Shure swells transmitters without capsules on them anywhere? I'm looking at replacing a fair number of SLX's with QLX's, and would like to save some money and re-use capsules on the handhelds.


Cartridges are the same across models, but there is no published part number for purchasing a handheld without a cartridge.


Rod Reilly said:


> I think that anyone trying to get 7 plus years out of new equipment really (REALLY) needs to go Digital over UHF/VHF. As a major Shure user (almost 150 SLX and ULX in rental) I think QLXD is the "affordable" answer. List is 1200 each, Sweetwater are at $973. On 6 units we could offer 10% less delivered. These will work with your existing antenna distro. For most of us - well me at least - the extra 70% for the ULXD is just a stretch too far.



I like the ULXD product myself but I almost always spec QLXD for this reason. ULXD's primary advantages are higher density, smaller form factor for the quad, and Dante. If you're buying 24 systems and that translates into 2-3 Dante stage boxes extra you would need over QLXD, plus analog snakes and rack build-up labor and extra rack space, there can be advantages to ULXD. Even then though, when it's a Yamaha system I've found buying an extra 2-3 Ri8-D's on top of the QLXD's is still more cost-effective than ULXD.


----------



## TimMc (Jul 28, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> As much as I hate to admit it, yeah, I think people who use this category of equipment are largely appliance operators.
> 
> I'm not sure that this permits FCC to make this change, and if someone challenged it as an "illegal taking", I think they'd win, but that's a separate issue, and anyone big enough to a) know that and b) do it, is Clair Brothers, and they're probably turning over their stock every year or two anyways.
> 
> (I think FCC is entirely entitled to say "don't operate there", but not to retroactively retract the type acceptance, which is effectively happening here.)



The key regulatory language is that currently legal transmitters will lose their "Type Acceptance" upon the implementation of the TV band realignments. *Without type acceptance the transmitter is 100% illegal to use in any capacity in the USA.

No domestic manufacturer has indicated they will modify existing transmitters and submit samples to the FCC for new type acceptance.*


----------



## TimMc (Jul 28, 2017)

MNicolai said:


> It's about money and politics. If the FCC wasn't pulling the strings you can bet the telcos would be lobbying congress until this auction was forced by legislative mandate.
> 
> But on the bright side it could've eaten up twice as much spectrum. Now Shure/Senn have at least another 5 years to work on the cure for spectrum cancer before the next round of auctions.



Actually this and the preceding Digital TV realignment (that took the 700 mHz band) WAS required by Congressional authority, essentially Congress said "hey, there's a bunch of TV channels nobody is using, auction off 10 year licenses and give us the money."

My shop is in the same boat as most of you - we're unlicensed users (no Part 74 Broadcast Auxiliary Service) and at the mercy of available TV spectrum. This is all so ATT, T Mobile, Sprint and the content providers (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc) can make money off people watching TV, movies and other video content on their mobile phones and tablets. The next time a customer complains about the new, higher price of wireless mic rentals I'm asking if they watch videos on their phone - if they say yes, I'll tell them the rental prices are because of that use of spectrum we used to have access to.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jul 28, 2017)

TimMc said:


> The key regulatory language is that currently legal transmitters will lose their "Type Acceptance" upon the implementation of the TV band realignments. *Without type acceptance the transmitter is 100% illegal to use in any capacity in the USA.
> 
> No domestic manufacturer has indicated they will modify existing transmitters and submit samples to the FCC for new type acceptance.*



FCC can revoke a Type Acceptance at random?

Well, *that* sharply impacts the math involved in buying any device for which they require type acceptance, forevermore.

Why can't Republican politicians actually *think*?


----------



## TimMc (Jul 28, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> FCC can revoke a Type Acceptance at random?
> 
> Well, *that* sharply impacts the math involved in buying any device for which they require type acceptance, forevermore.
> 
> Why can't Republican politicians actually *think*?



As much as I'd like to throw the Republicans under the bus, this was a bipartisan effort that had it's beginnings much longer ago.

And yes, the FCC is obligated to structure regulations in conformity with the laws passed by Congress - in fact the authority to create, modify or eliminate regulations to conform to those laws is usually a direct part of those laws. No regulatory authority can act autonomously.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jul 28, 2017)

Indeed. Anytime a small organization or citizen gets thrown under the bus in favor of a megacorp, in my experience, it's worth looking around for a Republican politician, but I'll take your word for it.

That said, with the major exceptions of the decommission of AMPS and NTSC, they're not all that prone to this category of Making Serviceable Equipment Obsolete/Illegal, IME. And, as I note elsewhere, for good reason; that fifth amendment bites pretty hard.

And in fact, regulatory agencies act autonomously all the time; that they have experts to tell them how is precisely why they exist... Not 'outside the laws', but that and autonomously are several blocks apart...

But I stand by my implication that anyone buying type accepted gear better price in "the FCC is going to screw me at random before it breaks", in a way that wasn't really that necessary before.


----------



## RonHebbard (Jul 28, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> FCC can revoke a Type Acceptance at random?
> 
> Well, *that* sharply impacts the math involved in buying any device for which they require type acceptance, forevermore.
> 
> Why can't Republican politicians actually *think*?


@Jay Ashworth Greed is apparently not only a powerful motivator but a powerful anaesthetic as well.
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## AudJ (Jul 28, 2017)

"Type acceptance" - now I'm confused
- does this term affect anything outside of the 600's legal band, or just the affected 600's MHz units?


----------



## sk8rsdad (Jul 28, 2017)

The airwaves are a finite resource. As such, they are a precious commodity and people that think like lawyers and financiers are going to treat them that way.

This really isn't all that different from a common stream or river in ye olde days. Everybody needs the water. If somebody upstream builds a dam or decides to use it as an open sewer then everybody downstream suffers. So the regulators step in and try to set up rules for sharing. Eventually somebody invents the waterwheel and wants to commercialize the use of the stream so the laws get tweaked to make that a possibility. Then somebody decides there's money to be made moving cargo up and down the river and they start making money off of it. The lawmakers want in on the deal so they tweak the laws and add new taxes. They learn eventually that all that commerce on the stream is hurting the original users so the EPA gets created and figures out more stringent ways to share.

Right now we're in the bottled water phase of commercialization of the airwaves thanks to smart phones and an ever-increasing desire to stream cat videos. All the little users that just wanted to drop a line in their favourite fishing hole are being moved to a reservation. But now I'm mixing metaphors. The point is, history has a way of repeating itself.


----------



## TimMc (Jul 28, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> But I stand by my implication that anyone buying type accepted gear better price in "the FCC is going to screw me at random before it breaks", in a way that wasn't really that necessary before.



Well, we're still using Senny Gen I stuff so we've gotten our money back out of it and all our purchases had been in mostly in B band so now we're replacing it. We were lucky we didn't buy into the C band but that was more serendipity than planning.

By "autonomous" I mean that an agency can't simply wake up and decide to do something new or different from what was authorized. Sometimes Congress is broad in their authorizing language and sometimes it is very specific, so YMMV. In this case, both Congress and the FCC were informed that these TV band changes would create havoc with our uses and both considered the use so minor (monetarily) as to be mostly inconsequential to the desired outcome (more money for the Treasury and to service providers). The FCC has proved to be a bit more sympathetic (the new Part 74 rules that allow large uses, regardless of production of TV, movies, etc to apply for protective licensing) but still must provide maximum financial return to the Treasury within the scope of the laws.

I work with a number of regulatory agencies, providing audio services for streaming and archiving of public hearings on regulations. It's not quite the way the process is presumed to be, at least with the agencies I directly serve. Some are probably worse...


----------



## FMEng (Jul 28, 2017)

AudJ said:


> "Type acceptance" - now I'm confused
> - does this term affect anything outside of the 600's legal band, or just the affected 600's MHz units?


To review, any wireless mic transmitter that is capable of tuning in the 600 MHz band will be illegal to operate at all after July, 2020. Such equipment either has to be modified by the manufacturer, or retired. If you have wireless mics that cannot tune in the 600 MHz band, you can use them legally for the foreseeable future. In the coming months, I would expect the manufacturers to publish lists of the affected models.


----------



## MNicolai (Jul 28, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> But I stand by my implication that anyone buying type accepted gear better price in "the FCC is going to screw me at random before it breaks", in a way that wasn't really that necessary before.



On the bright side, at this rate wireless users can only get screwed once more before it's not gonna matter. Won't be any spectrum left to continue the 7-year full-system replacement cycle with.


----------



## JD (Jul 28, 2017)

TimMc said:


> Well, we're still using Senny Gen I stuff so we've gotten our money back out of it and all our purchases had been in mostly in B band so now we're replacing it. We were lucky we didn't buy into the C band but that was more serendipity than planning.
> 
> By "autonomous" I mean that an agency can't simply wake up and decide to do something new or different from what was authorized. Sometimes Congress is broad in their authorizing language and sometimes it is very specific, so YMMV. In this case, both Congress and the FCC were informed that these TV band changes would create havoc with our uses and both considered the use so minor (monetarily) as to be mostly inconsequential to the desired outcome (more money for the Treasury and to service providers). The FCC has proved to be a bit more sympathetic (the new Part 74 rules that allow large uses, regardless of production of TV, movies, etc to apply for protective licensing) but still must provide maximum financial return to the Treasury within the scope of the laws.
> 
> I work with a number of regulatory agencies, providing audio services for streaming and archiving of public hearings on regulations. It's not quite the way the process is presumed to be, at least with the agencies I directly serve. Some are probably worse...


Still have a bunch of G1 Sennheiser, good stuff! What I still use is in the A band, so for now it's safe. But, having any wireless equipment is like a game of doge-ball. You never know when the FCC is going to start throwing that ball again. "Cramming" is now the problem as more and more equipment runs in a smaller and smaller space. I only wish there would be a solid set-aside band so that you didn't have to worry about buying new equipment. Not going to happen as the "free" usage market has no lobby to stand up for them. Even the manufacturers (I believe) secretly smile, knowing that when users get chased out of a band, sales increase! So, here is my "more realistic" dream, based on the manufacturers doing the right thing: Separate the RF module so that it can be changed out by the user when the rules change and offer new modules at a reasonable price. Buying a new mic & receiver is a $600+ expense. When that mic gets banned, getting a $50 or $100 trade in doesn't cut it. I would rather buy an upgrade module for $75 and keep using it.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jul 28, 2017)

Well, they can't do first-adjacent in TV, can they? What happened to white-space radios?


----------



## FMEng (Jul 28, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> Well, they can't do first-adjacent in TV, can they? What happened to white-space radios?



With ATSC they are doing adjacent channels. Don't forget that a lot of stations are using virtual channels. The channel advertised on screen and displayed by your TV is often not the channel coming out of the transmitter. For example, after the repack, the Seattle market will have four adjacents.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jul 28, 2017)

Virtual channels aren't really pertinent here.

The question is "can they put transmitters in the same market on channels 16, 17, 18, and 19 without interference?"


----------



## FMEng (Jul 29, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> Virtual channels aren't really pertinent here.
> 
> The question is "can they put transmitters in the same market on channels 16, 17, 18, and 19 without interference?"


That was answered in my first sentence. The short answer is yes they can. The reason I mentioned virtual channels is that their use is why most people have no idea what RF channels are being used in their area. They think they do but, most of the time, they are wrong.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Jul 29, 2017)

Gotcha.

I was not aware that ATSC tolerated sequential channels (a slightly worse thing than "first-adjacent", which was what I said, and which means "Tampa is on 14, and Orlando is on 15") at all... how did they test that?


----------



## FMEng (Jul 29, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> I was not aware that ATSC tolerated sequential channels (a slightly worse thing than "first-adjacent", which was what I said, and which means "Tampa is on 14, and Orlando is on 15") at all... how did they test that?



DSP based tuners are generally much more selective than analog, and digital carriers are way more robust than AM carriers. No longer is the IF filtering "barn door" wide. Brick walls are actually practical. Lab testing would prove the concept fairly easily.


----------



## TimMc (Jul 30, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> Well, they can't do first-adjacent in TV, can they? What happened to white-space radios?



White space "TV Band Devices" are still a thing. I read elsewhere that CMU has applied for a testing permit for a number of relatively high RF output devices, in multiple geographic areas.


----------



## Silicon_Knight (Aug 1, 2017)

Calc said:


> Does anyone know if Shure sells transmitters without capsules on them anywhere? I'm looking at replacing a fair number of SLX's with QLX's, and would like to save some money and re-use capsules on the handhelds.



That would be nice, but I've never seen it. It feels like you quickly gather a collection of SM58 heads for the HHs and the WL185 mics for the lapels (since they all come with new ones attached). Best advice is to eBay any extra parts - there are still a lot of people willing to purchase the 600MHz equipment (for use outside the US? or they just don't care about the FCC?)


----------



## Calc (Aug 2, 2017)

Actually, the lav packs ordered without a receiver DON'T come with a mic.

I don't find that I have too many WL185- they do wear out over a few years with heavy use. Capsules on the handhelds though, I think I've only ever had to replace once (excluding screens and foams).


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Aug 2, 2017)

Well, with the creeping popularity of the mic drop -- does *your* rental book say that all microphone damage will be paid for by the renter at retail price? -- maybe there *aren't* too many 58 capsules. 

Not that a 58 takes a lot of damage falling 5 ft to a stage floor anyway...


----------



## MNicolai (Aug 2, 2017)

Jay Ashworth said:


> Not that a 58 takes a lot of damage falling 5 ft to a stage floor anyway...



Far more damage to your speakers and your ear drums.


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Aug 2, 2017)

Rod Reilly said:


> I think that anyone trying to get 7 plus years out of new equipment really (REALLY) needs to go Digital over UHF/VHF. As a major Shure user (almost 150 SLX and ULX in rental) I think QLXD is the "affordable" answer. List is 1200 each, Sweetwater are at $973. On 6 units we could offer 10% less delivered. These will work with your existing antenna distro. For most of us - well me at least - the extra 70% for the ULXD is just a stretch too far.


Could you message me?


----------



## Silicon_Knight (Aug 3, 2017)

np18358 said:


> Perhaps consider the QLX-D??. Again, I am not sure about the compatibility with your existing antenna distribution system, but I am sure that Shure, given the fact you are sticking to their products, could provide you with information.



We are a Shure shop, and we'll be replacing a group of our existing analog ULX mics in the M1 band (600MHz) with something new - I'm currently leaning toward the QLX-D as being the next best replacement. The ULX-D might seem like a logical choice based on the model number, but it seems a bit of an overkill for what we need, and the Quad receivers are an interesting idea - just too pricey for the churches and community theaters with which I'm working.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Aug 3, 2017)

MNicolai said:


> Far more damage to your speakers and your ear drums.


Sure. but most mic dropping is done at the end of... something, and if you don't have your hands on the lead talent faders then, you deserve what everybody gets.


----------



## Brenden Friedel (Aug 15, 2017)

Update: Turns out we need 8 so I thinking about going with the QLXD series. One so I can receive the rebate. We are spending around 8 thousand and receiving back around 3 thousand so total spending around 5-6 thousand. I do not know what is good on Sennheiser side for wireless microphones but if you have any good recommendations for a High School Theatre please let me know.


----------

