# Wireless Mic Software Idea



## Hughesie (Aug 27, 2005)

As a sound tech that uses lots of Radio Mic's i find it hard to stay in touch with what mic has been fitted and what hasn't been done or wether their is a problem with one


and i know your awnser is Cans we have them but you can't mix and have the headset on it's just a fact plus you have to contend with LX cues and fly cues AND MANY MORE


what about a computer sytem with a screen beside the sound desk and one where the mic's are being fitted

that does the following

Alows the sound tech at a glance to see if the mic they're about to use is fitted and to who

talk to the mic people by chat

for the mic people to report trouble with one of the mic

Please tell me if this has already been done

i just thought it was a gr8 idea


----------



## Radman (Aug 27, 2005)

Wow I had to read that a couple times to actually understand what you were trying to say but now I understand. I think it is a great idea and I don't know if it's been done, but I doubt it. Should be interesting though.


----------



## Hughesie (Aug 27, 2005)

Yeh sorry im not the best speller but you get the gist of it

By the way Radman i love your end phrase

Let me drop everything and work on your problem

Pure truth


----------



## Radman (Aug 27, 2005)




----------



## Hughesie (Aug 27, 2005)

I am still a student so i am young but this would really help 

(i suppose you could use a chat program)

CHEAP CHEAP


----------



## AVGuyAndy (Aug 27, 2005)

> Feedback destroyers ARE TAKING OUR JOBS



No they aren't. Feedback destroyers are crap, and do not do a good job at all. They seriously butcher the sound quality. Feedback destroyers still do not mix for you.


----------



## avkid (Aug 27, 2005)

*Re: Sound Software Idea*


Hughesie89 said:


> and remember
> Feedback destroyers ARE TAKING OUR JOBS



umm... no, In fact I just took ours out of the signal chain because they produce a horrble buzz even with the gain at a reasonable level and they don't stop feedback!


----------



## Hughesie (Aug 27, 2005)

OH ok im ignorant and just thought i'd say somthing thought provoking at the end of my message


----------



## Hughesie (Sep 2, 2005)

Is there anything like this 

if there isn't WHY NOT!


----------



## avkid (Sep 2, 2005)

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to develop the software, hardware and distribution for such a product?

Answer: more than most of us will ever see in our lives


----------



## Andy_Leviss (Sep 5, 2005)

Actually, by combining a couple different pieces of hardware and software, this already exists on many shows. See my post in the other thread on this for details.


----------



## AaronS102 (Jun 4, 2007)

can I get a like to that thread?


----------



## TomyN (Jun 4, 2007)

Hi,

well I thought about a similar system for communication with stage-hands during a show, asking for line-check and so on, but I never realized that software. I think it should consists of (at least) two computers, and utilize default Ethernet connections.

Tomy


----------



## Andy_Leviss (Jun 5, 2007)

AaronS102 said:


> can I get a like to that thread?



One link, coming right up:
http://controlbooth.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2624


----------



## 6ftstudios (Jun 6, 2007)

The idea is good, but personally, I wouldn't use it. If I'm MIXING...the last thing i want to do is take my hands off the board to type. Or off the stage to look at a screen. Also, most of the time(as a TD) i don't have my mixers on com. There is someone designated to sit there on script/com for them and that person relays any necessary communication to the mixer and from the mixer.


----------



## AaronS102 (Jun 7, 2007)

thanks for the link


----------



## Hughesie (Jun 7, 2007)

wow, bring back the past via posts

very nice


----------



## Hughesie (Jun 11, 2007)

6ftstudios said:


> The idea is good, but personally, I wouldn't use it. If I'm MIXING...the last thing i want to do is take my hands off the board to type. Or off the stage to look at a screen. Also, most of the time(as a TD) i don't have my mixers on com. There is someone designated to sit there on script/com for them and that person relays any necessary communication to the mixer and from the mixer.



not all theatre have enough crew for that


----------



## mbenonis (Jun 11, 2007)

Hughesie89 said:


> not all theatre have enough crew for that



If you also have playback via QLab or another program, the computer operator can often double as the comms person for the engineer.


----------



## jkowtko (Jun 13, 2007)

This would actually be a good application for instant messing (IM). If you have internet access within the theater, provide a simple IM-based program that allows for communication between FOH and backstage crew outside of clearcom. You could hook up as many PCs as you want to the same "show" through the IM ... kind of like a chat board but with a structured UI to deal specifically with theater operations.

I know when I'm running the soundboard the last thing I want is a headphone covering my ear. I bought a featherweight Telex headset but I still have to pull it off in order to hear properly. We set up a single "attention" light between main and sound booths, but I need more information than just a simple on/off indicator. An IM-based program might do the trick.


----------



## icewolf08 (Jun 14, 2007)

Generally, for us if there are issues with sound (or any other show critical aspect) more than just the sound crew need to be involved. Using a computer based system ties the deck crew to a display instead of paying attention to what is going on around them.

We seem to have a pretty effective system. Our FOH engineer has a clearcom beltpack attached to the wall and a handset. If he needs to talk to anyone he can literally pick up the phone, ask if he is clear, and then talk to whoever he needs to. The SM can also patch out the sound channel so that everyone else doesn't have to listen if that is better. But this works even on a one channel system, as the SM always wants to know what is going on. If the SM needs to get in touch with the engineer, a couple flashes of the call light works just fine.

Now, I know that a lot of schools, specifically high schools, don't always have enough wireless mics to put on every cast member, but that is what you have dressers and mic dressers for. By the time you finish tech, they should know what they are doing and who gets what mic. They should have run sheets that tell them this. The engineer shouldn't have to worry about weather or not someone got their mic. If there is a problem with a mic, the engineer should be able to take 10 seconds to jump on coms and say: "swap out so-and-so's mic" and then wait for the tech to say: "they are going to be in Spare 1" Even in a show where we had 300+ LX cues, there was enough time out of standbys for the sound engineer to take care of issues like that on coms.

Coms is for relaying show critical information, and sound issues are definitely show critical. I would imagine that most sound engineers don't want an extra screen to worry about, especially when you are doing a big show with lots of mics, a full orchestra and such.


----------



## Hughesie (Jun 14, 2007)

we run two lines to all of our can points
ra and rb

both can be used seperatly but we have never had to and only have one master station
we don't need another one anyone normally


----------



## j_blinker (Jun 29, 2007)

The new Sennheiser G2 system has recently made a an ethernet based system that sends HUD information from the reciever to a PC where level, battery, and mute information is indicated on a very user friendly screen. I completely agree that you shouldn't be wondering who's wearing which mic by the time the curtain goes up, but if that's how you run shows then learning to deal with a com phone-set is probably the most realistic solution. It's easy to make your own that you can keep in the tool case. Using an internet based IM sounds like bad idea, only because you're depending on connection to a server on the moon (or somewhere else equally unaccessible) to keep your show on it's feet. But many local network based messengers exist that would be able to do exactly what you were describing. If there's no way to plan your mic moves 2 laptops and a wireless router would make the kind of system you want possible. For those who say glancing away from the stage or listening to a com for a couple seconds is a major problem some sort of ginseng based power drink might help bring your brain up to regular operating speeds. I hate is as much as the next guy, but people keep giving me coms to do any communicating might need. If I ever find myself with mics making unplanned moves I might just steal you're very interesting idea.


----------



## Hughesie (Jul 3, 2007)

well, our FOH rig during productions already has a rack computer operating with BSS audio's "soundweb" software
so that could used

also i looked at the g2 software and hardware, it's strange isn't. it uses infa red between the recivers and the master station, i like the shure system, it allows you to monitor the system in the way i suggested. the G2 system is good but the infa red is not so good.

i think the g2 thing is called Net 1, or something

still for all this cost i could just buy another master station....


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 9, 2007)

Hughesie89 said:


> still for all this cost i could just buy another master station....



I'm not in the mood to completely re read the entire thread, but I'm going to assume you mean you could get another comms master station. Assuming that I've read this correctly, there are 2 separate circuits installed - ie. 2 lots of 3 pin XLR everywhere, right? You want to run 2 circuits. Simple. A master station sounds very expensive to make it happen. Now I'm not sure what this will do to call functionality, but you can get circuit 2 working by making a simple lead. Connect pins 1 & 2 but leave pin 3 unconnected. Plug one end into circuit A, the other into circuit B and voila, circuit B now has power, but there is no audio link between the two.

Option number 2 involves a separate power supply, ask if you want to know about that.

Otherwise, you could use the trick that allows telephones to work on party line and then just have one backstage & one at the desk. Can't ring though... Incorporating them into comms ain't that hard...

Hope some of that at least a] makes sense and b] is useful.


----------



## Hughesie (Jul 11, 2007)

yeah i didn't know you could do that
we have both connected in because our master station has a ab and a+b
it might be something for us to try, the only problem with that is when the stage manger needs to talk to sound. eh im just being picky i will try that out and see how that goes

now with this not connecting the third pin thing, could i just tape the cable so that is temporary or do i have to bend/remove the third pin

and is the third pin the bottem one?


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 11, 2007)

Hughesie89 said:


> yeah i didn't know you could do that
> we have both connected in because our master station has a ab and a+b
> it might be something for us to try, the only problem with that is when the stage manger needs to talk to sound. eh im just being picky i will try that out and see how that goes
> 
> ...



Soln. for the SM. Possible, not all that hard. I'll think about how one does it best...

Pin 3 is much simpler. Don't remove it or anything. Just don't solder anything into it when you make the cable. And on 3 pin XLR, it is the bottom one.


----------



## Eboy87 (Jul 11, 2007)

Let's see, one show I worked had channel A for the SM to call cues to everyone on, while channel B was for the audio crew. On that one, I was at FOH (with the Clear-Com handset -- those things are wonderful), while my A2 was on the deck as wireless wrangler. 

As far as wireless software, I know Shure has WirelessWorkbench. Supposedly, it also allows you to connect a USB RF scanner, and will select the frequencies for you. It networks with the Shure UHF recievers (or is it the UHF-R?). I personally haven't used it (yet), but I'm sure someone here has. So, in essence, there is software specifically to make the wireless wrangler's job easier. I believe Sennheiser and AKG also have their own versions.

That being said, it would be nice for the RF tech to monitor the mics via the software GUI, and be able to select a particular mic to monitor via headphones from the computer's headphone jack. I have no idea if that's been done already, but it'd make trouble shooting much easier.


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 14, 2007)

Eboy87 said:


> As far as wireless software, I know Shure has WirelessWorkbench. Supposedly, it also allows you to connect a USB RF scanner, and will select the frequencies for you. It networks with the Shure UHF recievers (or is it the UHF-R?). I personally haven't used it (yet), but I'm sure someone here has. So, in essence, there is software specifically to make the wireless wrangler's job easier. I believe Sennheiser and AKG also have their own versions.
> 
> That being said, it would be nice for the RF tech to monitor the mics via the software GUI, and be able to select a particular mic to monitor via headphones from the computer's headphone jack. I have no idea if that's been done already, but it'd make trouble shooting much easier.



The impression that I had was that with wireless workbench, you connected one of the receivers and it used that to do the scanning. I believe it works with the new UHF-R series and the U series, the U series needs an interface box though, the UHF-R series is natively ethernet. As far as the idea of streaming audio, I think it could be an unpleasant load on the connections. I think we'd agree that it would not b worth listening to if it had come through a parallel port, but with ethernet, it could be an option. I think that if / when we get to a point of radio mic receivers and other equipment coming with cobranet or ethersound or something on the back of them, then this could be a very feasible solution. Until that point, I'd have thought it a bit hard. If one wanted that sort of thing, I'd think it wouldn't be that hard to make up a switch panel with a headphone socket and the audio from each receiver brought to a switch, then to a mixing resistor (so you can have more than one at one) and then possibly to a small amp (depends on your signal level) and then to the headphones. Or you get really crafty and wire it into the wrangler's headset - simple two pot mixer to control the two volumes.


----------



## Andy_Leviss (Jul 14, 2007)

Chris15 said:


> Now I'm not sure what this will do to call functionality, but you can get circuit 2 working by making a simple lead. Connect pins 1 & 2 but leave pin 3 unconnected. Plug one end into circuit A, the other into circuit B and voila, circuit B now has power, but there is no audio link between the two.



This solution will leave channel B unterminated. To derive a second channel from a single-channel mainstation, you not only need to lift pin 3, but need to add a properly wired terminator to channel B. 

If you want to roll your own, you can find a wiring diagram for a ClearCom terminator here.

Call lights should then work properly within each channel; ClearCom call lights use a DC voltage imposed onto the audio line (pin 3).


----------



## Hughesie (Jul 14, 2007)

actually, i have never made my own cable or anything

any ideas for doing without creating a cable

would taping pin 3 work?


----------



## Eboy87 (Jul 14, 2007)

Chris, admittidly, I don't know much about Ethernet. From what I understand, it would be possible; think of iTunes. I know it's not that good of an example, but there, I can have it running on a desktop in my room, while another instance is running on my laptop downstairs connected via WiFi. I can play songs from my "desktop library" on my laptop over the network, even while I cruise the internet and print a paper. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years or so, we have wireless software that can allow us to monitor a specific reciever.


----------



## Hughesie (Jul 14, 2007)

the technology is around but i reckon as others have said there is no market for it


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 16, 2007)

Hughesie89 said:


> actually, i have never made my own cable or anything
> 
> any ideas for doing without creating a cable
> 
> would taping pin 3 work?



I'm sorry but I think the answer is that it wouldn't work. As you plug in a taped connector, it will either not go in or it'll push back the tape as it goes. Also, I'd have thought you'd in essence want a gender bender. I'm presuming that the outlets are all male or all female, can't remember which it should be at the moment. So an off the street cable wouldn't work too well...

Worst comes to worst, I might be able to make up the required cable with a terminator and post it down to you...


Eboy87 said:


> Chris, admittidly, I don't know much about Ethernet. From what I understand, it would be possible; think of iTunes. I know it's not that good of an example, but there, I can have it running on a desktop in my room, while another instance is running on my laptop downstairs connected via WiFi. I can play songs from my "desktop library" on my laptop over the network, even while I cruise the internet and print a paper. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years or so, we have wireless software that can allow us to monitor a specific reciever.



I never said it wasn't possible. But when you talk of iTunes and such, it's not streaming. The file is there, it's not a case of happening now. Any sort of latency in the mic case would be a right pain to deal with... Problem number 2 that I can see: Basically I'm guessing that the UHF-R in essence has a ethernet connected RS232 port or at least something conceptually similar. Data doesn't need much bandwidth or high speed but audio does. Having said that, it's probably linked into the micro in the receiver. Now I'm guessing that the micro doesn't do anything with the audio. I don't think there are micros that run fast enough and are powerful enough to cope, though I could be wrong. So it would mean that you'd need a second interface I'd think... BUT, what I would think a reasonably simple option would be to stick an output such that you daisy them all together and plug your headphones in to it. Then using the software, you click on which receiver you want to listen to. That would be reasonably simple to do - a switched line out of a micro ain't hard...


----------



## Hughesie (Jul 17, 2007)

Chris15 said:


> I'm sorry but I think the answer is that it wouldn't work. As you plug in a taped connector, it will either not go in or it'll push back the tape as it goes. Also, I'd have thought you'd in essence want a gender bender. I'm presuming that the outlets are all male or all female, can't remember which it should be at the moment. So an off the street cable wouldn't work too well...
> 
> Worst comes to worst, I might be able to make up the required cable with a terminator and post it down to you...
> 
> ...


yeah chris that might have to be it

how hard is it to make a cable anyway, i might be able to do it


----------



## Chris15 (Jul 17, 2007)

Hughesie89 said:


> yeah chris that might have to be it
> 
> how hard is it to make a cable anyway, i might be able to do it



How good is your soldering? That's what will get you... Otherwise, this sort of cable isn't that hard to make...


----------



## Hughesie (Jul 20, 2007)

Soldering  yeah, about that

i have never done it before


----------



## avkid (Jul 20, 2007)

Hughesie89 said:


> Soldering  yeah, about that
> i have never done it before:neutral:


Out of here now, we don't know you!!
What do they teach you in school down there?
But seriously, these will help:
http://www.kingbass.com/soldering101.html
http://www.epemag.wimborne.co.uk/solderfaq.htm


----------



## Hughesie (Jul 20, 2007)

well all my sound and light experiance is, self taught


----------



## ruinexplorer (Jul 23, 2007)

Honestly, labeling your mics and getting a good cue sheet to your A2's would solve the majority of these issues. Granted, I have worked in the AV industry and do not have an experienced technician helping me (usually just a meeting coordinator that I had to give basic instructions prior to the meeting on mic operation). At that point, I have to use my pfl and check who is talking. In most cases, you need to have control of where your mics are going, so a computer program that tells you who has what is already making you play catch-up.


----------



## Hughesie (Jul 23, 2007)

yes but the crew isn't the problem, most of the time we have two people doing it and they sit around for most of it. the problem is actors decide on their own whether the need the mic what they do is, if they feel there too loud they turn it off or GIVE IT TO A FRIEND
so we turn their mic up to find someone off stage talking, there not the smartest breed of people. and i know what your going to say, we should do something, but the truth is we can't, the moment they come off, they change the pack to the right person, then they scream at us for having it not work the scene after because they don't know how to do it


----------



## avkid (Jul 23, 2007)

Hughesie89 said:


> we should do something, but the truth is we can't, the moment they come off, they change the pack to the right person, then they scream at us for having it not work the scene after because they don't know how to do it


PFL with headphones.


----------



## Hughesie (Jul 23, 2007)

DURING A SHOW, while doing other mic's

we try but it's hard


----------

