Beware of Placing Wireless Mic Receivers Near Apple Router

[Wynnd]

UHF is much better than VHF.  (I've had both and the UHF is nearly impossible to have drop out.)  Don't think the digital mic is VHF.  Like I said, I will check and see what mine is. 

[WK154]

I've got one of the Shure digital headset mic and fanny pack.  It's always worked perfectly.  What have you heard that's different?

My mate suggested that the UHF microphones would work better when there wasn't a good line of sight. It was nothing to do with interferrence with or from a wireless router.

Cheers

It's the lower frequency, longer distance for the same power. So a 500 Mhz vs. 2400 Mhz makes a big difference.

[gerenm63]

It's the lower frequency, longer distance for the same power. So a 500 Mhz vs. 2400 Mhz makes a big difference.

Oddly, this doesn't seem to hold true for 2.4GHz in other use areas. For instance, radio control hobbyists enjoy the same or greater range, with less interference, using 2.4GHz digital systems as opposed to the 72MHz FM and digital systems that are being phased out -- and the 2.4GHz gear operates at lower power.

I've been having to do a fair amount of research on 2.4GHz equipment lately for other reasons, and from what I can see, if there's a problem going on with interference between wireless routers and wireless mics, something is not playing by the rules with regards to the 2.4GHz ISM space.

[WK154]

It's the lower frequency, longer distance for the same power. So a 500 Mhz vs. 2400 Mhz makes a big difference.

Oddly, this doesn't seem to hold true for 2.4GHz in other use areas. For instance, radio control hobbyists enjoy the same or greater range, with less interference, using 2.4GHz digital systems as opposed to the 72MHz FM and digital systems that are being phased out -- and the 2.4GHz gear operates at lower power.

I've been having to do a fair amount of research on 2.4GHz equipment lately for other reasons, and from what I can see, if there's a problem going on with interference between wireless routers and wireless mics, something is not playing by the rules with regards to the 2.4GHz ISM space.

Oddly enough the laws of physics still hold true even though some would think otherwise. 72 Mhz has more distance capability than 2.4 Ghz.

[sam.spoons]

Given the probably future overuse of the 2.4GHz band I would be very wary of a 2M wingspan 250mph model jet aircraft controlled by the same wireless as my smartphone turning into a 2M/250mph unguided flying bomb

[gerenm63]

It's the lower frequency, longer distance for the same power. So a 500 Mhz vs. 2400 Mhz makes a big difference.

Oddly, this doesn't seem to hold true for 2.4GHz in other use areas. For instance, radio control hobbyists enjoy the same or greater range, with less interference, using 2.4GHz digital systems as opposed to the 72MHz FM and digital systems that are being phased out -- and the 2.4GHz gear operates at lower power.

I've been having to do a fair amount of research on 2.4GHz equipment lately for other reasons, and from what I can see, if there's a problem going on with interference between wireless routers and wireless mics, something is not playing by the rules with regards to the 2.4GHz ISM space.

Oddly enough the laws of physics still hold true even though some would think otherwise. 72 Mhz has more distance capability than 2.4 Ghz.

Anecdotal experience proves otherwise. Yeah, I know. Theoretically, it's a physics thing.

But, as Yogi Berra said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

And as an engineer working in television by day, and musician and working sound guy by night (and weekend), I can certainly attest to that.

Cheers!

[gerenm63]

Given the probably future overuse of the 2.4GHz band I would be very wary of a 2M wingspan 250mph model jet aircraft controlled by the same wireless as my smartphone turning into a 2M/250mph unguided flying bomb

The R/C manufacturers are very careful to play by the rules. With the 2.4GHz stuff, there are safeguards in place to keep one pilot from inadvertently interfering with another's aircraft. With the older systems, the only safeguard is being sure you're transmitter is turned off when you don't have the proper clothespin attached to your antenna.

[sam.spoons]

Very few people other than the fliers will have a 72MHz TX set in their pocket though where there'll be dozens of 2.4GHz devices in the vicinity, that, coupled with the interference problems we encounter driving something as relatively harmless at a PA system is what worries me. The RC aeroplane operators are responsible guys and abide by the rules, the 300 spectators with their smartphones trying to connect to the cafe's free wifi is entirely another matter

[gerenm63]

Very few people other than the fliers will have a 72MHz TX set in their pocket though where there'll be dozens of 2.4GHz devices in the vicinity, that, coupled with the interference problems we encounter driving something as relatively harmless at a PA system is what worries me. The RC aeroplane operators are responsible guys and abide by the rules, the 300 spectators with their smartphones trying to connect to the cafe's free wifi is entirely another matter

What I'm saying is that 2.4GHz in that environment is proven technology and is not a problem. It, like WiFi, operates in the 2.4GHz ISM (Industrial/Scientific/Medical) spectrum, where it can't be a problem -- or people get hurt or die. Further, I would suggest that if a wireless mic system is causing or having problems in an environment with WiFi, then the wireless microphone equipment is most likely at fault. Either it's not "playing by the rules," or the design is inferior in some way.

[RoadRanger]

What are these rules you speak of? AFAIK there are no coexisting "rules"?

[sam.spoons]

Very few people other than the fliers will have a 72MHz TX set in their pocket though where there'll be dozens of 2.4GHz devices in the vicinity, that, coupled with the interference problems we encounter driving something as relatively harmless at a PA system is what worries me. The RC aeroplane operators are responsible guys and abide by the rules, the 300 spectators with their smartphones trying to connect to the cafe's free wifi is entirely another matter

What I'm saying is that 2.4GHz in that environment is proven technology and is not a problem. It, like WiFi, operates in the 2.4GHz ISM (Industrial/Scientific/Medical) spectrum, where it can't be a problem -- or people get hurt or die. Further, I would suggest that if a wireless mic system is causing or having problems in an environment with WiFi, then the wireless microphone equipment is most likely at fault. Either it's not "playing by the rules," or the design is inferior in some way.

Fair comment G but if I lose connection with my mixer it keeps on playing until I regain connection. If something causes the plane to lose contact with it's operator it keeps on flying or crashes. Either way we have the aforementioned 250mph unguided flying bomb scenario.

[gerenm63]

What are these rules you speak of? AFAIK there are no coexisting "rules"?

There are protocols surrounding the 2.4GHz ISM space in which a transmitter (or, more correctly, transceiver) is supposed to listen and scan for an open frequency (or pair of frequencies in some equipment) before powering up the transmitter on an open frequency. Some older 2.4GHz cordless phones and baby monitors skip this step. Some equipment allows for manual management of the selected frequency, similar to UHF wireless gear. I found the info buried in the FCC regs, but the 2.4GHz ISM specifications are an international standard.

The R/C stuff generally grabs two frequencies, and also has a identifier code which allows some really cool stuff to happen to prevent loss of control of the 250mph flying bomb due to interference.

[sam.spoons]

Interesting stuff Geren but it still sounds risky to me, how can they can guarantee to prevent a loss of connection on such a congested waveband? 72MHz channels 11-60 in the US are dedicated to RC aircraft so nothing else is competing for the bandwidth and as long as the fliers act responsibly there should be no conflicts. WiFi/2.4GHz is proven to be a different basket of fish..... If the RC guys have enough power to stomp everything else in the vicinity then I guess I'll be refusing those model plane rally PA gigs in the future 

[gerenm63]

Interesting stuff Geren but it still sounds risky to me, how can they can guarantee to prevent a loss of connection on such a congested waveband? 72MHz channels 11-60 in the US are dedicated to RC aircraft so nothing else is competing for the bandwidth and as long as the fliers act responsibly there should be no conflicts. WiFi/2.4GHz is proven to be a different basket of fish..... If the RC guys have enough power to stomp everything else in the vicinity then I guess I'll be refusing those model plane rally PA gigs in the future 

It's not a power thing. Their transmitters simply will not come up on your frequency.

[sam.spoons]

But what if your transmitter comes up on theirs? I'm interested now and will have to do some reading