Jude 2

I was speaking with my father tonight. He does the audio/visual stuff for his church. He was telling me that after february they aren't supposed to use the wireless microphones any longer...something akin to the digital television signals that everyone is supposed to switch over to.

Something about the FCC locking up all of the channels that the microphones use.

Anyone know anything more about this?

He is not exactly correct. The lower end Shure body packs will continue to work fine according to our local sound system integrators. I have ours in the shop now getting a defective switch replaced so we can milk a few more years out of it.

Read this: http://www.shure.com/proaudio/products/us_pro_ea_dtv

It affects wireless systems in the 746-806 MHz band.

http://www.wirelessmic.net/get_ready.html

It doesn't look like it's being banned, only that emergency services will start using those frequencies.

bibleguy wrote:It affects wireless systems in the 746-806 MHz band.

http://www.wirelessmic.net/get_ready.html

It doesn't look like it's being banned, only that emergency services will start using those frequencies.

Our shure head sets are definately affected and I am bummed about that. There is a neighborhood firehouse less than a 1/2 mile from our church. Guess I am going to wait and see.

I would not like to have to go out and buy new wireless gear.

I sure don't want to lose our Synhauser (Sp?) .......those things are 4k a pop! They were donated to us.....have to keep them.

Dr. Ron wrote:I sure don't want to lose our Synhauser (Sp?) .......those things are 4k a pop! They were donated to us.....have to keep them.

from what I have read, you can keep and use anything. Since the bandwidth may be sold to emergency services, you just run the risk of something overpowering your signal.

i wonder if someone makes a gate that will shut down the audio when that happens. been looking, but haven't seen anything yet.

My best friend owns Sescom. I bet he is working on this right now.....he will be here Saturday....we will see what he says.

Paully_44 wrote:from what I have read, you can keep and use anything. Since the bandwidth may be sold to emergency services, you just run the risk of something overpowering your signal.

Not if you have a bigger transmitter.

RamboPreacher wrote:i wonder if someone makes a gate that will shut down the audio when that happens. been looking, but haven't seen anything yet.

They do. It's called a board op who is fast on the mute button for said channel.

::dons asbestos armor, ducks to avoid flying objects::

Jeremy Gault wrote:

RamboPreacher wrote:i wonder if someone makes a gate that will shut down the audio when that happens. been looking, but haven't seen anything yet.

They do. It's called a board op who is fast on the mute button for said channel.

::dons asbestos armor, ducks to avoid flying objects::

so, put the entire system on a delay setup, so that when the first audio comes through the shut-off is engaged, and the audio-loop disabled/reset after the mute? heheheee (used to be a deejay)

[quote="RamboPreacher"so, put the entire system on a delay setup, so that when the first audio comes through the shut-off is engaged, and the audio-loop disabled/reset after the mute? heheheee (used to be a deejay)[/quote]
Well, yeah, technically that would work, and arguably it is be a better, cleaner solution. However, your idea fails to account for the fact that it's like pulling teeth to get most churches to spend money on said equipment.

I suggested the finding a new board op option since it was free (if you can get a volunteer.)

You know, maybe we can go into business together and come up with a product based on all of this!

i am not really a proponent of the delay setup. but a gate-type system might work. there would be a certain frequency or modulation used that could be detected and gate-off the signal. just don't know what that
trigger would actually be.

using a resister matrix, or a capacitive reactance setup, a soft or hard knee could be selected and possibly a variable setting for tweaking, but would have to also have a simulator, kind of like a pink or white noise generator, for testing and setup.

An A-D converter would change the circuitry a bit, and then D-A, but would be more programmable, especially when dealing with a range of frequencies that the microphones could be using and set to at any given time.

essentially a "sideways" peak-gate setup. but just thinking out loud.