Simon Lewis

I've not used the 1.8GHz band radios but do remember from a training session that the Sennheiser G4 1.8GHz units had a better designed front end filtering that allowed linear spacing of adjacent frequencies, something that has carried over to their new(ish) EW-D range. Their gear may be pricey but seems well designed. Hopefully you can get your new purchases co-existing happily?!

Looking around on MT's discussion pages, there's others asking the same question. One reply suggests, "Turbodrive is the turbo version of Linea Research podware". The LR download site is here: https://linea-research.co.uk/downloads/ It's not clear whether you'd get the Turbo specific presets with that, though.

Not seen one but it's probably worth trying out just for "Bring a romantic and dreamy atmosphere to your home"!!

The 5th edition of the IET's Code of Practice for In Service Inspection and Testing of Electrical Equipment was written by James Eade, and he has brought much needed clarity of thinking to the whole "PAT" circus. First major change is that since the electrical installation should be subject to periodic inspection (EICR etc.) anything that is not part of the electrical installation (including wired in equipment) should be subject to testing. He has scrapped use of the terms "portable" and "appliance". The second is the affirmation of a risk based approach to testing frequency. This was actually always there but people seized on the table of suggested test frequencies, made them akin to canonical law and pronounced that stuff had to be tested every 12 months etc. In this case, the risk presented by devices that aren't run on a frequent basis and aren't moved or disturbed doesn't seem to warrant such frequent inspection as 3 months. Conversely, the wired in Minims ought to at least be inspected to get them on the list so that any potential long term thermal / ageing damage can be spotted. The Code of Practice is somewhat overpriced, but it's actually a very sensible and useful read.... https://shop.theiet.org/code-of-practice-for-in-service-inspection-and-testing-of-electrical-equipment-5th-edition

I should have made the connection!! But when I've only ever thought of you as "cedd" your real name didn't ring any bells!!

There's also a few useful comments in this thread: https://forums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/topic,178089.0.html

If you mean the M7, it can't be expanded beyond its 48 channels, unlike the LS9 which can go from 32 to 64....

I didn't see this topic first time round.... Using a headset over a more powerful aid will probably just lead to feedback (hence most aid users wouldn't want to wear headphones). However, as dmxlights says, if the aid has a telecoil fitted and activated, then most headphones will work direct into the telecoil with the added advantage that the aid will only be receiving the headphone signal (as long as there isn't too much electromagnetic background noise to cause interference).

I was considering using 4WRDs but the photometrics seemed only "almost" as good as tungsten, it wasn't a particularly cheap upgrade, the supply chain was impacted and ETC warned that they couldn't be used in very cold temperatures (the user I had in mind was a particularly cold CofE building, where it was quite likely that the lights would go on well before the heating did). They are in the process of repurposing the Source 4s for occasional event use and replacing them with some higher output LED Chauvet fixtures.

Ah - that was only about £6000! 😉

For my old place, it depended on what was wanted and what it was wanted for. For quite a bit of the year there would be a live sound, lighting and video rig set up in the performance space, and if the space wasn't in use/about to be used for teaching, students could go in and use equipment. We had a technician responsible for that area who could provide access and support. He would also know if a rig was about to be prepped for an external event, so that everything was available when expected. We did not make our AVL equipment available for student's own events or to take offsite, only the specific events that we were officially supporting, were part of teaching or possibly a final year project. We might have been a bit more lenient for an odd mic, but didn't want a £25,000 mixer being stuffed into the back of a student's car and driven off into the sunset 🙂 Separate to the live performance space, we had a booking system for recording studio hardware (usually more esoteric mics etc.) that could be booked online, typically in the same day. This was primarily for studio use, but could be taken out for location recordings etc. There was also an equipment store run by colleagues in Art, that carried some AV and camera gear. This could also be booked online and picked up almost straight away, and could be taken off site. The more canny art students quickly realised that they could run a small photography business with some nice borrowed bodies and lenses if they booked the stuff at the right time... Overall, small items could be booked at pretty short notice, subject to the rules regarding return times, etc.

We found them quite good for cooking breakfast ... 🙂

I think I have tried all of these methods at some point... Riveting is OK, but can sometimes result in slightly misaligned connectors (and is a pain if you want to re-jig the connectors at any point). As Sunray highlights, they can work loose in some circumstances. The M3 tapped XLRs are simple and quick to fasten, but it does limit the type of connector you can use. The tapped backplate is good (but an extra item to purchase). Using an M3x12mm screw worked well for me, especially with a nut runner. Sometimes it was a bit hard to get it to locate properly, but by the time the nut was nearly tightened, it was easy to jam it against the XLR shell. I've even managed to used Nylock M3s for this. I think my preference is for M3 nut and bolts.

169, 171 and 192 don't sound like current VHF shared or co-ordinated frequencies? 177 is a co-ordinated licenced frequency (but not available in Northern Ireland). None of them are licence free. I believe there was a bit of a shake up of VHF frequencies outside of 173.8-175 some years back as space was given to DAB radio ?

We are using "AES/EBU" (apparently called AES3 these days 😉 ) over about 50m of shielded CAT5e and the very cheap but quite well made Ssnake CAT adapters ( https://www.thomann.de/gb/the_sssnake_cat_snake_3mc.htm ). We used STP as the same set of cable runs are also for DMX and some tie lines, so could be used for mics needing phantom power. Everything works fine....

There's often this kind of stuff on the 'Sound & Lighting Swap Shop UK' Facebook page

Glad that you are aware - wouldn't want there to be any surprises! Hope you can find a unit at the right price.

Unfortunately for you, I believe my erstwhile employer is still quite attached to their LV6...! It's quite a nice controller. You'll need the Socapex to 3xYellow and 3xRed Ceeform breakout boxes (unless you already have these or can make up your own 'tails'). Just one note of caution, though... if you are running normal lighting Socapex in the rig, it's important to keep it quite separate from the motor distribution Socapex. We worked out that if the motor controller Soca had been inadvertently connected to a Soca spider we had feeding six floor mount par cans, three of the cans would have a different live phase on the metal shell...! Also, if the Socapex cable used had been wired to the not so common but sometimes found practice of soldering pins 13 to 18 together to ensure all the earths were shared, you would expect a pretty big bang with the resultant three phase dead short.

Just found my notes from one of the Sennheiser dealers: "Sennheiser say the new ASA is good for EW-D and other EW systems, but the older ASA from G2/3/4 shouldn’t be used with EW-D". Just looked at the supplier I use and the EW-D ASA isn't in stock at the moment...

I believe it is to do with the improved front end filtering that is used/needed for the EW-D system. It boasts an equidistant tuning grid and the elimination of intermodulation - which is quite an achievement. Whilst I get that Sennheiser might just say 'you have to use this distribution with the EW-D system because we say so' there does seem to be a proper rationale behind this. Having invested in the EW-D system, my take would be that it makes more sense to buy the dedicated products for antennae distribution, rather than chancing it with third party products.

I don't have the technical rationale for this, but when Sennheiser bought out the EW-D they were saying that the existing antennae distribution systems weren't compatible. They have, of course, since bought out the EW-D ADP directional paddle and the EW-D ASA splitter, both of which are designed to accommodate EW-D systems. Just from a practical viewpoint, I would suggest one pair of paddles and a splitter is a better (and cheaper) approach than buying individual pairs of paddles for the three EW-Ds. That said, Sennheiser sell an inexpensive half wave dipole antennae for the EW-D. I don't have performance figures, but at only ~ £26 each it's a cheaper way of exploring extra performance. Are you actually experiencing poor RF performance with your EW-Ds?

Seems no-one has any suggestions...! Is it possible to explain the requirements a bit more, to better understand what the mics need to achieve? Not sure whether to suggest an experienced location recording engineer or an electroacoustician familiar with the demands of architectural acoustics enhancement?!

Listen Technologies Infra Red is very good, with excellent coverage from even just one IR radiator. In common with many ALS technologies though, it doesn't really have sensible input monitoring or level management. The Sennheiser Tourguide 2020D (that Jon P mentions above) is also very good if you are not using channel 70 for something else. It has excellent coverage - in fact we checked a system in use at a velodrome, and it was getting a signal to changing rooms and backstage areas in addition to all of the arena's main performance and seating areas. Both system obviously need a receiver per user and need charging up. I have tested the Sennheiser Mobile Connect system, and even in its revised form, it still exhibits sufficient latency to make direct lip reading from a little difficult to well nigh impossible. The degree of latency depends not only on the transmission system but also the phone or tablet used to listen. The very latest Apple device is barely passable. Testing using my more modest Motorola G7 actually made it hard to associate the received ALS signal with the talker, such was the delay. The BOYD concept also requires the user to have a good means of getting sound from the phone to the aid. Not so many users have this. Add in the poor usability factors for older folk that you highlight, and I too would suggest steering away from this approach. I have yet to test the Williams Wavecast system that Ampetronic are selling, but suspect that similar issues will be faced. There are still a large number of hearing aid users in this country with NHS aids, and these will have telecoils fitted. It's possible that they may not have the telecoil enabled by the audiologist though (although that can be remedied by a visit back to the hospital). An induction loop is usually the preferred option for actual users, as there's typically no need for any additional receiving equipment, it is simple to make use of and it doesn't draw attention with hardware or extra technology. It also removes that layer of being dependent upon the venue managing the maintenance, distribution and collection of receivers. If your floor layout and building structure is amenable to induction loop, it's certainly an option that is worth considering. In terms of manufacturers, I believe that the Ampetronic loop amps are the best available. You pay a bit of a premium, but they are excellent units and they offer first class support too. Of course there are potentially some issues with loop spill and musical instrument pickup, so it's worth discussing this with a supplier before purchase. I encounter quite a bit of disinformation being spread around concerning assisted listening systems these days... One line is: "loops are an old fashioned technology that needs retiring". I would suggest this is false - there are new loop amps coming to market with DSP, Dante and built in set up and optimisation routines. The use of induction loop - either as a perimeter/array system in its own right as an AFILS or personal neck/earhook is still the basis of reception for most IR, FM and even VoIP systems. Another is: "aids don't have telecoils fitted anymore". This is again false for the majority of NHS aids. Small 'vanity' type aids may not have the space for a telecoil, but these do tend to be lower powered units for people with more moderate hearing loss. Another is: "all aids will have Bluetooth soon". Well, there is a move towards Bluetooth in the private sector, but the uptake in NHS circles is much slower. Bluetooth will consume more power and (depending upon version etc.) is likely to introduce some degree of latency. As mentioned above, latency is a killer when it comes to lip reading, and most hearing impaired people will rely upon this, even if it is a subconscious skill. Even with a Bluetooth enabled aid (or an aid that is coupled with a Bluetooth pendant receiver) the venue still has to transmit the Bluetooth signal, cope with limited range and simultaneous connections, plus help with those struggling to pair devices. The other is: "VoIP based systems are the best way forward (with the hint it's the 'only' way forward)". Well, I really like the technology and what it can offer. It does, however, shift the onus and responsibility onto the user. They need to have bought their phone with them, have enough battery, have the right app, find the right network and password, sit through the performance with the reprobation of other patrons bearing down on them as they fiddle with a brightly lit phone. There's also the issue that whilst some deaf users can hear or couple with a phone well enough to hear a predictable phone call from someone they know, many won't have a neck loop or earhook adapter that would be necessary for them to hear a performance when using VoIP. Some of these lines are being spread quite aggressively, and one can only guess that it is the purveyors of newer technologies who may be behind this push to discredit older technologies.

I've had good results with the BSS DI boxes. The original DN200 ("rubber sleeved brick") has been updated to a smaller v2, and there's a number of variants in the newer lower cost series. Most are out of stock, though, as seems to be the case with several brands of DI. I've used and liked EMO, but a quick check with Canford show them to be twice the price that I last paid for one. At the moment, it seems that Radial are the best bet for being in stock, unless you want to check with Orchid...

We are not meant to say "nuisance" anymore - it gives the impression that the RCD is being deliberately vexatious! "Unwanted" is the correct term 😉 Using type C does help with inrush current (5-10 times rated current vs the B curve's 3-5 times rated current) but the earth fault loop impedance of these circuits needs to be suitable as well.