Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

[frank kayser]

In terms of wireless in the audio industry - will we ever find a home? Mics relegated to 2.4ghz or 5ghz?

War’s New Frontier: DOD presses for EMF spectrum used by cell phones for next generation weapons
Drones, stealth jets to eat up large blocs of bandwidth

Read more: War
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[Tim McCulloch]

Re: Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

Frank, the quick answer to the question in the subject line: It will get more expensive, and our customers will not understand why we can't rent a wireless mic for $50/day anymore.

The Digital Crystal Ball sez: "Sans accessories, any wireless mic system of commercial grade or better will cost a minimum of $1500/channel by 2016. Truly professional wireless will go up by 35% or more." Funny, but there's no interference with the DCB today....

 

[Per Søvik]

Re: Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

Doesn't seem like the smartest move in the world to allocate frequency bands to the armed forces. By allocating bands, you effectively advertise what frequencies any enemy would be advised to jam.
Since the name of the game in any operation on foreign soil will have to rely on frequency hopping and wideband scatter or spread-spectrum techniques in already densely populated airwaves, it would make sense to employ that technology in everyday operations as well.

 

[Justice C. Bigler]

Re: Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

I haven't had the conversation with my boss about the fact that we will have to replace at least half and maybe more of the wireless mics that we bought just a few years ago in the next two years.

Mostly, I'm hoping I'll find a better job and let the next guy deal with it...And maybe he/she won't have any clue and it will be a royal cluster fuck for the building and I can sit back and have a good chuckle.

 

[Ben Gingerich]

Re: Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

Doesn't seem like the smartest move in the world to allocate frequency bands to the armed forces. By allocating bands, you effectively advertise what frequencies any enemy would be advised to jam.
Since the name of the game in any operation on foreign soil will have to rely on frequency hopping and wideband scatter or spread-spectrum techniques in already densely populated airwaves, it would make sense to employ that technology in everyday operations as well.

Unfortunately in the U.S. we still have the mentality that we can never be attacked so it doesn't matter what we do here. :?~:-?~:???:

 

[Randy Pence]

Re: Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

Unfortunately in the U.S. we still have the mentality that we can never be attacked so it doesn't matter what we do here. :?~:-?~:???:

geographic isolation almost completely ensures that there will never be an invasion, but the same devices used domestically would likely also be employed overseas

 

[Ben Gingerich]

Re: Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

geographic isolation almost completely ensures that there will never be an invasion, but the same devices used domestically would likely also be employed overseas

While I agree that a ground or air invasion is not likely, and probably not possible from any of our foes, it happens every day in cyber and small terror efforts, and communications still happens as those events play out.
Being in a Combat Communications Unit I hate the idea of being tied down to a few bands.

However it effects me much more that the wirelesses at several local venues work one week and the next week don't because of the base setting up some different gear

 

[John B. Miller]

Re: Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

This may be a stupid question (I have no formal electronics training, and therefore have no idea of the feasibility of such an idea), but why can't Shure or Sennheiser or some other big wireless player com up with a modular wireless mic with a swappable radio? In other words, you buy your mic capsule and body, and then you buy a separate transmitter module that slides in like a battery. Same with the receiver - you have the rackmount unit with the LCD display, connectors, antennae, and whatever other features, and plug in the appropriate radio receiver. That way, if you run into a situation where you need another set of channels, you could field-swap them with another set. Or if the government says you can't use THESE ones anymore - you take the old radio out, and slide a new one in, instead of throwing all that perfectly good gear away and starting from scratch. I'm sure I'm missing something...could someone please explain? :?~:-?~:???:

Thanks.

 

[Rob Spence]

Re: Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

This may be a stupid question (I have no formal electronics training, and therefore have no idea of the feasibility of such an idea), but why can't Shure or Sennheiser or some other big wireless player com up with a modular wireless mic with a swappable radio? In other words, you buy your mic capsule and body, and then you buy a separate transmitter module that slides in like a battery. Same with the receiver - you have the rackmount unit with the LCD display, connectors, antennae, and whatever other features, and plug in the appropriate radio receiver. That way, if you run into a situation where you need another set of channels, you could field-swap them with another set. Or if the government says you can't use THESE ones anymore - you take the old radio out, and slide a new one in, instead of throwing all that perfectly good gear away and starting from scratch. I'm sure I'm missing something...could someone please explain? :?~:-?~:???:

Thanks.

The simple answer is that each unit would cost a bunch more which would make it less competitive in the volume market. It would also add weight to the portable part.


Sent from my iPad HD

 

[Karl Winkler]

Re: Crowded out again? What does this mean for wireless in the audio industry?

This may be a stupid question (I have no formal electronics training, and therefore have no idea of the feasibility of such an idea), but why can't Shure or Sennheiser or some other big wireless player com up with a modular wireless mic with a swappable radio? In other words, you buy your mic capsule and body, and then you buy a separate transmitter module that slides in like a battery. Same with the receiver - you have the rackmount unit with the LCD display, connectors, antennae, and whatever other features, and plug in the appropriate radio receiver. That way, if you run into a situation where you need another set of channels, you could field-swap them with another set. Or if the government says you can't use THESE ones anymore - you take the old radio out, and slide a new one in, instead of throwing all that perfectly good gear away and starting from scratch. I'm sure I'm missing something...could someone please explain? :?~:-?~:???:

Thanks.

To some extent, that IS what we do - although anything modular is MORE expensive than non-modular products. The last time around (the 700 MHz sell-off) we offered a service policy where users could send in their 700 MHz wireless gear and we replaced the radio circuit board only for a moderate cost (about 1/3 the value of the product). We converted thousands of channels of wireless mics in this manner.

To be able to make A) moderately priced and B) high-performance wireless, the modular idea as you describe it is problematic. That is not to say that in the future, you might not see systems more like what you are envisioning.

FYI, here's our take on the the spectrum thing, in detail. It starts with the present situation, covers a bit about how we got here, and our crystal-ball look at the future after having met with the FCC a few weeks ago: FCC & Spectrum Updates | FCC & Spectrum Updates | Resources