New Shure QLX-D

Max Warasila

Max Warasila

Graduate
Feb 20, 2013
1,217
73
48
Richmond, VA
Don't know how many of you have seen/taken a look at these things yet, but from the *winces* marketing, it seems like this would be a great tool for a lot of different people, especially with WWB6 at the disposal of people.

Yes, yes, wireless audio is much more complicated than that, but at least people might measure the airwaves first.
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

I'm currently using ULX-P systems and looking to upgrade. I'm torn between these and the ULX-D. I've heard GREAT things about the ULX-D systems, but the feature set of the QLX-D matches what I'd need, and they are priced several hundred less each. The specs look to be similar, but they also looked similar between the ULX and the SLX systems. The SLX is a pile of junk in comparison to the ULX. I know the features I'd be giving up by going QLX, but would I be sacrificing quality and reliability at the same time?
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

Brian jojade said:
I'm currently using ULX-P systems and looking to upgrade. I'm torn between these and the ULX-D. I've heard GREAT things about the ULX-D systems, but the feature set of the QLX-D matches what I'd need, and they are priced several hundred less each. The specs look to be similar, but they also looked similar between the ULX and the SLX systems. The SLX is a pile of junk in comparison to the ULX. I know the features I'd be giving up by going QLX, but would I be sacrificing quality and reliability at the same time?
Click to expand...

Back in the analog days the difference between series was a different RF section. these days the difference between series is a dumbed down feature set, but the lower end units get to benefit from the technology of the high end stuff.
The differences between ULX-D and QLX-D won't be comparable to the differences between ULX-P and SLX

Jason
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

If it's truly a difference in feature set only, then the QLX looks to be an awesome choice. They do only ship with 1/4 wave antennas, but replacing that is easy enough. My concern is that they use different, cheaper RF components as well, and won't operate as well as the ULX. Hoping to hear some real world perspective before I make a decision. Luckily I've got time.
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

Brian jojade said:
If it's truly a difference in feature set only, then the QLX looks to be an awesome choice. They do only ship with 1/4 wave antennas, but replacing that is easy enough. My concern is that they use different, cheaper RF components as well, and won't operate as well as the ULX. Hoping to hear some real world perspective before I make a decision. Luckily I've got time.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's only a feature difference, but once you're in the digital realm companders (which used to separate the men from the boys) are not required so with the weakest link involving the most 'secret sauce' out of the equation there are fewer things to axe in the design cost reductions.

Jason
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

Brian jojade said:
If it's truly a difference in feature set only, then the QLX looks to be an awesome choice. They do only ship with 1/4 wave antennas, but replacing that is easy enough. My concern is that they use different, cheaper RF components as well, and won't operate as well as the ULX. Hoping to hear some real world perspective before I make a decision. Luckily I've got time.
Click to expand...

I've got a month or so before I start pushing for replacement of a (broken) LX-88-II unit and matching (broken and all) handhelds.

Honestly I'd prefer to be able to spec these so it's cheaper than the ULX-D stuff, but I will wait for the real world knowledge.
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

One of the main feature of this new unit have the ability to squeeze 40ch into one 6MHz TV channel than the old.
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

I used one unit last week with "Dog Eat Dog". It's really great - soundwise. Thumps up for the storage battery as well, but don't lose this small plastic adaptor, when switching from the Shure accumulator to normal batteries. I measured the latency (2,7ms) might be a problem for some musicians with older digital desks and In Ears. I used it with an X32 and had no complaints. The network on the QLX-D is simple to deal with and hooking up a router talking to Workbench6 or to the nice Shure Channels+ App for the iPad is easy to do.
Only downside for me: Why no digital out?
Dosen't have to be DANTE like with the ULX-D, but an AES/EBU would have been nice (keyword: Latency).
Beside that, I think it is a nice unit with a reasonable price.
And if I remeber that right, I think it is the cheapest way to get a wireless system with a KSM9 capsule.


DSC_0510.JPG10082014 Rockschicht Dog Eat Dog 0088.jpg
DED2.jpgDED.jpg
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

Christian Boche said:
Only downside for me: Why no digital out?
Dosen't have to be DANTE like with the ULX-D, but an AES/EBU would have been nice (keyword: Latency).
Beside that, I think it is a nice unit with a reasonable price.
Click to expand...
An AES output may be nice, but unless there is some word clock input scheme to the mics, will not likely be lower latency than analog, since you will need a sample rate converter. Also not very many desks have more than one or two AES ins, so that's not very scalable.

I'm glad you liked it though - like a lot of people I'm interested in these too, and/or ULX/D.
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

True that, but at least you could avoid two format changes D/A-->A/D and don't have to deal with the little latency, that the convertors will do on their own.
 
Last edited:
Re: New Shure QLX-D

Christian Boche said:
Only downside for me: Why no digital out?
Dosen't have to be DANTE like with the ULX-D, but an AES/EBU would have been nice (keyword: Latency).
Click to expand...

From what I've read, using an AES input without a world clock will result in about 2ms of latency on its own, depending on the caching scheme of the input device. This might be WORSE overall, as some of the 2.7ms of latency you've measured is from the A/D conversion.

Crown's published specs are here: http://www.crownaudio.com/kb/entry/99/
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

I think this is kind of odd, the receiver carries already a digital signal that has to be converted to analog (XLR output of the QLX-D4, D-A), from there you go into your XLR-Input of your console (most likey a digital one) and you have another conversion (A-D). Why not going straight digital out of the receiver and avoid these two conversions?
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

Christian Boche said:
I think this is kind of odd, the receiver carries already a digital signal that has to be converted to analog (XLR output of the QLX-D4, D-A), from there you go into your XLR-Input of your console (most likey a digital one) and you have another conversion (A-D). Why not going straight digital out of the receiver and avoid these two conversions?
Click to expand...
For the third time, because of the extra latency of the sample rate conversion required compared to the D/A -> A/D.

If at some future point sample rates are 1MHz or something, it may be practical to have everything be digital with sample rate converters and still have acceptable end to end latency, but today in 48KHz land, your mic's 5ms of latency with an SRC on your desk's input plus the desk's 2ms of latency plus DSP plus loss in IEMs gets to be problematic. The intermediate solution is to run wordclock back to the receivers so that a sample rate conversion is not required, but relatively few devices have this feature, and there really isn't any quality problem with the D/A -> A/D of modern gear, so it's solving a non-problem.

As also mentioned above, almost no devices have more than one or two AES inputs, so the lack of scale further reduces where that would be useful. Anyone serious about wanting to stay in the digital domain would use Dante, and therefore would be well served by the ULX/D.
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

+1, exactly right. Yes, staying in the digital world would have its advantages, but the complexity of the configuration makes that less desirable. An analog output can be patched into just about any source with full compatibility. The quality difference between digital and and analog in that scenario would be nearly impossible to distinguish. The problem with digital signals is that they all need to be in sync, or they have to be cached to sync up with the device they are inputting into. The latency of caching to sync up the signals is just as much as converting the signal from d/a-a/d. Since the technology of digital to analog and analog to digital is SO refined, there's no advantage to staying digital for most operations. Combine that with very few mixers that have AES inputs and you'll then know why they decided to not add that feature.

If you want to stay in the all digital realm, then you move to gear using Dante. Of course, that's in a higher price bracket but you get to stay digital throughout that way.
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

Brian jojade said:
+1, exactly right. Yes, staying in the digital world would have its advantages, but the complexity of the configuration makes that less desirable. An analog output can be patched into just about any source with full compatibility. The quality difference between digital and and analog in that scenario would be nearly impossible to distinguish. The problem with digital signals is that they all need to be in sync, or they have to be cached to sync up with the device they are inputting into. The latency of caching to sync up the signals is just as much as converting the signal from d/a-a/d. Since the technology of digital to analog and analog to digital is SO refined, there's no advantage to staying digital for most operations. Combine that with very few mixers that have AES inputs and you'll then know why they decided to not add that feature.

If you want to stay in the all digital realm, then you move to gear using Dante. Of course, that's in a higher price bracket but you get to stay digital throughout that way.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, this might end up being one of the bigger differentiations in this product line. As I said, I was considering new mics for the school, but I know that there are only four (4!) dante compatible mixing devices in the entire county system. So I guess, perhaps, ULX-D is going to be geared towards installations where ethernet compatibility/digital is in place, as opposed to places where analog is still king - like us littler guys.
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

Brian jojade said:
but the complexity of the configuration makes that less desirable. An analog output can be patched into just about any source with full compatibility.
Click to expand...
What is complex about it? Plug in one CAT5 cable and route in your mixer. It's not like the Dante units don't have analog outputs. They do. So, you have the option of both. I have customers with IDRs, use all of the analog XLR inputs and then have a Dante card for 32-48 channels of wireless. If they don't need all of the wireless and more of the analog inputs, they aren't running back to patch anything physically. They are just doing a virtual patch change. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
Re: New Shure QLX-D

Brent Handy said:
What is complex about it? Plug in one CAT5 cable and route in your mixer. It's not like the Dante units don't have analog outputs. They do. So, you have the option of both. I have customers with IDRs, use all of the analog XLR inputs and then have a Dante card for 32-48 channels of wireless. If they don't need all of the wireless and more of the analog inputs, they aren't running back to patch anything physically. They are just doing a virtual patch change. Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...
Dante is great, but dealing with various modes, addresses and clock settings makes it a little bit of a stretch to call it simple, compared to analog anyway.
 
Top Bottom