Has an ideal wireless mic actually hit the streets?

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!

sawdust123

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 10, 2006
2,339
5,336
63
Ventura County, CA
Shure introduced their new SLXD+ series of mics at NAMM this year. This is probably the best system I have ever seen that is accessible for DJ level of price/performance. I am basing this conclusion on the following attributes:
  • It uses the UHF band which has superior propagation over higher frequency bands
  • Each unit covers the ENTIRE UHF band meaning you don't have to select a sub-band that works in one city but not in another
  • It auto-scans for the best frequency
  • If will automatically (no operator input needed) change channels within 3-5 seconds if it detects interference
  • Full 20-20K digital performance
  • Less than 3 ms latency
  • Built-in feedback elimination
  • Up to 4 channels in a single rack space or 2 channels in a half rack space
  • Starts under $800/unit for an SM58 handheld
I realize that $800/channel is still a lot for most DJs. However, several of these features would cost many times more in the past.

Now before you get all excited about how great this system is, you may want to check out Astral Wireless (from Sound Devices). Astral is the new cream of the crop that the international tours are beginning to use instead of Shure and Sennheiser. You may need a HELOC to afford it though.
 
$3K for a handheld transmitter is one spicy meatball.

It is interesting to see how close Shure has the SLX-D+ line priced relative to the QLX-D line. I have been a big fan of the QLX-D systems since I started using them. I currently have 5 receivers available, so I've invested heavily in that segment. If I were starting over today, that SLX-D+ looks tempting to keep the capital outlay a bit lighter and still get a lot of the connectivity features.

I never needed/wanted all of the networking and density features that the QLX-D offers, I just wanted something that relieved my wireless anxiety. I had old SLX systems drop out in the middle of wedding ceremonies fairly early in my career, and I was willing to pay a premium to feel better about the solution even when working in the very RF heavy DC venues.

Thanks for sharing the specs, these look impressive!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger
Shure made a nice comparison chart that includes all their wireless lines. https://shure.widen.net/s/lzmdfx9sxh/wireless_comparisonchart_en_us

The SLX-D+ and QLX-D are in adjacent columns making it easy to see the differences. Both are quality systems The features of the SLXD+ that appeal to me are:
  • A dual channel half-rack receiver
  • Full UHF band coverage
  • Remote transmitter control
  • Auto-frequency reassignment
  • OLED display (my eyes aren't getting any better)
However, there are some features unique to the QLXD that others may appreciate more.
 
I had old SLX systems drop out in the middle of wedding ceremonies fairly early in my career, and I was willing to pay a premium to feel better about the solution even when working in the very RF heavy DC venues.
When using 2 or more mics at a gig the number one cause of dropouts is poor frequency coordination. The number 2 cause is poor antenna placement, or the wrong antenna choice.

Most DJs I've dealt with who experience this issue simply don't realize that ALL of the mics must be assigned to the SAME GROUP before scanning for available clear frequencies.

It's not enough that two frequencies (Ex: 478.246 Mhz) are clearly different numbers, because each has a full set of resonant artifacts that must be resolved as well. Just like tuning forks that will set off vibration in another fork of the next octave - radio frequencies have resonant artifacts that can step on your next mic channel.

The issue is further exacerbated when the mics are not the same brand. "Group 2" on a Shure brand has absolutely nothing in common with "Group 2" on a Sennheiser brand, even if they are operating in the same range.

Each group is an already resolved set of pre-coordinated frequencies known to have no resonant conflicts with each other. The "scan" is simply the second additional step of looking for local signals that conflict with channels within that group. These local issues might be a DJ in the next room, or a local TV station, hence we "scan" to see what from a given group is already in use at that location.

The group we should use may change for each location (city, or state) we play. Group 'c' might be what works well in your hometown, but Group 'A' could be a better choice just 10 miles down the road.

This same rule applies to QLXD, ULXD etc. The best practice starts within the same group, and then we look elsewhere should we need to find more non-overlapping channels.

I still have clients who use older analog mics like SLX, ULXP, ULXS, BLX, PGX, etc, and they can work well - IF proper frequency coordination is followed. I had one school that had a collection of 19 various mics: PG PGX PGXD BLX and QLXD, used in a school theatre production that were experiencing dropouts. Ultimately, after doing an actual frequency coordination - they were only able to use 15 of the available mics because no matter which combination you choose - there is no possible way to resolve more than 15 non-conflicting channels from the available products on hand.

Outside of mechanical failure - the mic system itself is almost never the true problem. This is why cheap mics have such mixed reviews. A cheap mic often has limited features and when combined with poor frequency coordination and busy RF environments conflicts arise very quickly. Users in relatively quiet RF environments will experience fewer collisions and quite possibly roam around the local county or state without issue despite never once changing the group or frequency deployed. In major cities, juts moving a black away could dictate a need for change.

Limits arise more rapidly with analog mics because the channel footprints are also wider than that of digital. You can deploy perhaps up to 20 ULXP or SLX mics (analog) but a QLXD or ULXD system can deploy up to 31 channels (50% more) under ideal circumstances. To expand that you have to then go to wireless workbench or similar software to identify compatible frequencies still viable within other groups.

The new frequency agile digital systems will dwarf that since they will operate across the whole available range rather than scanning specified groups.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sonic-vision
It's not enough that two frequencies (Ex: 478.246 Mhz) are clearly different numbers, because each has a full set of resonant artifacts that must be resolved as well. Just like tuning forks that will set off vibration in another fork of the next octave - radio frequencies have resonant artifacts that can step on your next mic channel.

Each group is an already resolved set of pre-coordinated frequencies known to have no resonant conflicts with each other.
While the bulk of your post is accurate. The interference problem is due to intermodulation products not resonances. When signals mix within electronic circuits they produce intermodulation products. This phenomena has nothing to do with resonances.

Two RF carrier frequencies of F1 and F2 will produce countless intermodulation products. These products are described by their "order". The strongest in-band intermods are the third-order ones. These occur at twice one frequency minus the other (2*F1 - F2 and 2*F2 - F1). If your two carriers are 500 MHz and 501 MHz, your third order IMs will be at 499 MHz and 502 Mhz. Therefore, you would not want another mic on those frequencies.

The IM calculation gets complicated quickly as you add more mics. You have to consider each mic producing intermods with every other mic. This is why vendors offer premade groups and software to help you. It is too laborious to calculate on the fly.

BTW, the amplitude of the IM products rise quickly with the amplitude of the carriers. This is why in crowded RF environments, professional frequency coordinators use the lowest transmitter power setting they can that still provides them with the range they need. They may also use expensive narrow band RF filters on their antenna systems to keep out the intermods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger
While the bulk of your post is accurate. The interference problem is due to intermodulation products not resonances. When signals mix within electronic circuits they produce intermodulation products. This phenomena has nothing to do with resonances.

Two RF carrier frequencies of F1 and F2 will produce countless inter-modulation products. These products are described by their "order". The strongest in-band inter-mods are the third-order ones. These occur at twice one frequency minus the other (2*F1 - F2 and 2*F2 - F1). If your two carriers are 500 MHz and 501 MHz, your third order IMDs will be at 499 MHz and 502 Mhz. Therefore, you would not want another mic on those frequencies.
The first rule of problem solving is: Know thy audience.

When speaking to a user my goal is best practice for best results. "Resonance" is a concept that is fast, familiar, & easy for non-technical people to relate too, it's something they all likely saw demonstrated in elementary school, and it motivates them to employ better practices. I don't need a user to understand IMD. I just need them to feel empowered and develop better habits.

The whole reason manufacturers created GROUPS in their wireless mic products is so we can avoid having to explain IMD at the user level. Most DJs are never going to use more than 3 mics at a time - and a proper GROUP assign can resolve their IMD issues without any need of knowing what that really means.

Can you imagine what a disaster weddings would be if we relied in mobile DJs to calculate the IMD in a 3 mic ceremony setup? GROUPS are gift to DJs and other users who reside in a plug-n-play wonderland. :) It's part of what's keeps me working support roles year after year.
 
Last edited: