February 26th, 2008, 09:16 PM
What's a better bet when working in a crowded RF environment like New York City? A bunch of AT1800 systems in different blocks, or just a couple of high end Lectrosonic units in a few different blocks? I'm asking this question from a standpoint of reliability alone. Would it be safer knowing I could switch out to different frequencies depending on the day and location, since I could buy a bunch of the ATs for the price of a single Lectrosonic unit, or just stick with the more expensive system, even though I don't have any backups.
February 27th, 2008, 03:13 AM
in a noisy RF environment, higher transmitter output always wins. 100mw vs 30mw and you know what gets my vote. no matter how fancy the receiver, if the good signal is hotter then the noise, you've got a better shot at getting good sound. I've used lectros all over NYC without issue, including the rainbow room 63rd floor. as for which block, go visit lectro's site for freq recommendations.
no matter how fancy the receiver front end, if there is RF on the frequencies you want to use, you only have a couple of options -
1. hotter transmitter output to overcome other signals
2. move the entire receiver closer to get a hotter signal
3. get antenna close, run coax to receiver. good for 50-100ft without worry if you have proper coax.
being sure your antenna's are both in the same plane ( vertical ) helps too, as does being able to move the reciever around a bit. if its close, 10-30 ft all should be good with most setups, but if you want to go farther away, thats when raw RF output counts.
February 28th, 2008, 07:14 AM
I mostly agree with Steve if we are limiting the conversation to on-channel interference but solid performance is also about receiver specs. For example, the Audio Ltd. 2040 wireless mics don't have the power of the 250 mW SMQ Lectro, but I got a lot farther distance with the Audio Ltd. 2040.
You may ask whether distance and RF density closer to the transmitter can be equated. I think the question can be argued. But I do know that RF is not directly proportional, IOW, a 100 mW wireless does not have twice the coverage area of a 50 mW wireless.
Add to that the vagaries other than direct frequency competition, when the RF problem is not on-channel but from an IF or from the interaction of two frequencies that create a third frequency that causes the interference, and you quickly come to the conclusion that getting a solid answer is almost impossible until you compare the two in a real situation.