Dave Labrecque wrote:Thanks, Phillip. I was afraid of that. Seems so strange that there are no quad sets out there. Maybe it's because if it goes down and you have to service it, you lose four at once?
RE: the Carvin stuff...
» Channel separation : 35dB
Yikes. Is this typical in the RF IEM world? Is it because they're multiplexing? Is that good enough separation for this application? Is there a noticeable or appreciable narrowing of the soundstage "in one's head"?
Channel separation, noise floor, latency, etc., are going to vary from system to system and technology to technology. If you want fully pristine audio, then you are going to be looking at the higher end digital systems. The Shure PSM900/1000 product line is about as high-end as you can get in an analog (non-digital) system.
The Carvin stuff is budget friendly and stereo, which many of the lower-mid products are not. Everything is really going to depend on your budget.
If you want something that is very compact from a channel count/package standpoint and sonically high-end, then definitely look at the Lectrosonics non-dante system. It will run you about 10k for 4 Stereo channels (2 transmitters and 4 receivers).
But you'll get 24bit audio, latency of around 1.5ms, and it fits in 1U of rack space. (channel separation is greater than 85dB.)
actually the the newer Shure PSM300 setup looks pretty good at $850/stereo channel (so around 4k for a 4-mix system)
There are pros and cons to IEMs. It takes some commitment and adjustment time to make it work well, but its really nice not having the additional monitor speakers on stage taking up space and adding to the general wash of noise coming from the stage.
The downside is somebody had to be responsible for packaging up the system, making sure your operating on clear RF channels and generally having some basic understanding of potential wireless/RF issues.
[quote="Dave Labrecque"]Thanks, Phillip. I was afraid of that. Seems so strange that there are no quad sets out there. Maybe it's because if it goes down and you have to service it, you lose four at once?
RE: the Carvin stuff...
» Channel separation : 35dB
Yikes. Is this typical in the RF IEM world? Is it because they're multiplexing? Is that good enough separation for this application? Is there a noticeable or appreciable narrowing of the soundstage "in one's head"?[/QUOTE]
Channel separation, noise floor, latency, etc., are going to vary from system to system and technology to technology. If you want fully pristine audio, then you are going to be looking at the higher end digital systems. The Shure PSM900/1000 product line is about as high-end as you can get in an analog (non-digital) system.
The Carvin stuff is budget friendly and stereo, which many of the lower-mid products are not. Everything is really going to depend on your budget.
If you want something that is very compact from a channel count/package standpoint and sonically high-end, then definitely look at the Lectrosonics non-dante system. It will run you about 10k for 4 Stereo channels (2 transmitters and 4 receivers).
But you'll get 24bit audio, latency of around 1.5ms, and it fits in 1U of rack space. (channel separation is greater than 85dB.)
actually the the newer Shure PSM300 setup looks pretty good at $850/stereo channel (so around 4k for a 4-mix system)
There are pros and cons to IEMs. It takes some commitment and adjustment time to make it work well, but its really nice not having the additional monitor speakers on stage taking up space and adding to the general wash of noise coming from the stage.
The downside is somebody had to be responsible for packaging up the system, making sure your operating on clear RF channels and generally having some basic understanding of potential wireless/RF issues.
