Recrystalizing Wireless Microphones
steve
company focused on theatrical roadshows.
I have 18 Audio-Technica 7000 series wireless
microphones in the 728-740 MHz range. Recently,
the U.S. FCC auctioned off the 732-744 MHz range
to AT&T, with no clear winner in the 720-732 range.
with AT&T's investment in the billions of dollars,
it seems to me that I will lose use of most of
my range starting Feb 19, 2009, per the 'rule'.
I would like to retain my investment here,
if at all possible.
i wonder if anyone has had experience recrystalizing
wireless mics to alternative frequencies.
thanks,
-steve
Soundhaspriority
"steve" <stephen...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:59su641bveha79te4...@4ax.com...
Interesting question. Modern silicon rf units, like the hidef tuner on a pc
card that's the size of a thumb, are very freuency agile, but these are
probably not. Even the latest wireless offerings from Lectro and Zaxcom
have only limited frequency agility. None of them offer in-field
modification ability. sIn addition to changing crystals, there would likely
be tuned circuit adjustments. And slug tuned inductors may not be able to
go as far as necessary. Inductors and caps will probably require swapping.
It's more of a remanufacturing operation. Your best bet is to look for a
small business that might pop up specifically for retuning these things.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
steve
thanks for your reply.
you're correct, there are numerous adjustments.
and no tech manuals to say how.
Audio-Technica made two versions in the 7000 series:
the standard sries in the 700 MHz band, and the x
series in the 600 MHz band. Unfortunately,
I only bought three in the 600 MHz version before
they were discontinued. I've got to imagine there
is either a chip-swap or configuration that can
convert the 700 MHz into a 600 MHz unit.
-steve
Scott Dorsey
>I have 18 Audio-Technica 7000 series wireless
>microphones in the 728-740 MHz range. Recently,
>the U.S. FCC auctioned off the 732-744 MHz range
>to AT&T, with no clear winner in the 720-732 range.
>with AT&T's investment in the billions of dollars,
>it seems to me that I will lose use of most of
>my range starting Feb 19, 2009, per the 'rule'.
Well, odds are you didn't have the rights to use those frequencies originally
unless you filled out the licensing paperwork and paid your fee. So the fact
that you don't have rights to use them any more may make no difference at all,
depending on what AT&T decides to do with them.
>I would like to retain my investment here,
>if at all possible.
>
>i wonder if anyone has had experience recrystalizing
>wireless mics to alternative frequencies.
On older wireless mikes that used direct crystal control, it was usually
pretty easy; you changed the crystal and lined the thing up, and maybe you
changed a couple capacitors if you were moving it too far away.
The newer wireless systems that are tunable are a lot harder to work on,
because they have a broadband front end to allow them to be used across
a range of frequencies. So you need to change the crystal, but then you
need to make the PLL stable across all frequencies in its range, and then
tune the RF section to be flat across the wide range.
A-T may be willing to do it for you, and they may be willing to provide
you with schematics for the various different band configurations so you
can do it yourself. I will warn you that A-T is VERY bad about providing
service information; they will not even provide schematics of their wired
microphones. So your chances of getting anything out of them are not all
that good.
In addition, these are pretty inexpensive microphones, and labour rates
these days aren't as low as they used to be. The mikes aren't really worth
more than bench fee is going to be, I suspect.
But it's worth asking A-T's service guys and see what you can get.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Arny Krueger
> by way of introduction, i have a small production
> company focused on theatrical roadshows.
> I have 18 Audio-Technica 7000 series wireless
> microphones in the 728-740 MHz range. Recently,
> the U.S. FCC auctioned off the 732-744 MHz range
> to AT&T, with no clear winner in the 720-732 range.
> with AT&T's investment in the billions of dollars,
> it seems to me that I will lose use of most of
> my range starting Feb 19, 2009, per the 'rule'.
Perhaps you are jumping the gun?
There are many possibilities that will leave your investment unhindered. For
example, AT&T might use this range of frequencies unused for months or
years. They may use them for a service that won't interfere with your
wireless mics.
I get the impression that these mics have frequency agility within their
designated band. With 18 mics and 100 possible frequencies, you might be
able to pick a set of frequencies that are clear.
> I would like to retain my investment here,
> if at all possible.
Then save your money until you have a real problem on your hands.
> i wonder if anyone has had experience recrystalizing
> wireless mics to alternative frequencies.
It's probably a lot more complex than just plugging in a new crystal.
steve
>steve <stephen...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>I have 18 Audio-Technica 7000 series wireless
>>microphones in the 728-740 MHz range. Recently,
>>the U.S. FCC auctioned off the 732-744 MHz range
>>to AT&T, with no clear winner in the 720-732 range.
>>with AT&T's investment in the billions of dollars,
>>it seems to me that I will lose use of most of
>>my range starting Feb 19, 2009, per the 'rule'.
>
>Well, odds are you didn't have the rights to use those frequencies originally
>unless you filled out the licensing paperwork and paid your fee. So the fact
>that you don't have rights to use them any more may make no difference at all,
>depending on what AT&T decides to do with them.
actually, once upon a time, I did fill out the paperwork
and paid the fee. not that it matters now :-(
i thought i was supposed to. not that anyone else
i know did so.
>>I would like to retain my investment here,
>>if at all possible.
>>
>>i wonder if anyone has had experience recrystalizing
>>wireless mics to alternative frequencies.
>
>On older wireless mikes that used direct crystal control, it was usually
>pretty easy; you changed the crystal and lined the thing up, and maybe you
>changed a couple capacitors if you were moving it too far away.
>
>The newer wireless systems that are tunable are a lot harder to work on,
>because they have a broadband front end to allow them to be used across
>a range of frequencies. So you need to change the crystal, but then you
>need to make the PLL stable across all frequencies in its range, and then
>tune the RF section to be flat across the wide range.
a lot of work, requiring specialized equipment.
>A-T may be willing to do it for you, and they may be willing to provide
>you with schematics for the various different band configurations so you
>can do it yourself. I will warn you that A-T is VERY bad about providing
>service information; they will not even provide schematics of their wired
>microphones.
so i have noticed.
>So your chances of getting anything out of them are not all
>that good.
>In addition, these are pretty inexpensive microphones, and labour rates
>these days aren't as low as they used to be. The mikes aren't really worth
>more than bench fee is going to be, I suspect.
that's true. replacing the lavs may be a matter of necessity.
the condenser units, however, performed quite well, and were
considerably more expensive. i'd hate the scrap them.
>But it's worth asking A-T's service guys and see what you can get.
>--scott
thanks,
-steve
steve
>"steve" <stephen...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:59su641bveha79te4...@4ax.com
>
>> by way of introduction, i have a small production
>> company focused on theatrical roadshows.
>
>> I have 18 Audio-Technica 7000 series wireless
>> microphones in the 728-740 MHz range. Recently,
>> the U.S. FCC auctioned off the 732-744 MHz range
>> to AT&T, with no clear winner in the 720-732 range.
>> with AT&T's investment in the billions of dollars,
>> it seems to me that I will lose use of most of
>> my range starting Feb 19, 2009, per the 'rule'.
>
>Perhaps you are jumping the gun?
>
>There are many possibilities that will leave your investment unhindered. For
>example, AT&T might use this range of frequencies unused for months or
>years. They may use them for a service that won't interfere with your
>wireless mics.
that's my hope as well. there was some mention by fcc
of not being permitted to use 700 MHz after Feb 19, 2009,
but i suppose it's much easier to gain forgiveness than
permission.
>I get the impression that these mics have frequency agility within their
>designated band. With 18 mics and 100 possible frequencies, you might be
>able to pick a set of frequencies that are clear.
i've never been able to get more than 12 to work
within a given venue. the intermodulation crosstalk
gets rather nasty after a while.
>
>> I would like to retain my investment here,
>> if at all possible.
>
>Then save your money until you have a real problem on your hands.
i tend to agree. the problem is that with my type of work,
the problem may manifest itself during an event, and then it may be
too late to go out and get replacements. So, i'm slowing buying
replacements.
>> i wonder if anyone has had experience recrystalizing
>> wireless mics to alternative frequencies.
>
>It's probably a lot more complex than just plugging in a new crystal.
I'll bet it is.
thanks,
-steve
Mike Rivers
> Audio-Technica made two versions in the 7000 series:
> the standard sries in the 700 MHz band, and the x
> series in the 600 MHz band. Unfortunately,
> I only bought three in the 600 MHz version before
> they were discontinued. I've got to imagine there
> is either a chip-swap or configuration that can
> convert the 700 MHz into a 600 MHz unit.
Have you asked the obvious question to the obvious company? Or is this
mic so old that it was discontinued long before the recent changes in
frequency allocations?
I hope whoever deals with wireless mics at A-T is sharper than the guy I
was talking with at the Summer NAMM show. He noticed my Groove Tube pin
(a miniature vacuum tube used in microphones) and said "what's that?" -
not in a way that suggested that he was asking why I was wearing a tube,
but rather that he didn't recognize a vacuum tube.
--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
(mriv...@d-and-d.com)
steve
>steve wrote:
>
>> Audio-Technica made two versions in the 7000 series:
>> the standard sries in the 700 MHz band, and the x
>> series in the 600 MHz band. Unfortunately,
>> I only bought three in the 600 MHz version before
>> they were discontinued. I've got to imagine there
>> is either a chip-swap or configuration that can
>> convert the 700 MHz into a 600 MHz unit.
>
>Have you asked the obvious question to the obvious company? Or is this
>mic so old that it was discontinued long before the recent changes in
>frequency allocations?
i've tried, but imo, A-T support is an oxymoron.
the 7000 series is not that old, and at one time
it was their premium line of wireless, with 200
frequencies to select from across two bands;
of course, only one band for a given unit.
not surprisingly, i think the decision to dump
the 7000 series coincided with the FCC frequency
announcements, and may well have been the cause.
of course, those idiots like me that had invested
in 18 of the 700 MHz series and 3 of the 600 MHz
series were left stranded on my/our investment.
>I hope whoever deals with wireless mics at A-T is sharper than the guy I
>was talking with at the Summer NAMM show. He noticed my Groove Tube pin
>(a miniature vacuum tube used in microphones) and said "what's that?" -
>not in a way that suggested that he was asking why I was wearing a tube,
>but rather that he didn't recognize a vacuum tube.
sad, but true. I've seen the same thing from them.
i guess the reason i stick with A-T is that their
hirose 4-pin configuration on the unipak is
extraordinarily reliable and standard across
all of their transmitters. i've not had as
good of experience with the reliability of the
mini-xlr on the shures and vegas i've owned--
they're all on the shelf now.
thanks,
-steve
David F. Cox
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:P3Obk.613$713.278@trnddc03...
> steve wrote:
>
snip
> I hope whoever deals with wireless mics at A-T is sharper than the guy I
> was talking with at the Summer NAMM show. He noticed my Groove Tube pin (a
> miniature vacuum tube used in microphones) and said "what's that?" - not
> in a way that suggested that he was asking why I was wearing a tube, but
> rather that he didn't recognize a vacuum tube.
Whilst I was transcribing my 78s I was asked by a teenager "What are those
big CDs called?" ( :-<)
Soundhaspriority
"David F. Cox" <david...@yaknowhoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:W0Qbk.21344$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
exposed to light.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Scott Dorsey
>klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>steve <stephen...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>I have 18 Audio-Technica 7000 series wireless
>>>microphones in the 728-740 MHz range. Recently,
>>>the U.S. FCC auctioned off the 732-744 MHz range
>>>to AT&T, with no clear winner in the 720-732 range.
>>>with AT&T's investment in the billions of dollars,
>>>it seems to me that I will lose use of most of
>>>my range starting Feb 19, 2009, per the 'rule'.
>>
>>Well, odds are you didn't have the rights to use those frequencies originally
>>unless you filled out the licensing paperwork and paid your fee. So the fact
>>that you don't have rights to use them any more may make no difference at all,
>>depending on what AT&T decides to do with them.
>
>actually, once upon a time, I did fill out the paperwork
>and paid the fee. not that it matters now :-(
>i thought i was supposed to. not that anyone else
>i know did so.
In THAT case, you are one of the few who actually have the right to write
a letter to the FCC and protest the spectrum that you have paid for being
taken away from you.
The reason the FCC is basically giving this away is that the primary users
no longer need the bandwidth, and most of the secondary users didn't do
the license paperwork and so are effectively invisible.
>>The newer wireless systems that are tunable are a lot harder to work on,
>>because they have a broadband front end to allow them to be used across
>>a range of frequencies. So you need to change the crystal, but then you
>>need to make the PLL stable across all frequencies in its range, and then
>>tune the RF section to be flat across the wide range.
>
>a lot of work, requiring specialized equipment.
Well, you can do it with a scope and a sweep generator, I suspect. No more
specialized than the stuff your local TV repair or land/mobile radio shop
has on their bench. But it will involve a lot of cut and try work and some
component values are going to have to change.
The problem, more than anything else, is having the schematic. If you have
the schematic, or you have in front of you one of the units already set for
the band of interest, you will know precisely what parts need to be changed.
The problem is then just doing the alignment.... and doing the alignment
is another thing you really, really want the schematic for.
>that's true. replacing the lavs may be a matter of necessity.
>the condenser units, however, performed quite well, and were
>considerably more expensive. i'd hate the scrap them.
Condenser units? If you have body packs with external mikes on them, it's
no problem to chop the cord and connect them up to whatever wireless pack
you decide to go with.
If you have mikes with integral transmitters, you're pretty much out of luck
with those.
Scott Dorsey
>I hope whoever deals with wireless mics at A-T is sharper than the guy I
>was talking with at the Summer NAMM show. He noticed my Groove Tube pin
>(a miniature vacuum tube used in microphones) and said "what's that?" -
>not in a way that suggested that he was asking why I was wearing a tube,
>but rather that he didn't recognize a vacuum tube.
Hey, I have a Vega wireless mike around here with one of those submini
tubes in it! And a receiver full of 6BA6es.
steve
>steve <stephen...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>actually, once upon a time, I did fill out the paperwork
>>and paid the fee. not that it matters now :-(
>>i thought i was supposed to. not that anyone else
>>i know did so.
>
>In THAT case, you are one of the few who actually have the right to write
>a letter to the FCC and protest the spectrum that you have paid for being
>taken away from you.
>The reason the FCC is basically giving this away is that the primary users
>no longer need the bandwidth, and most of the secondary users didn't do
>the license paperwork and so are effectively invisible.
yeah, since I'm in the DC area, I even attended
one of the hearings. but at the end of the day,
my loss of maybe at most $8k in investment pales
in relation to the $4+B AT&T paid for the 12k of
spectrum nationwide.
>>that's true. replacing the lavs may be a matter of necessity.
>>the condenser units, however, performed quite well, and were
>>considerably more expensive. i'd hate the scrap them.
>
>Condenser units? If you have body packs with external mikes on them, it's
>no problem to chop the cord and connect them up to whatever wireless pack
>you decide to go with.
sure. the mke2s will go pretty much anywhere,
so also the countryman mics. but...
>If you have mikes with integral transmitters, you're pretty much out of luck
>with those.
...exactly. it's the wireless handheld T-73 units,
not the lavs that i'm frustrated about.
>--scott
thanks - you've been a big help for me
at least sorting out my strategy for now.
i think arny's advice to wait-and-see might
be the way to go for now...
-steve
Richard Crowley
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>Have you asked the obvious question to the obvious company? Or is this
>>mic so old that it was discontinued long before the recent changes in
>>frequency allocations?
>
> i've tried, but imo, A-T support is an oxymoron.
No wireless microphone vendor knows for sure what the
future looks like.
> the 7000 series is not that old, and at one time
> it was their premium line of wireless, with 200
> frequencies to select from across two bands;
> of course, only one band for a given unit.
A-T is not at the top end of wireless microphones,
and the 7000 series is not exactly high end compared
to what people use for serious, high-stakes apps
(like feature film/TV production, Las Vegas live
shows, etc. etc.)
> not surprisingly, i think the decision to dump
> the 7000 series coincided with the FCC frequency
> announcements, and may well have been the cause.
No wireless microphone vendor knows for sure what the
future looks like.
> of course, those idiots like me that had invested
> in 18 of the 700 MHz series and 3 of the 600 MHz
> series were left stranded on my/our investment.
You and millions of other wireless microphone users.
Most wireless mic users are unlicensed, but the "licensed"
users are no better off than anyone else. We're all
essentially screwed. Join the club.
Just keep using your equipment until the interference
becomes intolerable. I expect it will be several years
before the bands are fully utilized. By then those
plastic mics will likely have failed from other causes.
And hopefully there will be some clear next step for
wireless mic users by then.
Richard Crowley
> steve wrote:
>>actually, once upon a time, I did fill out the paperwork
>>and paid the fee. not that it matters now :-(
>>i thought i was supposed to. not that anyone else
>>i know did so.
>
> In THAT case, you are one of the few who actually have the right to write
> a letter to the FCC and protest the spectrum that you have paid for being
> taken away from you.
And the FCC will throw your protest into the recycle bin along
with the protests of the "unlicensed users". "Licensing" makes
absolutely no practical difference at this point.
> The reason the FCC is basically giving this away is that the primary users
> no longer need the bandwidth, and most of the secondary users didn't do
> the license paperwork and so are effectively invisible.
There is no evidence that they EVER cared about the secondary
users, even the "licensed" ones. This is not the old FCC we have
fond memories of. It seems to be now just a "me-too", nest of lawyers,
non-technical federal bureaucracy. Their primary objective these
days seems to be generating income for the federal government to
waste. Don't annoy them with any technical issues.
0jun...@bellsouth.net
On 2008-07-05 rcro...@xp7rt.net said:
>There is no evidence that they EVER cared about the secondary
>users, even the "licensed" ones. This is not the old FCC we have
>fond memories of. It seems to be now just a "me-too", nest of
>lawyers, non-technical federal bureaucracy. Their primary
>objective these days seems to be generating income for the federal
>government to waste. Don't annoy them with any technical issues.
ESpecially if those technical issues would point out that a
decision of theirs was actually in the public interest or
might benefit small business.
THese folks are interested in enhancing the revenue
collection capability of the government and helping large
corporate entities acquire monopolies in any way possible.
tEchnical details? THey don't care. PUblic interest?
wHat's that? IF Clear Channel At&T or some other
megacorporation isn't going to benefit from it greatly then
it's of no use.
wITness broadband over powerline and the latest white space
auctions.
Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider
Scott Dorsey
>"steve" wrote...
>> Mike Rivers wrote:
>>>Have you asked the obvious question to the obvious company? Or is this
>>>mic so old that it was discontinued long before the recent changes in
>>>frequency allocations?
>>
>> i've tried, but imo, A-T support is an oxymoron.
>
>No wireless microphone vendor knows for sure what the
>future looks like.
A-T doesn't even know what the past looks like, though. Much as I like them,
they don't support their products with technical documentation. They claim
this is common in the modern era, and maybe it is, but that doesn't make it
any better.
Ty Ford
(in article <59su641bveha79te4...@4ax.com>):
Well first, contact Audio-Technica's wireless department and ask if they can
do it.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU
Ty Ford
(in article <fmcv64h9udk7bqsem...@4ax.com>):
> i've tried, but imo, A-T support is an oxymoron.
That's been the exact opposite of my experience with AT.
Care to share any specifics?
Ty Ford
(in article <3_udnQskV6C...@posted.pcez>):
> There is no evidence that they EVER cared about the secondary
> users, even the "licensed" ones. This is not the old FCC we have
> fond memories of. It seems to be now just a "me-too", nest of lawyers,
> non-technical federal bureaucracy. Their primary objective these
> days seems to be generating income for the federal government to
> waste. Don't annoy them with any technical issues.
I had one of the FCC chiefs hang up on me last year after I identified myself
as a member of the press asking if the 50 mile rule for firing up on a TV
station's bandwidth was still on the books.
I called back and spoke to someone else. It's still on the books,
steve
>On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:54:06 -0400, steve wrote
>(in article <fmcv64h9udk7bqsem...@4ax.com>):
>
>> i've tried, but imo, A-T support is an oxymoron.
>
>That's been the exact opposite of my experience with AT.
>
>Care to share any specifics?
technical specifications aren't forthcoming;
as for product support - getting parts
and missing components - they're fine.
-steve
Dave O'Heare
> Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 13:54:06 -0400, steve wrote
>>(in article <fmcv64h9udk7bqsem...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> i've tried, but imo, A-T support is an oxymoron.
>>
> and missing components - they're fine.
Unless you're in Canada. It took me *two years* to get replacement elastic
bands for the shockmount for my AT 4033. Admittedly, A-T changed
distributors just before I ordered the parts, but the shop that I ordered
them through (they won't sell to end-users) got a number of interesting and
peculiar things before the correct parts arrived.
Dave O'Heare
oheareATmagmaDOTca
Soundhaspriority
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Do-dnRgfhdq4L-3V...@comcast.com...
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:13:56 -0400, Richard Crowley wrote
> (in article <3_udnQskV6C...@posted.pcez>):
>
>> There is no evidence that they EVER cared about the secondary
>> users, even the "licensed" ones. This is not the old FCC we have
>> fond memories of. It seems to be now just a "me-too", nest of lawyers,
>> non-technical federal bureaucracy. Their primary objective these
>> days seems to be generating income for the federal government to
>> waste. Don't annoy them with any technical issues.
>
>
> I had one of the FCC chiefs hang up on me last year after I identified
> myself
> as a member of the press asking if the 50 mile rule for firing up on a TV
> station's bandwidth was still on the books.
>
> I called back and spoke to someone else. It's still on the books,
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
I think we will simply have to embrace whatever technology offers in
replacement. Sometimes difficulties cause improvement. WIreless mike
technology lags. Everything else is going packet. Packetizing will cause
latency problems, which for field use, will be overcome with a more
ubiquitous timecode scheme. In house reinforcement will need something else,
perhaps UWB. The new mikes will be specialized according to use, but will be
more robust, and maybe even cheaper.
The $20 USB Bluetooth dongle is a marvel. Millions went into the creation of
these chipsets. Wireless microphone makers lack the money to develop an
equivalent, yet are tied to the past by tradition. For field production
(not reinforcement), the wireless mike of the future may leverage
off-the-shelf technology like Bluetooth in a more versatile, less expensive
product.
Spectrum was created with the Big Bang, and there ain't gonna be any more.
It is the most precious enabler of universal connectivity. The time is past
for the reserving of spectrum for devices that cannot share. Idle megabytes
can serve millions of people, and they should.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Mike Rivers
>>> i've tried, but imo, A-T support is an oxymoron.
> technical specifications aren't forthcoming;
> as for product support - getting parts
> and missing components - they're fine.
What you're saying here is that their support is fine, the way they want
to do it. They don't know you, they don't know your competence level,
and they don't know that you aren't a competitor. They aren't likely to
hand over detailed technical information that will let you modify the
mics yourself. Can you get schematics and logic diagrams for a Macintosh
conputer? Can you get the source code for ProTools?
Why not contact AT and ask what you can do with the mics you have?
That's what PRODUCT support is.