IFB Frequencies in Sydney

[Terry "Skeet" kelly]

Hi guys, I'm thinking of getting some more Lectrosonic IFBs, I already have 9 units in Block 30.
My question is, are there any blocks to be totally avoided? I mainly work in Sydney. Thanks. Skeet.

[Steve Foy]

Bill,
You say you wouldn't buy Lectrosonics Block 27, why not? What is wrong with block 27 and if it's such a bad choice, what is a better choice? Please enlighten us!
Regards
Steve Foy

[Peter Grace]

My contribution won't enlighten anyone Steve but I chose 27 by sticky-taping a list of blocks to a wall and (in a considered manner) chucking darts at it. I'm very grateful you guys are asking the questions and sharing your hard won research with us.
By the way, in the 3 years I've had them, Lecto Blocks 27 & 28 have been utterly bullet proof. Fingers crossed for the next 3.

P.G.

[Bill White]

Steve Foy said:

You say you wouldn't buy Lectrosonics Block 27, why not? What is wrong with block 27

Hi Steve,
If we were to believe what you have stated, Block 27 is a poor choice.

Was it not you who said, only days ago, that:

“The ACMA has identified a DRO (Digital Revenue Opportunity) in the spectrum allocation plan that extends from 698Mhz - 820Mhz (Blocks 27 - 31).”

If that is true… (Sorry, but I do not believe that ever came from ACMA) why buy a Block that is earmarked for the chop? According to your (unnamed) source, only 6 MHz of it would survive. Is that a good choice?

Conversely, if you put credence in the ACMA statement I quoted, viz.

"The least disruptive option is likely to involve spectrum in the middle of the UHF band with channels in the 40s and 50s (610–750 MHz)."

Doesn’t that statement put all of Block 27 at risk?
No matter which of the above options (if indeed either) comes to fruition, I would not be spending money on Block 27. However, I have no wish to discourage you or Skeet from doing so, knock yourselves out!

I have repeatedly stated I do not recommend ‘Blocks’. See your Lectrosonics dealer for that advice.

If anyone doubts that ‘good’ frequencies exist, consider this.

Since 1994, I have been putting some ‘valued clients’ on one small parcel of spectrum.
It’s only 6 MHz wide, so it’s not suitable for large-scale venue shoots, but those who took my early advice have had 14 years of totally interference-free wireless mike operation. There are no TV transmitters, anywhere in Australia, on this spectrum.

And just where is this Spectrum Wonderland? Drum roll please…

520 to 526MHz. It’s legal and just below SBS 28 analogue. It’s been sitting under everyone’s noses for decades yet no one seems to have picked up on it. The reason it has never been assigned for TV is simple. It is only 6 MHz wide and our TV format requires 7 MHz minimum per channel.

Before anyone rushes out to place their orders… wait for the next paragraph.

Why am I disclosing this ‘secret’ after 14 years?
ACMA are planning to extend it to 519-526MHz so that it could be assigned for TV use. They have embargoed new licences between 519 and 520 to facilitate this change. Accordingly, I no longer commend 520 to 526MHz. Need I explain why? The party is over.

While 520 to 526MHz may be facing the death penalty, it is not the only ‘safe’ haven for wireless mike systems. For IFB systems, the choices are multifarious as most recordists only need two IFB frequencies, so intermods are not a problem. IFB is easy to cater for if you know your way around the spectrum. I have been professionally employed in the RF industry since 1966. I don’t miss much! Nor does my spectrum analyser. Personally, my IFB system is on the VHF band. Please don’t ask.

Which part of “I do not recommend blocks” is so cryptically vague that it causes people to repeatedly ask me to comment?

Steve, by your own admission, you recently had the ear of an ACMA expert for two hours and have extensively researched what is happening overseas (why I have no idea… isn’t overseas… well, er, overseas?)

Surely I should be asking you for recommendations?

Regards,
Bill White
http://microphonemagic.tv

[Steve Foy]

Hi Peter,
Given the level of uncertainty in this area your method of block selection seems to make the most sense.
I think I'll give that a go myself. Is it best to have a few beers first and use a blindfold just to mix it up a bit?
All the best,
Steve Foy

[Steve Foy]

Bill,

I've been biting my tongue for several days now but enough is enough. If it's a pissing competition you are after then I hate to disappoint you but I would prefer not to get involved in that. I'm sure there are plenty of other forums you can join if that's what floats your boat.

Furthermore, I will not keep defending my comments to you. As I have repeatedly said, my comments come from hours of research on the internet, many emails and several phone calls to the ACMA. Oh, and by the way the reason I was looking at the situation in Europe and the USA is that I have filled at least 3 Passports working in other countries, so yes Bill I'm fully aware that overseas... is well, er, overseas.

I have freely admitted that my comments are purely speculation but that is all one can do given the lack of hard evidence to go on. I am not giving any advice to anyone but merely sharing the limited knowledge that I have in the interests of this group and might I say that to do otherwise would be grossly irresponsible given that a spectrum reallocation is inevitable.

For some unknown reason you seem to only be interested in picking holes in everything that is offered up without giving anything of value back preferring to tease everyone with comments like "If anyone doubts that ‘good’ frequencies exist, consider this." then slamming the door with "Which part of “I do not recommend blocks” is so cryptically vague that it causes people to repeatedly ask me to comment?". Is it just the "Block" thing that upsets you or would you be more helpful if someone asked "What frequencies do you recommend?". Clearly you recommend frequencies to some people as you previously stated "Since 1994, I have been putting some ‘valued clients’ on one small parcel of spectrum." but obviously there is nobody in this group that is a 'Valued Client' or that is worthy of your time which makes me wonder why you bother with us mere mortals at all. If it's Clients that you're after then there is no doubt that this sort of attitude will get you none.

You seem to base all your comments on an ACMA discussion paper dated March 2006 and by your own admission "Officially, ACMA have said little on the subject since." seem blissfully unaware of an ACMA publication dated March 2009 titled "Five Year Spectrum Outlook 2009-2013" or you wouldn't be so quick to discredit everything I say.

Anyway, I could go on and on but what's the point. I have many better things to do than to justify myself and my work to someone who couldn't care less.

Go ahead Bill, by all means shoot me down in flames, you will get nothing back from me. I'm off to throw darts at your favourite "Blocks" on a wall.

Cheers

Steve Foy

[Bill White]

Dear Steve,

I am disappointed that you are dropping out of the debate without responding to my rebuttals of your previous claims. The fact that you are now resorting to personal attack, rather than addressing the issues, speaks volumes.

The ACMA document you refer to: Five Year Spectrum Outlook 2009-2013 contains nothing that we haven’t known about since 2006. The tiny reference therein to Digital Dividend is reproduced below for those who wouldn’t want to read the other 168 pages.

The key statement is highlighted therein:

Australia has yet to determine its approach to the digital dividend.

That is the incontrovertible truth and just about sums it up.


Bill White

Digital dividend
The Minister has announced a timetable for the switch off of terrestrial analog television services, which will involve a staged process commencing with certain regional areas in 2010, and which will conclude with metropolitan areas. The switch off will be completed nationwide by the end of 2013. This will free up significant amounts of spectrum which may open up opportunities for alternative uses such as new mobile services, additional broadcasting services and wireless broadband services. Existing services may also benefit from enhanced services or coverage. The opportunity to introduce new or improved services is known as the ‘digital dividend’.
Australia has yet to determine its approach to the digital dividend. Ultimately the replanning of bands currently designated as broadcasting services bands (BSB) is a decision for the Minister to make. If the spectrum vacated following the cessation of analog terrestrial broadcasting remains part of the BSBs, ACMA must continue to manage that spectrum in accordance with the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. ACMA will assist the Minister and his department in their consideration of the issues.
The size and nature of the dividend will depend on government decisions, including those based on:
● factors stemming from television industry demand, including additional and enhanced broadcasting services;
● whether, and if so, to what extent, digital television services are replanned so as to make available a contiguous block of spectrum (referred to as restacking); and
● the uses to which the vacated spectrum can be put.
If digital television services were restacked, then a contiguous block of spectrum could be available for alternative uses such as those mentioned above. Industry feedback has confirmed that this spectrum is sought after by a range of prospective spectrum users. The benefits of using this spectrum for other services have to be compared with the costs to broadcasters and viewers of any restacking, as well as alternative uses for the spectrum such as enhancing existing broadcasting services.
Some other countries are further advanced in developing arrangements for using digital dividend spectrum. The United Kingdom (UK) has identified a total of 112 MHz of spectrum in two separated blocks to be released after digital switchover plus additional ‘interleaved spectrum’ within the restacked bands specific to localised areas. This spectrum is in the UHF band. The spectrum will be allocated by auction before mid 2009 and will be made available on a technology neutral basis.
The United States (US) has identified and sold its digital dividend spectrum. A contiguous block of 108 MHz in the 700 MHz band was sub-divided into blocks, and blocks covering 62 MHz were allocated at an auction that was held earlier this year. The total of the provisional winning bids at that auction was close to US$20 billion.
Section 5.2 provides more information on issues relevant to broadcasting services.

[Rob Stalder]

So maybe we should hope Mr Creaser is in the trenches perfecting his Camlynx. It does seem to offer a very lateral solution to this issue.
This review by Studio Scotland Ltd (although a bit old) is still impressive. Thanks guys. http://www.studioscotland.com/camlynx_review.htm
RS

[Bill White]

Hi Rob,

It should be added that Camlynx is yet another wireless system. Unlike the ones we are familiar with, operating between 520 and 820 MHz, Camlynx operates at 2,400MHz (2.4GHz.)

This is Bluetooth/Wi-Fi spectrum which has known limitations. Many of these are spectrum-related and the very reason the IT industry wants to get off 2.4GHz and down into the UHF television spectrum where we (currently) live. The incredible popularity of, and demand for, Wi-Fi is directly responsible for the current threat to ‘our’ spectrum as users seek greater performance.

If they want to dump 2.4GHz and move into the spectrum we currently use, perhaps that might be a comment on the wisdom of us moving up to 2.4GHz?

While the wireless mikes, IFB and camera links we currently use employ static frequencies, Bluetooth/Wi-Fi employ variants of Spread Spectrum which has good immunity to interference from other systems sharing the same spectrum.

I do not know which protocol Camlynx employs, but it is in Bluetooth/Wi-Fi spectrum and must surely face similar frequency-sharing problems?

At 2.4GHz, absorption by the human body is a major problem. You cannot rewrite the laws of physics and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi has already been ‘raked over’ by the heavyweights of the IT industry.

That is not to say that some pimply-faced nerd from Yonkers will not have a ‘Eureka moment’ that will overturn our philosophies. That is a regular event in the world of technology.

For example… I have just come up with a revolutionary powering system that will run most sound kits for up to two weeks! Forget about those expensive Lithium Ion packs.

See photo at:

http://microphonemagic.tv/articles/3-articles/36-externally-powerin...

NB: Mixer is not included.

Regards,

Bill White

[Rob Stalder]

Bill -
"At 2.4GHz, absorption by the human body is a major problem. You cannot rewrite the laws of physics and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi has already been ‘raked over’ by the heavyweights of the IT industry."
That was good to know.
These human bodies have a lot to answer for.
Ok I'll just shut up & get back to my cart making...
Rob

[Peter Mega]

wow, talk about a can of worms!!
Skeet,
To try and answer your question (My question is, are there any blocks to be totally avoided?)
I would avoid block 22 in Sydney. It used to be good but not any more. Hope this helps you mate.

Having said that, I was shooting around Byron Bay not that long ago and my Block 22's out performed my block 29's. I'm actually really happy I have my block 22's otherwise I would have been stuffed. Had no range at all with my 29's, scan showed crap through the whole band.

Shooting at Lithgow a few weeks ago, on a farm about 5 minutes out of town. Admitedly, I was on a hill higher than the transmitters on the talent but again my block 22's out performed my 29's and I kid you not, they would have been at least 600 metre away, clear as bell, no bullshit!
My 22's are older 200 series and my 29's are 400 hybrid series. Dont know if thats got anything to do with it. I wouldn't have thought so since the RF signal is analog on both series.

Its really hard to say whats good or bad. As i've discovered, its been an advantage having 22's and 29's. My block 24 IFB's slot in nicely between my radio's and my Zaxcom is block 31, two blocks away from my 29's which is apparently the go.
I rarely have to change freqs and its usually on multi crew shoots when I do.
Overall, my kit works really well for me with the blocks I have and the freqs I have chosen.
Peter Mega

[Terry "Skeet" kelly]

Hi Guys
I will follow Peter Grace, Hi Pete, One bottle of Red Wine, wife spins me around and I throw the dart.
Drum roll please, Block 26. I will get back to you guys when they arrive, Fuck I hope the work all right. Skeet.

[Rob Stalder]

So if Rick headed his Camlynx (or an offshoot) into the IFB arena - this could be a great product to have access to, for everyone concerned.
It seems to me that with IFB, most of the human bodies that use them could be flexible - if you get my drift.
What say you Bill. And anyone else.
Rob