Analogue vs Digital Wireless

Analogue vs Digital Wireless

Share this Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Analogue vs Digital Wireless

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Whiteboard Session

Shure Senior Applications  Engineer, Tom Colman explains some of the basic differences between  digital and analogue wireless systems.

For many years, analogue wireless systems ruled  the airwaves, but in recent years we've seen increasing amounts of  digital systems. On the surface, one might draw the conclusion that  digital wireless is somehow better than analogue, but this isn't  necessarily fair — you first have to consider the price point. Generally  speaking, an expensive, high-quality analogue system is likely to  perform better than a cheaper digital system, and vice versa.

What's the difference between analogue and digital wireless?

Analogue and digital wireless systems both have distinct advantages  and disadvantages. The key fundamental differences lay in audio quality  and RF quality, both of which are defined by how the audio is processed  and then carried over RF.

Analogue Wireless Systems

Analogue wireless systems use frequency modulation to carry a signal.  This process works by gently varying the frequency at which the system  operates when a transmission is on air. There are some physical  limitations to frequency modulation — notably frequency response and  dynamic range. The frequency response of an FM radiowave is  approximately 60Hz - 16 KHz, while the dynamic range is about 50dB.

So what happens if the dynamic range exceeds these limitations? How  could we transmit say 100dB of audio through such a limited dynamic  range? To achieve this, we use a process known as companding.

How Companding Works

A compander will first compress the signal on input ready to transmit  over the airwaves within our limited dynamic range; the signal then  expands at the receiver ready for amplification. This compression and  expansion process is known collectively as companding.

More advanced companders use audio reference companding — meaning  they only compress when they need to, resulting in a final signal less  coloured by the companding process. The very best companders are so  discreet, you'd be hard pressed to hear any effect on sound quality.

companding

Digital Wireless Systems

Digital systems do not require a compander to adjust the signal ready  for transmission. In this instance, the signal is digitized by the  receiver ready for the carrier wave to transmit as a binary data stream  of ones and zeros. A digital wireless system can transmit the full  dynamic range and frequency response of the capsule as data, resulting  in a more accurate representation of the original microphone signal.

Spectral Efficiency

The second key advantage of digital systems is their spectral efficiency, and this comes down to how frequency modulation works.

For example, if we're operating an analogue system at say 610MHz, we  would need to modulate (or change) the frequency. Therefore, as audio  enters the system, the frequency will deviate away from 610Mhz. This  deviation is quite unpredictable and takes up space within the RF  spectrum landscape.

A digital system only needs to carry binary code, and thus the  traditional frequency modulation carrier method will not work. For  digital systems, we use different modulation systems that utilise  'keying' (moving stuff in discrete steps).

The methods are as follows: Frequency Shift Keying, Amplitude Shift  Keying, and Phase Shift Keying where in turn you adjust the frequency,  amplitude or phase is discrete steps. Carrying a digital signal using  shift keying is far more predictable than frequency modulation — meaning  we can often stack more frequencies closer together in a given portion  of spectrum.

What are the downsides of digital?

Latency is the primary concern some professional RF engineers have  about digital wireless systems. By latency, we mean the amount of time  it takes for our audio signal to arrive at the output after entering the  input of a digital device. Many early digital wireless microphones were  plagued by audible high latency times, but this just simply isn't a  problem in modern digtial wireless setups.

The amount of acceptable latency depends on the application, and this  is taken into consideration when designing a digital wireless system.  In professional systems designed for musical performance (an application  where accurate timing is imperative), the latency will often be as low  as 2.9ms, which is far below the threshold of perception. In our  opinion, this minor drawback isn't enough to ignore the huge gains in  spectral efficiency delivered by digital systems.

[video=-KoAYeNWLUI]