Current state of remotes over wifi

[Mattseymour]

Hi all... done a few searches on this but can only find info from quite a while back.

I've been experiencing some problems when using remotes over wifi. Specifically if I'm pushing the distance limits and the wifi link drops speed too much then the remote stops working. No problem there. However if I refresh the session on the remote, if the network link is still slow, host UI locks up for as long as it's attempting to communicate with the remote.

This caused something of a borderline panic for a new SAC user this evening.

Specifics: Host is running win7, dedicated wifi access point connected via wire to host. No other wifi networks/microwaves/digital radio mics etc.
Remote is an MSI wind netbook with XP SP3. Both host and remote have the usual tweaks. Running version 2.9 on host and remote.

In this particular example there are things I could have done, like raise the wifi antenna at the host. However I wouldn't expect the remote requesting data to lock up all control on the host. This seems to be something last being seriously discussed in 2010, unless I've missed some threads... so am I missing something simple, or is this a win 7 problem?

[Bob L]

Wifi lockups or signal issues can bring Windows itself to its knees sometimes and therefore can slowdown or stop apps from responding until the network freeze lets go.

I'm always looking for ways around it... but it is still a complex issue.

There are active handshakes between host and remote all the time... so systems can get bogged down waiting for handshake responses when the network itself bogs down.

Taking WiFi seriously, in my opinion, requires you to learn about and use equipment that can saturate the area with a very strong wifi signal to block out interference... it is possible... although then some might complain it is not legal.

Bob L

[gdougherty]

If you're going to be using wifi you need to be using hardware that's up to it. IMO, that means 5GHz 802.11n with clean line of sight. Either that or 2.4GHz 802.11n with a wifi sniffer on hand to ensure your channel is clear of interference. 802.11g didn't provide enough bandwidth to degrade gracefully for me in the past. Things aren't 110% perfect on 5GHz if the signal is weak enough, but it's solid enough that I haven't had any issues worth mentioning lately.

[Brent Evans]

Matt, you're not trying to run ad-hoc, are you? If so, invest in a nice wireless access point. I got to play with a cisco WAP4410N today, and I got full signal through a metal wall 300ft away... this is the type of thing I want in my SAC rig. They're less than $150, so I see one in my future.

[Bob L]

Matt... make sure your wifi router is wired to the host... do not attempt to go wireless between the router and the host.

Bob L

[Jim]

I have been running as Bob suggested. A WIFI router hardwired to host. Then remotes are wireless. (knock on wood) I have had no issues at all running up to 100'. I also change the channel to "2" I think.

[Donnie Frank]

SAC-heads,

Throughout the WiFi threads in this forum I've seen very little focus on antennas. Most omni antennas spread your WiFi all over the place like a light bulb. Since everyone else is using omni antennas, it's pretty easy to get into a WiFi saturated situation. A good polarized planar antenna will focus your WiFi signal like a flashlight and "cut" through all the other signals. Not specifically with SAC, but in other WiFi situations I have been able to reliably "beam" WiFi to a specific target. I have been sharing my broadband with my neighbors across the street for years. I basically share my broadband connection with my roommate and my neighbors to the West of me. I think I'm going on 4 or 5 years with the neighbor across the street.

If I ever find myself in a SAC situation where my wireless is failing me, my next step will be planer antennas...and beyond that, amplifiers. I have uses Linksys WSB24 signal boosters with great success. They work extremely well.

And before you ask, a planer antenna works best if used at just one end of the WiFi partnership. I've tried planer antennas at both ends and the second antenna his little or no effect, and in some cases actually attenuated the signal.

[Carl G.]

SAC-heads,
... I have been sharing my broadband with my neighbors across the street for years. I basically share my broadband connection with my roommate and my neighbors to the West of me. I think I'm going on 4 or 5 years with the neighbor across the street.
(A little OT, but quick questions) Being a tower provider to a Wireless broadband business, I wonder how this kind of practice would affect his business. There seems to be a fine line between "Sharing" and "Sub-Letting", both of which could undermine the Wireless Broadband provider's customer base.
So, I wonder if there is something in your provider's agreement that addresses that issue, and if so, what is the verbiage?

[Mattseymour]

Thanks all.

For clarity, I do have the access point connected to the host via wired ethernet. I think the issue I encountered was just wifi signal dropping off. All as fine until there were lots of humans between the netbook and the host wifi.

What's interesting is the remote seems to lose it's connection gracefully without causing the host any issues. Meters just stop and the remote loses any control ability even though it still thinks it's connected. Refreshing the session when the connection is still slow seems to be what caused the problem.

I'll revisit this with a directional antenna raised well above head height and see how we get on.

[Bob L]

If the signal drops again... this time de-activate the remote connection... then get closer and re-activate the connection... that may keep the host happy with no issues.

Bob L

[mojogil]

Matt, you're not trying to run ad-hoc, are you? If so, invest in a nice wireless access point. I got to play with a cisco WAP4410N today, and I got full signal through a metal wall 300ft away... this is the type of thing I want in my SAC rig. They're less than $150, so I see one in my future.


Brent,
I'm not much of a network guy. Can you explain a couple of things? What is ad-hoc? and what do you gain from getting a wireless access point over an all in one wireless device? If the access point is better, do you need a wired router plugged into the computer first?
Thanks,
Gil

[Mattseymour]

Adhoc is creating a wifi network with all devices talk to each other, rather than via an access point. Potentially much slower and less reliable.

An access point is just that, a point to access the wired network. The average wifi router is an access point. But an access point doesn't need to be a router. I'm using a plain access point that doesn't have a modem or any routing capabilities because it's cheaper. All I need it to do it provide a wifi network for my remotes to connect and a wired connection for the host.

[Paul Henry]

Matt, mind talking us through how you go about setting up an access point, I'm a little fuzzy about the line between that and a router. Do you have to manually assign IPs for example?

[905shmick]

Matt, mind talking us through how you go about setting up an access point, I'm a little fuzzy about the line between that and a router. Do you have to manually assign IPs for example?

A wireless router and an access point are essentially the same thing, usually for the same price. An access point is usually only capable of acting as a wireless bridge to a wired network.

Personally, I'd get a wireless router, disable the internet/WAN functions and you're off to the races.

[Mattseymour]

As per the above... To be honest I'm using an access point rather than a router simply because that's why I had. The config as far as sac is concerned is no different. Imho a basic cheap access point tends to be a better piece of kit than a cheap router. But, especially given the problems I've been having, cheapest probably isn't the way to go :)

[Andy Follett]

Every time I've had this happen, if I change the channel the router is operating on the problem is gone. I downloaded a sniffer free and now use it every time before the gig to make sure my router channel isn't being stepped on.

[905shmick]

Every time I've had this happen, if I change the channel the router is operating on the problem is gone. I downloaded a sniffer free and now use it every time before the gig to make sure my router channel isn't being stepped on.

This is where the 5Ghz gear shines for now. Not a lot of people are using 5Ghz wifi yet.

[gdougherty]

This is where the 5Ghz gear shines for now. Not a lot of people are using 5Ghz wifi yet.

For now and due to range limitations with solid objects between endpoints, likely to stay that way unless they significantly increase allowable power for 5GHz band, which would have the added adverse effect of eating batteries on mobile devices. So, likely not anytime in the near future.

[905shmick]

In a SAC config where the main host is going to live at the stage with the preamps and the FOH location is going to be a remote, then it would be best to use 2 5Ghz APs or routers to create the wireless bridge and then plug in the SAC host and FOH remote to the wired ports of the AP or router. This would give a much better Point to Point link and neither the SAC host or remote has to be configured for wireless use.

[Ralph]

my 2 cents: I have lived in a lot of motorhome
parks..large acreage...some use an wireless amplifier antenna
mounted on a building or a light pole.....I suppose it is
like a repeater..extends the area of coverage and they are pretty reasonable...and I was reading the other day...for the best range...the higher the position of the router etc the better. Look for an extension
antenna and run it up to the the top of the light or top
of the line arrays..if you are able....that might help
your coverage
www.hawkingtech.com/downloads.php?file_id=2037
1.5 mile extension

the typical one I have seen in parks are about a 10"X10"
gray plastic box with a powered antenna into it and you
run a coax cable to the back and it attaches to the
the antenna of the router...and I physically saw it being
used with a Linksys router...so it does work...hoe that helps

[905shmick]

my 2 cents: I have lived in a lot of motorhome
parks..large acreage...some use an wireless amplifier antenna
mounted on a building or a light pole.....I suppose it is
like a repeater..extends the area of coverage and they are pretty reasonable...and I was reading the other day...for the best range...the higher the position of the router etc the better. Look for an extension
antenna and run it up to the the top of the light or top
of the line arrays..if you are able....that might help
your coverage
www.hawkingtech.com/downloads.php?file_id=2037
1.5 mile extension

the typical one I have seen in parks are about a 10"X10"
gray plastic box with a powered antenna into it and you
run a coax cable to the back and it attaches to the
the antenna of the router...and I physically saw it being
used with a Linksys router...so it does work...hoe that helps

In order for a rock solid connection, you really need 2 of these. Remember that networks are bidirectional and it's of no great use to have a souped up router with a huge antenna at point A and a little laptop at point B. The laptop will be able to receive a nice strong signal from the router, but the laptop is not able to provide anywhere near the same signal strength going back to the router.

[Donnie Frank]

(A little OT, but quick questions) Being a tower provider to a Wireless broadband business, I wonder how this kind of practice would affect his business. There seems to be a fine line between "Sharing" and "Sub-Letting", both of which could undermine the Wireless Broadband provider's customer base.
So, I wonder if there is something in your provider's agreement that addresses that issue, and if so, what is the verbiage?

I might agree with you if every cafe' and hotel from coast to coast weren't providing free broadband to the world. They don't even bother with encryption any more. Sure...maybe some of the big boys like McDonald's pay a premium for this privilege (but I kind of doubt it), but surely the small, little cafe's don't. I'm just sharing with my roommate and 1 neighbor. I refuse to feel guilty over that. If they want to come arrest me or cancel my service, so be it. After 4 or 5 years, I'm honestly not worried. Comcast has cashed my check every month and have for a decade.

[Donnie Frank]

Adhoc is creating a wifi network with all devices talk to each other, rather than via an access point. Potentially much slower and less reliable.

An access point is just that, a point to access the wired network. The average wifi router is an access point. But an access point doesn't need to be a router. I'm using a plain access point that doesn't have a modem or any routing capabilities because it's cheaper. All I need it to do it provide a wifi network for my remotes to connect and a wired connection for the host.

I've had crappy luck with *wired* ad-hoc, let alone wireless. I have a direct connection between my PC video farm and my Mac G5. Most times it works, but sometimes not. I want the 1Gb/Sec throughput, so I run an Ethernet cable directly between the two. But sometimes - god knows why - they just refuse to play. In that case I plug in a second Ethernet cable that goes through a switch and a router (both computers access the Internet often). That works every time, albeit with only 100Mb/Sec throughput (old Linksys switch). I would never try to Ad-hoc my SAC system. Too persnickety.

[Donnie Frank]

A wireless router and an access point are essentially the same thing,



Not to doubt your veracity, but not exactly. An Access Point doesn't do routing. Anything that is able to assign an IP address (DHCP), is a router. Other than that, it's either a switch, a hub or an Access Point. A router is one thing. An Access Point is another thing. A "wireless router" is a combination of the two. I know it's semantics, but I don't want Mr. Seymour to get confused learning the wrong vernacular.




Personally, I'd get a wireless router, disable the internet/WAN functions and you're off to the races.

All you have to do is not use the WAN port to avoid the Internet. Just use one of the multiple LAN ports (usually 4) to connect to the host, and then run the remotes either wired (via the other LAN ports), or wireless. The Internet can't get in....<;^)

[Donnie Frank]

As per the above... To be honest I'm using an access point rather than a router simply because that's why I had.



Are you sure? A true Access Point has only ONE Ethernet port. Any more than that, and it was probably a wireless router.





The config as far as sac is concerned is no different. Imho a basic cheap access point tends to be a better piece of kit than a cheap router. But, especially given the problems I've been having, cheapest probably isn't the way to go :)

Brother, a cheap Linksys WRT54G will work fine. I have used one with stock antennas and no booster at many shows with nary an issue. If things get hairy, I'll break out the 7dB boost antennas. If it gets worse, I'll break out the WSB24 signal booster. If it gets even worse, I'll break out the planar antennas. But honestly, in almost 100 shows, I've never had problems with the Linksys. I've had problems with OTHER wireless routers. When I do, I simply unplug them and plug my trusty Linksys in. Works perfectly every time. Can be had on eBay for 25 bucks.

[Mattseymour]

Definitely an AP I'm using. Only one Ethernet port as you say, however it will provide dhcp, that's not the sign of a router. Pretty much any intelligent network device from nas drives to light switches will offer dhcp

[905shmick]

it's either a switch, a hub or an Access Point.

Don't forget wireless bridge!

[905shmick]

Definitely an AP I'm using. Only one Ethernet port as you say, however it will provide dhcp, that's not the sign of a router. Pretty much any intelligent network device from nas drives to light switches will offer dhcp

DHCP servers are like digital word clocks. Many devices provide it, but if you want reliability, you should really only have 1 device acting as the master DHCP server and turn off the DHCP server in every other device unless you want to go through the process of allowing each DHCP server to hand out a small set of IPs that don't overlap with any of the other IPs that every other DHCP server is handing out.

[Donnie Frank]

DHCP servers are like digital word clocks. Many devices provide it, but if you want reliability, you should really only have 1 device acting as the master DHCP server and turn off the DHCP server in every other device unless you want to go through the process of allowing each DHCP server to hand out a small set of IPs that don't overlap with any of the other IPs that every other DHCP server is handing out.

+1.

[Ralph]

In order for a rock solid connection, you really need 2 of these. Remember that networks are bidirectional and it's of no great use to have a souped up router with a huge antenna at point A and a little laptop at point B. The laptop will be able to receive a nice strong signal from the router, but the laptop is not able to provide anywhere near the same signal strength going back to the router.

:) makes sense....get one of those wireless usb, put it in your laptop, and strap a big ole whip antenna out your butt and walk around in the crowd...wait for the lightening to strike...put a tennis ball on top in case you hit a tree...."What we got here is a failure to communicate!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o:eek:

[mloretitsch]

I am a network admin AND I work for a company that manufactures RF antennas and test equipment :)

http://www.ruckuswireless.com/products/zoneflex-indoor/7300-series

Ruckus has some things you may be familiar with in audio...like beam steering! Awesome products although they come at a price. Also, they handle polarization in a unique manner through their antenna arrays. This is pretty important with things like tablets out there in the field.

http://www.ruckuswireless.com/technology/beamflex

http://www.theruckusroom.net/2011/08/anal-about-antennas.html

All that said...I have a 100' snake with ethernet, power, and two xlr runs in it for my FOH laptop and monitor. Nothing beats the wire!