Rippie
Veteran
I think everyone else has said it splendidly
Alternative to Wireless Microphones?
- Thread starter ASchear
- Start date
About not being able to set levels: what does it matter? You can not set the levels on a wireless lav transmitter either while you are shooting. If the transmitter is clipping, it is clipping, if it is too low, it is. Same with a pocket recorder. If you mean not being able to set levels like you can with wireless to camera/recorderd, you can do the same level setting in post with no need to ride gain in real time.
All these problems can be made disappear by getting the Zaxcom digital units, which cost, what, $3000 a piece?
Zoom H4 is huge compared to newer Olympus recorders for example, which are almost as small as Sennheiser G2 -G3 series transmitters , if my memory serves Olympus has a lock function so it can not be turned off by accident.
All these problems can be made disappear by getting the Zaxcom digital units, which cost, what, $3000 a piece?
Zoom H4 is huge compared to newer Olympus recorders for example, which are almost as small as Sennheiser G2 -G3 series transmitters , if my memory serves Olympus has a lock function so it can not be turned off by accident.
Chances are much slimmer.
- The wireless transmitter doesn't have a button that can be bumped and accidentally stop the recording (if it's a decent system, the power button is well covered and the mute button takes some concerted effort to activate).
- The mic is connected to the transmitter with a locking connection.
- The ability to monitor the audio directly at the camera means that many problems can be quickly addressed, and that there will be no surprises later.
Sorry guys, but I disagree with 90% of you. I've been shooting weddings professionally for 5 years now and I use a Sony Audio recorder with a lapel mic hidden in the groom's jacket to record the entire ceremony. The recorder I use has a "Hold" switch, so there is no bumping a button to turn the whole thing off, no more so than there would be on any wireless transmitter. Also, if you are monitoring the audio during the ceremony and something goes wrong, there is nothing you can do about it. If the groom disconnects the lapel microphone's wire, you cannot go up to him in the middle of the ceremony and reconnect it, so basically you are in the same position as you are with a wireless microphone - minus the ability to monitor the audio. I've never had a problem with ceremony audio. I can't say that I never will, but you also can't say that there will never be an issue with your wireless system. The key is to have backups in place. I also connect a zoom H4N to the house system so that I get a direct feed off of any microphones that are being used as well, so I have that as a backup. From what I've seen, most people shooting with DSLR's are doing something similar to this
Gohanto
Veteran
The sound coming out of most wireless systems is still analog all the way, so you can't clip to digital zero. That happens between the wireless receiver and the recorder (where the sound recordist is watching and riding levels, plus high quality limiters). Using a pocket recorder, you're recording from analog to digital without anyone monitoring, complete with digital 0 and all that fun.
And while there are certain places in a wedding where obviously you can't fix audio issues by running up to the bride/groom mid-vow, I'd want to know immediately if audio from the bride/groom had dropped for whatever reason, so I could start looking for solutions.
Last edited:
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I could see this as a second "backup" system or for when for whatever reason it was a fix for ??? transmitter breakdown?
My first reaction was that I sure wouldn't want to do it on a wedding, but there are some pretty good points about the limitations of what you can't do in a wedding anyway so maybe that is a place where it might work better.
Personally the ulcer factor would get to me but some people seem to have a bigger tolerance for massive failure than I do. And if your not monitoring your sound anyway there isn't much difference. I want to know about problems ASAP. Maybe I can't do anything, but maybe I can.
So I could see using a pocket recorder and a lav as a backup for a boomed shot if it is all you can squeeze out of the budget or in special cases. We were going to do something like this to record some birds once.
I think it's a pretty high risk technique. But even the highest risk techniques work, .. till they don't.
The spread of opinions is a bit based on the risk consequences factor of the responders experiences. Those of us who have been working professionally as sound people longer are going to be most opposed because it's the kind of thing that if it goes bad you loose your job and your reputation takes a hit and maybe you loose more jobs in the future. So for us it's a pretty big gamble.
For one man shooters they possibly have more ways to fix the problem since they aren't handing it off to others. Folks with less experience may not have been on the wrong end of a bad decision when a lot was on the line so they haven't been burned yet. The old saying "once burned twice shy" comes into play here.
So, it's not a guaranteed disaster like sticking an omni on a camera to get "all the sound", but it is a high risk choice unless you have some backup. It would be a VERY high risk technique for a sound person with out a lot of before hand sign offs with the producers and director. But if you are the director it's a different kind of risk so it's your call.
BTW I sure would not try to sell ADRing a wedding ceremony because I cheaped out on a wireless mic. And who pays for all the extra work? I'm not sure how you sell it as an OK deal anyway. The whole point is a documentation of that special day and now it's not. A thing like that could be a business killer.
My first reaction was that I sure wouldn't want to do it on a wedding, but there are some pretty good points about the limitations of what you can't do in a wedding anyway so maybe that is a place where it might work better.
Personally the ulcer factor would get to me but some people seem to have a bigger tolerance for massive failure than I do. And if your not monitoring your sound anyway there isn't much difference. I want to know about problems ASAP. Maybe I can't do anything, but maybe I can.
So I could see using a pocket recorder and a lav as a backup for a boomed shot if it is all you can squeeze out of the budget or in special cases. We were going to do something like this to record some birds once.
I think it's a pretty high risk technique. But even the highest risk techniques work, .. till they don't.
The spread of opinions is a bit based on the risk consequences factor of the responders experiences. Those of us who have been working professionally as sound people longer are going to be most opposed because it's the kind of thing that if it goes bad you loose your job and your reputation takes a hit and maybe you loose more jobs in the future. So for us it's a pretty big gamble.
For one man shooters they possibly have more ways to fix the problem since they aren't handing it off to others. Folks with less experience may not have been on the wrong end of a bad decision when a lot was on the line so they haven't been burned yet. The old saying "once burned twice shy" comes into play here.
So, it's not a guaranteed disaster like sticking an omni on a camera to get "all the sound", but it is a high risk choice unless you have some backup. It would be a VERY high risk technique for a sound person with out a lot of before hand sign offs with the producers and director. But if you are the director it's a different kind of risk so it's your call.
BTW I sure would not try to sell ADRing a wedding ceremony because I cheaped out on a wireless mic. And who pays for all the extra work? I'm not sure how you sell it as an OK deal anyway. The whole point is a documentation of that special day and now it's not. A thing like that could be a business killer.
Let's say you record to some recorder in the grooms pocket, and the level is too low...and you don't find out until you bring it in your editing system. "No Problem!" you say..."I'll just raise the levels!". You could do that, but then you are also raising the levels of the background noise of the environment and you will be raising the level of the self noise of your recorder (which on the cheap ones is pretty high). Now you can "fix" it in post, but for the amount of money and time it's going to cost you to fix it, you could have just had the right stuff on the shoot in the first place. If you are using the proper equipment, you can deal with low levels on the fly.
In the end, you are the one doing the job, so you do what you feel is best.
I think what I may end up doing is going with the portable audio recorders, find something with a hold switch, and using a Sennheiser or other really reliable lav mic. I really like the idea of using an H4n or similar to record through the church's audio system, and as more and more churches become tech advanced, this is a good backup in my opinion.
If everything fails somehow, I think that honesty is the best policy, and my clients would understand if we had to do something like dub the vows, etc. But with a pocket recorder running, a recording through the church system, a camera mounted shotgun, and the camera omni mic, I'd feel confident that I'm really prepared to record a great mix.
If everything fails somehow, I think that honesty is the best policy, and my clients would understand if we had to do something like dub the vows, etc. But with a pocket recorder running, a recording through the church system, a camera mounted shotgun, and the camera omni mic, I'd feel confident that I'm really prepared to record a great mix.
adamr316
Well-known member
Yep, I know wedding videographers used to use Sony Minidisc recorders on the podium mic at ceremony venues all the time a few years ago. The only problem is synch, monitoring audio level and you better pray it doesn't fail. The groom/officiant is still always miced up wirelessly though to ensure a signal.
You forget that you have to set the level on the transmitter, if it is too low, the situation is identical to a pocket recorder having too low a level (too much noise). If the level is too high the transmitter clips. You can not set these levels during the ceremony in the transmitter either. If the transmitter level is too low, you can add gain in camera/recorder, but there is added noise, same thing in post with a pocket recorder.
You also forget that if the level set on the transmitter is too low, the situation is identical to a pocket recorder having levels too low. Only difference is that you can raise the level on camera right away, not in post, but the quality suffers the same. Pocket recorder and wireless transmitter act identically: level has to be set beforehand and you can not change it during the show. The only difference is that wireless writes the data remotely to camera and pocket recorder locally on memory card. Fixing the wireless signal level on the fly does not affect the transmitter level, only the level on the track, exactly the same thing you can do in post with the pocket recorder file.
I would say that the sound quality is likely to be better with a good pocket recorder than with cheap wireless, which also use 2:1/1:2 compression/expansion scheme for transmission.
Kind of a point, but I tend to run my wireless a little hotter than most, but I wouldn't do that on a recorder without being able to monitor. Plus, if you have good equipment, you deal with low levels on the fly, like using low frequency roll off. If you have the cash, you can get the Zaxcom digital wireless that lets you remotely change the levels on the transmitter. But again, you do what you want. It's your gig.
Rippie
Veteran
Another point to add.
When I wire someone up, its usually a few (or more) min's before they are on camera.
This is the time period that will make or break you.
This is when you can be listening in for all the problems. Are you getting clothing noise, volume settings ok, everything working ok,
did I mention clothing noise?
It's your few mins of opportunity to FIX the issues.
Without a headset plugged into a pocket recorder how can you know for sure if all of these possible problems aren't killing your sound?
Especially for weddings. Dress clothing, like suits and starched shirts are some of the worst offenders for clothing noise out there.
If I had to hide a mic on someone dressed like that and not be able to monitor in advance what it's going to sound like..
As Noiz said earlier, the ulcer factor would kill ya, and as Dave said above me.. "do what ya want, it's your gig".
When I wire someone up, its usually a few (or more) min's before they are on camera.
This is the time period that will make or break you.
This is when you can be listening in for all the problems. Are you getting clothing noise, volume settings ok, everything working ok,
did I mention clothing noise?
It's your few mins of opportunity to FIX the issues.
Without a headset plugged into a pocket recorder how can you know for sure if all of these possible problems aren't killing your sound?
Especially for weddings. Dress clothing, like suits and starched shirts are some of the worst offenders for clothing noise out there.
If I had to hide a mic on someone dressed like that and not be able to monitor in advance what it's going to sound like..
As Noiz said earlier, the ulcer factor would kill ya, and as Dave said above me.. "do what ya want, it's your gig".
Jackson Miller
Well-known member
I have a question:
What do people normally use on feature films? I thought I heard from someone that they don't like to use wireless lav mics on features because the audio quality is low. Is this true? I know wired boom mics are used for many scenes, but when lavs are used on big budget and low budget feature films, what is the ideal/most preffered method when lavs must be used. Is wireless acceptable for narrative. I am planning a feature and using wireless lavs would make post a whole lot easier. But now it sounds like this may be the typical setup. Not for events, for a feature film.
What do people normally use on feature films? I thought I heard from someone that they don't like to use wireless lav mics on features because the audio quality is low. Is this true? I know wired boom mics are used for many scenes, but when lavs are used on big budget and low budget feature films, what is the ideal/most preffered method when lavs must be used. Is wireless acceptable for narrative. I am planning a feature and using wireless lavs would make post a whole lot easier. But now it sounds like this may be the typical setup. Not for events, for a feature film.
Jackson Miller
Well-known member
Also, the cheesycam guy talks about doing this a lot:
http://cheesycam.com/tascam-dr-08-vs-zoom-h1-continued/
http://cheesycam.com/zoom-h1-vs-tascam-dr-08-update/
except he uses the zoom h1 which is like a third of the size of the h4n. I personally don't understand how you could fit an h4n in a discreet setup on someone. I think the h1 has a hold button or maybe the tascam one he compares it too does. Anyways, if I wasn't using wireless for a wedding (I do shoot weddings), I would get two or three of these h1's and pair them with omnidirectional lavs. I would put one on the groom, one on the minister guy, and if possible one on the bride (probably not all that possible because of the dress) or near the bride. That would provide 2-3 sources of audio. They can't all fail and they would all pick up the surrounding audio. If you did this, PLUS tapped into the dj/mixing soundboard at the event (you should always do this anyways onto an h4n or the like), plus used on camera mics like the rode video mic pro, I think you are set. You could even put two h1/lav setups on the groom. Very little chance they will both fail, and the h1 is only $100 bucks. No xlr but without the wireless it'll sound clean even without xlr right?
That said, we've been using wireless for weddings.
http://cheesycam.com/tascam-dr-08-vs-zoom-h1-continued/
http://cheesycam.com/zoom-h1-vs-tascam-dr-08-update/
except he uses the zoom h1 which is like a third of the size of the h4n. I personally don't understand how you could fit an h4n in a discreet setup on someone. I think the h1 has a hold button or maybe the tascam one he compares it too does. Anyways, if I wasn't using wireless for a wedding (I do shoot weddings), I would get two or three of these h1's and pair them with omnidirectional lavs. I would put one on the groom, one on the minister guy, and if possible one on the bride (probably not all that possible because of the dress) or near the bride. That would provide 2-3 sources of audio. They can't all fail and they would all pick up the surrounding audio. If you did this, PLUS tapped into the dj/mixing soundboard at the event (you should always do this anyways onto an h4n or the like), plus used on camera mics like the rode video mic pro, I think you are set. You could even put two h1/lav setups on the groom. Very little chance they will both fail, and the h1 is only $100 bucks. No xlr but without the wireless it'll sound clean even without xlr right?
That said, we've been using wireless for weddings.
jasonpthiel
Member
I did this ONCE, the groom bumped some buttons and I had nothing...and then I spent the money for the sennheiser g3's (you're gonna want these anyway just get them)! Luckily it was at a wedding which we were really there to shoot photography and the audio was just a bonus. If you are going to do pocket recorders I'd suggest also doing the same to the clergy as a plan B. Rereading the vows after the fact lacks the emotion (what if the bride cries a bit - that'd be hard to have her do again) and may be tough to sync with the original video.
Currently I use the G3's on the groom and then also have the clergy wear a wired lav w/ pocket recorder. I feel this covers a lot of things that could go wrong.
davidschmaus
Active member
Just my 2 cents. This is what I think is the best practical solution. I put a h1+lav on the groom + clergy. If possible I hide another h1 on stage. Usually in some flowers. I make sure I set the levels so they are low. I can always boost the audio in post without any more noise than if I was boosting it pre but I don't want to have to deal with clipping. It was nerve racking not monitoring this at first but if something goes wrong during the ceremony there is nothing I can do about it anyways. I have never had to use the third zooms audio..