C200: Any recommendations for a wireless lavalair mic/system to use

[FrancisT]

I have 2 sennheiser g3 and 2 rodelink filmmaker and after many hours of use, i can boil it down to this :
- the rodelink tends to drop less and has less glitches/noises then the g3. That said, it has less range then the g3. It also closes on its own when signal is cut for some time; you then have to go re-open the pack on the talent, which can be a pain in the ass(anytime he goes to toilet or leaves set for whatever reason).

- The g3 unquestionably has more noises, RF and things of such. It however has more range in general and stays open, no matter what happens.

If budget is a concern, go for rode. Its the best bang for buck. If money is not a problem, get the zaxcom series, which allows for a microSD card in the transmitter. You can record as well as transmit the audio, so if there is ever an RF problem, the audio has been recorded pre-transmission.

 

[puredrifting]

I have 2 sennheiser g3 and 2 rodelink filmmaker and after many hours of use, i can boil it down to this :
- the rodelink tends to drop less and has less glitches/noises then the g3. That said, it has less range then the g3. It also closes on its own when signal is cut for some time; you then have to go re-open the pack on the talent, which can be a pain in the ass(anytime he goes to toilet or leaves set for whatever reason).

- The g3 unquestionably has more noises, RF and things of such. It however has more range in general and stays open, no matter what happens.

If budget is a concern, go for rode. Its the best bang for buck. If money is not a problem, get the zaxcom series, which allows for a microSD card in the transmitter. You can record as well as transmit the audio, so if there is ever an RF problem, the audio has been recorded pre-transmission.

If you don't have the budget for a Zaxcom system (really nice gear but definitely pro pricing), I also recommend supplementing your wireless mic with something like a Tascam DR10L.
PITA to rig two devices to a talent but same end result, you'd have the recording to your camera and in the case of interference, you'd have a backup recorded on the Tascam.
I've done this a couple of times when I was working with talent who we definitely only had one shot with and I didn't have a sound mixer in the crew.

 

[brettsherman]

If you don't have the budget for a Zaxcom system (really nice gear but definitely pro pricing), I also recommend supplementing your wireless mic with something like a Tascam DR10L.
PITA to rig two devices to a talent but same end result, you'd have the recording to your camera and in the case of interference, you'd have a backup recorded on the Tascam.
I've done this a couple of times when I was working with talent who we definitely only had one shot with and I didn't have a sound mixer in the crew.

Someone needs to break Zaxcom's B.S. patent. As if no one ever connected an audio recorder directly to a lavalier and then wirelessly transmitted to the camera before Zaxcom thought of it. I did this myself and I would guess most videographers of a certain age have too before Zaxcom applied for their patent. Prior Art should have prevented them from getting the patent and it would be pretty easy to prove.

Not that I'm in the market for Zaxcom, but I think there's a good reason to boycott them. They're holding back the entire industry. Every time interference ruins your audio now it's basically Zaxcom's fault. Almost all manufacturers would have added recording capabilities in transmitters were it not for Zaxcom's patent.

 

[Run&Gun]

Someone needs to break Zaxcom's B.S. patent. As if no one ever connected an audio recorder directly to a lavalier and then wirelessly transmitted to the camera before Zaxcom thought of it. I did this myself and I would guess most videographers of a certain age have too before Zaxcom applied for their patent. Prior Art should have prevented them from getting the patent and it would be pretty easy to prove.

Not that I'm in the market for Zaxcom, but I think there's a good reason to boycott them. They're holding back the entire industry. Every time interference ruins your audio now it's basically Zaxcom's fault. Almost all manufacturers would have added recording capabilities in transmitters were it not for Zaxcom's patent.

My newest Lectrosonics wideband transmitters have a built-in recorder(to microSD), but because of the Zax patent, it cannot record while it's transmitting. I've been told, that if the patent is nullified, all Lectro has to do is update the firmware to allow them to transmit and record simultaneously.

 

[George Loch]

So, is the Rode package considered to be the best bang for buck now? I have a set of Saramonics that are taking years off my life and I need a more reliable option.

 

[brettsherman]

So, is the Rode package considered to be the best bang for buck now? I have a set of Saramonics that are taking years off my life and I need a more reliable option.

I would say "yes" if range is not an issue for you. I've been plagued by range issues with mine. It has failed at 10 meters before. But it seems highly variable. I've also had it work at 30-40 meters. At close proximity I've never had an issue.

 

[puredrifting]

I would say "yes" if range is not an issue for you. I've been plagued by range issues with mine. It has failed at 10 meters before. But it seems highly variable. I've also had it work at 30-40 meters. At close proximity I've never had an issue.

Wireless is so freaking variable. Same Rødes but I have had good look at hundreds of feet away. All I can say is wireless sucks, all wireless, even Lectro and Zaxcoms will hang you out to dry at the worst possible moment but for very little money, the Rødes offer a lot of bang for the buck. Never use wireless unless you must.

 

[brettsherman]

Wireless is so freaking variable. Same Rødes but I have had good look at hundreds of feet away. All I can say is wireless sucks, all wireless, even Lectro and Zaxcoms will hang you out to dry at the worst possible moment but for very little money, the Rødes offer a lot of bang for the buck. Never use wireless unless you must.

True. But I've had Sennheiser G3s for about 8 years and have never had range issues even remotely close to the problems I'm having with the Rode. 2 out of 4 times I've used it at distances 10-30 meters with audiences it has failed. And not just a hit here or there. Constantly going in and out every 2 seconds. I can't think of a single time my g3 had a critical failure like that. An occasional hit? Yes, but not consistently in and out. The worst part is that it seems sensitive to how many people have cell phones around it. So that you can set up for shoot and it works perfectly, as I did. But then once an audience arrives with their cell phones, it stops working.

Take this with a grain of salt, because I don't have a long enough time with the unit to completely understand what's going on. Could be I've been unlucky, could be I have a questionable unit. I'll keep using it for now. But if I get another failure, I'll have to move on to something different.

And don't get me started on Zaxcom's B.S. patent that is preventing companies from adding recorders to their transmitters which would completely alleviate this issue. The wireless mic issue is just crying out for innovation from someone. I just don't get how my drone can send me an HD signal from a mile away, but I can't get reliable audio from 10 meters away.

 

[puredrifting]

...And don't get me started on Zaxcom's B.S. patent that is preventing companies from adding recorders to their transmitters which would completely alleviate this issue. The wireless mic issue is just crying out for innovation from someone. I just don't get how my drone can send me an HD signal from a mile away, but I can't get reliable audio from 10 meters away.

Good point. Wireless audio, as a technology, is far behind camera innovation. We have digital wireless 2.4GHz and 1.9GHz and that's about the only meaningful innovation in wireless audio in decades. The technology in your G3s is older that most Millenials.

 

[Joshua Milligan]

Someone needs to break Zaxcom's B.S. patent. As if no one ever connected an audio recorder directly to a lavalier and then wirelessly transmitted to the camera before Zaxcom thought of it. I did this myself and I would guess most videographers of a certain age have too before Zaxcom applied for their patent. Prior Art should have prevented them from getting the patent and it would be pretty easy to prove.

Not that I'm in the market for Zaxcom, but I think there's a good reason to boycott them. They're holding back the entire industry. Every time interference ruins your audio now it's basically Zaxcom's fault. Almost all manufacturers would have added recording capabilities in transmitters were it not for Zaxcom's patent.

You know, as much as I wish my wireless kits had the capability of recording internally while also transmitting a wireless feed, I must admit that this is brilliant business on Zaxcom’s part. When there’s a function that’s almost a necessity for professionals in an industry like ours and you’ve managed to position yourself to where nobody else can offer that feature but you, that’s simply business executed perfectly. Again, I wish my kits could do that, but I still can appreciate what Zaxcom has done from a business perspective. Then again, I’m completely pro business, so that’s just me.

 

[IronFilm]

So, is the Rode package considered to be the best bang for buck now? I have a set of Saramonics that are taking years off my life and I need a more reliable option.

Hell no! RodeLinks are totally unacceptable for me because of how massively large their transmitter bodypacks are.

Then again, if live in a world where this doesn't matter (maybe you don't even bother hiding the lav mics themselves! So a bulky bodypack is not a big deal for you) and you don't have demanding audio needs (for instance RodeLinks are useless for me as camera hops or to stand in as budget IFBs, just as a couple of examples) then a RodeLink or Marantz wireless could be a good choice for you.

However for only a little more you could buy a Sony UWP-D11, which are overall the best sub $1K wireless.

Or wait until 2019 Q1 for the new Deity Wireless.

If your budget can go behind a Sony UWP-D11, then Lectrosonics LR/LT(or LMb) is the cheapest entry point to Lectrosonics wideband gear. However if you will be using two or more wireless at once, I'd recommend (now they've smoothed out their issues) the Lectrosonics SRc over getting 2x LR (you can get it with a NP-F battery slot).

 

[Run&Gun]

However if you will be using two or more wireless at once, I'd recommend (now they've smoothed out their issues) the Lectrosonics SRc over getting 2x LR (you can get it with a NP-F battery slot).

What issues? I've been using SR's for about a decade, from the original to the latest wideband iteration(SRc). The only real issue I recall was with the original- you had to have the second channel tuned higher than the first.

 

[cpreston]

What issues? I've been using SR's for about a decade, from the original to the latest wideband iteration(SRc). The only real issue I recall was with the original- you had to have the second channel tuned higher than the first.

The SRc's had some quality control and programming issues when they were first released. I bought a few of them as soon as they came out and I've had to send them into the shop for a variety of issues. Lectrosonics does seem to have everything worked out now, though.

 

[Run&Gun]

The SRc's had some quality control and programming issues when they were first released. I bought a few of them as soon as they came out and I've had to send them into the shop for a variety of issues. Lectrosonics does seem to have everything worked out now, though.

Ah... Ok. I received mine in January, maybe they had everything worked out by then. I know they are a few versions of firmware in, now too. I actually ordered the firmware module a few months ago so that I can update mine. Plus one of my audio guys has an SRc and another friend I shoot with, as well. Lazy me, I still haven't updated it, yet, though.

 

[IronFilm]

Jump over on jwsoundgroup and the Facebook forums and you can see it discussed to death.

Is one reason why I held back on the newest SR and got a couple of older SR instead. The other more honest reason: my poor bank account

 

[brettsherman]

You know, as much as I wish my wireless kits had the capability of recording internally while also transmitting a wireless feed, I must admit that this is brilliant business on Zaxcom’s part. When there’s a function that’s almost a necessity for professionals in an industry like ours and you’ve managed to position yourself to where nobody else can offer that feature but you, that’s simply business executed perfectly. Again, I wish my kits could do that, but I still can appreciate what Zaxcom has done from a business perspective. Then again, I’m completely pro business, so that’s just me.

Let's be honest about what Zaxcom did. While it may be "good business" for them, it is not honest. They submitted a patent application that had all sorts of language about "virtual multitrack" and crap like that to confuse the patent officials. Snuck into that patent was the capability of recording the audio signal locally while transmitting it out. And this is something that has been practiced in the industry for decades before their patent application. Basically they tricked the patent officials into granting them a patent that would hurt their competition. They did no real innovation. They did not develop the chipsets that allowed this to happen. If dishonest patent applications, and aggressive lawyers are your idea of "good business", I think we have a fundamental disagreement.

 

[Joshua Milligan]

Let's be honest about what Zaxcom did. While it may be "good business" for them, it is not honest. They submitted a patent application that had all sorts of language about "virtual multitrack" and crap like that to confuse the patent officials. Snuck into that patent was the capability of recording the audio signal locally while transmitting it out. And this is something that has been practiced in the industry for decades before their patent application. Basically they tricked the patent officials into granting them a patent that would hurt their competition. They did no real innovation. They did not develop the chipsets that allowed this to happen. If dishonest patent applications, and aggressive lawyers are your idea of "good business", I think we have a fundamental disagreement.

Man, I totally disagree. To me, it wasn't being sneaky; they were just the smart ones that actually did it. Smart, smart business move. We may not like the result of it, but it was a business tactic that gives them something nobody else can offer and to me, well, that's exactly what a business would want to have.

 

[brettsherman]

Man, I totally disagree. To me, it wasn't being sneaky; they were just the smart ones that actually did it. Smart, smart business move. We may not like the result of it, but it was a business tactic that gives them something nobody else can offer and to me, well, that's exactly what a business would want to have.

The only reason no one else can offer it is the amount of money they spend on lawyers to threaten lawsuits. I think spending money on actual product development, and competing on the price point and product features is probably a better idea.

You also don't seem to understand patents. Only one company can get a patent. In your ideal world would only one company be able to sell a camera that uses RAW recording. Only one company could use XLR connectors, only one company could have a servo zoom. That would be an awful world for professionals.

 

[Joshua Milligan]

I do understand patents and studied business management in college.

Let's take a look at Scrub Daddy for a second. I'm choosing Scrub Daddy as it is the most successful company to appear on Shark Tank to date and most people have heard of it, so it's a great example. Scrub Daddy has multiple patents filed over their simple smiley face designed dishwashing sponge. These patents have protected their business and product and have helped them offer something nobody else can; a dishwashing sponge with a smiley face who's mouth and eyes make cleaning dishes easier. Because of their patents and how they have protected their business, as of January 2018, Scrub Daddy has sold over $100 million in product (source: https://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-shark-tank-success-stories-2018-3#scrub-daddy-1). That's amazing and is definitely not what I would call bad business. That's great business as they have designed a product that's very desirable / useful and have protected it through patents so that only they can offer it. That's smart business.

Now let's go back to Zaxcom. Whether they created the idea to record audio directly to their transmitters or not, they were the ones smart enough and with enough resources to get whatever patents they needed in order to ensure only they could offer that. Whether you like it or not, that's how business works and it's no different than what Scrub Daddy has done. Zaxcom knew that the feature they've protected would be one that would be sought after by video / audio professionals, so they made sure that only they could offer it. That's smart because it gives professionals a push to use their products if they want that particular feature. The only reason other companies didn't file first is because Zaxcom beat them to it. Make no mistake, had they not have, someone else would've. Now that Zaxcom has gone that route, if we (the customers) want that feature, we have no choice but to buy their product, just like we'd have to buy a Scrub Daddy sponge if we want smiley faces to clean our spoons.

I can't help but notice that in the video / film industry, so many people are anti big business, and to me that's a jealousy thing. I say that because if any one of you who don't like what Zaxcom has done were to somehow inherit that business, you'd do everything you could to hang on to that patent because it's making you money. You can deny that all you want, but it's true. As for me, well, I love business all the way around. When Cabela's sold to Bass Pro Shops I hated it because I much preferred Cabela's. But, I cannot help but appreciate what Bass Pro has done because they are creating a monopoly where they are THE place to go if you want to purchase all your outdoor supplies from one store. It may suck for customers like me, but it was a great business move by them. I'm just open enough to admit it.

For more on Scrub Daddy's patent, I've attached an excerpt from IP.com about their patents.


"In December 2007, Scrub Daddy filed a design patent for a “Hand cleaning foam sponge”—the sun shape with two eyes. (The trademark for the name “Scrub Daddy” was issued in September 2011.)

Then in November 2011, the company filed another design patent for a “Dishwashing and scrubbing tool”—the sponge with the sun shape, two eyes and smile made famous on Shark Tank and currently on the market. That patent was issued in October 2013.

Design patents usually last 14 years, so the second invention, the Sponge Daddy as we know it, should be covered by a design patent until October 1, 2027.

In September 2012, Sponge Daddy filed a patent for a “Thermochromic foam cleaning pad and process for making the same,” and in March 2016 it filed a patent for a (“continuation-in-part of …”) “Scrubbing or scouring pad.”

So from 2007 through 2016, Scrub Daddy staggered its patent filings:

• First filing for appearance
• Second for an enhanced appearance
• Third for the material and making of the material
• Fourth for a scouring pad of that material

Whether intentional or not, Scrub Daddy spaced out its patent filings, thereby extending coverage. It likely filed design patents first because it’s easier and less expensive to get a design patent than a utility patent, and design patents last a long time. And for Scrub Daddy, a design patent makes sense because its appearance—with the eyes for fingers and the smile for silverware—is its most distinguishing characteristic."

 

[jb.]

If Zaxcom's patent is "something that has been practiced in the industry for decades before their patent application" then there should be massive amounts of prior art and invalidating their patent should be trivial. I can almost guarantee that if it was that simple that someone like Sennheiser or Sony (who are orders of magnitude larger than Zaxcom) would have created a competing product and produced the prior art to invalidate the patent.

I'd guess since that hasn't happened yet, there really isn't the prior art that's been mentioned and Zaxcom does deserve credit for inventing a device that both records and wirelessly transmits.

I should also note that the amount that most normal people don't know or don't understand about patent law and how it actually works could fill a lot of pages.