Are wired mics better than wireless?

O

Oller Visuals

Well-known member
I don't like the sound out of the kit Sennheiser G3. I need to know if I can expect better sound quality with Wired mics/kits in the same price range?

Or is the limit in sound quality more oriented about the actual size of these mics (ie, hard/expensive to make good sounding small mics)? I need to know this before deciding what to invest in, thanks.
 
The G3 is considered the entry level wireless for location production. There are far better wireless systems with regards to sound quality, range, and durability.
That being said, there are hundreds of indie productions every month sporting the Sennheiser g3 systems.
Often sound ppl like myself switch out the stock mics for the likes of Senken, Tram, and lately, Oscar Sound. I own an assortment of Tram and Oscar Soundtech and the mic selection is based on wardrobe, environment, and the talent's voice.

All of these mics sound better wired than wireless, and this is exagerated by the G3's compander approach to s/n management.

Proper gain staging is key to getting a wireless to sound good, and I've seen the system blamed often when the real culprit was poor gain staging or mic selection and placement.

Transitter sensitivity is the first place things can get screwed up. The sensitivity must be adjusted based on mic placement (proximity to the source), and volume of talent during that particular scene or line. It cannot be set and forgotten about. As I set up for each scene, I ask the talent to speak their line at the volume they think they'll be delivering during the take. If it's a loud line, I'll adjust sensitivity leaving about 12 db of headroom as the talent may get louder in the heat of the moment. If it's a soft scene, I'll give them about 6-9 db of headroom. I've worked with actors who tend to speak so softly during a take that it's nearly a whisper.

This is just the first gain stage. Receiver output then has to be adjusted to match the input to the mixer, recorder, and/or camera. I set my G3 recievers to 0db going into my PSC Alphamix which then sends ISO outs (as well as a stereo mix) to my Tascam DR-680. The inputs to the DR-680 then must be matched to the output of the Alphamix. If I'm also sending to camera, I shoot tone to the camera and adjust the camera inputs for -12 on the camera meters. That's 4 gain stages to match and manage.

So, wired will sound better than G3 wireless, and G3 wireless used within it's range and frequency capabilities will deliver very usable results when configured and managed properly,

Oller Visuals said:
I don't like the sound out of the kit Sennheiser G3. I need to know if I can expect better sound quality with Wired mics/kits in the same price range?

Or is the limit in sound quality more oriented about the actual size of these mics (ie, hard/expensive to make good sounding small mics)? I need to know this before deciding what to invest in, thanks.
Click to expand...
 
As others have said a cabled mic will always sound better than a radio mic, but there again a boom will always sound better than a Lav so it is down to what you deem to be acceptable for your end product.

A neuman U87 sounds better than a shur SM58 and both will sound better than a cabled lav or a radio mic but they all have their uses and depending on the application can all sound acceptable.

People tend to get too involved with how this sounds better than that but unless you do a direct comparison it will be hard to judge, we are lucky that the human ear does not have a memory so it is more about how you use the equipment you have and the choices you make to get the best out of it.

To use the music analogy in that you tend to listen to the performance and music rather than wondering what mic they used to record it with.
 
Last edited:
Are the gain settings you mention applicable to the g2 as well? Ive always had the output of the receiver at around -12 or -18. Sounds like if youre saying to set to 0 then ive been setting way too low.
 
All of these mics sound better wired than wireless,
Click to expand...

Actually I believe the all digital systems should sound as good as a cable.

So may be "All of these mics sound better wired than wireless you can afford" ;~)
 
What exactly is it about the sound quality of the G3 you don't like? The limiting factor of these is usually the cheap mics included in the package, which most people just replace with their own preference. I've not found any issues with the G3 audio quality from in to out. s/n is fine, audio bandwidth not a problem, and dynamic range suitable for what people use them for. The size of the mics isn't really a quality point. Some designs are really tiny, yet have great performance. Personally, I suspect that some people are hoodwinked by the kinds of very tiny and subtle tonal shifts that equipment has. People love the sound of a ten grand pre-amp, they're so 'clean', 'transparent' (insert superlative of your choice) - that kind of justifies their investment. I don't like electronics that have a noisy or poor quality sound. G3 is not in this category. Most of my work is in theatrical productions, and quite frankly we use decent mics, that work well in the situations we have, and plugging a set of headphones into the receiver rack has never revealed any sonic difference that makes me instantly want to use this model again. I'm more interested in reliability and RF performance - audio on them all is fine. TV people in studios seem to have a similar requirement, but people working single camera, or the 'cinematic' brigade genuinely believe that only the best is just adequate, and everything else somehow unsatisfactory to be seen with? Very often the they're the same people who have problems with their audio quality because they're not very good with mic placement. Perhaps they really believe that increasing the radio budget will solve all their problems? Most of the so called benefits of ultimate radio gear are simply not audible because of less than optimum user technique.

Better mics and proper placement are far more important (and clearly make a difference) than swapping a professional radio system for a state of the art, all singing, all dancing mega-product. Seeing somebody slap on a pack, and clip the mic onto somebody in the wrong place makes me wonder sometimes. Sometimes moving a mic a few inches is more of an improvement than upping the hire budget by a factor of 4 or 5!
 
They are applicable to the G2 as well, but entirely dependant on what you're plugged into and how that is configured. And that is the core of what I'm saying. There is no one correct value. Since my mixer is the core of my signal management, my wireless recievers output levels are set and any output level adjustments are made at the mixer, but if I was moving a wireless receiver from camera to camera, or mixer to mixer, I would have to adjust the receiver output to match the input needs of the new device.

The other consideration is circuit quality of each device. The G2 and G3 transmitters perform best (lowest s/n ratio) when adjusted to 1/3-2/3 deflection of the meter. As previously stated, this is dependant on mic sensitivity, placement with regards to the source, and talent volume level.

Since my mixer has the most quiet preamps, I use the mixer to do the heavy lifting to get signal levels to where they need to be to support the recording devices being fed.

So, while I drive my Alphamix with the G3 recievers set to 0db, your -18db setting may well be correct to support your mixer or recording device.

Josh Bass said:
Are the gain settings you mention applicable to the g2 as well? Ive always had the output of the receiver at
around -12 or -18. Sounds like if youre saying to set to 0 then ive been setting way too low.
Click to expand...
 
Oller Visuals, listen to gpforet. He's telling you how it is.

The G3 is an excellent performer that sounds fine, if you use it properly. Like everything else though, it'll reward poor technique with poor results.

That said, if you go wired you eliminate the amplification, signal processing, and wireless transmission from your workflow. I'm just saying that no wireless system can beat a $20 USD XLR cable that's in reasonable shape.

To reconcile this conundrum, buy lav mics you can use either way -- wireless or wired. Use them wired if you can, and wireless only when you have to. Best of both worlds.


gpforet said:
The G3 is considered the entry level wireless for location production. There are far better wireless systems with regards to sound quality, range, and durability.
That being said, there are hundreds of indie productions every month sporting the Sennheiser g3 systems.
Often sound ppl like myself switch out the stock mics for the likes of Senken, Tram, and lately, Oscar Sound. I own an assortment of Tram and Oscar Soundtech and the mic selection is based on wardrobe, environment, and the talent's voice.

All of these mics sound better wired than wireless, and this is exagerated by the G3's compander approach to s/n management.

Proper gain staging is key to getting a wireless to sound good, and I've seen the system blamed often when the real culprit was poor gain staging or mic selection and placement.
Click to expand...
 
As was previously stated, the included ME series mic with the G2/3 systems is not great sounding. A higher quality mic would make a difference.
That said, the system must also be gain-staged properly and an interference free frequency channel found to give 'pro' results. All wireless need due diligence in set-up for high quality trouble free performance.. and it still won't be 'trouble free' 100% of the time.. even with a $5k system.
If you need a 'set it-and-forget-it' system, use a cable.
 
There's also the notion some users have that radio systems just 'work'. I'm amazed how many touring shows have multi-channel systems that have incompatable channels, poor gain settings and they're amazed their expensive system performs so badly. Gain setting, as has been said, is responsible for some really poor signal to noise issues, or chronic distortion just because the gizmo on both ends can have input and outputs turned up and down. I did a show recently where there were all sorts of hisses and noises - and although it wasn't my role, I was familiar with the equipment and prodded the audio level button on the receiver to see that nothing level wise was visible on the meters. The pack gains were down really low, and the mixer pre-amp cranked right up. The system was just not set up, and they were fighting with it at each show, simply because they didn't understand gain setting. Considering the mismatched levels, the system was doing amazing well in the noise stakes when the signal levels were high.
 
I'm sorry, don't know what you mean about the 1/3 etc. deflection mentioned above. Not familiar with that terminology, can you explain? There used to be a video floating around about how to set up a G2 properly. . .it always seemed a little iffy so I generally HAVE set/forgotten it. I've found on the TX side -20 or -30 is good (-30 if you're not sure if the person is going to get real loud/yell/project---filmed a teacher once and that bit me 'cause even with cam levels set properly she was still --I believe---overloading the lav). Never known how to set the AF out/RX level any kind of proper/scientific way.

I use a mixer too (SD302) sometimes, but sometimes just go direct to cam.
 
Josh Bass said:
There used to be a video floating around about how to set up a G2 properly. .
Click to expand...
Our friend Guy Cochran at the DVE Store made some nice informative videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyVAjZq9HF8

A transmitter sensitivity of -30dB is usually low unless the speaker is speaking pretty loud, but each case is different. FWIW, The G3 transmitter has adjustments in 3dB increments and would allow a more optimal adj. than the G2's 10dB steps.
The G2/3 portable receiver's AF output setting of -12dB will generally yield an adequate level range for mic level inputs... For line level inputs, an AF output should be set to +12dB . However some devices may need to be 'cranked' for adequate input level as the receiver is closer to (nominal) -10dB than +4.
 
Thanks. Yes, I generally go with -20 as my all purpose level on the TX unless it's a live event where there's no take 2 and no way to adjust the TX if I see I've made an error, that's where the -30 (better safe than sorry) comes in, sometimes.

I've been thinking about the G3 since a local sound swore up and down it was leagues ahead of the G2 in terms of being interference prone.
 
The only wireless I've heard that makes a difference is the Audio Ltd. 2040. Let's see, somewhere I have a link so you can hear it as well......

Ah, Here you go. At $5K per set, they aren't likely to outsell the G2/G3.

Audio Ltd. 2040 clips. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0pjmdcb8u2wcc1t/Q-hsPVTpnY

Regards,

Ty Ford

PS: I haven't heard the $9000/channel digital Sennheiser wireless or the most recent digital Zaxcom wireless. A friend uses the Zaxcom on "Nurse Jackie" for those of you who might know that show. Not exclusively maybe, but as needed.
 
Oller Visuals said:
I don't like the sound out of the kit Sennheiser G3. I need to know if I can expect better sound quality with Wired mics/kits in the same price range?

Or is the limit in sound quality more oriented about the actual size of these mics (ie, hard/expensive to make good sounding small mics)? I need to know this before deciding what to invest in, thanks.
Click to expand...

The G3 is actually an excellent system.

BUT - the supplied mic. is entry level.

I would say tje best option is to swap the mic. for the MKE 2-ew - this is a vastly better mic. and, for many years, was the mic. of choice for all London's West End Theatres.
 
Josh Bass said:
I've been thinking about the G3 since a local sound swore up and down it was leagues ahead of the G2 in terms of being interference prone.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say "leagues ahead" but the G3 has some advantages. Aside from the aforementioned finer transmitter gain adjustments, the diversity receiver helps address multi-path interference. A G2 can sound very good though when properly set up.
 
The G3 can also squeeze more channels into a given band by virtue of better RF performance and improved filtering, but the G2, and the first generation series were pretty good RF wise.
 
This sound guy was telling me even when set up properly, the G2 could get "stepped on" by things even in a "clean" area. I believe he mentioned a shoot at a grocery store or department store where in one location the G2 would be fine and 15 feet to the right it would get interference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top