Cole
Well-known member
Nice.
bluetooth lav mic?
- Thread starter averan
- Start date
Nice.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
There are three reasons I can think of why the UHF offerings are 'higher quality'.
One is the cost of the implementation for UHF offerings, to satisfy the higher quality requirements... means, uh, well, higher quality...
Another is that the digitization of the audio occurs at the mic/transmitter in the Bluetooth case. Since the market for the Bluetooth offering is not demanding in 'high quality', and so, the digitization matches that lower quality expectation.
The third item is just how 'digitized data' is transported via RF. Dropped packets are 'frequent', and as such any RF link should be considered unreliable with out additional error correction information. Additional error corretion means additional cost, thence higher price.
All 3 of these add up to... sure for $1000 I'll be someone could produce a quality Bluetooth system... for the typical Bluetooth buyer, that puts that sort of product out of the universe of discourse.
A note that 'reason' would be the spectrum used, and how 'filled' it is. In the case of the Bluetooth one is competing with a large number of essentially uncontrolled competetors for the spectrum. In the case of the UHF spectrum, one of the requirements, whether it is honored or not, is that devices are tuned to frequencies that are 'supposed' to have less competition.
JordanBlock
Well-known member
Hehe, you set yourself up for it, I had no choice!
I've got a better view now on your situation. And yes, in that case sometimes it's better to go by "1-men crew".
But.... People being afraid in front of camera... everybody is... Few months ago I did sound for a news item. The guy who was being questioned was asked a question from which the answer he gave every 5minutes to customers... When he had to do it in front of camera...he blocked. Having a camera in front of them and having mice clipped on, is something they have to "get over".
Also try to explain your situation. People who are not involved into tv/film don't know anything about it. Explain them how it works, that you need time sometimes to do things
But.... People being afraid in front of camera... everybody is... Few months ago I did sound for a news item. The guy who was being questioned was asked a question from which the answer he gave every 5minutes to customers... When he had to do it in front of camera...he blocked. Having a camera in front of them and having mice clipped on, is something they have to "get over".
Also try to explain your situation. People who are not involved into tv/film don't know anything about it. Explain them how it works, that you need time sometimes to do things
Captain Pierce
Veteran
With regards to the product that averan linked to...
Is it just me, or is Sony being incredibly optimistic with the estimate of 150 feet range on Bluetooth?
Other than that, I want to come at this from a little different angle. As somebody who has put a lot of lavs on a lot of people, it often turns into kind of a pain.
Not only in the situations that averan encounters, but there are also sometimes wardrobe malfunctions (it always seems that women that I need to put a lav on never have any place to put the bodypack). So... why hasn't anybody come up with a better (or at least different) way?
Samson used to make something along the lines of what averan wants called the AL1. Now, nobody here is going to like Samson anymore than they do this Bluetooth piece
, and it's not made anymore and they didn't replace it (suggesting to me that they didn't sell many).
Companies like Revolabs are making similar stuff for high-end conference rooms (pricey and working on odd frequency bands, but done without the usual compression of UHF wireless); and "wearable" mics are all the rage right now in the school classroom audio market (using infrared technology that has its own limitations (and probably wouldn't work outdoors ).
So why hasn't somebody come out with a new idea that the rest of us can use? Is it so impossible to make a quality, "wearable," UHF mic?
Is it just me, or is Sony being incredibly optimistic with the estimate of 150 feet range on Bluetooth?
Other than that, I want to come at this from a little different angle. As somebody who has put a lot of lavs on a lot of people, it often turns into kind of a pain.
Not only in the situations that averan encounters, but there are also sometimes wardrobe malfunctions (it always seems that women that I need to put a lav on never have any place to put the bodypack). So... why hasn't anybody come up with a better (or at least different) way?Samson used to make something along the lines of what averan wants called the AL1. Now, nobody here is going to like Samson anymore than they do this Bluetooth piece
, and it's not made anymore and they didn't replace it (suggesting to me that they didn't sell many). Companies like Revolabs are making similar stuff for high-end conference rooms (pricey and working on odd frequency bands, but done without the usual compression of UHF wireless); and "wearable" mics are all the rage right now in the school classroom audio market (using infrared technology that has its own limitations (and probably wouldn't work outdoors
).So why hasn't somebody come out with a new idea that the rest of us can use? Is it so impossible to make a quality, "wearable," UHF mic?
Richard Crowley
Veteran
Thanks for sharing those with us. They are excellent examples of why BlueTooth is NOT a viable alternative for any sort of quality wireless audio solution. If you knew anything about the technology, you would know that BlueTooth is not suitable for real-time, high-bandwidth audio transmission, and these clips illustrate that nicely.
But if it does the job for you, then go for it. What do you care what we think?
John Willett
Veteran
I notice that Sony don't give any real technical spec. for the system.
Bluetooth was designed as an inexpensive wireless system for mobile phones and, as such, has a narrow bandwidth for telephone quality speech only.
Being digital, there will also be latency (so the sound will be delayed and you lose lip-sync.).
You really need something like a G3 system (or second-hand G2 if money is tight) to do the job you want.
Bluetooth was designed as an inexpensive wireless system for mobile phones and, as such, has a narrow bandwidth for telephone quality speech only.
Being digital, there will also be latency (so the sound will be delayed and you lose lip-sync.).
You really need something like a G3 system (or second-hand G2 if money is tight) to do the job you want.