Multiple Audio

G

Goose080

New member
I am looking to put a wireless lav on the groom and a wireless lav on the presider and i only want to be able to pick up one at a time. I am using a Senheiser system and don't want to spend $700 twice if I can help it. Does anyone have a suggestion? Thank you!
 
Hi

Forgive me, but don't you at least have to have a transmitter on the groom and another transmitter on the "presider" ? Then each transmitter needs a receiver as otherwise they will interfere with each other. That leaves you with two sets.

You can pick up one at a time by putting one to left channel and the other to right channel in camera. Then, live if you must, or best in post you can bring up one channel and duck the other. You might be bringing it all into a mixer and recorder but I am assuming a camera.

I must be missing something in your question, sorry. I am responding because I don't see any other responses yet. But someone will do much better than this response I am sure.
 
One wireless lav mic setup = one mic.
Two wireless lav mic setups = two mics.

Sorry, no way around that. Bummer, right? Those things are expensive.

You can use 1 boom mic over their heads to pick up both people, but it will be big and visible and it may pick up more ambient sound as well. (Yeah, this is generally NOT an option, I know.)

Good location audio requires at least as much work as good location video.
 
Audio-Technica has their 1800 series dual-receiver. It's one physical unit with two receivers inside.

You could (in theory) get two transmitters and one receiver. Then tune the Tx to two very different frequencies. On the fly, you would then flip the Rx between channels. The drawback with that is that it takes a long time to do (as in, about 10-20 seconds) and there's always the possibility that the two transmitters interfere with each other.
 
edinc90 said:
Audio-Technica has their 1800 series dual-receiver. It's one physical unit with two receivers inside.
Click to expand...

This is a solution, but it's going to cost roughly the same per channel. Since it sounds like the OP already has one Sennheiser, it is advisable to get an additional Sennheiser system rather than starting over and buying two channels. Plus, the AT's don't hold a candle to the quality of the Sennheisers.

edinc90 said:
You could (in theory) get two transmitters and one receiver. Then tune the Tx to two very different frequencies. On the fly, you would then flip the Rx between channels. The drawback with that is that it takes a long time to do (as in, about 10-20 seconds) and there's always the possibility that the two transmitters interfere with each other.
Click to expand...

That's... not even logical. As has been discussed, one receiver for each transmitter. Period.

Goose080, if this is a one-off (if you're doing this one wedding and not planning on doing weddings regularly), it may be more feasible to rent the second wireless. Contact trewaudio.com for rental; they carry the Sennheisers, and they ship their rentals to you. This is a LOT less expensive than purchasing.

If, however, you're going to be getting into wedding videography as a career or regualr side-job, it may be more sensible to invest in the second system.
 
Last edited:
Sounds pretty freak'n awful. Bluetooth inherently has a latency issue as well. Ok for a school kids .. maybe.
 
It is impossible to judge the quality of that Sony ECM-AW4 from that video.
It seems far more likely that the distortion was due to the casual/ignorant setup by the users.
And that is giving them the benefit of the doubt that they even know what "setup" means.

I saw no significant latency in the video. If you guys have some particular spot in the video that suggested latency, please share it with us.
Remember that the camera down at the end of the sidewalk was not connected to the device-under-test and any "sync" was a result of their manual editing process.

While I agree that the first generation of cheap bluetooth wireless mic gadgets was deplorable,
even in this terrible demo video I see nothing that suggests any inherent problem with distortion or latency.
There is certainly a market for inexpensive wireless mic kits, and this seems like a reasonable product for what it costs.

And furthermore, the 2-way feature is unmatched in any wireless mic kit of ANY price.
 
GaryNattrass said:
Sounds wonderfully distorted and out of sync!
Click to expand...

What a bozo! It does , technically, sound like it might be useful but with such an inept "review" it's hard to tell. Since they didn't even bother to put a windscreen on the shotgun, and obviously didn't care much what the sound sounded like, it's hard to tell if the realy not acceptable quality of the sound from the Sony boxes were just user error.

If the sound is decent I can see these selling like hotcakes to wedding videographers and no budget ENG/ Bloggers. Especially with the talk back feature.

Well they would also have to semi stable. My experience with BlueTooth has not been great so?

**** oops Richard beat me to it ****

But actually I believe in the second part they were going to the camera with the Sony boxes. But again did they do any setup? or just plug it in and pick auto everything? I'll be a lot more interested if someone who knows something about sound gives it a decent review.
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of pro digital wireless offerings now, and I would imagine that there will be some offering where one can have two or more, depending, mic/transmitters and one receiver.

I would imagine it is based on some sort of Time Division Multiple Access method where perhaps the receiver acts as the TDMA master. (ok it is only a 'receiver' in the sense of the destination of the audio stream...).

But at the moment I don't think there is such a solution...

Whether it would be 'cheaper'... well... that's marketing...
 
BTW there are two reviews, one seems to have a bit of experience and one thing he mentions is that you can only really use one at a time.
What these might be handy for though is a cheap com system for low budget shoots.
 
Well that sounded a LOT better, but it has the thing I noticed with BlueTooth headsets which is it doesn't sound bad when he is close but as he gets farther away it starts to take on the BlueTooth phone headset quality. Gets a bit compressed and crunchy like the data stream narrows.

But intors it sounded OK and that was the built in mic so probably with a better mic?

I could still see picking one up as a cheap com to the boom op or?
 
OK I will also give the benefit of doubt to the original test and the sync may have been more due to the usual you tube codec munching.

Having looked at it a little further it is quite a neat product and it looks like both units are identical with a built in mic, a red (plug in powered?) mic input on the top and a headphone/output on the side.

Linking via bluetooth basically seems to give you a bi direction four wire type system with audio going in each direction so for certain applications you could be feeding an IFB foldback/talkback feed to a presenter and the return audio from a plugged in lav / ext mic or built in mic back to the camera.

Ok as others have said bluetooth is not the best transmission system and it may be that it is very basic but that may be all you need for a simple run and gun presenter situation.

It would be ideal for a small camcorder set-up and I would certainly like to try one.

P.S The manual is here: http://pdf.crse.com/manuals/4533246021.pdf
 
Last edited:
Didn't sound very good to me.. Ok for a talk-back though.. and what's with the constant LF rumble in the BG.
 
a zoom H1 and a giant squid lav as the second channel. Well ... it needs syncing software like pluraleyes. I'm old(er) so old school and everything LOL , but if I had a sound like that (H1-giant squid and pluraleyes) just 15 years ago for that price....
anyway the zoom H1 with the giant squid can be set to level 40 and left there (there will be no sound monitoring obviously). But 40 will be safe enough and loud enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top