Multiple Audio

[davefisk]

bluetooth suffers from poor range, so unless you are really close to the bride and groom, then it isn't an option. Unless you want to spend thousands of dollars, it's one wireless system per person that you want to have an individual mic. In the example given in the OP, then that's two systems. You can do a lav plugged right into a small recorder, but then you won't know if things are bad until you import the audio into your editor.

You can get a good multi-track recorder for pretty cheap these days. If you are making a living, or at least good side money, then you owe it to yourself and your paying clients to have decent and proper equipment.

 

[onemanband-videomaker]

bluetooth suffers from poor range, so unless you are really close to the bride and groom, then it isn't an option. Unless you want to spend thousands of dollars, it's one wireless system per person that you want to have an individual mic. In the example given in the OP, then that's two systems. You can do a lav plugged right into a small recorder, but then you won't know if things are bad until you import the audio into your editor.

You can get a good multi-track recorder for pretty cheap these days. If you are making a living, or at least good side money, then you owe it to yourself and your paying clients to have decent and proper equipment.

not entirely accurate: a zoom H1 with a giant squid lav set at level 40 and no AGC will produce a track WAY better than ANY wireless lav on this Planet. At 40 it will be impossible to overload. So in terms of pure sound quality there is no fight at all: the zoom setup comes out as the winner all the time. I'm sorry but your last statement can be reversed to the exact opposite.

 

[David W. Jones]

not entirely accurate: a zoom H1 with a giant squid lav set at level 40 and no AGC will produce a track WAY better than ANY wireless lav on this Planet. At 40 it will be impossible to overload. So in terms of pure sound quality there is no fight at all: the zoom setup comes out as the winner all the time. I'm sorry but your last statement can be reversed to the exact opposite.

With all due respect... You don't know what you are talking about!

All the best!

Dave

 

[DPStewart]

That's different than splashing that I have no idea about it (like you just said). So before you understood and now you don't understand?

There are big shots here blasting the poor guy who wants to save on a second wireless system looking for a cheaper alternative, and telling him to spend and get a second wireless because he gets paid and he must buy the "real thing" . a wireless as the "real thing"? Really? only a live broadcast must step down and settle for the poor quality of a wireless (any). They are FAR from being the "real thing". Any recorder with a wired lav will produce better sound. So lecturing on a wireless system as the "real thing" is like telling another amateur that in order to run a F1 race he must get at least with a red civic instead of a malibu.

Well yes....but the main reason we are suggesting 2 complete wireless setups (very expensive I know - I had to live on bananas and ramen for 2-months when I bought my 2 proper wireless rigs) is because a wired system that is on the person BUT you cannot hear....man, that's close to suicide.

I've tried that in the past and YES, you get great sound quality, but the chances of something getting fouled up with this rig or it getting stopped...man, it's VERY high. Like suicide high. Like wreck your product and infuriate your client high.

Someone HAS TO BE monitoring the audio. Someone who can instantly spot if something has glitched, shut off, or gone wrong in any way. Someone who has the ability to immediately get that issue FIXED!

The ONLY time I would condone using an 'on-body' recorder is in situations where you are doing multiple takes and can check how your audio is coming out in between takes.


There's a reason nearly everyone uses at least the Sennheiser wireless setups or something very similar - even though that's at least $1,200 for a pair - when you could by FIVE way better sounding regular microphones for that price....nothing else does it...YET... and we all know that folks like us will TRY anything and everything! But no other system has emerged as viable.

Trust me, I use my Lav mics into my small-ish Tascam DR-05 and belt-pack it onto the subject or talent whenever possible (checking audio in between every few takes). But I already felt the BURN of what happens when that glitches out, and there's no way that's worth it.

 

[Alex H.]

Alright. We can have this conversation without the insults. Keep it civil. This is the only warning.

 

[doubledark]

Someone HAS TO BE monitoring the audio. Someone who can instantly spot if something has glitched, shut off, or gone wrong in any way. Someone who has the ability to immediately get that issue FIXED!

I'm an old stills guy just heading into video. My first experience with audio went something like this;
I said I would "help" a mate out with recording the audio of a speech he was filming. Wired up the speaker, checked the audio and placed the recorder in his pocket.
Something went wrong and we ended up with no audio(just on camera mic) :-(

So, my advice is to listen to the guys on this forum who have many many years of experience.

 

[DPStewart]

Alright. We can have this conversation without the insults. Keep it civil. This is the only warning.

Hope you didn't mean me... did you mean me?

I was trying to be as diplomatic as I could.

 

[OldCorpse]

I think Alex's remark was a general reminder to keep it all civil - whether anyone is guilty or not in this particular case, DPStewart... after all, if you look closely enough no one is without fault as nobody is perfect... I CERTAINLY AM NOT!!! Even you, DPStewart ... as an example, when you write that someone has no idea what they're talking about, it's not a nice (or diplomatic) thing to say, even if true - but it's especially not nice if you then don't at the same time give reasons as to why someone is wrong... otherwise it sounds super dismissive, sorry, and saying "with all due respect" is your clue - because whatever follows that phrase is never nice, ever, so when you find yourself using it... just dont! See what I mean? Anyhow, I don't mean to highlight you nor do I think Alex meant you specifically, but my understanding is he meant that everyone should keep the rules in mind.

And on the merits, yes, it is true that a zoom h1 and wired lav will give often give you better quality sound than a wireless - so why be dogmatic and come down on someone as if they're a moron? Every situation is individual. For many narrative situations, that can be a perfectly respectable solution - so let's not claim WRONGLY that it should never be done. And even if someone is wrong, how about not being mean about it? In this case, it is NOT wrong in every situation. Yes, it would be very risky and therefore highly likely to be "wrong" when you are doing something where you only get one chance to get it right, or limited chances, since without monitoring it can result in disaster that you can't then correct. But it's not a 100% rule. I have used that exact system of h1 + lav on short films and it was fine. So how about being POLITE and not dismissive and not dogmatic - and even if someone feels they're right and the other person is wrong, we should never be NASTY about it. And again, in this case it is not ALWAYS wrong - sometimes an h1 + lav is a perfectly fine solution. The world is in shades of gray far more often than black and white - so let's all chill and be NICE. My 2 cents

 

[David W. Jones]

My apologies.

I can be a crotchety old man at times, and my replies can cut like a knife. It wasn't my intentions to hurt anyone's feelings.

not entirely accurate: a zoom H1 with a giant squid lav set at level 40 and no AGC will produce a track WAY better than ANY wireless lav on this Planet. At 40 it will be impossible to overload. So in terms of pure sound quality there is no fight at all: the zoom setup comes out as the winner all the time..

What I should have said was... I have used this Giant Squid/Zoom $150 setup. I have also used just about every professional wireless microphone/Lav combo available in a number of scenarios, from college football games and national commercials to documentaries and multi-million dollar feature films. And in my professional opinion, this above statement is inaccurate. There are a number of wireless transmitter/receiver and lavalier microphone combinations that conform to a higher standard of quality, performance, and long term usability, than the Zoom/Squid combo. It is also my professional opinion, that from a business perspective it makes more sense to invest in a quality wireless microphone system like a Sennheiser G3 with the addition of a higher quality microphone like a Tram or a Countryman, which can then be paid off after a few weddings, than to use a pocket recorder like the above mentioned which has no ability for the user to monitor the sound, and risk losing important audio, and possibly future clients from word of mouth.

Again, my apologies!

Dave

 

[onemanband-videomaker]

Well yes....but the main reason we are suggesting 2 complete wireless setups (very expensive I know - I had to live on bananas and ramen for 2-months when I bought my 2 proper wireless rigs) is because a wired system that is on the person BUT you cannot hear....man, that's close to suicide.

I've tried that in the past and YES, you get great sound quality, but the chances of something getting fouled up with this rig or it getting stopped...man, it's VERY high. Like suicide high. Like wreck your product and infuriate your client high.

Someone HAS TO BE monitoring the audio. Someone who can instantly spot if something has glitched, shut off, or gone wrong in any way. Someone who has the ability to immediately get that issue FIXED!

The ONLY time I would condone using an 'on-body' recorder is in situations where you are doing multiple takes and can check how your audio is coming out in between takes.


There's a reason nearly everyone uses at least the Sennheiser wireless setups or something very similar - even though that's at least $1,200 for a pair - when you could by FIVE way better sounding regular microphones for that price....nothing else does it...YET... and we all know that folks like us will TRY anything and everything! But no other system has emerged as viable.

Trust me, I use my Lav mics into my small-ish Tascam DR-05 and belt-pack it onto the subject or talent whenever possible (checking audio in between every few takes). But I already felt the BURN of what happens when that glitches out, and there's no way that's worth it.

well said, the voice of experience I see. (and no lecturing) . And that's the problem with a recorder, I agree ( I mean THAT and the fact that you can't go live with those). But come on... you really believe that a zoom H1 and a giant squid with the level set at 40 will be different than the normal setting that we all use with a g3 ? you too set the volume in manual on your wireless, and put the volume to 50% and keep shooting, no? Again I agree that monitoring the audio during a wedding or event wold be super cool, but that's not what happens in real life (not in a one-man-band scenario), pardon the nick link to the statement LOL

In any case I stand by my statements regarding the suggestion of H1 and giant squid to the OP who didn't want to "spend" for the second wereless (and I agree with him!). My suggestion was solid and cheap. Exaclty what he was looking for.

Now back to my experience (roughly 25 years in this biz) : I use a recorder as a mandatory backup on the interviewer during interviews (not in live broadcast obviously). I put it on the interviewer and not the talent because I know that the interviewer will eventually forget to point the microphone to his mouth when he makes the second question (almost never happens the other way around). I use a sennheiser 835 on G3, but even a reporter(rode) or other omni (re50 etc..) will lose the voice if pointed to the wrong mouth.
Plus I keep the track of the shotgun as the second backup (track that I also feed in live broadcast along with the wireless)
the wireless is the main track. (but I have two more just in case)

And again and for the last time the giant squid on H1 produces the best audio, hands down. Period.

P.S. to DPStewart (please let's keep this between us.. in confidence LOL ): I leave the H1 @ level 50 pretty much aqll the time and NEVER check anything...LOL

 

[Alex H.]

I have done several productions as a one-man-band and wireless is my go-to. Further, there was a comment made that "only a live broadcast must step down and settle for the poor quality of a wireless," and this is categorically untrue. Every network drama, every major motion picture... the actors are all rigged with lavs and wireless transmitters. Yes, there are boom ops running as well, and that's the audio that ideally gets used first, but wireless is there and is used often.

Good wireless systems are not poor quality. They are subject to RF interference, yes, and the compander does change the sound a little over a wired lav, but this can be minimal. Cheaper systems have worse companding artifacts. But wireless - GOOD wireless - is still perfectly viable for production sound.

Back to the original question, because it seems we've forgotten a very important detail: the OP already has a Sennheiser wireless system.

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!

So, the original question was about adding a second channel. We're building from an exsting system here, so it only makes sense to stick with what's already in use. Further, why break continuity in sound coverage by putting a wireless on one person and the pocket recorder on another? Minor detail, perhaps, but I like to work with consistent sound in post.