Possible to use a lav mic via a wireless XLR plug-in transmitter like Sony's UTX-P1?

L

lowep

Well-known member
Exploring audio wireless systems for the first time, I have come across a preloved Sony Uwp-v6 kit that includes a bullet-shaped UTX-P1 wireless transmitter that plugs into a conventional condenser mic, but is missing the body pack transmitter usually used to connect a lavalier microphone.

I already have an Audio Technica ATR3350 lavalier microphone and a 3.5 jack to XLR cable that woud allow me to connect the lavalier microphone to the UTX-P1 wireless transmitter.

What I am not sure is if this unusual combination of lavalier mic, 3.5 <> XLR adapter and UTX-P1 would function just as well as connecting the ATR3350 via the missing body pack transmitter?

Any idea if this would or would not work?

To help figure this out here are the specs for the ATR3350:
Element-Condenser,Polar pattern-Omnidirectional,Cable6 m (20') terminated with 3.5 mm (1/8") dual mono mini-plug Frequency response-50 – 18,000 hz Open circuit sensitivity-54 dB Impedance-1,000 ohms,Battery type-Lr44 Condenser Element with Omnidirectional Polar pattern Freq resp: 50 Hz-18,000 Hz, Imp: 1000 ohm +/-30% Omni pickup pattern offers full coverage Tambien tengo cable adaptador 3.5mm - XLR macho

As far as I can see, the Sony UTX-P1 is quite like similar wireless plug in transmitters made by Sennheiser, Shure and other manufacturers, and the quality though not stunning is adequate for voice recording.
 
Well, no. Or probably not. First a basic rule: Just because the jacks fit does not mean you should plug them together.
Probable problems.

The plugin transmitter probably doesn't provide phantom power. Your adapter probably doesn't convert phantom power to "plug-in" power that the lav needs. Also the wiring on the lav may need to be altered for your transmitter.

In detail. Many plugin transmitters do not provide phantom power, they were designed to be used with dynamic or self powered mics.
Unless your lav uses a battery you will need to provide it with what is called"plug-in" power.

*******************
OK looked up the gear and while the above is true you get a pass on a few things.

So the power is not an issue, your lav is powered. The adapter is probably not the right way to go though. It is probably a straight through adapter and your lav is almost certainly puting the same mono signal on both the hot and the ring so when that hits the balanced input section they will cancel out and you won't hear anything. You need an adapter that only connects the tip and sleeve of your lav mic to hot and ground in the XLR.

You can try it out and see if it works because it is possible that it will work. With out going down the rabbit hole there is a balanced input design that might work that was used on some prosumer gear so? But probably you will need to get or make an adapter to "convert the dual mono of the TRS lav to an unbalanced XLR.
 
Thanks Scott, good to know (and avoid hurtling down the rabbit hole). Now I am thinking maybe best to look for a complete system that includes mic., transmitter and receiver to avoid such pit- (no pun intended) -falls.

In general preloved Sony kits like the URXP2/UTXB2 seem to be quite easy to find and quite a bit less costly than kits like the Rode filmmaker or somewhat similar legacy Sennheiser systems. What I am not sure about is if the price difference also reflects a big difference in quality (compared to using an XLR extension cord) in which case forking out a little more for a much better kit may be the way to go?
 
I'll give you my two cents.

These are UHF analog units. So they have all many of the drawbacks of wireless. First is the ever shrinking and crowded airspace. You need to check that the frequencies are still legal to use. In the US they keep cutting back so a lot of "bargain" wireless sets that pop up used are not on legal bands anymore. But what is and what is not varies a lot around the world so check before you buy. It's analog so you will need to check for clear frequencies and hope nobody comes in and steps on your freq. while your using it. Depending on where you are this is either a big issue or hardly ever a problem.
Also it's analog so the signal is going to get crushed and then expanded back in the receiver. This is called companding and they all do it to get a more solid signal in limited bandwidth. Being a pretty recent model that process is probably just about unnoticeable, some earlier units it could be noticable. You have more batteries to deal with...

A cable is a cable, it pretty much gives you all you can get, very robust, hardly ever a problem, and takes a fair amount of abuse. Also replacement cost is quite low.

Wireless is inherently more fragile and replacement costs can be significant.

Wireless is more work to use and set up and there are more places for things to go wrong.

That said the big up side is elimination of cables. This can be huge depending on the situation.

The WiFi wireless are a mixed bag. Some have a significant lag time, most have a pretty limited range, they are higher frequency and that means more line of sight. They are much simpler to set up,but you also don't have a lot of ways to "fix" issues since you can't really alter much. They tend to work or not. Other than the lag most of them seem to work pretty well.

Supper $$$ all digital systems solve some of the problems but they are $$$$$$.

A system like what you are looking at is not going to have as much dynamic range and frequency range as a cable. BUT your doing dialog, you won't generally use all of that dynamic range and you certainly would use all the freq. range so...

A wireless system is really handy to have even if you do SFX, as I mostly do, and can be a life saver for production. These seem to be pretty decent so IF they are in legal frequencies for where you are and they are affordable then it's not a bad idea to look at getting one.
 
Noiz2 said:
I'll give you my two cents.

A cable is a cable, it pretty much gives you all you can get, very robust, hardly ever a problem, and takes a fair amount of abuse. Also replacement cost is quite low.

Wireless is inherently more fragile and replacement costs can be significant.

Wireless is more work to use and set up and there are more places for things to go wrong.

That said the big up side is elimination of cables.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz thanks Scott, this kind of frank and knowledgable advice is really helpful and much appreciated!

Maybe I don't really need a wireless mic kit as much as I thought I did?

One advantage of living south of the border is that radio frequencies are not yet as big a concern as elsewhere, so maybe the shrinking airspace in the USA will work to my advantage if it impacts on the market for preloved audio gear... if I can stop my wallet from burning a hole in my pocket too soon.

Enjoy your evening!

BTW nice hat! You seem to be very knowledgable for a dog.
 
Scott's post is pretty much right-on and comprehensive, so the only thing I can add:
If you were to make a custom 'mini-plug to XLR adapter' for that particular mic with it's 3.5mm TRS mini-plug (assuming it has a line-lump battery power supply and is wired for dual-mono)
- mic plug's Tip and Ring to XLR pin-2.
- mic plug's Sleeve/Shield to XLR pins-1 and 3.
Option: if so desired, the plug's 'Ring' terminal can be floated ( i.e: not connected to anything).

A word of warning, never apply Phantom Power to an 'unbalanced' mic though a hard-wired XLR adapter (sizzle, sizzle.. fried).
 
I can see the Sony UWP1 receiver UTX B1 operates on UHF channel 62/64 (798/822 Mhz) but am not sure if this is still a legal channel for this type of usage in the USA and Europe? Help to figure this out or a pointer to a web page with relevant information would be much appreciated.
 
lowep said:
I can see the Sony UWP1 receiver UTX B1 operates on UHF channel 62/64 (798/822 Mhz) but am not sure if this is still a legal channel for this type of usage in the USA and Europe? Help to figure this out or a pointer to a web page with relevant information would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

That band or at least most of it is illegal to use wireless mics on in the U.S., it was part of the 700MHz sell off. The 700 MHz Band – between 698 and 806 MHz -- is now reserved for use only by public safety groups, such as police, fire and emergency services, and commercial providers of wireless broadband services.
 
Thanks Puredrifting for clarifying this: good to know what can and cannot be done where. I checked the specs and from what I can see it looks like all the frequency options the UTX B1 can operate on are within the band you mention, though maybe not in Europe, Southern America, Asia, Africa or elsewhere? Looks like this needs more investigation...
 
Hmmm... just in case I am not the only dummy who does not already know about this in detail this FCC bulletin seems to be a good explanation of what is NOT possible in the US:

https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/wireless-microphones

Also:

"In Europe, with the introduction of the mobile phone network based on LTE technology in the bands 790 -821 MHz and 832 - 862 MHz, these bands are no longer available for wireless microphones usage. Because of the reorganization of the UHF-TV band 470 - 862 MHz, the license regimes have changed as well."

http://www.shure.com/americas/suppo...e-my-shure-wireless-system-in-another-country

Well at leat cables don't seem to be outlawed (yet):laugh:
 
Last edited:
This is precisely why many of us are taking our chances with the 1.9GHz and 2.4GHz models from Sennheiser and Røde. Sure, they operate in a different spectrum that, in theory, could be problematic but I have had MUCH better luck with my Rødes than my production partners UHF Sennheiser G3s that give me intereference every time I try to use them, regardless of how many scans I have done. I am done with UHF, although most of the pros I hire are still wrestling with it.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
... but I have had MUCH better luck with my Rødes than my prodiuction partners UHF Sennheiser G3s that give me intereference every time I try to use them, regardless of how many scans I have done. I am done with UHF, although most of the pros I hire are still wrestling with it.
Click to expand...

Most of the lower-budget wireless systems out there have pretty useless clear scan functions. An RF Explorer will give you a much better idea of what’s going on in the air around you and will be able to find the usage holes in the spectrum.

Another key step that most people forget when setting up multiple wireless systems is to do a thorough intermod check. Start with all transmitters and receivers on. Then, turn off the first transmitter. If you see any RF at all on its receiver, retune both RX and TX and start the process over again. When there’s absolutely no RF on the RX with the TX off, turn the TX back on and check the second system with this process. Any time you have to retune any of the systems, start the testing process back from the beginning with the first TX. Do this until you can turn off each transmitter in turn with a clear receiver. Of course, this process goes much faster with only 2 or 3 systems than it does with a live stage show or stadium sportscast with umpteen coordinated frequencies. This process is sometimes called “war gaming” your wireless systems.
 
Lectrosonics actually has tables of “pre-coordinated” frequency groups for their wireless to avaoid intermodulation. And I believe you can set the receivers up to tune within those groups, as well, although I’ve never used that feature.
 
Run&Gun said:
Lectrosonics actually has tables of “pre-coordinated” frequency groups for their wireless to avaoid intermodulation. And I believe you can set the receivers up to tune within those groups, as well, although I’ve never used that feature.
Click to expand...

Even the Sennheiser G3/G4 systems come with preset banks of “coordinated” frequencies. Those aren’t always a guarantee, though, because it all depends on where your actual open frequencies are. With wireless, there’s absolutely no such thing as “set it and forget it”.

Shure has their Wireless Workbench software (free, Windows and Mac). For iOS, there’s NewEndian’s FreqFinder ($29.99). Both allow you to create profiles and find coordinated frequency lists. But even within those lists, you need to scan for open frequencies and to war game multiple systems.

The 1.9GHz/2.4GHz systems do simplify the process, but they introduce their own host of issues:

- A much smaller limit on how many systems can be run at the same time.
- Latency.
- Potentially being rendered unusable in crowded WiFi environments. This is especially concerning on film sets with wireless video monitoring + wireless follow focus + any other WiFi-based monitor, control, etc.

These digital systems may be fine for OMB operations dealing with simple 1- or 2-person interviews, but anything past that and it’s still asking for trouble. There’s no way I’d replace the UHF kits in my bag with digital systems anytime soon.
 
How about the alternative option, for low budget run and gun stuff, of hooking up a lav to a field recorder like the Sony IDC-SX2000 that can be monitored and adjusted via bluetooth with an iphone app? Not rusty old junk but maybe more trouble to juggle than a wireless solution?
 
Alex H. said:
Even the Sennheiser G3/G4 systems come with preset banks of “coordinated” frequencies. Those aren’t always a guarantee, though, because it all depends on where your actual open frequencies are. With wireless, there’s absolutely no such thing as “set it and forget it”.

Shure has their Wireless Workbench software (free, Windows and Mac). For iOS, there’s NewEndian’s FreqFinder ($29.99). Both allow you to create profiles and find coordinated frequency lists. But even within those lists, you need to scan for open frequencies and to war game multiple systems.

The 1.9GHz/2.4GHz systems do simplify the process, but they introduce their own host of issues:

- A much smaller limit on how many systems can be run at the same time.
- Latency.
- Potentially being rendered unusable in crowded WiFi environments. This is especially concerning on film sets with wireless video monitoring + wireless follow focus + any other WiFi-based monitor, control, etc.

These digital systems may be fine for OMB operations dealing with simple 1- or 2-person interviews, but anything past that and it’s still asking for trouble. There’s no way I’d replace the UHF kits in my bag with digital systems anytime soon.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah... It's just a starting point. It's always going to depend on the actual RF environment you're in and what else is going on around you. I've gotten screwed in "co-ordinated" environments more than once.
 
Alex H. said:
Most of the lower-budget wireless systems out there have pretty useless clear scan functions. An RF Explorer will give you a much better idea of what’s going on in the air around you and will be able to find the usage holes in the spectrum.

Another key step that most people forget when setting up multiple wireless systems is to do a thorough intermod check. Start with all transmitters and receivers on. Then, turn off the first transmitter. If you see any RF at all on its receiver, retune both RX and TX and start the process over again. When there’s absolutely no RF on the RX with the TX off, turn the TX back on and check the second system with this process. Any time you have to retune any of the systems, start the testing process back from the beginning with the first TX. Do this until you can turn off each transmitter in turn with a clear receiver. Of course, this process goes much faster with only 2 or 3 systems than it does with a live stage show or stadium sportscast with umpteen coordinated frequencies. This process is sometimes called “war gaming” your wireless systems.
Click to expand...

Or in the case of my partner's G3s, I could get frustrated and thrown them in the ocean. Yeah, I like that solution better ;-)
 
puredrifting said:
Or in the case of my partner's G3s, I could get frustrated and thrown them in the ocean. Yeah, I like that solution better ;-)
Click to expand...

Ha!

I have a pile of G3 systems and I don’t have many issues out of them outside of range that isn’t as good as Lectro or Zaxcom systems. The G4 500 systems are even better than the G3/G4 100 systems: 50mW transmission as opposed to 30mW makes a huge difference.
 
Alex H. said:
Ha!

I have a pile of G3 systems and I don’t have many issues out of them outside of range that isn’t as good as Lectro or Zaxcom systems. The G4 500 systems are even better than the G3/G4 100 systems: 50mW transmission as opposed to 30mW makes a huge difference.
Click to expand...

You're lucky. The two my partner has have been nothing but trouble no matter where we shoot (all SoCal beaches and open ocean, many near major airports?) and no matter which bands we are using. We'd be shooting interviews, everything would be fine, then mosquito noise, then white noise blasts would start creeping in. I would then take out my Røde Video Wireless for the next interview and it would behave flawlessly. I think messing around with UHF is fine for sound mixers but when you have no sound mixer, are already each doing two or three crew positions, messing with UHF, scans and settings is a joke. That's why I like the Rødes so much for what we often are doing, shooting without a sound mixer. Set 'em up, turn 'em on and they just work, no scans, settings or adjustments necessary. I've only had one case of them not working in two years, my talent was inside a metal walled building, wearing the Røde transmitter, I stepped outside with my camera to get some b-roll shots but was still wearing headphones and heard the signal dropout momentarily. The entire building is metal on a concrete and rebar slab, we covered it being built. But inside the building, the Rødes perform fine. it was just having that huge solid wall of metal between the transmitter and receiver that did it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top