James Holmes
Member
Thank you Rick.
RODE Announces New Wireless Sytem and Two New Shotgun Mics
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
I just noticed http://Videoguys.com.au have changed the the NTG4 and 4+ shotguns from pre order to in stock. Now someone needs to buy one and compare it with the NTG3, and maybe the similarly priced Sennheiser MKE-600.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
Who is "disallowing" 2.4GHz in any location? 2.4~2.5 GHz is specifically the "ISM" band which is unlicensed and unregulated around the planet. That just doesn't make any sense.
Do they stop people at the door and tell them to turn off their bluetooth? Do they ban the use of microwave ovens? Do they track WiFi channels? That seems extraordinary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band#Non-ISM_uses
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
The event spectrum management may not allow crews with 2.4 GHz equipment to be certified as a 'news crew' for the event.
Of course FCC would 'allow' 2.4 GHz operation within the specifications of the approved equipment...
Back in the olden days, 'remote' radio stations could be constructed via ISDN lines... I wonder if people are thinking of LTE and cell phones as 'replacements'. To me 'news' audio could be of lower quality than perhaps other types of recording.
James Holmes
Member
The Sony D11 is supplied with a 3.5 to XLR adapter.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
Don't be silly. You can hardly judge the performance of ANY piece of gear produced by someone like that.
How often are you shooting video with the wireless transmitter so far away you can't see the "talent"?
There are several other far more legitimate on-camera tests of the AT System 10 to be found on YouTube.
How often are you shooting video with the wireless transmitter so far away you can't see the "talent"?
There are several other far more legitimate on-camera tests of the AT System 10 to be found on YouTube.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
802.11 has been around for now 20 years, with the last 15 being an intensive deployment to The World as We Know It.
Now at the moment I'm 'guessing' that the Rode 2.4 GHz device is using some form of 802.11. That's not necessarily the case, but these days, getting a 'wifi' chip in small footprint with 'high capability' is a fairly well established item. For example, many low end cameras are coming out with small 'wifi' accessories to allow monitoring a 'small distance' from the camera...
But I will agree that because most people using wireless audio devices have been pros, when systems get into the hands of those who have not worked with RF, 'things happen' and usually unfortunate things.
Such well known considerations of 'line of sight' are even more important for 2.4 GHz than UHF. Signal 'absorption' because of such things as 'green foliage' or 'walls', along with multipath due to bouncing... don't know if the Rode device, if it uses 802.11... uses 802.11n type multipath abatement capabilities.
I will offer the following 'new boom' device for those contemplating using a 2.4 GHz device in the field when the devices are separated by some distance...
It's called the Pringles WIFI Antenna, and was a popular DIY 'distance' extender in the olden days of early 802.11 deployments...
Richard Crowley
Veteran
Indeed, we may see the resurgence of this "technology" now that we are seeing more 2.4GHz gear.
802.11 provides for 13-14 channels in the 2.4 GHz band, and conventional WLAN (WiFi) operation sprawls over ~5 of these channels for each "link"
I suspect that the AT System 10 (and the RodeLink) don't use this 5-channel "sprawl" technique since you don't need that kind of bandwidth for a single 48K sample-rate, 24-bit audio steam.
To be sure, they co-exist with the other local users of the 2.4GHz ISM band, but using a smaller "footprint" probably allows them easier maneuvering across the spectrum than a full 5-channel WiFi link.
Last edited:
Richard Crowley
Veteran
http://youtu.be/SnudYcodS0U
http://youtu.be/tFWmMdH-AE0
The recommendation from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about is worthless, whether positive or negative.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
@onemanband-videomaker, if you want to complain about the performance about ANY piece of gear, then explain in detail how you are performing the tests. Else we have no way of evaluating YOUR claims, either.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
You did not describe WHERE/WHEN you were conducing the test.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I want to know how these things perform as much as you do.
For example, if you were trying these at home out in the suburbs where you likely aren't competing with much WiFi traffic, that would be one thing.
But if you are doing this in lower Manhattan in an office building with hundreds of WiFi users, that is quite something else.
It would also be helpful if you could load one of the "WiFi Analyzer" apps on your phone which might show you the "spectrum analysis" of what is in your immediate vicinity.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I want to know how these things perform as much as you do.
For example, if you were trying these at home out in the suburbs where you likely aren't competing with much WiFi traffic, that would be one thing.
But if you are doing this in lower Manhattan in an office building with hundreds of WiFi users, that is quite something else.
It would also be helpful if you could load one of the "WiFi Analyzer" apps on your phone which might show you the "spectrum analysis" of what is in your immediate vicinity.
Richard Crowley
Veteran
If you don't like it send it back and get your money back.
AT has been selling System 10 kits since last year and we have heard no massive horror stories of fundamental problems with them.
If you think AT is a fraud, then make your own YouTube video and expose them.
Your data points are important to the rest of us because you live/work in one of the planet's "RF Hell" locations.
Most other places are not nearly as difficult to operate wireless gear as NYC.
AT has been selling System 10 kits since last year and we have heard no massive horror stories of fundamental problems with them.
If you think AT is a fraud, then make your own YouTube video and expose them.
Your data points are important to the rest of us because you live/work in one of the planet's "RF Hell" locations.
Most other places are not nearly as difficult to operate wireless gear as NYC.
TyFord
Well-known member
Good post Mr. Crowley!,
Tweeks for System 10: 3.8 Msec latency, 2 MHz bandwidth, Uses one of the APTx compression codecs.
Here's a pointer to my System 10 Update Review.
http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/2015/01/audio-technica-system-10-update-more.html
Regards,
Ty Ford
Tweeks for System 10: 3.8 Msec latency, 2 MHz bandwidth, Uses one of the APTx compression codecs.
Here's a pointer to my System 10 Update Review.
http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/2015/01/audio-technica-system-10-update-more.html
Regards,
Ty Ford
TyFord
Well-known member
Dear 1MB,
I can understand why you'd be upset by a piece of gear that doesn't provide the expected results as the online review, but there are other places to look for monetary commingling problems. Even with professional trade magazines, the monetary connection to a review has been laundered but remains intact.
Company A wants a review. The publisher expects to make a profit. First the publisher is likely to write a quick summary of a piece's features based on the press release and possibly a phone call or email. That "first look" will be published for free, but it's not a review. Next a review of 800-1200 words may be scheduled. It will be written by a staffer or by a contract writer, like me. I'm hired because I'm supposedly intelligent enough (or have a good reputation in the industry or within the publishing group) to take on the project. I'm hired as a contract writer so the publisher doesn't have to provide benefits or hold me as an employee. If they do and the relationship falls apart, I can file for unemployment against them if I am an ex-employee. They don't want that. While publishers do provide these reviews without asking for an ad schedule, they do make their living by advertising, not by subscription. So, money will be spent by the manufacturer to by an ad; usually a continuing ad schedule. While it can be argued that those specific dollars don't end up in the writer's pocket, it's really just a question of the size and scope of the money laundering operation. That is, after all, how I get paid.
If I write a negative review, the manufacturer is not likely to be pleased and will no longer be an advertiser. That's why you see so few negative reviews. In my case, if I find problems with a piece, I contact the manufacturer and bring them up. If they are insurmountable, I write off the time it took me to get that far in the review and find something else to write about.
On the System 10 video shot by Fred, I can plainly hear the audio dropout and I think he mentions it. He didn't say, "Oh wait there was a drop out.", but did mention that at X distance they did experience dropout, indicating the range of the device. And it was quite some distance.
Yes, the Internet is a bit wild and wooly, but if you choose your sources properly, you aren't likely to get burned by bad info. I offer the same info here that I do as Audio Forum Leader on another forum and also on my blog.
I may write for a trade magazine publisher again, but at the moment, the one I used to write for got greedy and wanted me to sign a contract that would have given them ownership of almost every article I have written since 1987. Sorry, not going to happen. That's not the deal I signed on for originally and is definitely not in my best interest as a professional writer.
I remember going to NAB and seeing the rows of trade magazines and thinking, "How can this industry support all of this advertising?" In my opinion there were entirely too many magazines. Apparently, I was correct. When MIX blew out Editor, George Petersen some years back, the writing was clearly on the wall. Trade magazines are in a maelstrom of reorganization these days. Consolidations and firings will continue until the market reestablishes how many magazines are really needed and how many people must be employed to make that happen. These are not people with your best interests at heart. These people are scared for their own jobs and are doing what they need to do to keep those jobs. Obviously, not all of them will survive the downsizing.
Hopefully, until then, you'll find someone to believe. Try my blog. Let me know what you think.
Regards,
Ty Ford
PS: I've been posting here for 11 years. So far, no problems.
I can understand why you'd be upset by a piece of gear that doesn't provide the expected results as the online review, but there are other places to look for monetary commingling problems. Even with professional trade magazines, the monetary connection to a review has been laundered but remains intact.
Company A wants a review. The publisher expects to make a profit. First the publisher is likely to write a quick summary of a piece's features based on the press release and possibly a phone call or email. That "first look" will be published for free, but it's not a review. Next a review of 800-1200 words may be scheduled. It will be written by a staffer or by a contract writer, like me. I'm hired because I'm supposedly intelligent enough (or have a good reputation in the industry or within the publishing group) to take on the project. I'm hired as a contract writer so the publisher doesn't have to provide benefits or hold me as an employee. If they do and the relationship falls apart, I can file for unemployment against them if I am an ex-employee. They don't want that. While publishers do provide these reviews without asking for an ad schedule, they do make their living by advertising, not by subscription. So, money will be spent by the manufacturer to by an ad; usually a continuing ad schedule. While it can be argued that those specific dollars don't end up in the writer's pocket, it's really just a question of the size and scope of the money laundering operation. That is, after all, how I get paid.
If I write a negative review, the manufacturer is not likely to be pleased and will no longer be an advertiser. That's why you see so few negative reviews. In my case, if I find problems with a piece, I contact the manufacturer and bring them up. If they are insurmountable, I write off the time it took me to get that far in the review and find something else to write about.
On the System 10 video shot by Fred, I can plainly hear the audio dropout and I think he mentions it. He didn't say, "Oh wait there was a drop out.", but did mention that at X distance they did experience dropout, indicating the range of the device. And it was quite some distance.
Yes, the Internet is a bit wild and wooly, but if you choose your sources properly, you aren't likely to get burned by bad info. I offer the same info here that I do as Audio Forum Leader on another forum and also on my blog.
I may write for a trade magazine publisher again, but at the moment, the one I used to write for got greedy and wanted me to sign a contract that would have given them ownership of almost every article I have written since 1987. Sorry, not going to happen. That's not the deal I signed on for originally and is definitely not in my best interest as a professional writer.
I remember going to NAB and seeing the rows of trade magazines and thinking, "How can this industry support all of this advertising?" In my opinion there were entirely too many magazines. Apparently, I was correct. When MIX blew out Editor, George Petersen some years back, the writing was clearly on the wall. Trade magazines are in a maelstrom of reorganization these days. Consolidations and firings will continue until the market reestablishes how many magazines are really needed and how many people must be employed to make that happen. These are not people with your best interests at heart. These people are scared for their own jobs and are doing what they need to do to keep those jobs. Obviously, not all of them will survive the downsizing.
Hopefully, until then, you'll find someone to believe. Try my blog. Let me know what you think.
Regards,
Ty Ford
PS: I've been posting here for 11 years. So far, no problems.
Last edited:
TyFord
Well-known member
1MB,
Well I've been doing this since 1987, and while I'm better at it now than i was then, the truth is still the truth. There's always some yahoo (and I mean that in a friendly way) who thinks I should have gone farther, done more, added more detail. Usually for everyone of them, there are 10 others who can't even make it through what I did before ADD/ADHA takes over and they can't remember what they were doing several seconds ago.
So, thanks for your thoughts and, for the next time, what do you think I should have covered that you don't think I did? I put it that way because I have also gotten, "Why didn't you da da da da" only to point out where I did in one way or another.
Everyone's a critic. Even me.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Well I've been doing this since 1987, and while I'm better at it now than i was then, the truth is still the truth. There's always some yahoo (and I mean that in a friendly way) who thinks I should have gone farther, done more, added more detail. Usually for everyone of them, there are 10 others who can't even make it through what I did before ADD/ADHA takes over and they can't remember what they were doing several seconds ago.
So, thanks for your thoughts and, for the next time, what do you think I should have covered that you don't think I did? I put it that way because I have also gotten, "Why didn't you da da da da" only to point out where I did in one way or another.
Everyone's a critic. Even me.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I'm not sure who you are talking about when you say "one of us". Would that be people who believe all "reviews" are accurate and factual?
I seriously doubt any large manufacturer does much conspiring to hide serious problems. Long before the internet people did that old school thing called talking and writing and word always gets out from actual users about the quality of gear. That and as Ty pointed out they don't have to conspire. But this is true in all "reviews". It's what made Consumer Reports, they were pretty reliable in their reviews.
Any review is just a first take, they come out generally when something has just come on the market and the reviewer is very unlikely to have used the thing in very many real world situations so you need to take it with a grain or two of salt. There are VERY FEW articles/ reviews that one can put a lot of stock in and that really comes down to who is doing the reviewing.
The internet for all of its positives is also a sink hole of misinformation. The video linked earlier was done by someone I would never trust to have not screwed something up. He obviously didn't know much about sound or the device. He didn't even realize that there are indeed things you can set. So I put very little stock in that video. It pointed out that there might be a problem, but since he obviously was pretty clueless whether it was user error or a defect???
Wireless can have dropouts, all wireless. I got some tracks from a conference using professional wireless that got stepped on a couple of times. I suspect that the recordist rented them and didn't do a proper setup, because it was close enough and not in a particularly bad area, but?
So I suspect that nobody is lying, but the better ranges are don't by folks who know what they are doing and are testing in better locations.
NYC is a very special RF hell. UHF is going to be very challenging also. I read some article a while back that mentioned that the broadway theatres have something like 1,500 channels going on show nights.
These are essentially WiFi transmitters. Every gadget around is transmitting in their band. So as with all wireless ANY dense RF area is going to be a PITA. o expect to have a great wireless system for $300 is probably delusional.
TyFord
Well-known member
Hey Scott,
Good points. I'm VERY interested in discovering the actual survival rate. In that AT has three kinds of redundancy going on, and are pretty conservative (very conservative, actually) in the way they do things, I don't think they'd even bother bringing it to market without trying it a lot to see how far they could push the envelope before it broke.
Surely, more will be revealed. I would have liked to have had ten System 10s setup at the Super Bowl and a spectrum analyzer to show what was really going on in the 2.4 GHz band. I know there's no way that was going to happen but that would have told us a lot.
Oh, and your "one of us" comment; I'm not really sure what to do with that. AT doesn't hire me to review their gear, at least not yet, and I've been posting here since December 2004. I'm a self employed audio video guy -- a one man band on many occasions -- so like a lot of life, it's not a black and white thing, but more X number shades of gray. I review because I can. I do audio because I can. I do video because I can. I've spent a good part of my life straddling one line or another. The only way to do it is to be as real as you can and try to help people with what you know. You can't keep 'em from putting their fingers in the fan, but you can tell them how fast the blades are spinning and what they're made of.
Cheers,
Ty Ford
Good points. I'm VERY interested in discovering the actual survival rate. In that AT has three kinds of redundancy going on, and are pretty conservative (very conservative, actually) in the way they do things, I don't think they'd even bother bringing it to market without trying it a lot to see how far they could push the envelope before it broke.
Surely, more will be revealed. I would have liked to have had ten System 10s setup at the Super Bowl and a spectrum analyzer to show what was really going on in the 2.4 GHz band. I know there's no way that was going to happen but that would have told us a lot.
Oh, and your "one of us" comment; I'm not really sure what to do with that. AT doesn't hire me to review their gear, at least not yet, and I've been posting here since December 2004. I'm a self employed audio video guy -- a one man band on many occasions -- so like a lot of life, it's not a black and white thing, but more X number shades of gray. I review because I can. I do audio because I can. I do video because I can. I've spent a good part of my life straddling one line or another. The only way to do it is to be as real as you can and try to help people with what you know. You can't keep 'em from putting their fingers in the fan, but you can tell them how fast the blades are spinning and what they're made of.
Cheers,
Ty Ford
Last edited:
Alright, folks. Let's take a step back. Personal attacks, pissing in the pool, etc., do not fly here.
We can talk about the merits or shortcomings of a new wireless system, or we can start slinging crap about who is misleading whom. One of these threads will go on, and one will be shut down.
One and only warning.
We can talk about the merits or shortcomings of a new wireless system, or we can start slinging crap about who is misleading whom. One of these threads will go on, and one will be shut down.
One and only warning.
Also, we don't censor criticisms of anything. But we don't look kindly on accusations of actual fraud without evidence.