Sennheiser G2, soon to be obsolete?!

jeff9329 said:
I may have break out the 1kW RMS linear amp and experiment some (if it works on 700 mHz).
Click to expand...

Someone's going to be toting a 1kW transmitter in their fanny pack??? Talk about burnt buns...

Or is that for those David Lean panorama shots, where one wants to hear the horse and rider at 15 or 20 miles...
 
Karlw said:
This is a oft-repeated bit that is not totally true. Both transmitter power and receiver selectivity are important, along with the resistance of the receiver to IM (i.e. RF headroom is good).

All things being equal, yes, you might say that lower power is better for multi-channel operations. However, now days, with all the RF junk in the air, this becomes a trade-off. Ideally, you'd want to have fairly high-powered transmitters and highly-selective receivers. One of the down sides of increasing transmitter power, though, is that it becomes easier to generate IMs in the transmitters when they are close to each other. There is a design approach which can overcome that, however. We've done tests with isolated and non-isolated transmitters for close-proximity Intermod generation, and we found that two non-isolated transmitters at 30 mW created more IM products at higher levels than did 250 mW transmitters with isolators.

Bottom line: all things are not equal. Note that even companies who have touted low power for many years as the best compromise now offer variable-power transmitters up to 100 mW.
Click to expand...

You are saying basically the same thing that I was saying.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying.

The point I was making was, as you said, as the power goes up so do the intermods. When you are running systems with lots of radio (mostly in theatre and TV studios) lower power keeps the intermods down and a far safer system. When you are running radio systems with 20, 30, 40, 50 ,60 or more transmitters in the same place, lower power is definitely better than high.

And in Europe the maximum e.r.p. allowed is 50mW - 100mW is a high power transmitter and needs a special licence.

The USA do seem to have more lax laws than the rest of us - which can be both a good and bad thing.
 
John Willett said:
You are saying basically the same thing that I was saying.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying.

The point I was making was, as you said, as the power goes up so do the intermods.
Click to expand...

I'm agreeing only IF the design of the transmitters is the same, and often they are not. Transmitters with isolators can run at much higher power but with less intermods than those without them.

When you are running systems with lots of radio (mostly in theatre and TV studios) lower power keeps the intermods down and a far safer system. When you are running radio systems with 20, 30, 40, 50 ,60 or more transmitters in the same place, lower power is definitely better than high.
Click to expand...
Again, not necessarily. True, this has classically been the case - that Theaters have used lower-power systems. But this was before transmitters with isolators were in common use. But in the last 10 years, there have been plenty of studios and theaters that have chosen 50 to 100 mW systems and they appreciate the greater resistance to dropouts as a result.

I've personally been involved with 100 ch. touring systems of which 60 ch were 50 to 100 mW transmitters, with flawless results.

And in Europe the maximum e.r.p. allowed is 50mW - 100mW is a high power transmitter and needs a special licence.
Click to expand...
Granted.

The USA do seem to have more lax laws than the rest of us - which can be both a good and bad thing.
Click to expand...
Well, we're in the wild west, after all!
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Someone's going to be toting a 1kW transmitter in their fanny pack??? Talk about burnt buns...

Or is that for those David Lean panorama shots, where one wants to hear the horse and rider at 15 or 20 miles...
Click to expand...

You wouldn't tote it anywhere, but I could get 1200 miles out of 27MHz. I imagine you could get 500 miles or so out of a wireless mic with an effective antenna.

I also don't see the US as being particularly lax with many FCC related issues. In the US transmitters are regulated based on many different application/band specific criterea. The "outlaw" products are actually imported products (especially 10 or 11 meter band).
 
jeff9329 said:
You wouldn't tote it anywhere, but I could get 1200 miles out of 27MHz. I imagine you could get 500 miles or so out of a wireless mic with an effective antenna.

I also don't see the US as being particularly lax with many FCC related issues. In the US transmitters are regulated based on many different application/band specific criterea. The "outlaw" products are actually imported products (especially 10 or 11 meter band).
Click to expand...

Ahh the memories. I once got 2000 miles on a 5 watt CB transceiver on 27 mHz. And in the day you could still buy linear "kickers" that took it up to 150 watts or so. Once guy I knew had a Collins commercial shortwave transmitter that was 11 meter capable - put out 5 kilowatts! Used the handle "Thunderbolt" for good reason!
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I don't see that as 'lax', just because the European standard 'considers' the antenna, rather than just what the output power of the transmitter is capable of.
Click to expand...

That's not what I was talking about.

The spectrum mask for the International ISO spec. used in Europe is far tighter than the one used for the USA.

I was talking to Glen of Zaxcom a few years ago when he first launched the digital systems - the one he made for the USA was totally illegal in Europe as the spread was very great - he had to do another version for Europe to get it in the spectrum mask.

The spectrum mask looks a bit like a narrow stepped pyramid which dictates the maximum level of the spurious emissions away from the main carrier and they all heve to be within the mask - the USA has a wider mask and allows higher spurious emissions, I think.
 
Looking at the G2, instead of G3 as the price difference doesn't really warrant the more expensive purchase, does 2 new Sennheiser SK100 G2 (B-Band) Bodypack Microphone Transmitters and 2- Sennheiser EK100 G2 (B-Band) and microphones sound like a good deal for 600?
 
At that price, I'd recommend you be very careful to be sure those aren't counterfeit. Even though the G2 is discontinued, all the new G2 systems I've noticed have still run around $500 for the Rx/Tx pair and the stock mic.
 
I would think anyone would want the "diversity" antenna of the G3. The price diff is nominal when you factor in the work done in post to remove RF hits.
 
the reply after my post made me skeptical. Removed the ebay sniper and didn't end up bidding. Damn shame.
 
I've searched this thread and others and couldn't find this info. Does anyone know if a G2 transmitter will work with a G3 receiver (both set to the same frequency?)

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top