something I never tried...

Green Hornet

Green Hornet

Veteran
Can you use 1 wireless mic on a person, and use 2 wireless receivers to pick up the sound and feed them into left and right xlr inputs?

I usually run 1 wireless into one port, and a boom into the second port.
 
I don't think you can do that usually the way wireless recivers work is the transmitter links up to the most receptive signal. Even higher end wireless system that are set manually... aren't really manually, you put the transmitter against the reciver and it puts a specific code to it, so you can't match it. You could use a Y-splitter.... output from the Reciver to two XLR connectors.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/General/Accessories/Cables?sku=330539

That would work.
 
Last edited:
PunkMetalDrummer17 said:
That's a damn good idea... I completely forgot about that..... you can select Channels 1 and 2 to pick up audio from the same input.
Click to expand...


That is not the reason why I was thinking of having 2 receivers, and one transmitter.

The reason was more to insure that I got the signal.
I have had times where I may have gotten a low signal, or static, and with 2 receivers (even though they are in close proximity) I could still use the other channel in post to get rid of the small signal drop from that particular receiver.

I am well aware that I can make a mono input go to both channels.

Thanks though.
 
Should be possible. High end wireless systems use a diversity-system: 2 antenna's in 1 receiver. The receiver automatically switches between the 2 antenna's and takes the best signal. This can happen several times a second, the handover is inaudible. You get 1 clean output.

Put the two receivers so that the 2 antenna's are about 2 inches apart to get the best results. Of course, it will take a lot of work in postproduction, and you need 2 receivers( $$$). If wireless mics are that important, it might be wise to invest in a diversity system.
 
FROM THE AKG WEBSITE
____________________________________________________________
The new SR 4000 is a state-of-the-art, true diversity receiver that provides maximum ease of use and the most useful functions in its class. Many features of the SR 4000 were never before available or limited to extremely expensive systems.


The accurate battery life readout is an invaluable advantage in live sound applications. The transmitter uses a pilot tone to transmit battery status data to the receiver that displays the remaining battery capacity in hours.


The pilot tone decoder also detects and displays other important information including the current position of the MUTE switch on the transmitter.


The integrated software does not only permit automatic setup and frequency scanning but remote control and monitoring from a PC via a dedicated interface as well. Optional MCS 4000 Mission Control Software makes setting up and monitoring highly complex systems incredibly easy. A logic output allows remote control of specific functions on an external device, e.g., an automatic microphone mixer.


Naturally, the SR 4000 operates in an extremely wide UHF band (30 MHz) and each frequency preset provides up to 24 intermodulation-free subchannels*. The maximum number of selectable frequencies is 1200. The large, backlit color display and a jog wheel make the SR 4000 easy to use and a programmable warning light indicates selectable critical conditions within the system. Housed in a half-rack, all-metal case, the SR 4000 is the most compact, reliable, and powerful UHF receiver in its price bracket.



* The number of channels that can be used simultaneously depends on local frequency plans.
_____________________________________________________________


Only one Receiver can link up to a Transmitter.... the Receiver scans the available channels (frequencies) and assigns the transmitter an available channel..... making it impossible to manually select the same channel on 2 receivers.

If you program the transmitter to one receiver and than try to program it to the other it will erase the first channel and pick up a new one.

Wireless systems are designed to make this almost impossible.... because in music this would be the last thing you want. This is one of the ways that they fight interference in a wireless system.
 
Last edited:
Green Hornet said:
Can you use 1 wireless mic on a person, and use 2 wireless receivers to pick up the sound and feed them into left and right xlr inputs?

I usually run 1 wireless into one port, and a boom into the second port.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. It is like a radio station, One transmiter and millions reaceivers
(home and car radios).

Or like a wireless production monitoring, One transmiter from the sound mixers consule to few reaceivers on the set, Director, script girl, boom operator...

Danny.
 
danny said:
Of course you can. It is like a radio station, One transmiter and millions reaceivers
(home and car radios).

Or like a wireless production monitoring, One transmiter from the sound mixers consule to few reaceivers on the set, Director, script girl, boom operator...

Danny.
Click to expand...

Not quiet.... Radio stations are assigned a specific frequency from the FCC and then radios, being them home or car, can tune into the specific frequency... Not so with wireless audio systems... once a frequency is linked up it is "In use" and no other device can use that frequency. You have no way to "tune" to the frequency your wireless system is running on, it's all automatic in wireless audio systems.

Actually the audio wireless systems run on the same frequencies as Local Broadcast TV stations.... meaning frequencies can already be in use..... which you have no chance at using... since they're 100x stonger antennas don't even get fazed by the little wireless system but it's just the opposite for the little wireless system.


The way the wireless production monitoring is done is probably multiple transmitters and recievers..... transmitter one goes to receiver, receiver splits to another transmitter (different frequency) and to the monitoring equipment wether that's headphones, speakers, ect.; and then repeats.
 
Last edited:
PunkMetalDrummer17 said:
The way the wireless production monitoring is done is probably multiple transmitters and recievers..... transmitter one goes to receiver, receiver splits to another transmitter (different frequency) and to the monitoring equipment wether that's headphones, speakers, ect.; and then repeats.
Click to expand...

You are mixing two things, Digital Coded transmision and normal analog RF transmision. Go to www.comtek.com or Lectrosonics they have this type of systems. And they use only one transmiter for production monitoring.

Maybe we move this to the audio section.

Danny.
 
danny said:
You are mixing two things, Digital Coded transmision and normal analog RF transmision. Go to www.comtek.com or Lectrosonics they have this type of systems. And they use only one transmiter for production monitoring.

Maybe we move this to the audio section.

Danny.
Click to expand...

I didn't think of COM type interfaces...... Completely slipped my mind. Those aren't really recording quality though.
 
Last edited:
I got a sennheiser wireless mic setup, and I didnt had a problem yet. You can manually the exact frequency you want to use. I try to keep them spread appart and it fine.
 
With radio, you can have a direct radio wave reach the receiver and a reflected radio wave reach the same receiver. IF the two waves match, the signal appears stronger, which is a good thing.

HOWEVER, if the waves are pulling in opposite directions, the level of the signal is reduced. In some cases, this could be reduced close to zero. This would cause a drop out in the signal. While the chances of this happening are small, it could still happen.

Yes, one can set up two receivers a minimum of 1/2 a wavelength apart or more and if one receiver drops the signal, the odds are very good that the second receiver will still get the signal. In theory, it might be possible for both to drop the signal, but the odds of that happening are VERY small.

This system will work, but remember if the transmitter should fail, both receivers will get nothing...

IF one has to be 100% sure that the audio gets through, use 2 transmitters on two different frequencies and two different receivers set to two different frequencies. There is still a VERY shight chance a dual failure could occur, but the odds are VERY small.

As we add more to the system, the chances of a failure are reduced, BUT the cost of the equipment is increased. So, it's a matter of what you feel best fits your needs and price range.

One could also put a high end digital recorder on the person and try to sync the audio after the fact. This will work if the recorder is very stable as far as recording and playback speed. Some of the cheaper units have a shift in their timing which will screw up audio and video sync.

http://digitalaudio.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=34453



Bob Diaz
 
I never thought of the 1/2 wavelength or more apart thing but it would work..... but technically if they were on the SAME EXACT wavelength then it wouldn't. (Same reason why radio stations end in odd numbers, .1, .3., .5, .7. , and .9.... all of the even numbers are bumpers for the odd numbers.)

Thanks, I've actually learned something that has to do with Audio/Video from somebody else for once.... instead of figuring it out for myself.

One question though to BobDiaz.... It would have to be within the same pre-set frequency range right?
Like Band 1 (on the AKG WMS4000) is 650-680 so if you want two receivers to pick-up the signal they'll have to be within 650-680?..... Most likely you'd pick something like 665.0 and 665.5.

Or am I Off?
 
Last edited:
Both receivers have to be on the exact same frequency. Not same band, A band is a group of frequencies.

the 1/2 wave length issue is the minimal recomanded distance between the two antenas.

Two receivers are actually one diversity receiver that has two separate receivers on the same freq. with two separate antennas in a small distance from one another and a switching circuit that chooses the best signal and feeds it to the output.

A diversity receiver will be smaller more handy and less expensive then two receivers, But with two receivers you are safer.

And everything Bobdiaz wrote is correct and nicely put.

Danny.
 
Last edited:
From what I know wavelength and frequency are basically the same thing. And as far as I understand diversity receivers it's two attenas on the same frequency because they're using the same reciever.
 
PunkMetalDrummer17 said:
From what I know wavelength and frequency are basically the same thing. And as far as I understand diversity receivers it's two attenas on the same frequency because they're using the same reciever.
Click to expand...
Well this is the difference between "Low cost" diversity systems that are actually "Antenna diversity" and the "real' diversity systems also called "True Diversity" with two separate receivers.
 
BobDiaz said:
With radio, you can have a direct radio wave reach the receiver and a reflected radio wave reach the same receiver. IF the two waves match, the signal appears stronger, which is a good thing.

HOWEVER, if the waves are pulling in opposite directions, the level of the signal is reduced. In some cases, this could be reduced close to zero. This would cause a drop out in the signal. While the chances of this happening are small, it could still happen.

Yes, one can set up two receivers a minimum of 1/2 a wavelength apart or more and if one receiver drops the signal, the odds are very good that the second receiver will still get the signal. In theory, it might be possible for both to drop the signal, but the odds of that happening are VERY small.

This system will work, but remember if the transmitter should fail, both receivers will get nothing...

IF one has to be 100% sure that the audio gets through, use 2 transmitters on two different frequencies and two different receivers set to two different frequencies. There is still a VERY shight chance a dual failure could occur, but the odds are VERY small.

As we add more to the system, the chances of a failure are reduced, BUT the cost of the equipment is increased. So, it's a matter of what you feel best fits your needs and price range.

One could also put a high end digital recorder on the person and try to sync the audio after the fact. This will work if the recorder is very stable as far as recording and playback speed. Some of the cheaper units have a shift in their timing which will screw up audio and video sync.

http://digitalaudio.consumerelectronicsnet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=34453



Bob Diaz
Click to expand...


Thanks Bob,


My reasoning for this thought was:

I have 2 diversity mic systems.
If I am recording one person, that person would probably have a tough time being wired with 2 mics/2 transmitters, but since I had the gear anyway, why not use one transmitter, and 2 receivers?

Using both receivers, would allow me a better chance at not losing the signal, and if I did on one system, the other may not necessarily lose the signal. I could then in post use the signal that was not lost.

In practice, I have had instances where my senheisers would go fuzzy for a brief second. I later realized they were not true diversity for the CAMERA mic systems, only rack mount systems. I then went with a true diversity system, but it too, at times will go fuzzy very briefly if the distance is over 60 feet and the subject is moving.

So my quest to try the 2 receivers is more because I know that 2 systems being even a distance of several inches apart, one may have signal wheras the other not. I just was not sure if there were a better way to use both inputs when recording the sound from one person.

Again, up to now, I used one wireless, and the other input on a boom.

As for the concern of having 2 systems running at the same time, i believe there is only trouble if you have 2 systems BROADCASTING at the same time, in that case, the second transmitter has to be on a different signal, same band. ( what I always thought anyway, correct me if I am wrong).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top