Thanks you much. I motion for a sticky. Do I hear a second?
PS I now have a un-uber-techy bookmark to share when friends and family call me.
PS I now have a un-uber-techy bookmark to share when friends and family call me.
The $500 Wireless Question, or, "What cheap system should I get?"
- Thread starter kgimedia
- Start date
AnalogousGumdropDecoder
New member
This question is related to the topic, but my situation is a little different. My project isn't video work, it's a live art installation, but the type of problem I'm tackling probably has more to do with what filmmakers deal with than traditional live soundmen or audio recording engineers. I'll try to explain my specific needs as best as I can.
I'm basically in need of a wireless mic that can be suspended from a wire close to the ceiling and moved around a room full of people on an automated pulley system (or something similar) to pick up whatever's going on in the room below it. This question is not about the pulley system, we can figure that out. It's about the mic, transmitter, and receiver. It's not clandestine, so there's nothing ethically weird going on. The mic will be very conspicuous, but it's going to be traveling on a a predetermined path on a motorized wire system overhead... completely unmanned. The path of the mic being mechanical and unbiased is the concept; and the plan to have an unmanned, travelling overhead mic is set in stone. "Hire a boom operator," is not the solution to my problem. Finding the cheapest effective wireless mic system is the issue at hand.
Okay. Assume a wireless dynamic mic is suspended, pointing downward, with the capsule approximately seven feet off the ground. There's some sort of small crowd in the room. Could be anywhere from 15-50 people. We'll assume the people range from about 5' to 6.5' tall and are speaking at normal indoor volume, not projecting like stage actors. Will a normal dynamic mic have enough range to pick up people talking and then amplify it? Whether or not the conversations are distinct or there's just a general crowd murmur is beside the point. Would a compressor help boost and even out the level?
Cheap wireless handheld dynamics are easy to find, but I'm worried one of those wouldn't pick up the talking. I'm thinking I could need a cheap condenser mic with an XLR plug-in transmitter, but that raises a whole new set of questions. Does anyone know of a cheap transmitter/receiver system that has this kind of transmitter? Also do you think there'd be shock issues with a condenser mic on a pulley? What would I need to do to fix any wind/shock issues caused by such a setup.
Because the mic/transmitter will be visible and people will probably be staring at it, it needs to be sort of tidy and self-contained and mic-shaped. The presence of the mic, not the sloppiness of its appearance, should be noticed. A wireless handheld mic or a condenser mic with an XLR-jack transmitter are possible examples. We've found some lavaliers we think might do the trick technically, but there's a visual element going on and suspending a little box with a lapel mic hanging off of it is going to look sloppy.
Because this signal is simply intended to be amplified in a live setting (as opposed to being used for recording purposes), high quality sound is low on our list of demands. Cheap is high priority. We're hoping to spend around $200 on the mic/transmitter/receiver, which puts us at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to wireless mic systems. We're open to suggestions slightly above that mark, but we're really looking for the cheapest solution to our problem. We're fairly certain what we're trying to do can be achieved relatively close to our budget if we think creatively.
Thanks for taking the time to read and ponder my question.
I'm basically in need of a wireless mic that can be suspended from a wire close to the ceiling and moved around a room full of people on an automated pulley system (or something similar) to pick up whatever's going on in the room below it. This question is not about the pulley system, we can figure that out. It's about the mic, transmitter, and receiver. It's not clandestine, so there's nothing ethically weird going on. The mic will be very conspicuous, but it's going to be traveling on a a predetermined path on a motorized wire system overhead... completely unmanned. The path of the mic being mechanical and unbiased is the concept; and the plan to have an unmanned, travelling overhead mic is set in stone. "Hire a boom operator," is not the solution to my problem. Finding the cheapest effective wireless mic system is the issue at hand.
Okay. Assume a wireless dynamic mic is suspended, pointing downward, with the capsule approximately seven feet off the ground. There's some sort of small crowd in the room. Could be anywhere from 15-50 people. We'll assume the people range from about 5' to 6.5' tall and are speaking at normal indoor volume, not projecting like stage actors. Will a normal dynamic mic have enough range to pick up people talking and then amplify it? Whether or not the conversations are distinct or there's just a general crowd murmur is beside the point. Would a compressor help boost and even out the level?
Cheap wireless handheld dynamics are easy to find, but I'm worried one of those wouldn't pick up the talking. I'm thinking I could need a cheap condenser mic with an XLR plug-in transmitter, but that raises a whole new set of questions. Does anyone know of a cheap transmitter/receiver system that has this kind of transmitter? Also do you think there'd be shock issues with a condenser mic on a pulley? What would I need to do to fix any wind/shock issues caused by such a setup.
Because the mic/transmitter will be visible and people will probably be staring at it, it needs to be sort of tidy and self-contained and mic-shaped. The presence of the mic, not the sloppiness of its appearance, should be noticed. A wireless handheld mic or a condenser mic with an XLR-jack transmitter are possible examples. We've found some lavaliers we think might do the trick technically, but there's a visual element going on and suspending a little box with a lapel mic hanging off of it is going to look sloppy.
Because this signal is simply intended to be amplified in a live setting (as opposed to being used for recording purposes), high quality sound is low on our list of demands. Cheap is high priority. We're hoping to spend around $200 on the mic/transmitter/receiver, which puts us at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to wireless mic systems. We're open to suggestions slightly above that mark, but we're really looking for the cheapest solution to our problem. We're fairly certain what we're trying to do can be achieved relatively close to our budget if we think creatively.
Thanks for taking the time to read and ponder my question.
Chadfish
Veteran
You are not going to get a reasonably good working wireless kit for 20.00. More like 600.00 for the Sennheiser G3 wireless,
+ the cost of a mic. Anything cheaper will get you lots of static. Since you have everything rigged up, why not just use a wired mic? I would suggest a condenser mic though, to pick up stuff from further away. A dynamic mic will usually drop off it's ability to clearly pick up voices beyond 2 feet. Maybe an NTG-2 hanging straight down? With the foam windscreen on it, it will look like a mic. Or find a cheap large diaphragm condenser like they use for singing vocals - one you can set to omni pattern. That will pick up in all directions - and it looks like a mic. You'll need to supply phantom power. With the NTG-2 you can run it on battery and not supply phantom.
+ the cost of a mic. Anything cheaper will get you lots of static. Since you have everything rigged up, why not just use a wired mic? I would suggest a condenser mic though, to pick up stuff from further away. A dynamic mic will usually drop off it's ability to clearly pick up voices beyond 2 feet. Maybe an NTG-2 hanging straight down? With the foam windscreen on it, it will look like a mic. Or find a cheap large diaphragm condenser like they use for singing vocals - one you can set to omni pattern. That will pick up in all directions - and it looks like a mic. You'll need to supply phantom power. With the NTG-2 you can run it on battery and not supply phantom.
The rules of wireless mics don't change based on the installation. You're still looking at a minimum investment well above $200, but because of the nature of the project and the fact that it's fixed installation, you might get away with something under $600. We're not talking about the need for the compact receiver, so a system with a wall-powered receiver should do just fine (and actually afford you some flexibility). Plus, even the Sennheiser G3 is cheaper with the table-top/rack-mount receiver (compact ENG receivers do cost more).
While you say that quality is the least of your concerns, there are other factors at play here that dictate a decent wireless system. The biggest concern you'll have is signal coverage, and cheap systems (as noted in the original post) suffer from poor reception and frequent dropouts. Getting a system like the Sennheiser G3 (which, by the way, is available with a mic/transmitter combo) gives you diversity reception and the ability to locate the antennae away from the receiver. While I don't know how large a room you're working with, the ability to move one antenna from the receiver to a different location can increase your signal coverage and allow the mic to move with fewer signal problems.
A condenser element is going to give you better pickup than a dynamic, and that's also going to drive the cost up.
The Audio Technica 2120a handheld system has a dynamic mic, but has diversity reception and detachable antennae (BNC connection). It has only 10 selectable frequencies. About $350. These systems are okay, but I like the 3000 series better.
The Audio Technica 3141 system is a better buy, has more frequencies available, and also has detachable antennae. It's dynamic as well, and runs $499.
The Audio Technica 3171 system is the same as the 3141, but has a condenser element. $599.
Sennehiser has Evolution Wireless G3 systems with the features you need for as low as $499, but the condenser element will cost you more.
If this is a temporary installation, you might want to rent what you need instead of purchasing. That $200 you want to spend can get you a great system for several days. Try www.trewaudio.com. They're closer than you think...
While you say that quality is the least of your concerns, there are other factors at play here that dictate a decent wireless system. The biggest concern you'll have is signal coverage, and cheap systems (as noted in the original post) suffer from poor reception and frequent dropouts. Getting a system like the Sennheiser G3 (which, by the way, is available with a mic/transmitter combo) gives you diversity reception and the ability to locate the antennae away from the receiver. While I don't know how large a room you're working with, the ability to move one antenna from the receiver to a different location can increase your signal coverage and allow the mic to move with fewer signal problems.
A condenser element is going to give you better pickup than a dynamic, and that's also going to drive the cost up.
The Audio Technica 2120a handheld system has a dynamic mic, but has diversity reception and detachable antennae (BNC connection). It has only 10 selectable frequencies. About $350. These systems are okay, but I like the 3000 series better.
The Audio Technica 3141 system is a better buy, has more frequencies available, and also has detachable antennae. It's dynamic as well, and runs $499.
The Audio Technica 3171 system is the same as the 3141, but has a condenser element. $599.
Sennehiser has Evolution Wireless G3 systems with the features you need for as low as $499, but the condenser element will cost you more.
If this is a temporary installation, you might want to rent what you need instead of purchasing. That $200 you want to spend can get you a great system for several days. Try www.trewaudio.com. They're closer than you think...
TyFord
Well-known member
David,
No problem: http://web.mac.com/tyreeford/Site/Ty_Ford_Audio_Bootcamp_Field_Guide.html
Tell Brenda I said, "hi!."
Regards,
Ty Ford
No problem: http://web.mac.com/tyreeford/Site/Ty_Ford_Audio_Bootcamp_Field_Guide.html
Tell Brenda I said, "hi!."
Regards,
Ty Ford
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
Just curious... where is the second antenna on the Sennheiser G3?
John Willett
Veteran
Yes, the G3 use the output cable as the second antenna on the EK 100/300/500 and 2000 series.
In fact this can be an advantage as the output cable will be orientated at a different angle from the fixed antenna and can therefore actually be better than two close-spaced parallel antennas.
But just make sure the cable is screwed down properly to avoid any crackles.
paulears
Veteran
I am going to disagree with much that has been posted here. As an arts project, I can see no real issue with a cheap handheld radio mic being used in this situation. As long as the mic is up in the air, then the line of sight path is going to be pretty short, and being in the clear, it's likely the signal strength will be high enough to avoid the hiss so common when signal strength at the receiver is weak. You can buy pretty cheap systems in the local music shops, and second hand on ebay. For this project, maybe even old VHF systems could still be viable.
The real issues are simply going to be acoustic feedback. If the mic to source distance is let's say 6 feet - then you are going to have to stop the microphone hearing the loudspeakers. Forget radio systems for a moment, and consider the ways of using mics in theatres to hear actors and singers on stage who do not have radio mics, or handhelds. The maximum volume is simply the maximum before feedback makes the system unstable. If the areas with the mic in it is remote from the area with the speakers, then the gain can be cranked up and it will sound interesting - but if the PA sound is the same area that contains the mic, it's not going to work - UNLESS you incorporate a delay. A long one, far beyond the reverberation time of the room will be stable - so think delays of seconds rather than milliseconds people speak and their voices appear a few seconds later. This could be interesting. Biggest issue will be the constant batterying up which will be a regular thing. If you can live with slightly thin sounding audio, it could be a fun project and a good talking point. A friend bought a working, but elderly Shure VHF system on ebay three weeks ago for £40 - and it's perfect for this kind of thing. The receiver is in a 19" rack mount unit that could have the aerial feed provided remotely - from the other side of the coverage area, and the only tricky bit will be designing the tracking system with enough rubber to prevent the weird travelling noises. Good luck!
The real issues are simply going to be acoustic feedback. If the mic to source distance is let's say 6 feet - then you are going to have to stop the microphone hearing the loudspeakers. Forget radio systems for a moment, and consider the ways of using mics in theatres to hear actors and singers on stage who do not have radio mics, or handhelds. The maximum volume is simply the maximum before feedback makes the system unstable. If the areas with the mic in it is remote from the area with the speakers, then the gain can be cranked up and it will sound interesting - but if the PA sound is the same area that contains the mic, it's not going to work - UNLESS you incorporate a delay. A long one, far beyond the reverberation time of the room will be stable - so think delays of seconds rather than milliseconds people speak and their voices appear a few seconds later. This could be interesting. Biggest issue will be the constant batterying up which will be a regular thing. If you can live with slightly thin sounding audio, it could be a fun project and a good talking point. A friend bought a working, but elderly Shure VHF system on ebay three weeks ago for £40 - and it's perfect for this kind of thing. The receiver is in a 19" rack mount unit that could have the aerial feed provided remotely - from the other side of the coverage area, and the only tricky bit will be designing the tracking system with enough rubber to prevent the weird travelling noises. Good luck!
Chadfish
Veteran
Paul,
I won't be needing "good luck" because I'm confident in my tools. The thing with cheap wireless systems is not only that they need to be close and line of sight, they are also susceptible to RF interference from any number of unknown sources, and you can't plan for that. So your system is open to drop outs or static. And delaying the audio coming out of speakers? Have you ever tried to speak with our own voice repeating what you just said a few seconds later? That won't work. All you need to do to prevent feedback is to have the mic BEHIND the PA speakers. So on one hand, yes, you could get workable audio with an el cheapo system. But the purpose of this thread to to find the cheapest RELIABLE system, and that is pretty much something in the 500-600.00 range. Sennheiser G3. Anything less risks lost dialog due to crappy reception. But if losing some dialog isn't a biggie, by all means take the risk. The thing is that if you are actually doing this professionally, 500.00 - 600.00 is quite reasonable for tools. Its much cheaper to get something that works reliably, than deal with the time of fixing mistakes, or re-shooting. How much is your time worth? Also if you blow a shoot, that client will remember and go with someone else next time.
I've had my G3 system for years now - since they came out, and I have yet to hear a drop out or RF hit. I consider it money well spent.
Cheers
I won't be needing "good luck" because I'm confident in my tools. The thing with cheap wireless systems is not only that they need to be close and line of sight, they are also susceptible to RF interference from any number of unknown sources, and you can't plan for that. So your system is open to drop outs or static. And delaying the audio coming out of speakers? Have you ever tried to speak with our own voice repeating what you just said a few seconds later? That won't work. All you need to do to prevent feedback is to have the mic BEHIND the PA speakers. So on one hand, yes, you could get workable audio with an el cheapo system. But the purpose of this thread to to find the cheapest RELIABLE system, and that is pretty much something in the 500-600.00 range. Sennheiser G3. Anything less risks lost dialog due to crappy reception. But if losing some dialog isn't a biggie, by all means take the risk. The thing is that if you are actually doing this professionally, 500.00 - 600.00 is quite reasonable for tools. Its much cheaper to get something that works reliably, than deal with the time of fixing mistakes, or re-shooting. How much is your time worth? Also if you blow a shoot, that client will remember and go with someone else next time.
I've had my G3 system for years now - since they came out, and I have yet to hear a drop out or RF hit. I consider it money well spent.
Cheers
Pedantic Sound
Member
You are very lucky then. I've used the G3 A Band and G Band in NYC, if you go beyond 15ish feet with the TX on an actor, prepare for lots of RF interference. Yes I scanned all the time, and yes i changed frequencies frequently. A 35mW TX will only get you so far. Outside of NYC the G3s are pretty OK.
I upgraded to Lectros and I'll never look back.
Chad, I think Paul was addressing "AnalogousGumdropDecoder" specifically to his art installation. The whole idea of the delay in the speakers was in reference to having a mic flying around the room overhead, in and out of speaker coverage zones.
paulears
Veteran
I'm quite aware that the normal and typical rules dictate the speakers go in front - but here we are talking about using a microphone - forget the radio element for a moment - at a distance from the source. If the idea is an art project, then it will be a key feature to be able to hear conversation at a sensible volume. So two people, who have the mic above them have their conversation 'eavesdropped' and shared as the art component - then the mic traverses to above a different area and we hear a different conversation. This involves a lot of gain, and irrespective of where you put them, the mic will hear the speakers and feedback ruining the intention. Digital mics with their low latency are often also feedback resistant compared to analogue systems without a few ms of latency - but even these burst into feedback when the critical level is crossed. A decent time delay will cure this, and perhaps not even make the selected subjects aware it is them.
I have around 17 radio systems that are mainly used in live music and theatre and I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that none of them from cheap to expensive are immune to making noises and crackles at just the wrong moment. Nobody has yet found a totally foolproof system. With care and careful aerial placement these things can be minimised, but there are too many random elements that can wreck a perfectly stable system in rehearsal.
In fairness, cheap systems do lack the clever (and expensive) filtering found in the better units, but that was not the original question. Signal strength is one area where radio systems fall down. A moment spent watching RF meters on a multi channel system on a normal sized stage during a musical shows that for a great percentage of the time the signal strength is full scale. From time to time, as the people wearing the transmitters move about, they step into nulls, where the signal strength drops to almost nothing. This is the problem, and careful aerial placement can help greatly - however, these nulls are often not fixed, and determined by other factors such as the other people, local metalwork, or on stage - scenery and other items. The interference aspect needs to be considered too - the cheap system could operate in some locations but suffer in others?
For this art project, we've forgotten something. There may be no need for a radio system at all - I was thinking about something similar to a Fischer boom - but with a full square area of coverage. They must have designed a system to allow a mic to be on a carriage and be able to be located. If so, there will be drive cords, or cables, and why not just add one more for mic audio and solve all the radio issues in one go?
Radio systems of any price are almost as good as a piece of cable, aren't they?
I have around 17 radio systems that are mainly used in live music and theatre and I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that none of them from cheap to expensive are immune to making noises and crackles at just the wrong moment. Nobody has yet found a totally foolproof system. With care and careful aerial placement these things can be minimised, but there are too many random elements that can wreck a perfectly stable system in rehearsal.
In fairness, cheap systems do lack the clever (and expensive) filtering found in the better units, but that was not the original question. Signal strength is one area where radio systems fall down. A moment spent watching RF meters on a multi channel system on a normal sized stage during a musical shows that for a great percentage of the time the signal strength is full scale. From time to time, as the people wearing the transmitters move about, they step into nulls, where the signal strength drops to almost nothing. This is the problem, and careful aerial placement can help greatly - however, these nulls are often not fixed, and determined by other factors such as the other people, local metalwork, or on stage - scenery and other items. The interference aspect needs to be considered too - the cheap system could operate in some locations but suffer in others?
For this art project, we've forgotten something. There may be no need for a radio system at all - I was thinking about something similar to a Fischer boom - but with a full square area of coverage. They must have designed a system to allow a mic to be on a carriage and be able to be located. If so, there will be drive cords, or cables, and why not just add one more for mic audio and solve all the radio issues in one go?
Radio systems of any price are almost as good as a piece of cable, aren't they?
So quick question. Sorry...I did read the first post but I just need to clarify...Theres a wedding - I want to Mic the Officiant and the Groom - I buy this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sennheiser-EW-112-p-G3-Transmitter/dp/B003PRTONO/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top - is this just enough for one of them? Or what? And how do I record the sound as well?
paulears
Veteran
If you can arrange the mic to be half way between the two people, you probably can get away with it - as very often putting the mic on the groom works if they're likely to whisper their responses, and the officiant will have learned to project - but that link is to a channel 69/70 system, is this what you want keeping in mind the news the other 4G operators are keen to get going. I'd never buy any more ch 69 kit. Far too crowded in ch 70, and even then the potential for interference will be high. The G3 system is great kit - just order the GB band (assuming you are actually in the UK)
BrandonT
Well-known member
Well you all have convinced me on the G3. I have a question related to it. There's a lot of listings for pretty much the same product on B&H. Most of it seems to just be what frequencies it uses. But the mics on most of them are omni. I've always thought that you should use a uni/ cardiod for lavs to block out background noise best. But maybe I'm wrong.
Here's one G3 that does have a cardiod mic.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/618743-REG/Sennheiser_EW122PG3_A_ew_122_p_G3_Camera.html
Then here's the omni that has the most reviews.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ser_EW_112P_G3_A_EW112_p_G3_Camera_Mount.html
Which would be better for interviews?
Edit: Ok, so I did some searching and realized that this was a popular question. And I see that the omni is the way to go. I had thought that the wired lav that I have had for two years was cardiod, but I just looked, and it is in fact omni. So then I take it that the second link I have here is the best way to go, taking all the options into account?
Here's one G3 that does have a cardiod mic.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/618743-REG/Sennheiser_EW122PG3_A_ew_122_p_G3_Camera.html
Then here's the omni that has the most reviews.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...ser_EW_112P_G3_A_EW112_p_G3_Camera_Mount.html
Which would be better for interviews?
Edit: Ok, so I did some searching and realized that this was a popular question. And I see that the omni is the way to go. I had thought that the wired lav that I have had for two years was cardiod, but I just looked, and it is in fact omni. So then I take it that the second link I have here is the best way to go, taking all the options into account?
Last edited:
Cardioid lavs are practically useless in the field for dialog. They're most often used in live PA situations to help eliminate risk of feedback.
The problem is off-axis rejection. This seems like something you'd want in a mic, but once you have it attached to a person they will have to stay perfectly still in order to stay on-axes. A slight head turn can make a huge difference. This is not an issue with omnidirectional lavs.
http://movieclips.com/EoKer-singin-in-the-rain-movie-the-sound-barrier/
John Willett
Veteran
You *are* wrong.
Cardioid / directional tie mics are horrible things that tend to be noisier and suffer from dropouts.
Omni is definitely the way to go.
You get about the same feedback rejection anyway, as the omni can be closer to the source and the level therefore set lower, so feedback rejection can be the same, or even better.