What is this sound?

D

DNathan

Well-known member
I'm trying to figure out this sound. It sounds like typical interference, but I'm not wireless. This is a Giant Squid lav plugged into a Zoom H2 recorder. Visually it doesn't appear to be rubbing either.

Here it is ::Drogar-Thinking(DBG
http://www.legacyhdv.com/audio.mp3

It doesn't sound fixable, but my shotgun backup gives me a full room sound that doesn't play well with the 90% of my audio that works. It's an eight our session. Thoughts?
 
Sounds like a connection problem. I'm assuming this is a lav on the presenter with the H2 in his pocket? This is exactly why that setup is a bad idea. The 1/8" connection can get jostled around and you won't know until you go to play it back.
 
That's what I thought. I've searched high and low for a recorder that size with an XLR. I just might hardwire my lav to the stinkin thing.
 
DNathan said:
That's what I thought. I've searched high and low for a recorder that size with an XLR. I just might hardwire my lav to the stinkin thing.
Click to expand...

You aren't going to find a recorder that small with XLR inputs, but that's not the bigger issue. The bigger issue is that you cannot monitor your audio with the recorder in the presenter's pocket. Even with an XLR in, how are you going to know if there's a short (which does happen with XLR as well)? How are you going to know if he accidentally squeezed the recorder and it stopped recording? You need to have the mic feeding a camera or recorder that's close to you so you can wear headphones and monitor the recording.

Cable is better than wireless, but in settings like this where the person wearing the mic needs mobility a hardline mic is not an option. You're better off going wireless. If he's standing stationary at a podium, however, you can always run a mic cable up front to a mic on the podium, saving the headache of a lav (which might not be a bad idea anyway, as a backup to the lav).
 
Since we are 99% weddings, I don't see how monitoring would help, as we're not going to stop a Ceremony to make adjustments. We used to use wireless, but got tired of random interference. I'm AMAZED at how many Ceremonies are wrecked by interference in the DJs PA. I read an article about FCC decisions that have flooded the airwaves, making any wireless challenging. I've also read that cell phones are causing problems. I feel that if I need to go wireless, I need to spend a lot of money for a unit to compete with that.
 
If you're recording audio, I don't see how monitoring is even optional.

No, you aren't going to stop a ceremony. Part of getting great audio for weddings is coverage. At least two wireless systems running: officiant and groom. If one takes a hit, you can cover it with the other. Run hard-line mics to the lectern and pulpit. Run hard-line mics for ambient/crowd and for musicians/choir. Monitoring just means that you know what you're getting... but also you can detect problems when they happen, fix them when possible, and make notes when not fixable.

As for wireless interference, not necessarily a big deal. Sennheiser has a clear-scan function on their G3 systems that will find a sturdy channel. The interference in the DJ's PA system? Well, that comes from running crappy, cheap wireless garbage as opposed to decent systems. I watched one of the video samples on your website and noticed the officiant was wearing one of those older Shure Presenter systems. Absolute rubbish. I despise those systems. They're unstable and have terrible range. That, and the stock mics that come with them are worthless.

Keep in mind that DJs aren't typically sound engineers. They don't invest in decent microphones because microphones are an afterthought for them. Their first priority is music playback. As far as most DJs are concerned (and yes, there are exceptions), a mic just needs to move the voice and make it loud. Anything past that isn't considered.

You're looking at a minimum of $500 ($600 for the G3) to get a wireless system that'll do anything respectable for you. Add another $200-300 to upgrade the lav to something better than the stock mic.
 
Last edited:
+1, It's like voting if you don't monitor your audio you cant complain afterward.

You monitor so you know when there is an issue and you make adjustments to fix it.
 
@C2C -- Good points and ideas.

I'm open to considering the investment, but I can't figure out what adjustments can be made on the fly beside volume. I see it as a crap shoot either way. With wired, the speaker may overpower the lav. Beyond that, I can adjust audio in post (though *not* ideal.) With wireless I can adjust volume, but with weddings there is no sound check, so the minister comes out blaring. I turn him down, but then I've got to hide that adjustment in post. If there is interference the receiver or I adjust it. I'd rather avoid it altogether.

I also consider it cost effective. I mic the groom, minister, PA, strings, ambience, along with our shotguns. If I put all my money for a couple wireless systems, all the pressure is on those, and if they fail...dang. Yes, I've had to use the minister's mic for the bride and groom and vice-versa. Not optimal, but redundancy has saved me from total failure many times.

If I were filming commercials or something like that I would definitely go wireless, but would have wired solutions if at all possible.
 
What you hear is the difference between a 500 dollar G2 and a 2000 dollar "diversity receiver".....

Also distance matters... shaking sometimes also...
 
DNathan said:
Since we are 99% weddings, I don't see how monitoring would help, as we're not going to stop a Ceremony to make adjustments. We used to use wireless, but got tired of random interference. I'm AMAZED at how many Ceremonies are wrecked by interference in the DJs PA. I read an article about FCC decisions that have flooded the airwaves, making any wireless challenging. I've also read that cell phones are causing problems. I feel that if I need to go wireless, I need to spend a lot of money for a unit to compete with that.
Click to expand...

Yes, the profusion of personal communicators has pretty much made wireless and wired audio a mine field. Yes, you read correctly, these emissions also get into hard wired mics, usually at the back of the XLR connector. Neutrik makes connectors that help.
 
DNathan said:
With wireless I can adjust volume, but with weddings there is no sound check, so the minister comes out blaring. I turn him down, but then I've got to hide that adjustment in post. If there is interference the receiver or I adjust it. I'd rather avoid it altogether.
Click to expand...

There's always a sound check. Fire the equipment up before the service and set levels on both transmitter and receiver, and set them just a little on the conservative side to make sure the gain staging is free of distortion for peaks. And once you've got the mics on the groom and the officient, they're on. You can hear them whether they're actually speaking to the congregation or not. There's your second chance to check levels.

It's easier to cover up something like a level adjustment than it is to try and hide/eliminate distortion from the lav and pocket recorder setup.

DNathan said:
If I put all my money for a couple wireless systems, all the pressure is on those, and if they fail...dang. Yes, I've had to use the minister's mic for the bride and groom and vice-versa. Not optimal, but redundancy has saved me from total failure many times.
Click to expand...

And that's going to happen in a wedding situation no matter which way you go, so it's not really a good argument against wireless. And again, having audio recording that you cannot monitor is just a bad idea.

DNathan said:
If I were filming commercials or something like that I would definitely go wireless, but would have wired solutions if at all possible.
Click to expand...

Hard-wired, in that type of production, should be the first consideration and not the second. The environment is completely controlled, and if you have a sound person with a boomed mic you're much better off in most cases. There are always exceptions where wireless may be the better solution, of course.
 
It's easier to cover up something like a level adjustment than it is to try and hide/eliminate distortion from the lav and pocket recorder setup.
Click to expand...

Very true. While it's rare that I distort, I'd rather have two seconds of it than 15 minutes.

Hard-wired, in that type of production, should be the first consideration and not the second. The environment is completely controlled, and if you have a sound person with a boomed mic you're much better off in most cases. There are always exceptions where wireless may be the better solution, of course.
Click to expand...

Right again. I do very little corporate and it shows. ;o)


Are there any wireless units wherein the transmitter also records to an SDHC?
 
Yes, the profusion of personal communicators has pretty much made wireless and wired audio a mine field. Yes, you read correctly, these emissions also get into hard wired mics, usually at the back of the XLR connector. Neutrik makes connectors that help.
Click to expand...

OMg! That is wild. Do you think that hardwiring my Zoom to my lav would help?
 
Bummer the receiver wasn't included, and it still wouldn't protect me from priests who won't wear a lav, but I want it! So if one mic rubs, no worries, no syncing in post unless there is interference, and two tracks to work for a fuller sound. I've noticed Fox News uses two lavs side-by-side. I wonder if they are using this.
 
Dual lavs have been a standard in live news for a long, long time. They aren't both running. Only one is hot. The sound engineer will switch to the other only in the event that the first one craps out in the middle of a broadcast.

Zaxcom has several transmitters that record. Not all of them use dual lavs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top