What's so great about Lectrosonics?

[davefisk]

Every NAB I do lots of interviews on our products, and sometimes I get wired up with a lav, other times it is hard lined. Most of the people using wireless were using G3's, and they ALL had interference problems. Hard line was obviously not an issue. I did a few interviews where a Lectro system was used and no issues. But hey, it's the friggin' Las Vegas convention center. There is all kinds of junk flying through the air during NAB.

Back in my Coffey Sound days, I sold lots of Lectro wireless, and some of the 5000 series sennheiser wireless, and the people that bought the sennheiser wireless would end up selling them off and picking up Lectros.

Plus, Lectro as a company is one of the best. The people there are fantastic. Their support is great. They really care about their customers. Their reps are really knowledgable. It's scary how smart those guys are. What's really important is that they absolutely love what they do, and that come across in their products and the way the deal with customers.

I've personally used all kinds of wireless systems..Sennheiser, Zaxcom, and Lectro, and in the end, when I was in a situation where my gear absolutely had to work, I went with the Lectro stuff.

 

[John Willett]

The milliwatts thing was mentioned here but it cannot be emphasized enough. As i understand it, higher milliwatts = less prone to interference which is a big problem with wireless mics on location. In a situation where the g2 or g3 will have issues with interference the lectros are a lot less likely to. In addition, having never bought lectros myself, i dont know if they even come with a lav upon purchase, but if they do, itll be a lot nicer than the stock lav that comes with a g2 or g3 system.

Not really.

More power means more range.

Actually, less power normally means less interference. The BBC used to reduce the power output of their transmitters to get a greater number of intermodulation-free frequencies.

Increasing the power brings up the spurious emissions as well, and it's these that increase the interference.

 

[John Willett]

I thought I might jump in here and address a few issues, including some misunderstandings. Since I work for Lectrosonics, perhaps what I say has to be taken with a grain of salt...

The OP asked us to explain the difference between Lectrosonics and Sennheiser G series, specifically. Also, perhaps what makes "sound guys go ahh over Lectrosonics."

John Willett mentioned that Sennheiser, Audio LTD and Audio Wireless are also excellent. He also pointed out that "Probably the very best is Sennheiser 9000 Series"

Yes, absolutely Audio LTD in particular is excellent for film-making and has been used for that purpose, primarily in the UK, for many years now. These are analog systems. Sennheiser's high end products are also somewhat used for film-making, at least in Europe. In the US, the G series is popular with videographers, but at the higher end, there is little to no Sennheiser being used for major motion picture production.

Sennheiser's 9000 Series, however, was not designed for portable use at all (instead for installtions and possibly touring sound), in that the receivers are very large and extremely power-hungry. There are no camera-mount receivers in this line, thus it is not really relevant to this discussion. And, "best" is always a very application-dependent statement.

In recent years, Lectrosonics has made major in-roads in the UK and Europe particularly with the SR Series dual-channel slot/modular recievers, Venue rack-receiver and SM Series miniature transmitters. These units actually have an Audio LTD compatibility mode (along with other, similar compatibility modes to match other brands) so that owners of those products can use them with the Lectrosonics units if need be. This creates a great deal of flexibility.

The G Series from Sennheiser are excellent for their price point and frankly are unbeatable for low-cost units. They deliver very good results, are small, and don't cost much. They are also partly plastic, and provide about 30 mW of RF power, with a spec that allows for up to -3dB (half power, or 15 mW)

Lectrosonics units will cost more, but are all metal so they are extremely durable. In addition, they use Digital Hybrid Wireless technology, developed by Lectrosonics. In terms of sound quality, they are measurably better with lower noise, less distortion, and less dynamics artifacts. All Sennheiser G Series units are analog and thus have compandor artifacts and certain types of distortion. In many situations, the two systems are comparable for sound quality, but in some situations, the differences are readily obvious. This is probably one reason "sound guys go ahh" when referring to Lectrosonics.

Lectrosonics does not make any lower lines of products, thus as John Willett pointed out, Sennheiser's middle and upper lines of products are more comparable for quality. However, the 3000 Series from Sennheiser is already appreciably more expensive than Lectrosonics, and the 5000 Series even more so. Forget about the 9000 Series ($10K per channel here in the US) while the most expensive Lectrosonics system per channel (SMQV + UCR411A) is about $3000 per channel in the US and perhaps 10 to 15% more than that in the EU. Meanwhile, All but Sennheiser's 9000 Series are analog units, with the inherent problems with compandors. They also do not use isolators (a component in Lectrosonics transmitters) and thus, particularly with their higher-power units that John mentions, are readily more susceptable to generating transmitter-to-transmitter intermod (a source of interference particularly in multi-channel systems).

I hope some of this information answer's the OP's questions, and clears up some of the potential confusion in this thread.

Good reply generally, and I agree.

Though saying the Sennheiser is "partly plastic" is a bit misleading IMHO - the Sennheiser evolution G1, G2 and G3 series *do* have full die-cast metal bodies, it's only the battery door that is made of a polymer (and I have yet to know of one get broken) - and if that troubles you, then the battery door of the 2000 series is metal, so just do a swap.

The one thing where Sennheiser are really the masters is in muti-channel use and can get more channels working interference-free in a given band than anyone else (as far as I know).

And, surprisingly, a Sennheiser G3 won the range test that the Instsitute of Broadcast Sound ran in Pinewood Studios a few years back, and that test included just about every system that was available in the UK, including Lectro, Audio Ltd., Micron, Zaxcom, etc. (and the G3 even beat the more expensive Sennheiser that was also on the test).

I am not saying it's "better", just pointing out a few things.

 

[John Willett]

I note in the UK Ray Withers distributes Lectrosonic. His company have only ever dealt with serious RF equipment - that's what his company does. Truly professional equipment. When he can't buy it in, he builds it himself and has plenty of niche products. Sennheiser G3 is direct to consumer, do everything kit - and it does it very well. On paper, the audio spec E to E is better on lectrosonic, but I'm very content with the G3 performance. I'm running both conventional packs and receivers, plus a pile of IEM kit.

You are *very* out of date here.

Ray Withers, very sadly, died over 10 years ago - quite an eccentric in his way and sadly missed.

Raycom is now run by someone else and the original Raycom Communications is listed as dissolved it seems.

I think Lectro are sold via various companies in the UK, including my old friend Robbie Piddington (ex Sennheiser), who is a good guy to deal with.

 

[paulears]

Thanks for that John - I'd not heard that. He made some link transmitters for a project I was involved in, and was genuinely helpful. I used to think that Raycom and Wood & Douglas were very handy. I just checked and W&D are still up and running, just in case!

 

[yoclay]

I know what john feels about Zaxcom, but I really like the idea of a unit that not only transmits but also records. This insures that if RF is an issue, there is a hardwired aspect which is still clean. Do any of these other brands offer this? Seems like a no-brainer need to be met.

 

[lasikdenver]

Really? I have been seriously considering getting some Zaxcom equipment, especially their new mixer/recorder the Maxx -- on the other hand, I have found the advice of Mr. John Willett to be flawless, so if he has a problem with Zaxcom, I would like to understand it better. I agree that although expensive, transmitters that also record internally and can be time sync'd along with the interesting features of the Maxx of being able to record and with options transmit to a camera hop makes that setup seem appealing. If this is not a good direction, sure would like to hear about it. By the way I do have the G3 series and although it works nicely most of the time, there are occasional unexpected static/drop outs that makes me look for a better solution.

Jon

 

[davefisk]

Everything Audio in the UK also carries Lectro.


I have a Zaxcom Maxx, and it is a great machine. I also have a SD 744t, and that is a great machine. Manufacturers make great stuff. It's not enough to take one person's opinion on a piece of gear. The best thing to do is consider what your needs are and what piece of gear fits the bill for your. Some people don't like stuff that is made in America. Some people don't like stuff that is made outside of America. Some people don't care.

 

[yoclay]

Really? I have been seriously considering getting some Zaxcom equipment, especially their new mixer/recorder the Maxx -- on the other hand, I have found the advice of Mr. John Willett to be flawless, so if he has a problem with Zaxcom, I would like to understand it better. I agree that although expensive, transmitters that also record internally and can be time sync'd along with the interesting features of the Maxx of being able to record and with options transmit to a camera hop makes that setup seem appealing. If this is not a good direction, sure would like to hear about it. By the way I do have the G3 series and although it works nicely most of the time, there are occasional unexpected static/drop outs that makes me look for a better solution.

Jon

From what John has said to me recently, he feels that while Zax may be good on the digital side, for him they really don't get the analog portion. However, he did not expand on that.

For my part, my concern has been two-fold.

There is a steep learning curve in the beginning and a signifigant setup period for the Zax machines. Folks at several audio stores have said not to expect to use it right out of the box like a Sound Devices unit. It's gonna be a week or two. This is problematic for me because I am upgrading my sound units for working on my prods primarily with techs who might not yet have their own complete kit. Thus it is simpler to stick with an SD setup for the time being. These guys just don't have the time to learn the in's and out's of the machine before going into production.

The other thing that concerns me is that Zax is very proprietary, and in the world of ever advancing technology, I fear that the Zax units will drop like a stone, or at least like digital cameras do once new flavors are introduced in the market. Analog machines like SD's seem to keep their value for a long time by comparison.

However, there is no quesiton to me that what Zaxcom is doing, is the future.

 

[Karlw]

Good reply generally, and I agree.

The one thing where Sennheiser are really the masters is in muti-channel use and can get more channels working interference-free in a given band than anyone else (as far as I know).

I think generally Sennheiser is known for achieving large, multi-channel systems - it is what their well-deserved reputation is largely based upon. However, I will counter with these two bits:

1. All things being equal, more RF power at the transmitter means potentially more interference through IM products. However, all things are not equal. For one thing, different transmitters are designed differently and would be used in systems designed differently based on this idea. Sennheiser generally runs at lower powers with relatively simple transmitter designs then uses tightly filtered, often active antenna systems and highly selective receivers. Lectrosonics runs at higher transmitter powers, then can take advantage of passive antenna systems. In general, the higher the RF noise floor, the better the 2nd system design works.

2. I was at a system test in Tokyo a couple of years ago. There, they have a 10 mW limit, and only 20 MHz TOTAL of RF spectrum available. Not only that, but they have a minimum spacing of 125 KHz between channels (elsewhere we can get down to 5 kHz spacing - not that it is practical, but it does allow for a greater number of coordinated channels). Prior to the test I witnessed, the greatest number of channels they had achieved (with a Sennheiser 5000 Series system) was 38. They were very proud of this and had challenged us to beat it. The test took place in the New National Theater "black box" room in the heart of Tokyo.

We achieved 42 channels, all working, with no dropouts - all channels running simultaneously within the theater space.

And, surprisingly, a Sennheiser G3 won the range test that the Instsitute of Broadcast Sound ran in Pinewood Studios a few years back, and that test included just about every system that was available in the UK, including Lectro, Audio Ltd., Micron, Zaxcom, etc. (and the G3 even beat the more expensive Sennheiser that was also on the test).

I am not saying it's "better", just pointing out a few things.

All I can say here is that for range tests, a number of factors come into play. I'm still interested in knowing the exact equipment used. Even then, if they were not on the same exact frequency, and did not have the same exact antenna setup in exactly the same place, the test was probably flawed. This is not to say that the G3 doesn't perform very well - I am a big fan and often recommend them. And perhaps, even if that test were done very carefully, the G3 still could have won on that day. But I will say this: both Lectrosonics and Audio LTD are famous for their range, at different RF powers, at different places in the world, and over a long period of time. Its one of the things that people come to expect from Lectrosonics, certainly.