Saw a post on jwsound site where a mixer made an offhand comment that he was recommending wires as first choice. Lots of great lavaliere choices especially the newer dpa gear, but it's seemed like gospel forever to boom /plant first, wireless as backup or only when no other choice. Has it reached the tipping point where wires, gear, technique, budget made this the preferred method of narrative sound acquisition.
Wireless first choice?
- Thread starter lambert
- Start date
Jim Feeley
Veteran
I hang out there a bit. Which post?
But for narrative (not really my world), I don't hear about wired lavs being used on actors. Good wireless (e.g., Lectrosonics, Zaxcom, Audio Ltd, Wisycom) are still superuseful...and often end up as primary audio (thanks TIGHT&WIDE :-( ). For interviews, I use good wireless or wires depending on lots of criteria, and considering we're starting with small lavs (Sanken Cos11 and Countryman EMW & B6 for me...maybe some DPA in the future), the difference between a well-set up wireless and a wire isn't huge... Though wires are useful, too. But you know all this.
But was the mixer's thought that it makes sense to run a cable between a recorder and the actor's lav?
But for narrative (not really my world), I don't hear about wired lavs being used on actors. Good wireless (e.g., Lectrosonics, Zaxcom, Audio Ltd, Wisycom) are still superuseful...and often end up as primary audio (thanks TIGHT&WIDE :-( ). For interviews, I use good wireless or wires depending on lots of criteria, and considering we're starting with small lavs (Sanken Cos11 and Countryman EMW & B6 for me...maybe some DPA in the future), the difference between a well-set up wireless and a wire isn't huge... Though wires are useful, too. But you know all this.
But was the mixer's thought that it makes sense to run a cable between a recorder and the actor's lav?
Jim I was checking posts on dpa6060 (I believe that's correct) and the mixer didn't go into any depth as I recall. The 6060 is the size of a b6 and uses the core technology. Until it gets out in the wild we'll see how good it is. Obviously we've seen narrative series go almost exclusively wireless lavs( southland, the police show, one of the first recall) comes to mind. A director was reportedly very adamant about no booms. I think it's an interesting topic that can get some pushback from some sound pros who might take it as an attempt to take their jobs.
Jim Feeley
Veteran
I haven't seen a 6060 in person, but I think it's bigger than a B6. That said, the 6060 is really small. (if it was at NAB, I missed it... but then, it's really small.)
> a mixer made an offhand comment that he was recommending wires as first choice.
Maybe I misunderstood this comment. By "recommending wires" do you mean boom (or somesuch) or wired lavs? Or something else?
Just about all the mixers I know use boom, plant, wireless, and anything else. Some, like Jeff Wexler, really resist(ed) wireless... but Jeff's mostly retired. Fact of life at this point.
> some sound pros who might take it as an attempt to take their jobs.
Do you mean by eliminating the position of boom operator?
I just want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding.
Jim
(btw- I do a fair amount of location audio work, though mostly for corporate, documentary, news mag, etc. Only do fiction narrative once in a long while)
> a mixer made an offhand comment that he was recommending wires as first choice.
Maybe I misunderstood this comment. By "recommending wires" do you mean boom (or somesuch) or wired lavs? Or something else?
Just about all the mixers I know use boom, plant, wireless, and anything else. Some, like Jeff Wexler, really resist(ed) wireless... but Jeff's mostly retired. Fact of life at this point.
> some sound pros who might take it as an attempt to take their jobs.
Do you mean by eliminating the position of boom operator?
I just want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding.
Jim
(btw- I do a fair amount of location audio work, though mostly for corporate, documentary, news mag, etc. Only do fiction narrative once in a long while)
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Yup. Wireless is a last resort. Not a first. Last. If there's no other way.
There's three reasons for this IME. First, wires are far more reliable than wireless. Second, wires sound better than even the most expensive wireless. Third, wires are far more affordable than wireless. Said another way, wireless is expensive equipment, needs expensive post work, and is way more risky than a wire.
So yeah, wireless is a last resort.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
I think there may also be some confusion with wireless and wireless lav.
The general and traditional reason for preferring wired anything is that wireless is always open to interference, drop outs etc. And wireless had limited sonic and dynamic range.
Some of this has changed. Digital wireless don't go through the compression expansion stages so they get pretty much the same range as a cable. Some of the systems are very robust and there is not so much of an interference issue (depending on where you are). From what I was seeing in post big films tended to have wireless lavs on principal actors, along with booming the shot. Low budget films seem to rely on lavs more. I of course only saw a small sliver of what was and is done so I'm not sure what it says about a trend.
Now I did hear a bunch of talk of a trend to using a wireless link from the boom op. That actually makes a ton of sense in a lot of situations because cable wrangling can be a bit of a nightmare on some sets.
Kind of like Jim, I don't do a lot of production recording so it's more of what I see and hear about how others are working. I did do production on a number of shorts and some doc.s and about 1/2 the time I would have loved a wireless hop to the camera.
The other part is that when most people say wireless they mean a wireless lav. and when they say wired they mean a full sized mic on a cable. Lav's because of the smaller capsule have a more limited range and inherently greater self noise. I mean the best lavs will sound better than a garbage "full sized" mic, but as a rule at comparable quality points the full sized mic is going to sound "better" than a tiny mic.
And the other "catch" is you have no control during a take. If the lav slips or something starts rubbing it etc. you can't fix it. If the boom is sounding weird you can have to boom op adjust things during a take. When a lot of $$$$ is on the table many choices are about being "safe" rather than what might otherwise be "better". A cabled boomed mic is about as "safe" as it gets in production sound.
I don't think any of this has to do with jobs. If you are sticking wireless on everyone that is what was your boom op is going to be doing. A narrative films sound crew is a mixer and their right hand person (Boom op) . These two have often worked together for a long time. If there is enough stuff to deal with a third person will get brought in. On a low and above budgeted narative you need two people just for the logistics and keeping up with the picture department so two people is the practical minimum. Less than that and you will end up waiting on sound and that starts costing a lot of green.
The general and traditional reason for preferring wired anything is that wireless is always open to interference, drop outs etc. And wireless had limited sonic and dynamic range.
Some of this has changed. Digital wireless don't go through the compression expansion stages so they get pretty much the same range as a cable. Some of the systems are very robust and there is not so much of an interference issue (depending on where you are). From what I was seeing in post big films tended to have wireless lavs on principal actors, along with booming the shot. Low budget films seem to rely on lavs more. I of course only saw a small sliver of what was and is done so I'm not sure what it says about a trend.
Now I did hear a bunch of talk of a trend to using a wireless link from the boom op. That actually makes a ton of sense in a lot of situations because cable wrangling can be a bit of a nightmare on some sets.
Kind of like Jim, I don't do a lot of production recording so it's more of what I see and hear about how others are working. I did do production on a number of shorts and some doc.s and about 1/2 the time I would have loved a wireless hop to the camera.
The other part is that when most people say wireless they mean a wireless lav. and when they say wired they mean a full sized mic on a cable. Lav's because of the smaller capsule have a more limited range and inherently greater self noise. I mean the best lavs will sound better than a garbage "full sized" mic, but as a rule at comparable quality points the full sized mic is going to sound "better" than a tiny mic.
And the other "catch" is you have no control during a take. If the lav slips or something starts rubbing it etc. you can't fix it. If the boom is sounding weird you can have to boom op adjust things during a take. When a lot of $$$$ is on the table many choices are about being "safe" rather than what might otherwise be "better". A cabled boomed mic is about as "safe" as it gets in production sound.
I don't think any of this has to do with jobs. If you are sticking wireless on everyone that is what was your boom op is going to be doing. A narrative films sound crew is a mixer and their right hand person (Boom op) . These two have often worked together for a long time. If there is enough stuff to deal with a third person will get brought in. On a low and above budgeted narative you need two people just for the logistics and keeping up with the picture department so two people is the practical minimum. Less than that and you will end up waiting on sound and that starts costing a lot of green.
Last edited:
I've run wireless lavs for 30 years in live television production. Not once have I had RF interference. But then, this is in a studio at a fixed location. But I've had failures and always had a wireless backup unit as well has a wired unit. Failures were all non-wireless related things like talent mucking with the transmitter, broken mic cables, and unplugged cables.
Run&Gun
Veteran
From an absolute quality standpoint, yes a hardwired mic is going to be better than a wireless, everything else being equal(mic, placement, etc.). I say everything else being equal, because it doesn't matter how good the hardwired mic is, if you can't get it where it needs to be to capture the sound properly or it interferes with/prevents "the shot", it's useless. Bruce always says that a wireless is a "last resort" and I could agree in a perfect world, but it's not and we all have to work within certain conditions and restraints and expectations for each shoot and depending on what you do, a wireless is sometimes the first choice and a wire is the last resort and sometimes the wireless is your only choice.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
A mixer I am working with this week was telling me about the newer Zaxcoms that have a micro-SD card in the transmitter, so they are recording a backup file in case of wireless interference--this seems genius. Is it?
It’s brilliant, really.
I was on a shoot where we were working with a roller coaster, and the talent rode with cameras mounted to the train. The crew were all on the loading platform, including other cameras. There were two ENG crews working different sgments, but both crews teamed up for this one. That meant there were two PSMs there, me and another. He had a Zaxcom system in his kit for just this kind of scenario. There was a point where everything was simply out of range, but the Zaxcom had it covered at the end of the day.
Also love that transmitter gain can be remotely adjusted from the receiver.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I know we've already beat this horse dead more than once, but I keep hoping that Zaxcom's patent on in-transmitter recording is tossed, so that Lectro can just issue a firmware update to open up the function on their newer transmitters that have built-in recorders.
Yeah. They’ve kind of skirted that with the SMWB, which can record internally to microSDHC but not while transmitting. So, it’s one or the other. And internal recording is limited to 24/44.1. But it’s not the same.
Stop hoping. It was filed in 2005 and awarded in 2010. So if it hasn't been challenged by now, it won't be. You only need to hold your breath until 2025, when the patent will expire.
Noiz2
Sound Ninja
Wired is, as a rule, better, but that is very situation specific. If you are on a studio set, well yes you probably don't have any issues with wireless. If you are doing a low budget film in Manhattan where even the theatres coordinate freqs not so much. Dialog 99% of the time is not compromised noticeably by analog wireless compansion but other things like SFX may be. RFI is VERY location specific, so that has to do with where you are shooting.
Unless they insist I will not be running a wire to the boom Op. Wireless frees them up so much that it is worth the risk.
Unless they insist I will not be running a wire to the boom Op. Wireless frees them up so much that it is worth the risk.
Rob Neidig
Member
I am a firm believer that using a cable is always going to be better than wireless. As some have mentioned, if you are using a good wireless set the actual sound quality may not be that much better (I still think it is), but you won't have to worry about dropouts or interference.
I have also noted that on jwsoundgroup and other audio-related sites there seems to be a trend where people refer to wireless systems with the shorthand of calling them "wires". I find this very confusing as the name would imply that it is using a "wire" or cable, but they are just shortening the term "wireless" even further down to "wires". I see it all the time where people say something like "I run an SD633 with 3 wires and a boom". Even in the original post, it seems you are referring to wireless as "wires". So I think it has created confusion in some of the responses as well as possibly in the thread you first saw in jwsoundgroup.
I have also noted that on jwsoundgroup and other audio-related sites there seems to be a trend where people refer to wireless systems with the shorthand of calling them "wires". I find this very confusing as the name would imply that it is using a "wire" or cable, but they are just shortening the term "wireless" even further down to "wires". I see it all the time where people say something like "I run an SD633 with 3 wires and a boom". Even in the original post, it seems you are referring to wireless as "wires". So I think it has created confusion in some of the responses as well as possibly in the thread you first saw in jwsoundgroup.