Rick R
Veteran
You could use PluralEyes to automatically sync the second system audio to the cam's audio, but it depends on what NLE you are using. Many folks use PE when TC is not an option and/or to sync multiple cams.
wireless microphone
- Thread starter stefanocps
- Start date
For unmonitored lav with recorder I have found the good old Tascam DR-10L is still better quality than the Zoom f2 and its 32 bit float. Probably has a better lav microphone and with safety track you don't really need 32 bit float so much. The next step up from that is the Tentacle Track E which also has timecode although I think you can get a timecode version of the Tascam too and it's a lot cheaper
stefanocps
Well-known member
the dr10l also i have valuated..you thintk that 32 float is not useful? Safety track can be useful when recording is too high, but when it i s too low, raising the volume with 32 float would come better..isn't it? I don't have timecode in my camera so i don't need it..
But the tascam 10 l yes can be an alternative, if you say that has better quality over zoom it is interesting. If you say that quality might be lav dependent, than i might consider zoom f2+ rode lav, as f2 is cheaper than tascam, the difference is worthy a new lav
32 bit float is definitely useful and nice to have no arguments there - but have never had any issues with 24 bit and a safety track. I just got a hardly used 2nd Tascam unit for £80 and it's hard to beat for the price. I didn't test the lav mic on the Tascam against the Zoom but presume that is the main difference in quality, could be wrong. The best quality I got with unmonitored was from the original Rode lav and Sony PCM-M10 audio recorder but the Sony recorder is a lot bigger than these little lav recorders so harder to hide
stefanocps
Well-known member
probably the rode lav will make better both..but i can make a test, recording on zoom f2 usng its lav an rod lav!
edit
made the test
recordin on zoom f2 there is no significant difference between the zoom lav and the rode lav
I tried recording with both mic on tascam dr05, and now i can tell the difference to the zoom f2
So a real change would be using a different reccorder
Tascam dr05 is not so big, but is not so easy to hide somehwere to the talent
But i think these is the real option as alternative:
So Zoom f2 + lav (its one is good)
or Tascam dr05 + lav (rode or zoom)
edit
made the test
recordin on zoom f2 there is no significant difference between the zoom lav and the rode lav
I tried recording with both mic on tascam dr05, and now i can tell the difference to the zoom f2
So a real change would be using a different reccorder
Tascam dr05 is not so big, but is not so easy to hide somehwere to the talent
But i think these is the real option as alternative:
So Zoom f2 + lav (its one is good)
or Tascam dr05 + lav (rode or zoom)
Last edited:
https://cvp.com/product/rode_lavalier
I think there are many different Rode lav mics, this is the one I have think it's the most expensive one, can be used with 3.5mm and XLR.
I think there are many different Rode lav mics, this is the one I have think it's the most expensive one, can be used with 3.5mm and XLR.
stefanocps
Well-known member
oh yes..that's toatally another story, my one is lavalier go
https://rode.com/it/microphones/lava...le/lavalier-go
yes of course with such mic the difference is big, but i think the lav that go with zoom f2, with tascam dr10l and this lavalier rode g are all really similar..price is roughly the same
So of course lav can make a difference, but also the recorder can make it
So , my budget it is not for lav like your one..but i might work on the recorder to get something better..i might try the little tascam or find way to go with the dr05
Last edited:
Imamacuser
Veteran
The locking 3.5mm minijack on the Tascam DR10L is a big advantage in my opinion.
stefanocps
Well-known member
zoom also has a locking system
Peter C.
Veteran
The locking mechanism he is referring to is for the cable so it can’t be inadvertently pulled out. Zoom lock is for the record button so the subject can’t press it. Both locks are useful
stefanocps
Well-known member
If i remember well thr lav jack can be screwed in to tje femaile. Now i don t have it with me but i think it is like that. Of course this work only with its lav
paulears
Veteran
Not sure where 'prosumer' comes from with UWP? Sony consider them a pro product, and they're not cheap either. Perfectly capable products. I'm now 30 years plus into wireless and have pretty set views. In all the common brands, audio quality is a non-issue. All will allow the subtle differences between mics to be heard. I've decided I still don't like digital. Nothing to do with quality, just the annoying 'feature' that quality remains great and stable as distance and obstacles creep in, then it dies. I liked analogue because when you know your systems you can detect trouble creeping in and adjust yourself. You know you need to get the receiver higher, or closer, or not to go any closer to the metal bulkhead. With digital, you just don't know. I also smile when people worry about latency - this time I'm perfectly happy with digital. I don't use plural eyes, I'm pretty good at syncing manually, but in the 25fps timeline that I mainly use, Premiere flips from frame to frame, ao audio will be a little ahead out a little behind, and 1 frame is neither here or there. Work out the time shift in one frame forward or back - normal latency values make audio sync a non-issue.
Given choice, I'd still go for G4 (or even older any G series) I've got a selection of Sennheiser and sometimes I'll drag out an old 9V battery original series because it's still working and capable of decent audio. I even mix makes sometimes. The gloom and doom stories of the commanders mist racking between makes is perfectly true, but I discovered that Sennheiser G2 handhelds work really well with Trance 4000 receivers of similar vintage. The sound is very slightly compressed due to the mismatch, and I really like it. They've been retired now, but I have a soft spot for that combination, discovered by sheer chance when I noticed the Sennheiser mics appearing on two desk channels as the other Trance rack was still connected, and during the show, I PFL'd both and preferred the mismatch!
Given choice, I'd still go for G4 (or even older any G series) I've got a selection of Sennheiser and sometimes I'll drag out an old 9V battery original series because it's still working and capable of decent audio. I even mix makes sometimes. The gloom and doom stories of the commanders mist racking between makes is perfectly true, but I discovered that Sennheiser G2 handhelds work really well with Trance 4000 receivers of similar vintage. The sound is very slightly compressed due to the mismatch, and I really like it. They've been retired now, but I have a soft spot for that combination, discovered by sheer chance when I noticed the Sennheiser mics appearing on two desk channels as the other Trance rack was still connected, and during the show, I PFL'd both and preferred the mismatch!
nutmegger
Well-known member
I recently retired my 20 year old Sennheiser EW500 G1 kit. Always had to carry a lot of spare 9v batteries. Over the years probably spent more on 9V batteries than the G1 cost. The G1 was very power hungry.
Relative to the usual normal pro grade wireless then the Sony UWP wireless is very cheap, and vastly lower priced than the higher grade wireless from even Sony themselves.
And I call them "prosumer" because they're clearly that, they're products that bridge the gap between professional and consumer grade wireless, they get used a bit by both groups.
paulears
Veteran
"Pro Grade" worries me. Professionals use tools appropriate to the job, and the idea that the broadcast guys have that only the crazy priced gear - lenses, cameras, lighting and audio deserves the 'pro' tag, is somewhat overplayed. Consumer, in terms of status, is now very cheap. Sennheiser, Sony and Shure certainly have products that cover audio equipment that people who earn a living from using it would refer to it as pro audio. In radio systems I like to view the 'prosumer' gear as being those that operate in the UK licence free band. If they operate in the channel 38 or PMSE frequency bands, then consumer is removed, leaving pro.
Rick R
Veteran
Professional is an advertising buzz word with many products. For instance, the iPhone 'Pro'.
In my experience, with the Sennheiser's G-100 series Tx./Rx, a little effort in frequency selection and other set-up paremeters are needed to get professional like reception and sound like my Lectros that cost significantly more. Of coarse the Lectros build quality is bullet-proof as well, where some of the G-100s are plastic and not as rugged.
In my experience, with the Sennheiser's G-100 series Tx./Rx, a little effort in frequency selection and other set-up paremeters are needed to get professional like reception and sound like my Lectros that cost significantly more. Of coarse the Lectros build quality is bullet-proof as well, where some of the G-100s are plastic and not as rugged.
Well, this thread rose from the dead…
Exactly. Even the RØDE WirelessGO has a “pro” version. Take that for what you will.
“Prosumer” is a term that is used more by the users and less by the manufacturers. Like IronFilm said, it’s in a gap. It sort of sits in a mid-range price-to-performance performance group.
I have used Sennheiser G4-500 systems, SMA-modded, through antenna distro and have gotten spectacular results for range and stability. Even took them on a couple of field segments for a cable network series. But yeah, frequency coordination is a huge first step, and the auto scanning function of the receivers ain’t it. No, the G3s/G4s aren’t built like Lectros, but they can provide good results if you know what you’re doing with them. Lectro is an investment, and I think the “professional” aspect of that is putting money into more stable gear when you plan to make a living off its use.
Exactly. Even the RØDE WirelessGO has a “pro” version. Take that for what you will.
“Prosumer” is a term that is used more by the users and less by the manufacturers. Like IronFilm said, it’s in a gap. It sort of sits in a mid-range price-to-performance performance group.
I have used Sennheiser G4-500 systems, SMA-modded, through antenna distro and have gotten spectacular results for range and stability. Even took them on a couple of field segments for a cable network series. But yeah, frequency coordination is a huge first step, and the auto scanning function of the receivers ain’t it. No, the G3s/G4s aren’t built like Lectros, but they can provide good results if you know what you’re doing with them. Lectro is an investment, and I think the “professional” aspect of that is putting money into more stable gear when you plan to make a living off its use.
Can you explain that further Rick?
In my experience, the people who struggle getting G3 and G4 systems to work for them are largely dealing with these issues (which, honestly, can apply to other wireless systems):
1) Lack of proper frequency coordination. This is the first line of defense, and the receiver’s scan function isn’t terribly reliable. It may get you mostly there with a single system, but it’s near-useless for coordinating multiple systems. The best option is to use an RF scanner, find the open spaces, and then use a frequency coordination app to select compatible frequencies within those available spaces. I really think intermod is one of the most prevalent issues for people who aren’t properly setting up their “prosumer” wireless.
2) Lack of proper gain staging. Understanding that both transmitter and receiver are their own gain stages in the signal path seems to be rare for beginners. At the start of each day, the input sensitivity should be checked, not just for the lav but for the lav and the talent. And the receiver AF Out should be matched to the input level and gain settings.
3) Lack of attention to transmitter power. Always use the lowest transmitter power you can get away with, especially in close proximity. Overloading the receivers is a real thing, but not a thing that’s common knowledge.
4) Proper squelch setting. High squelch isn’t a default. Neither is medium. Or low. Know what else is in the air that day (see #1 above) and adjust accordingly. Clamp down if you have to fight crowded airways.
5) Stock lavs are typically garbage. The ME-2 that comes with 100-series systems is pretty awful. Upgrade to something better. An exception: the MKE-2 that comes with the 500-series systems is actually a mighty fine lav.
All of the above, I think, come from a desire for the system to work out of the box, manual be damned. Or, there’s a belief that the system worked the last time it was on so it should work this time. And then there’s…
6) Antenna integrity and receiver placement. Let’s face it: the antennae on these systems are trash. They’re flimsy, they don’t have much copper in them, and they don’t take too long before they start sagging away from vertical, or get all crimped into a nasty mess. These things reduce reception. The “diversity” feature simply uses the output cable as a second antenna to the same receiver circuit. Helpful, but marginally. Modding the primary antenna to an SMA connection, and using a more robust whip, will help immensely. But once these receivers are dropped into a bag with a mixer/recorder, they’re packed into a small space with a device that likely has a good bit of RF spray (that falls off quickly, but is pretty strong at close range). Further, if any one RX is overloaded by a too-strong TX signal, that RX is going to regurgitate the overage back out through the antenna, which can spill over to neighboring antennae. This is an argument for SMA mods and antenna distro. At the very least, get the antennae (or receivers) up and out of the well of the bag.
A little elbow grease can make these systems work, and fairly well. Quite well, even. The companding still isn’t as transparent as the higher-end systems, and the receiver circuits aren’t as robust, and the receivers’ output levels aren’t truly line-level, and the physical construction isn’t as durable, but these are the reasons those who make their livings from wireless gear will eventually realize the importance of the higher investment.
1) Lack of proper frequency coordination. This is the first line of defense, and the receiver’s scan function isn’t terribly reliable. It may get you mostly there with a single system, but it’s near-useless for coordinating multiple systems. The best option is to use an RF scanner, find the open spaces, and then use a frequency coordination app to select compatible frequencies within those available spaces. I really think intermod is one of the most prevalent issues for people who aren’t properly setting up their “prosumer” wireless.
2) Lack of proper gain staging. Understanding that both transmitter and receiver are their own gain stages in the signal path seems to be rare for beginners. At the start of each day, the input sensitivity should be checked, not just for the lav but for the lav and the talent. And the receiver AF Out should be matched to the input level and gain settings.
3) Lack of attention to transmitter power. Always use the lowest transmitter power you can get away with, especially in close proximity. Overloading the receivers is a real thing, but not a thing that’s common knowledge.
4) Proper squelch setting. High squelch isn’t a default. Neither is medium. Or low. Know what else is in the air that day (see #1 above) and adjust accordingly. Clamp down if you have to fight crowded airways.
5) Stock lavs are typically garbage. The ME-2 that comes with 100-series systems is pretty awful. Upgrade to something better. An exception: the MKE-2 that comes with the 500-series systems is actually a mighty fine lav.
All of the above, I think, come from a desire for the system to work out of the box, manual be damned. Or, there’s a belief that the system worked the last time it was on so it should work this time. And then there’s…
6) Antenna integrity and receiver placement. Let’s face it: the antennae on these systems are trash. They’re flimsy, they don’t have much copper in them, and they don’t take too long before they start sagging away from vertical, or get all crimped into a nasty mess. These things reduce reception. The “diversity” feature simply uses the output cable as a second antenna to the same receiver circuit. Helpful, but marginally. Modding the primary antenna to an SMA connection, and using a more robust whip, will help immensely. But once these receivers are dropped into a bag with a mixer/recorder, they’re packed into a small space with a device that likely has a good bit of RF spray (that falls off quickly, but is pretty strong at close range). Further, if any one RX is overloaded by a too-strong TX signal, that RX is going to regurgitate the overage back out through the antenna, which can spill over to neighboring antennae. This is an argument for SMA mods and antenna distro. At the very least, get the antennae (or receivers) up and out of the well of the bag.
A little elbow grease can make these systems work, and fairly well. Quite well, even. The companding still isn’t as transparent as the higher-end systems, and the receiver circuits aren’t as robust, and the receivers’ output levels aren’t truly line-level, and the physical construction isn’t as durable, but these are the reasons those who make their livings from wireless gear will eventually realize the importance of the higher investment.