Wireless System Comparison

[Cedric Akins]

I have a question. What sets the various wireless systems apart from one another? You have Lectrosonics, Sennheiser, Audio Technica, Shure, Sony, etc. I have heard that lectros are the absolute best when it comes to wireless but sets them apart from the others. What really makes one better than the next? Has anyone done a side by side comparison in the same situations with interference, signal reception and range? I know that one of the members have done comparisons on shotgun/boom microphones as well as lavs, but I have not seen a comparison on the wireless units. If some knows where to find independent tests on wireless systems please point me in the right direction? This would be huge for many aduio junkies.

 

[Petrus]

You have Lectrosonics, Sennheiser, Audio Technica, Shure, Sony, etc. I have heard that lectros are the absolute best when it comes to wireless but sets them apart from the others.

You forget the king of the hill Zaxcom. http://www.zaxcom.com/

I have not seen any actual tests with exact measurements. These units are meant mostly for professionals and in (no-nonsense) pro gear the quality generally goes hand in had with price. It would be interesting to see a shootout with exect data, though.

Digital units from Zaxcom are in the league of their own, but the prices reflect the fact also.

 

[Richard Crowley]

Remember that features, usability, build-quality, reliability, support, etc. etc. are also very important to professional users. It may be that a less expensive unit has equivalent audio quality, but lacks some of these other virtues.

 

[timbook2]

the main difference in price and reliability lies in :
1. secure transmission without interference
2. long distance
3. sound quality

these are achieved by stronger amplifiers and diversity systems which can automatically switch bands.

the more expensive models have more than 1 antenna for diversity reasons.

audio quality can reach "almost" cable like quality with the high class systems costing thousands of $$$ but since wireless is mainly used for voice it doesnt really matter and the important O-Ton ( whats the word in english?) is mostly recorded with cabled mics

 

[gpforet]

I'm not sure that diversity switches bands, but rather, switches antenna to use the antenna which is receiving the most coherent carrier wave.

But I could be wrong.

the main difference in price and reliability lies in :
1. secure transmission without interference
2. long distance
3. sound quality

these are achieved by stronger amplifiers and diversity systems which can automatically switch bands.

the more expensive models have more than 1 antenna for diversity reasons.

audio quality can reach "almost" cable like quality with the high class systems costing thousands of $$$ but since wireless is mainly used for voice it doesnt really matter and the important O-Ton ( whats the word in english?) is mostly recorded with cabled mics

 

[Richard Crowley]

I'm not sure that diversity switches bands, but rather, switches antenna to use the antenna which is receiving the most coherent carrier wave.

But I could be wrong.

You are correct. Diversity reception involves multiple receivers receiving the same signal. The system switches in real-time between the antenna/receiver with the better signal.

Frequency-hopping and other spread-spectrum techniques are used for digital data applications (Bluetooth, ZigBee, some types of Wi-Fi, etc.), but none of them are real-time enough for live audio.

 

[John Willett]

There are different systems built for different purposes.

The king is still definitely the Sennheiser 5000 series - but this is a multi-channel system built for TV, Broadway and London's West End and the like (at probably x4 the price of a Lectro system).

For pocket receiver systems the top dog is Audio Ltd. when it comes to range, though Lectrosonics is also good in this area.

Sennheiser 3000 series is also good and don't forget the new 2000 series.

People like Audio tend to build for range (Lectro may do the same) at the expense of multichannel use.

Sennheiser, on the other hand, have superb multi-channel capabilities; but at the expense of extreme long distance use.

SO if you are out in the field with few radios and need range, then your choice is probably Audio or Lectro. Audio Ltd. seem to be the choice for professional sound recordists the UK, Lectro in the USA and Sennheiser in mainland Europe.

If you at a major event with loads of broadcasters around, or want 50 to 100 channels (or more), then Sennheiser is the better bet.

 

[Karlw]

All the brands mentioned here make very very good products. Generally, each company is known to specialize in and somewhat to dominate particular market areas. Sennheiser has long held sway in high-end theater. Shure (at least in the States) is king of top touring bands. Lectrosonics (again, mainly in the States) is known to dominate film & video production at the high end. Zaxcom has focused almost exclusively on film production, and they make some very nice products. They are the only brand making 100% digital products at this point.

In terms of comparison, I can really only give you the main reasons why Lectrosonics is good at what it does. First, we have always believed in high-power transmission, thus increasing the signal-to-noise and allowing greater range and resistance to dropouts than most other systems. However, to counter what John Willett has stated, the use of isolated outputs by Lectrosonics in their transmitters means that a high number of channels can also be used, despite the greater transmission power. It is not uncommon to see 75 ch + systems, sometimes even 100 or more for a large stage production, touring system, or reality TV setup.

While most analog wireless systems rely on an audio compandor to deliver a decent signal-to-noise ratio in the audio realm, Lectrosonics has (for the past 7 or 8 years) made products using Digital Hybrid Wireless technology - a patented way to handle the signal using DSP so that a compandor is not needed in the audio path. Although it can be argued that a "pure" digital system can deliver better audio, it is not easy to distinguish a digital system from a Digital Hybrid system in real-world testing. It is, however, noticeable on some types of sources the difference between digital or hybrid vs. an analog, companded wireless. Many would argue that the analog systems (like Audio Ltd., Sennheiser, etc. sound "best" because of "warmth", etc., it is due to some form of distortion. Again, not that this is bad - clearly each of these companies have legions of fans.

Finally, some of the features and aspects that have become standard on Lectrosonics products have proven very popular with our customers. For instance, the graphic RF scanner on our receivers, the relatively modest cost considering performance, the all-metal housings, etc. The receivers are known to have a high level of RF headroom and filtering so they work well and sound good at 10 ft. and 500 ft. from the transmitter. The mic inputs are designed to handle a very wide range of lav microphone types, etc.

I hope this is helpful to the OPs questions.

 

[Cedric Akins]

I hope this is helpful to the OPs questions.

If OP means original person's then no. I understand that you are an employee of Lectrosonics and that means your opinion is going to be biased, if you value your job . But my question is more or less looking at some type of independent study or test of the named products mentioned above in the various posts.

Audio LTD., Audio Technica, Samson, Sennheiser, Shure, Sony, Zaxcom, and if there are any others that professionals use in the industry. Video Maker Magazine has done various tests but they have been seperate tests on some of the units mentioned but never a side by side comparison.

Range, Signal to Noise Ratio, Dropouts, and Interference are the main issues aor test that should be tested. I guess.

 

[Richard Crowley]

If you hang out in the Usenet newsgroup where the industry professionals are: news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound, You will discover that probably 90% of them are using Lectrosonics, and another 5% are using Zaxcom. The only discussion of the other brands (Sony, Audio Technica, Sennheiser, etc.) are amateurs wandering through looking for advice.

Of course, these are people who do high-stakes major motion pictures and television production and equipment quality and reliability are of prime importance. They seem to consider anything less than ~$1.5K as unsuitable for professional use. And since production audio mixers traditionally own their own equipment (vs. any of the other production trades), they don't throw away money without some really good return on their investment. I'd wager that they didn't migrate to Lectro and Zaxcom just because it was "trendy". In my book that is the ULTIMATE "independent study".

Now if you aren't doing high-stakes production with box-office actors and directors and production budgets that run to 100s of millions of $$$, then maybe you can get by with lesser equipment.

The reason VideoMaker magazine and other consumer publications don't test professional equipment is that none of their audience can afford it. It is a completely different world, separated by requirements and budget.

 

[Captain Pierce]

Cedric--

I am by no means a professional in the video industry, but I feel fairly certain in saying this:

Regardless of their presence in the wireless microphone industry, companies like Audio-Technica, Samson, and Shure don't even rate according to professionals in the video industry.

OK, A-T does make one system that may be a legitimate contender against, say, the Sennheiser G3. I don't know much about it; in all my time working for an A-T dealer, I'm not sure A-T has ever said anything to us about it. Shure makes no systems these days aimed at the video industry, and the less said about Samson, the better.

Finally, I wonder if the sort of comparison you want could even be done on a level playing field. For example, where would you do it? Each city in the US has its own RF environment; and each manufacturer has its own range of frequency bands. A test done in Portland, Oregon (just to grab Richard Crowley's location, since his is the last post in the thread as I type this) would be great for people in Portland, but it might not mean a darn thing for me in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, if it's done on frequencies that I can't use. Particularly if the best "clear" frequency in whatever town the test took place was one that some companies didn't even use--this is not video industry specific, but Sennheiser's G2/G3 systems and A-T's 3000 series systems, for example, do not have a lot of overlap, and I know from my own research that there are cities where Sennheiser has a LOT more open frequencies than A-T.

 

[Petrus]

Doing a comprehensive test of these professional units would, in reality, serve no purpose except feed the dreams of amateurs. The real customers already have their preferences and they know that all (both?) truly pro class brands are as good as it gets. They already know all they need to know.

Testing the sub-$1000 sets would serve us poor folks better.

 

[John Willett]

However, to counter what John Willett has stated, the use of isolated outputs by Lectrosonics in their transmitters means that a high number of channels can also be used, despite the greater transmission power. It is not uncommon to see 75 ch + systems, sometimes even 100 or more for a large stage production, touring system, or reality TV setup.

While most analog wireless systems rely on an audio compandor to deliver a decent signal-to-noise ratio in the audio realm, Lectrosonics has (for the past 7 or 8 years) made products using Digital Hybrid Wireless technology - a patented way to handle the signal using DSP so that a compandor is not needed in the audio path. Although it can be argued that a "pure" digital system can deliver better audio, it is not easy to distinguish a digital system from a Digital Hybrid system in real-world testing. It is, however, noticeable on some types of sources the difference between digital or hybrid vs. an analog, companded wireless. Many would argue that the analog systems (like Audio Ltd., Sennheiser, etc. sound "best" because of "warmth", etc., it is due to some form of distortion. Again, not that this is bad - clearly each of these companies have legions of fans.

Thanks for the update on this.

I am not so familiar with Lectro as, until recently, their products have been illegal in Europe due to non-RoHS compliance.

However, I understand that that has now changed and they are beginning to come in.

One question - you talk about "high power", but power is restrcted by ISO specifications and national laws to 50mw e.r.p..

Also, the USA has very different laws to radiomic. bandwidth and those models in Europe can be very different to USA models.

 

[Karlw]

Thanks for the update on this.

I am not so familiar with Lectro as, until recently, their products have been illegal in Europe due to non-RoHS compliance.

However, I understand that that has now changed and they are beginning to come in.

One question - you talk about "high power", but power is restrcted by ISO specifications and national laws to 50mw e.r.p..

Also, the USA has very different laws to radiomic. bandwidth and those models in Europe can be very different to USA models.

John,

Yes - good points. In the UHF band, the limit in most of Europe is 50mW just as you say while in the US it is 250 mW for FCC Part 74 licensed users. There are special exemptions in Europe in some cases - mostly for government work. The models we ship to Europe have the 50mW power limitation and also the correct type of modulation (spectral mask) and frequency ranges to comply with local laws, along with the ROHS materials conformity. It did take us a while to get back into Europe but we are there now with a full compliment of transmitters, portable receivers and studio receivers.

-Karl