Wireless from the Mixer to the Recorder

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Edward Carlson

Sennheiser G3 (or a used G2 system.) Make sure you get a system with the battery powered receiver. They make an AC powered receiver for installation, which is not what you want.

You might also need an adapter cable from the output of the recorder to the input of the transmitter. The Sennheisers use a weird screw-on 1/8" plug, but an adapter cable can be made or bought at places like B&H or Trew Audio.

A note of caution: He's sending a line level signal from the recorder output to the transmitter and a standard 1/8 to 1/8 jumper cable will not work properly. The G-series transmitters use a non-standard wiring for their line input cables with signal hot going to the ring on the TRS plug, signal ground to the sleeve, and the tip jumpered to the sleeve inside the connector. He'll need to make certain that any cable he obtains is purpose-built to take a stereo line level signal into a G-series transmitter's mono line-level input.

[Paul R Johnson]

If people have to send stereo from a mixer to a camera, then the best system to use is an IEM system, with a mains powered stereo transmitter, and then a battery receiver. They're designed to drive headphones, of course, so output level needs a bit of control to match the levels - but I do this quite often with no bother at all. The real killer is that a six hundred dollar radio link is very nearly as reliable as a ten dollar cable! Radio is unreliable, and unpredictable. The idea of hard wiring the recorder is the only secure and robust system, with the radio link being for backup.

[Peter Stockley]

The IEM system is a little more than I would want to spend at this time, perhaps later as things progress. However, it does leave me with some questions regarding the Sennheiser G2 or G3 system.

Steve mentions the incompatibility of the Sennheiser system requiring a work-around in the wiring between the recorder and the transmitter. Is their another system equal in price and quality that would not require any fixes to make it work. Buying an adapter cable is one thing, but having to have cables custom built, is another?

The other is headphone monitoring. Will the Sennheiser G2 or G3 system (or one of equal price and quality) allow headphone monitoring. The camera of course has only one mic input, so how (if possible) would I connect the headphones, perhaps a splitter of some kind, or at an output on the receiver (assuming there are two)?

Regarding the G3 and G2.
The Sennheiser G2 shown here at

Amazon.com: Sennheiser EW 100-ENG G2 Wireless Lavalier Microphone System, with BodyPack Transmitter,Plug-on Transmitter, Camera Receiver Included: Musical Instruments

 

Amazon.com: Sennheiser EW 100-ENG G2 Wireless Lavalier Microphone System, with BodyPack Transmitter,Plug-on Transmitter, Camera Receiver Included: Musical Instruments

has a rectangular module with an XLR connection on the back (not sure what that is), with what appears to be two receivers, or two transmitters, or a receiver and a transmitter. Either way, they both look the same.

The Sennheiser G3 at Sennheiser ew 112-p G3 - Lavalier Clip-On Microphone Wireless Set - Presentation - Transmitter, Receiver show only the mic and the two (I’m assuming transmitter and receiver) which look identical like the ones in the G2 system.
Can you point out these differences please.

[Frank Glencairn]

I have the G3 set from your second link and I do what you asking for all the time, but I have no recorder in the game, since mono is good enough for what I do (speeches).

The PA guys usually know what they do and know how to properly hook up your TX to the mixer.
The RX feed direct to my camera, so I can skip the whole syncing part.

The cube with the XLR from your first link is for connecting a normal mic - something you don't need.

My camera has a headphone connector, so I can listen to what I record.

Having a recorder on the camera is a bad habit of DSLR guys IMHO, but no proper way to record audio (better than the build in mics of the DSLRs though, so who can blame them?)

If you absolutely need a stereo recording, go from the mixer in your recorder and from the recorders output into the G3 TX with a proper cable.

[Rick Reineke]

"The PA guys usually know what they do and know how to properly hook up your TX to the mixer"
-- I wouldn't count on it and don't expect them to have cables either.. especially with a wireless transmitter.
I believe the Sennheiser G2/3 'line level' cable should be available from the usual suspect pro-audio dealers. Steve?
In any case, making one would be easy for anyone with audio cable/soldering skills, a generic 3.5mm TRS plug could even be used.. though it wouldn't 'lock' to the transmitter.

[Edward Carlson]

Originally Posted by Peter Stockley

Buying an adapter cable is one thing, but having to have cables custom built, is another?

Not at all. Sennheiser actually make the CL2, a line level input cable for the G2 series.

Originally Posted by Peter Stockley

The other is headphone monitoring. Will the Sennheiser G2 or G3 system (or one of equal price and quality) allow headphone monitoring. The camera of course has only one mic input, so how (if possible) would I connect the headphones, perhaps a splitter of some kind, or at an output on the receiver (assuming there are two)?

No, the receiver only has one output. Why not just use the headphone plug on your camera?

Originally Posted by Peter Stockley

Regarding the G3 and G2.
The Sennheiser G2 shown here at Amazon.com: Sennheiser EW 100-ENG G2 Wireless Lavalier Microphone System, with BodyPack Transmitter,Plug-on Transmitter, Camera Receiver Included: Musical Instruments has a rectangular module with an XLR connection on the back (not sure what that is), with what appears to be two receivers, or two transmitters, or a receiver and a transmitter. Either way, they both look the same.

The Sennheiser G3 at Sennheiser ew 112-p G3 - Lavalier Clip-On Microphone Wireless Set - Presentation - Transmitter, Receiver show only the mic and the two (I’m assuming transmitter and receiver) which look identical like the ones in the G2 system.
Can you point out these differences please.

The first link is a kit. The XLR plug-on is designed for use with handheld or shotgun mics. It plugs directly into the bottom of the mic (look at the mics news anchors use, they usually have something similar.) You can't use both the XLR plug-on and the bodyback (the one with the antenna) at the same time. The other bodyback is a receiver.

The G3 has different frequencies (since the FCC ruling back in '09) and an orange backlight (instead of green.)

[Ty Ford]

One more vote for leaving the recorder hardwired to the house mixer.

Then also transmit from the mixer to your camera so you'll have an easy sync reference. If you do this, you won't have to deal with the audio delay, but...and this is a very important but... you can't guarantee that the recorder and camera won't drift and the longer you record without stopping, the farther away the audio may drift. (or not.)

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Peter Stockley]

Ok, sorry guys, but I still have more questions.

Is the G3 series only suited for mono, or can stereo also be run through this system?

I see different numbers for the G3 series such as 135 G3, 172 G3, 114 G3 etc what do these numbers mean?

With the exception of HDMI, my camera only has a “mic in”. If I wish to use headphones, is my only option to use a splitter, and if so will the signal be weaker therefore requiring a signal booster?

In response to Ty Ford. I have just been advised to send a wireless signal from the recorder to the camera. Am I understanding you correctly in saying that you advise me to do it from the mixer instead, and if so, what is the advantage in doing so? In each case, would their not be a decent sync track left on the camera to sync to in post?

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Peter Stockley

Ok, sorry guys, but I still have more questions.

Is the G3 series only suited for mono, or can stereo also be run through this system?

...

Yes and no ... a single G-series transmitter and receiver kit will only handle a mono signal. With TWO kits and the appropriate splitter 'Y' cables you can run both sides of a stereo signal, one channel per transmitter/receiver pair.

The various kit numbers refer to what is included in the kit - omni or cardioid mic, battery or mains powered receiver, bodypack transmitter or handheld mic, etc, etc

[Ty Ford]

Originally Posted by Peter Stockley

Ok, sorry guys, but I still have more questions.

Is the G3 series only suited for mono, or can stereo also be run through this system?

I see different numbers for the G3 series such as 135 G3, 172 G3, 114 G3 etc what do these numbers mean?

With the exception of HDMI, my camera only has a “mic in”. If I wish to use headphones, is my only option to use a splitter, and if so will the signal be weaker therefore requiring a signal booster?

In response to Ty Ford. I have just been advised to send a wireless signal from the recorder to the camera. Am I understanding you correctly in saying that you advise me to do it from the mixer instead, and if so, what is the advantage in doing so? In each case, would their not be a decent sync track left on the camera to sync to in post?

Maybe. BTW, you will have someone on a good set of headphones (Sony MDR7506 or Audio Technica ATH-M50) to make sure what you want to record is actually getting to the recorder, right? The answer to the question, "When do you listen to production audio?" is "Always, always, always."

If the levels from the mixer change, so may your record levels. That would be bad. Short of writing a chapter on prefade and postfade levels, I hope a word to the wise is sufficient.

You are obviously in over your head here. That's not a denigration, just an observation based on your questions. You would do well to hire a professional sound person if the project is of any importance. If not, have fun and learn something.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Peter Stockley]

Thanks so much for all of your answers guys. I am indeed in over my head, but at this stage, I am not being paid to do it. Learn audio I will, and thanks to forums like this it will make it much easier to do so while having fun doing it. However, I am finding out that as I begin to develop a passion for video and audio, that people will take notice and present opportunities to you.

Apart from going to school events and concerts to videotape my grandchildren etc, I had also asked the pastor of a local church for permission, (whenever I wish), if I could set up my video gear in the balcony of the church during the Sunday service so that I could gain more experience with my equipment, while at the same time trying to remain inconspicuous, and he said that would be ok. It is a fairly large building with concert hall type lighting and a good sound system with a seemingly experienced sound engineer who seems to know what he is doing. Both the lighting and the audio present challenges, which is good for me.

Just a few weeks after beginning this I was asked by one of the video guys in the church if I wanted to take a shot at shooting a baptism. I declined saying that I did not have all of my equipment together yet and as a result was not confident in doing so. A week later they had a children’s musical program with no one to shoot video, (they were out of town for the weekend). Again I was asked and again I declined, but one day soon I will say yes. We’ve all got to learn somehow.
Just thought I’d share this with you all.

Ty,
I’ve just purchased a set of Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones and they sound great. I selected them based on reviews and the fact that the impedance was more suited for the equipment I am using.

Steve,
What do you mean when you say, Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! Lol?

Regards Everyone

Peter

[Ty Ford]

Peter,

Every job I take, I hope to learn something new that I can use on the next job. Enjoy the ride!

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Peter Stockley

...

Steve,
What do you mean when you say, Good news, Cousins! This week's chocolate ration is 15 grams! Lol?

Regards Everyone

Peter

It's a paraphrase from "1984." The news reader excitedly announces the wonderful news that despite the hardships of the ongoing war this year the weekly chocolate ration has been raised to 15 grams. Of course because history is constantly re-written to serve the propaganda needs of the State, no one remembers that LAST year the weekly 'chocorat' was 30 grams!