What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems?

Rick Reineke · March 25th, 2015, 06:35 AM

"solid and reliable without any dropouts or issues"
A cable.
otherwise , it ain't gonna happen.
Even my $$$$ Lectro 400 series systems are not as good as a $20 cable..

Chris Harding · March 25th, 2015, 07:02 AM

I'm not trying to find good points with any system but surely any system ..either UHF or 2,4GHz should work in most instances if it's made by a well know manufacturer?? Just like a car .. would has to assume if General Motors spend millions of a new model and release it, it will run and it will get you from A to B consistently and be at least fairly reliable??? They surely wouldn't be foolish enough to produce thousands of one model that stalled every few miles??

If we look at reputable manufacturers like Audio Technica and Rode ..both which have new 2.4GHz Pro systems and around the $600 mark too ... surely they would never risk their good reputation in offering a 2.4Ghz system IF it wasn't going to work at all?

Why would good manufacturers even consider making a 2.4GHz wireless system if it didn't work ..even Sennheiser are bring one out shortly so there must be some good points on the system??

Richard Crowley · March 25th, 2015, 07:36 AM

Certainly there are many <US$400 wireless kits out there appealing to the bottom-feeders. But they generally prove to be fiddly, unreliable, plastic, disposable toys.

The new scheme of 2.4GHz digital products have many potential benefits, but also many potential problems. It is so new in the game that we just don't know whether the 2.4GHz digital scheme will be a great idea or not.

There have certainly been commercial products that the manufacturers spent millions on research and development, but turned out to be spectacular duds. So, IMHO, it is just not reasonable to think that just because something is a big-budget commercial product, it is automatically good.

Wireless technology is ALWAYS a compromise and NEVER perfect. Like most things in life, it is a trade-off decision of convenience vs. risk; cost vs. benefit.

Don Palomaki · March 25th, 2015, 07:46 AM

Most big companies will bring a product to market only if they feel confident it will sell. A few are as likely to float a failure as well in hopes their name alone will make it sell. (MS's BOB, and some Sony products for example).

ALL tools have limitations - even cables (tethers and trips). The trick is to find a tool that works for the application at hand. While the 2.4 may have a higher risk of interference and shorter range than current analog UHF, that may not be a problem in many applications. The trick is to know when and when not to use it. All part of being a professional, whether high or modest budget.

"Bottom feeders" is perhaps not the most polite term - try something more like limited budget operations. Bottom feeder brings with it an implication of non-professionalism and sleaze, at least in some contexts..

Chris Harding · March 25th, 2015, 08:53 AM

I have to agree that there are good and bad out there using the same technology! I found a Boya wireless mic set on eBay for under $100 but as expected most buyers tossed it in the bin and classed it as unusable! (I remember even buying a wireless setup on eBay many years ago with the same issues)

One would expect that something like the AT System 10 which is designed for video as being at least usable which justifies the $600 price tag where I am.

I guess what we need is a review and comments by someone using the system in the same environment as I am and giving it a thumbs up or thumbs down ... I bought a dual wireless system from Azden (the 330) for close to $1000 and seriously it was hopeless for a Church wedding ceremony, yet their cheaper L100 system using the same frequencies worked perfectly in all situations.

Sadly even a cable can fail miserably at a wedding if someone places a metal chair leg on it and splits it in two!!

I'd hate to fork out $600 for something that works fine in a review but fails in real life situations!!

The input here however is always greatly appreciated!!!

Richard Crowley · March 25th, 2015, 10:29 AM

Azden has a very poor reputation and it doesn't seem surprising that you found it problematic. It is more surprising that you found an Azden system that worked OK. It would have been instructive to hear exactly what were the symptoms that inspired your description as "hopeless".

Now that the weather has improved here in the Northern Hemisphere, I will have to go out and shoot some tests of my two AT System 10 kits. The issue with the 2.5GHz ISM band is both a blessing and a curse. While it is license-free around the planet, it also means that there is practically endless competition for the channels.

Chris Harding · March 25th, 2015, 07:20 PM

Hi Richard

I think the issue was the fact that Azden neglected to use true diversity receivers in the 330 system as it would need 4 antennas as the receiver is a dual unit. I was in a Church that was full to the brim and the system simply was dropping out every couple of seconds ....I guess it was struggling with the signal even though we were talking about maybe 50' at the most! I even had dropouts when the camera and groom were a mere 15' away from each other

Now, the issue at weddings is trying to hide the transmitter yet still not have the antenna attenuated by being covered in clothing .... I tend to put transmitters on the side of the grooms belt and let the antenna peek thru the split in his jacket. If you are testing any 2.4Ghz system it would be greatly appreciated if you might test signal strength with concealed and non concealed transmitter units and see if there are dropouts if a transmitter unit is dropped inside a deep trouser pocket, totally hidden from view, compared to being "seen" by the receiver when it's clipped on a belt out in the open air with nothing between the signal path to disrupt. In real life people will come between the transmitter and receiver so a practical test for me would be a blocked path between the two units as well as the transmitter not having a "clear view" of the receiver.

The review I posted seemed to me like the talent had the transmitter on his belt and was in full view of the camera at all times .... throw a few people between the two and see what happens?

Chris

Richard Crowley · March 25th, 2015, 11:18 PM

You don't need more than two antennas for diversity reception, no matter how many channels. Even Azden can figure out how to share a pair of antennas with multiple diversity receivers.

Did you check to see that you weren't colliding with any wireless mics at the venue?

Antennas don't have to be visible to be effective. But they need to be fully extended (not bunched up) and not right against the skin of the wearer (because the body absorbs the radio waves). The RF signal is also absorbed/attenuated if the antenna is on the OTHER SIDE of the person from the receiver.

The antennas (2 for diversity) in the AT System 10 are inside the plastic case of the transmitter (and receiver), so they don't have the problem of units with external antennas that can be folded, bunched, or attenuated.

March 25th, 2015, 06:35 AM	#61
Rick Reineke Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: New York Posts: 2,039	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? "solid and reliable without any dropouts or issues" A cable. otherwise , it ain't gonna happen. Even my $$$$ Lectro 400 series systems are not as good as a $20 cable..

March 25th, 2015, 07:02 AM	#62
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? I'm not trying to find good points with any system but surely any system ..either UHF or 2,4GHz should work in most instances if it's made by a well know manufacturer?? Just like a car .. would has to assume if General Motors spend millions of a new model and release it, it will run and it will get you from A to B consistently and be at least fairly reliable??? They surely wouldn't be foolish enough to produce thousands of one model that stalled every few miles?? If we look at reputable manufacturers like Audio Technica and Rode ..both which have new 2.4GHz Pro systems and around the $600 mark too ... surely they would never risk their good reputation in offering a 2.4Ghz system IF it wasn't going to work at all? Why would good manufacturers even consider making a 2.4GHz wireless system if it didn't work ..even Sennheiser are bring one out shortly so there must be some good points on the system??

March 25th, 2015, 07:36 AM	#63
Richard Crowley Trustee Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 1,238	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? Certainly there are many <US$400 wireless kits out there appealing to the bottom-feeders. But they generally prove to be fiddly, unreliable, plastic, disposable toys. The new scheme of 2.4GHz digital products have many potential benefits, but also many potential problems. It is so new in the game that we just don't know whether the 2.4GHz digital scheme will be a great idea or not. There have certainly been commercial products that the manufacturers spent millions on research and development, but turned out to be spectacular duds. So, IMHO, it is just not reasonable to think that just because something is a big-budget commercial product, it is automatically good. Wireless technology is ALWAYS a compromise and NEVER perfect. Like most things in life, it is a trade-off decision of convenience vs. risk; cost vs. benefit.

March 25th, 2015, 07:46 AM	#64
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,489	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? Most big companies will bring a product to market only if they feel confident it will sell. A few are as likely to float a failure as well in hopes their name alone will make it sell. (MS's BOB, and some Sony products for example). ALL tools have limitations - even cables (tethers and trips). The trick is to find a tool that works for the application at hand. While the 2.4 may have a higher risk of interference and shorter range than current analog UHF, that may not be a problem in many applications. The trick is to know when and when not to use it. All part of being a professional, whether high or modest budget. "Bottom feeders" is perhaps not the most polite term - try something more like limited budget operations. Bottom feeder brings with it an implication of non-professionalism and sleaze, at least in some contexts.. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

March 25th, 2015, 08:53 AM	#65
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? I have to agree that there are good and bad out there using the same technology! I found a Boya wireless mic set on eBay for under $100 but as expected most buyers tossed it in the bin and classed it as unusable! (I remember even buying a wireless setup on eBay many years ago with the same issues) One would expect that something like the AT System 10 which is designed for video as being at least usable which justifies the $600 price tag where I am. I guess what we need is a review and comments by someone using the system in the same environment as I am and giving it a thumbs up or thumbs down ... I bought a dual wireless system from Azden (the 330) for close to $1000 and seriously it was hopeless for a Church wedding ceremony, yet their cheaper L100 system using the same frequencies worked perfectly in all situations. Sadly even a cable can fail miserably at a wedding if someone places a metal chair leg on it and splits it in two!! I'd hate to fork out $600 for something that works fine in a review but fails in real life situations!! The input here however is always greatly appreciated!!!

March 25th, 2015, 10:29 AM	#66
Richard Crowley Trustee Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 1,238	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? Azden has a very poor reputation and it doesn't seem surprising that you found it problematic. It is more surprising that you found an Azden system that worked OK. It would have been instructive to hear exactly what were the symptoms that inspired your description as "hopeless". Now that the weather has improved here in the Northern Hemisphere, I will have to go out and shoot some tests of my two AT System 10 kits. The issue with the 2.5GHz ISM band is both a blessing and a curse. While it is license-free around the planet, it also means that there is practically endless competition for the channels.

March 25th, 2015, 07:20 PM	#67
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? Hi Richard I think the issue was the fact that Azden neglected to use true diversity receivers in the 330 system as it would need 4 antennas as the receiver is a dual unit. I was in a Church that was full to the brim and the system simply was dropping out every couple of seconds ....I guess it was struggling with the signal even though we were talking about maybe 50' at the most! I even had dropouts when the camera and groom were a mere 15' away from each other Now, the issue at weddings is trying to hide the transmitter yet still not have the antenna attenuated by being covered in clothing .... I tend to put transmitters on the side of the grooms belt and let the antenna peek thru the split in his jacket. If you are testing any 2.4Ghz system it would be greatly appreciated if you might test signal strength with concealed and non concealed transmitter units and see if there are dropouts if a transmitter unit is dropped inside a deep trouser pocket, totally hidden from view, compared to being "seen" by the receiver when it's clipped on a belt out in the open air with nothing between the signal path to disrupt. In real life people will come between the transmitter and receiver so a practical test for me would be a blocked path between the two units as well as the transmitter not having a "clear view" of the receiver. The review I posted seemed to me like the talent had the transmitter on his belt and was in full view of the camera at all times .... throw a few people between the two and see what happens? Chris

March 25th, 2015, 11:18 PM	#68
Richard Crowley Trustee Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 1,238	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? You don't need more than two antennas for diversity reception, no matter how many channels. Even Azden can figure out how to share a pair of antennas with multiple diversity receivers. Did you check to see that you weren't colliding with any wireless mics at the venue? Antennas don't have to be visible to be effective. But they need to be fully extended (not bunched up) and not right against the skin of the wearer (because the body absorbs the radio waves). The RF signal is also absorbed/attenuated if the antenna is on the OTHER SIDE of the person from the receiver. The antennas (2 for diversity) in the AT System 10 are inside the plastic case of the transmitter (and receiver), so they don't have the problem of units with external antennas that can be folded, bunched, or attenuated.