Decent wireless bodypack

[Kathy Smith]

I know Lectrosonics make one of the best wireless bodypacks but they are too expensive for me. I'm not looking for cheap but a set for no more than $1000 without a microphone. Any recommendations?

[Edward Carlson]

The Sennheiser G3 series are my go-to for inexpensive wireless.

[Richard Crowley]

Yes, the Sennheiser G3 has long been considered the lowest-price DECENT wireless system. But that is 20 year old technology and picking a frequency band that isn't about to be taken away by the Government is getting more tricky.

However the new 2.4GHz digital wireless kits are becoming popular. Not only because of the high-performance digital technology and the lower prices, but also because they operate on an ISM band which is free to use without licence essentially anywhere in the world. Something that is important for folk to work at international locations.

Some of the 2.4GHz digital wireless products include:
* RodeLink RØDE Microphones - RØDELink Filmmaker Kit
* Audio Technica System 10 Portable Camera-Mount Digital Wireless System | System 10 || Audio-Technica US
* Azden PRO-XD PRO-XD Digital Wireless Microphone System For Cameras, Smartphones & Tablets

There are other makers of digital wireless systems (like Shure) but they don't appear to offer compact camera-mount receivers.

[Edward Carlson]

You forgot the Sennheiser AVX system. It has a compact camera-mount receiver. I've used it with good results, but I'm not about to put all my eggs in the 2.4GHz basket yet.

[Richard Crowley]

Yes, the Sennheiser AVX system was almost included on my list, but Ms. Smith seemed to be looking for lower priced solutions. The ME2 system is $700 in the body-pack/lav version which is around double what the other 2.4GHz digital systems are selling for.

[Kathy Smith]

I looked into Sennheiser AVX, it is under $1000 but it has delay issues.
The other sets Richard listed are so cheap that makes me leery about their quality. I already have a crappy wireless set (Shure FP5 receiver with SLX1 transmitter). I'm hoping to get something of a better quality.

[Richard Crowley]

Sub-$400 wireless kits are rather deserving of the reputation of lousy performance when speaking of old analog technology. However, the ubiquitious proliferation of 2.4GHz consumer gear (WiFi, BlueTooth, et.al.) has made that digital technology very inexpensive and easy to design and cheap to build. So IMHO, the new-generation digital wireless mics cannot be lumped together with the old-technology analog wireless gear.

I have G3 and System 10 and PRO-XD kits and I keep promising to make an A-B-C comparison video. Maybe I should get a RodeLink and try them all.

[Rick Reineke]

In my experience, the Sennheiser AVX worked ok (though my usage was in a rural area) The frequency blocks however are below the 'already' crowded 2.4 GHz wireless range. The 18ms latency is discerning when monitoring close by the talent. It goes for around $900 with a decent mic. The receiver uses a rechargeable battery packs which can be swapped. (about $50 each) It turns on/off though with a Phantom Power audio connection.
The Rode and AT bodypack transmitters are larger than the Sennheiser or Azden. Azden gear doesn't have a great rep but I haven't personally used any in quite a while. It also has rechargeable batteries, so when they go depleted, the device will need recharge time.
With all these type of systems, a multi-cam hop with one transmitter is not possible.

[Kathy Smith]

Rick

What do you mean by "a multi-cam hop with one transmitter is not possible"?

[Rick Reineke]

With traditional VHF and UHF systems, multiple receivers with a single transmitter (all tuned the same frequency) will work perfectly. I do this frequently on multi-camera shoots, each camera gets the exact same mix. My audio recorder gets the same mix as well plus the ISO tracks. It's great in lieu of lock boxes and a great back-up when the TC goes south. Can't do that with new 2.4 Ghz digital systems where separate (transmitter/receiver) systems, would be needed for each cam.

[Richard Crowley]

Yes, the low-cost digital systems are based on 1:1 protocols (like WiFi and BlueTooth) where each block of data is transmitted to a specific receiver. But the older analog systems were exactly like AM or FM broadcast radio where a transmitter blasts the signal out into the air for anybody who wishes to receive the signal.

One advantage to the digital systems is "automatic pairing" so you don't have to fiddle with the transmitter and/or receiver frequency/channel to get them synchronized. But the downside is that it is 1:1 and there is no "broadcast mode".

[Brian P. Reynolds]

When the frequency changed happened in Australia I went with Sony UWP-D-16 rather than the Sennheiser G3 series.
The reason being is that the Sony had a 'plug on' Tx unit that delivered phantom power (the lower end Sennheiser doesn't) this has significantly changed my location sound set up, I now have a wireless boom pole. Also doing sit down interviews are SO easy now just use 2x phantom powered shotguns or Hyper mics, plug on Tx and NO cables to setup........ easy.

[Andrew Smith]

I'm using the Rode gear and it's fantastic. Wouldn't ever go back.

Andrew

[Don Palomaki]

Rode claims 3x the range of the AT or Azden system. Presumably all three spec distance under line-of-sight optimum conditions. Is the Rode receiver really that much more sensitive?

[Andrew Smith]

I've never had problems with it, except for one recent usage in Adelaide.

I was getting very low distance out of the receiver for a good reliable signal. Eventually realised that it was because we had placed the TX unit between the legs of the woman (whilst she was sitting down), and that she was absorbing the bulk of the RF signal in to her legs. Placed it elsewhere and the problem was solved.

Andrew