decent cheap wireless lav system?

[Peter Wu]

What is the cheapest wireless lavalier system (body transmitter, receiver, and lavalier mic) that meets these requirements:

no static or interference noise when used within, say, 50 feet
won't break when dropped on ground from 4 feet high

I have a sennheiser ew100 g2 that meets the first requirement. Not sure the second (never dropped and don't plan to test). There are more inexpensive choices in wireless system since I bought my set, any of them good?

This is used for podcast type of video with several people speaking. A wired system could be messy with people tripping over each other's cable. A pocket recorder with lav could also work, but I feel better being able to monitor the sound when I shoot.

[Richard Crowley]

By coincidence, over on another audio for video forum there is a "love fest" for the RODElink wireless kit. This is quite unusual as most of the online forums are filled with people complaining about the gear they are using.

Ref: Røde Video Wireless Compliment

Because countries around the world are "re-purposing" wireless bandwidth, all our older wireless gear has gone (or is in the process of going) obsolete and illegal. The new paradigm is to use the 2.4GHz "ISM" band which is is license-free and reliably protected everywhere around the planet at least for a few decades. This is the same band used by WiFi, Bluetooth, and microwave ovens.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band

Because microcomputers are dirt-cheap it is easy and inexpensive to make gear that constantly monitors the 13 channels in the 2.4GHz and switches channels on-the-fly to avoid interference from other users of the 2.4GHz band.

There are several wireless microphone products now available that use the 2.4GHz band. From the Azden Pro-XD to the RODElink to the Audio Technica System 10 to the Shure GLXD and perhaps others as well. The RODElink is rather at the lower end of price range of 2.4 GHz. Azden is typically the lowest cost representative of most product ranges (and with a somewhat deserved poor reputation).

Azden: PRO-XD Digital Wireless Microphone System for Video | Azden
Rode: RØDE Microphones - RØDELink Filmmaker Kit
AT: https://eu.audio-technica.com/wirele...ries/system-10
Shure: ULX-D Digital Wireless Systems | Shure Americas

My personal opinion is that even the low-end Azden PRO-XD is quite high performance at a surprising low price. But because of long-held prejudice against Azden, we are unlikely to see a similar "I love Azden" discusson anytime soon.

Note that essentially all wireless mic kits (mic, transmitter, and receiver) have separate, interchangeable microphones which connect to the transmitter "body pack". Don't confuse the performance of the microphone with the performance of the transmitter/receiver. Most wireless mic kits come with a default, rather low-quality microphone. Many serious users substitute a higher-quality microphone to use with their wireless kits.

People who make comments about the "audio quality" of a wireless kit are talking about the microphone, not the transmitter/receiver. If you don't like the microphone, you can get a different mic. It is becoming more popular to use a "headset" or "earset" mic with a very tiny wand that places the microphone on the subject's cheek right next to the mouth. This is often an excellent way to get good audio pickup in a noisy or reverberant environment.. Many of us like OscarSoundTech as a good vendor of good quality mics at sensible prices. And they can make a mic of your choice with the connector that matches whichever wireless transmitter you have.

Ref: Home

[John Nantz]

Dang, Richard, what a GREAT reply and good read!

This was the first post I read when logging in and … awesome. Throw in a few pictures and feature comparisons and you have a magazine article.

This is one thing I don’t have yet, a wireless mic system. Well, except for one really old early 1980s RCA lav but it’s probably not legal to use. Even have the original box and instructions for it. Been looking at the Sennheiser ENG system for years, went from the new G2 and now the G3, but never sprung loose with the money for it. Will most likely have a need for something this for summer so I might test the water with one of these that you mentioned.

Thanks to your post I might get one because this will speed up my research time which is always time consuming, and time is precious. My use would be out on a boat so, hopefully, mostly out of range of conflicting signals.

Edit: Good post by the OP also.

[Peter Wu]

Thanks Richard for the detail response.

Good point about wireless bandwidth and the 2.4Mhz system. My wireless set is still in the legal band, but do people really stop using the ones in the illegal bands?

I did notice many people are raving about the rode link. I'll put it on my wishlist :)

[Rob Neidig]

Richard's reply is excellent as usual. I would only add a few things:

It's probably true that when most people talk about wireless quality they are talking about the quality of the lav mic. But the build and algorithms used in the transmitter/receiver can also have a big effect. There is a big step up from the Sennheiser G2 and G3 units to Lectrosonics, for instance. Some of it is that Lectro units tend to be used with higher end mics, but Lectro's full systems are just better made with better software to control the "hop". They also tend to work better at longer distances, are less prone to break, but of course also cost a lot more.

Latency can be a problem with some of the newer 2.4GHz based systems. Latency is delay introduced by the system, so if you hear the person directly, you will hear the voice through the system a split second later. If latency is small, then it's not such a big deal. But with some of the systems, it not only drives the audio person crazy to hear the live sound and then a delayed sound through their system, but it can mean extra work in post production to sync it all up as well.

And finally, and least important really, is the "name brand" recognition. This is not at all an issue if you are shooting your own projects or if you are a hobbyist. It can be an issue if you are freelancing for larger production companies. They may not hire you if you say you use Azden gear, for instance. Shallow, I know, but that's the reality.

Have fun!

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Peter Wu

A wired system could be messy with people tripping over each other's cable.

Maybe, but you'll pay a steep price to go wireless just because of this. Wireless is a last resort, not a first. Only use wireless if you can't get it done any other way.

A good XLR cable sounds better, costs way less, and is far more reliable than any wireless made. This is true now and has always been true and likely always will be true.

If you have trouble with people tripping over your XLR cables, learn to tape them down with some Gaffers' Tape. A roll of Gaffers' tape is way cheaper than any wireless system.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I agree with Bruce. If you have a fixed location you might be able to leave most of the wires in place. Wireless is expensive, shrinking usable spectrum, interference and lower audio quality, replacing or charging batteries. If you're filming in a small room most any cheap wireless will work. The more expensive systems are built for more challenging situations.

[Steven Digges]

Originally Posted by Peter Wu

Thanks Richard for the detail response.

Good point about wireless bandwidth and the 2.4Mhz system. My wireless set is still in the legal band, but do people really stop using the ones in the illegal bands?

Yes....professionals do stop using banned frequency mics. I have two sure units that have not been used since a ban several years ago. One day, good mics, day after ban, boat anchors. Very frustrating.

The chances of "getting caught" and facing the outrageous fines may be almost slim to none. Who knows? It is agamble not worth taking. But the main reason I would never use them is because those frequencies are banned because they become repurposed. Almost always for use by those broadcasting much more powerful signals than wireless mics. Your going to take hits. Sometimes it may be from emergency responders. When I am on one of my shoots I do not want local police and fire traffic being recorded on my audio tracks ;-)

Steve

[Rick Reineke]

I concur with Richard, most of the mics that are included with the systems work... but are not even close to premium quality. Even the with Lectro systems, their M series mics could be better.
I also concur the OST mics are a good bang for the buck. OST's customer service is very good as well.

"do people really stop using the ones in the illegal bands"?"
- Only if they get interference or are arrested. You will not be arrested for using the 600 MHz range until July 2020. Interference depends where you are and that is expanding rapidly.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

If you’re filming a podcast at home you most likely could get away with using an older banned wireless. Like Steve said no pro is going to risk a paid gig using banned unit that could fail in the middle of a live event.

[Steven Digges]

Originally Posted by Rick Reineke

"do people really stop using the ones in the illegal bands"?"
- Only if they get interference or are arrested. You will not be arrested for using the 600 MHz range until July 2020. Interference depends where you are and that is expanding rapidly.

Rick always says it better than me.

And what difference does it make if it is a home podcast or a corporate interview when you interfere with federal regulations?

Steve

[Richard Crowley]

As for using old gear, at least here in the US, they have already taken away the 700 MHz band.

Ref: https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-...d-700-mhz-band

And the 600 MHz band has seen a large portion auctioned off to put more billions of $$$ into that black hole of the US Federal budget. And it will be completely gone in a very few years.

Ref: https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-...ss-microphones

Can you get away with using older, illegal gear? Maybe. Do you feel lucky, punk? (Ref: Dirty Harry) Perhaps if you are operating in West Undershirt, Wyoming where the nearest police/fire/ambulance is 300 miles away. But I wouldn't tempt fate by doing that in any big city.

It is true that back in the analog era, there was a definite difference in audio performance between low-end products and high-end pro gear. But with all the heavy lifting transferred to the digital domain, my perception is that the difference of performance is greatly narrowed. OTOH, there remains a difference in RF performance (sensitivity, rejection, etc.) and certainly in build-quality. And a lot of the gear tends to use built-in rechargeable batteries (from 5V USB) which isn't necessarily all that convenient in hectic professional situations.

Yes, latency is one significant downside of the new digital world. It takes time (milliseconds) to encode and decode, and even more ms to implement frequency-hopping and error detection and correction. For lower-end video productions, this may be only a minor annoyance requiring one to "slip" the audio track a few frames to match the video during post-production. But in a pro environment, especially one with many mics, and most especially in a live-event situation, this could become a show-stopper.

And we must never forget that wireless mics are NEVER EVER the first choice unless there is some significantly compelling reason to use them. It will always be true that your average $30 XLR cable is INFINITELY more reliable than even a $3000 wireless kit.

[Jonathan Levin]

I've been wondering: How would authorities actually go about tracking down offenders? It's not like there is some kind of GPS in a wireless mic. Has anyone actually been caught and charged yet?

Maybe the answer is obvious, but just curious.

[Richard Crowley]

Offenders are typically discovered by the legal users of the channel and reported to the authorities (i.e. the FCC in the USA).
And the offenders are located by the usual law-enforcement detective methods. But in the case of RF, made easier by using Radio Direction Finding

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding

Back in the "good old days" the FCC had patrol vehicles with big loop antennas that could triangulate the offenders. But in modern times I have never heard of the FCC going out themselves on simple patrols. They don't have the resources to do that anymore. They react to complaints from offended users these days.

[Jonathan Levin]

Thanks for that Richard. Always appreciate your vast knowledge and wisdom!