Holy Smoke! AT 1800

Jeff Mack · March 8th, 2007, 04:24 PM

Hey Nate,

I posted this earlier but I never left a link. I use http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Produc...4MTRE3_content

I bought this as an in ear monitor system for bands when you can't use wedges. Now when I need multiple lav's, I can hook 4 lines in to each, mix them right and left and send a mix out or 4 channels to my laptop. I use the bodypack with a mini to XLR and clip it on my belt so it's always where I need to run & gun. I know it's not as portable as Spot's but I can get good reference on my tape while simultaneously sending signals to my laptop for better editing.

What do you think?

Jeff Mack

Douglas Spotted Eagle · March 8th, 2007, 08:23 PM

it's a great idea. I do much the same thing using a Firestation/Garwood system. This is an awesome means of monitoring a boom-mounted mic as well.
I'm one of those guys that believes in always monitoring a boom or any other mic, so the Garwood is perfect for me, allowing our boom ops to monitor two mics, a radio in one and boom in the other.

Vincent Rozenberg · March 11th, 2007, 01:59 PM

Can anyone compare these AT's with Sennheiser's G2's in terms of audio quality (besides it's diversity vs non) and build. And does the diversity really works on these ones, because I hear a lot of negative reactions from audio guys if I tell them that you can get a dual diversity kit for less then 1500...

Dean Sensui · March 12th, 2007, 02:04 PM

Vincent...

Can't say how they sound compared to the G2's as I don't have G2's. But they do compare favorably to a Lectrosonic that I had, when I compared an AT system to a Lectro system using the same Countryman B3 mics.

As for diversity, these have individual receiver circuits and are supposedly true diversity units. You can see the receiver switching between the two antennas as the signal varies. Ideally the antennas should be much farther apart for really take advantage of a diversity unit. If you have the space and cabling you can rig them that way since the receiver has BNC antenna connectors. But trying to do that when everything is mounted on a camera isn't easy.

The build quality seems good. The transmitter has a plastic body that seems rugged enough. It's lightweight and the controls are easy to use. One of the transmitter's been dropped already. The talent stood up with the mic still attached. The transmitter was only resting on the chair and dropped almost two feet onto a stone floor. No damage.

The receiver is metal. The readout and frequency control is on the top. The output jacks and controls, however, are on the bottom. Could be hard for some to get at these, depending on how it's mounted on the camera.

The output jacks are mini-XLR's. AT provides a pair of short cables which adapt to standard XLR connectors. Or you can make your own to suit your particular setup.

All the mic and output jacks are multi-pin locking-type connectors. Way better than 1/8" TRS audio plugs. Connections are positive and stay in place.

Vincent Rozenberg · March 12th, 2007, 02:21 PM

Thanks a bunch Dean, for this information. So basically you say that you can compare the AT with a Lectrosonics, in terms of audio quality, or even better then. What about receive? Is that comparable as well? One of my sound guys uses Lectrosonics and I'm very happy with them, but if these are comparable and just at a fraction of the costs...

Dean Sensui · March 12th, 2007, 02:38 PM

Vincent...

I'd say that the audio quality seems to be at least as good as the Lectro 185 that I was using. I notice a little bit of compression/expansion occasionally but not much.

Some of the Lectro units also put out a stronger signal. Up to 100 milliwatts, compared to 30 milliwatts. The stronger the signal the more reliable the signal can be. But so far I haven't had any dropouts or interference problems with this AT system.

I don't know if these AT units can hold up as well as the Lectro units in the long run -- some of those things go through a heck of a lot of abuse over a long period of time and keep coming back for more. Lectros are built like tanks and are milled from a solid piece of aluminum. That kind of workmanship doesn't come cheaply.

But for what I do the AT's are a great value. Especially considering their features.

Chris Li · March 13th, 2007, 06:56 AM

Dean,
Can AT receiver (or any diversity receiver) function well in a horizontal position? I often use a Jimmy Box under my HVX/HDV cameras with non-diversity systems.

Aloha,

chris /DC metro dop

Dean Sensui · March 13th, 2007, 12:53 PM

Chris...

The unit itself can be in any orientation. But the antennas will work best if they're vertically oriented and clear of any obstructions as much as possible. That's true with any type of radio receiver.

It would be possible to set up the antennas on a bracket, place them high on the camera, and run a pair of coax cables to the receiver below.

You could also connect the antennas with a 90-degree BNC connector and point the antennas downward. A lot of aircraft have their radar transponder antennas mounted that way under the fuselage.

Ty Ford · March 13th, 2007, 01:58 PM

Having transmit and receive antennas oriented in the same plane works, regardless of whether they are up or down or whatever. Having a bigger receive antenna also helps increase range and cut down on interference.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Dean Sensui · March 13th, 2007, 02:24 PM

For greater efficiency you could use a full-wave antenna and ditch the less-efficient rubber ducky antenna. A full-wave antenna at these UHF frequencies (about 600 MHz to 700 MHz) would be about 17 inches long. A metal mounting bar could act as a decent ground plane.

For diversity systems, a minimum of a quarter-wave of spacing is recommended. So in this case the antennas should be at least 4 to 5 inches apart. Preferably wider. Some recommend 2x to 10x the wavelength as the distance between the two antennas, and in this case that comes to 8.5 inches to more than 42 inches.

For ideal reception antennas should be oriented based on the desired polarity of the radio signal. For omnidirectional applications, vertically oriented antennas are preferred. For certain beam applications, a horizontally oriented antenna might be employed. In either application, both the transmission antenna and the receiving antenna should share the same orientation.

In what we do the ideal situation isn't likely to be maintained. But to ensure the best possible performance, it's better to create a setup that is as efficient as practical.

I just thought of something: Since this is a diversity system, what if one antenna were oriented vertically and the other horizontally.

Then you're covered in both axis should the transmission orientation shift.

A dual diversity/multiple polarity system... Now that sounds impressive!

:-)

Douglas Spotted Eagle · March 13th, 2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Sensui

I
A dual diversity/multiple polarity system... Now that sounds impressive!

:-)

? sounds like my X's personality. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Dean Sensui · March 13th, 2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

? sounds like my X's personality. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Yikes!

Another consideration: My other AT wireless receivers got a bad case of RF noise when placed adjacent to a Firestore FS-100. Needed at least a few feet of separation to mimimize that problem. Even then it wasn't entirely eliminated.

Another source of RF noise: LaCie external hard drives. I was able to pick them up a few feet away, through a wall consisting of two 1/2" layers of drywall.

I don't know if other more expensive units, such as the Lectrosonics, are immune from this kind of interference.

Ty Ford · March 13th, 2007, 09:31 PM

Which AT receivers.

Ty Ford

Dean Sensui · March 13th, 2007, 09:48 PM

That was the ATW-101x.

Operates around 700 MHz or so.

Focus Enhancements said that the Firestore was a Class A device and that there was the possibility of RF interference. Matt from Focus sent some ferrite chokes for the Firewire cable to see if it would solve the problem but there was still RF being picked up.

Ty Ford · March 13th, 2007, 09:55 PM

Dean,

I'm going out on a limb here, but I have heard of proximity problems with the Sound Devices 744T and some wireless mics in certain frequency ranges. Not always heard as noise, but as a reduction of range.

I have an FS4Pro and a U100 (no x) in the higher frequency range. Haven't tried them together yet. The different receive frequency MAY make a difference.

I'm sort of jammed, but I'll try to check my FS4 pro. Is that what you have?

Regards,

Ty

March 8th, 2007, 04:24 PM	#16
Jeff Mack Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: McKinney, TX Posts: 195	Convenient Hey Nate, I posted this earlier but I never left a link. I use http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Produc...4MTRE3_content I bought this as an in ear monitor system for bands when you can't use wedges. Now when I need multiple lav's, I can hook 4 lines in to each, mix them right and left and send a mix out or 4 channels to my laptop. I use the bodypack with a mini to XLR and clip it on my belt so it's always where I need to run & gun. I know it's not as portable as Spot's but I can get good reference on my tape while simultaneously sending signals to my laptop for better editing. What do you think? Jeff Mack

March 8th, 2007, 08:23 PM	#17
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	it's a great idea. I do much the same thing using a Firestation/Garwood system. This is an awesome means of monitoring a boom-mounted mic as well. I'm one of those guys that believes in always monitoring a boom or any other mic, so the Garwood is perfect for me, allowing our boom ops to monitor two mics, a radio in one and boom in the other. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

March 12th, 2007, 02:04 PM	#19
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	Vincent... Can't say how they sound compared to the G2's as I don't have G2's. But they do compare favorably to a Lectrosonic that I had, when I compared an AT system to a Lectro system using the same Countryman B3 mics. As for diversity, these have individual receiver circuits and are supposedly true diversity units. You can see the receiver switching between the two antennas as the signal varies. Ideally the antennas should be much farther apart for really take advantage of a diversity unit. If you have the space and cabling you can rig them that way since the receiver has BNC antenna connectors. But trying to do that when everything is mounted on a camera isn't easy. The build quality seems good. The transmitter has a plastic body that seems rugged enough. It's lightweight and the controls are easy to use. One of the transmitter's been dropped already. The talent stood up with the mic still attached. The transmitter was only resting on the chair and dropped almost two feet onto a stone floor. No damage. The receiver is metal. The readout and frequency control is on the top. The output jacks and controls, however, are on the bottom. Could be hard for some to get at these, depending on how it's mounted on the camera. The output jacks are mini-XLR's. AT provides a pair of short cables which adapt to standard XLR connectors. Or you can make your own to suit your particular setup. All the mic and output jacks are multi-pin locking-type connectors. Way better than 1/8" TRS audio plugs. Connections are positive and stay in place. __________________ Dean Sensui Exec Producer, Hawaii Goes Fishing

March 12th, 2007, 02:21 PM	#20
Vincent Rozenberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 475	Thanks a bunch Dean, for this information. So basically you say that you can compare the AT with a Lectrosonics, in terms of audio quality, or even better then. What about receive? Is that comparable as well? One of my sound guys uses Lectrosonics and I'm very happy with them, but if these are comparable and just at a fraction of the costs... Last edited by Vincent Rozenberg; March 12th, 2007 at 03:16 PM.

March 12th, 2007, 02:38 PM	#21
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	Vincent... I'd say that the audio quality seems to be at least as good as the Lectro 185 that I was using. I notice a little bit of compression/expansion occasionally but not much. Some of the Lectro units also put out a stronger signal. Up to 100 milliwatts, compared to 30 milliwatts. The stronger the signal the more reliable the signal can be. But so far I haven't had any dropouts or interference problems with this AT system. I don't know if these AT units can hold up as well as the Lectro units in the long run -- some of those things go through a heck of a lot of abuse over a long period of time and keep coming back for more. Lectros are built like tanks and are milled from a solid piece of aluminum. That kind of workmanship doesn't come cheaply. But for what I do the AT's are a great value. Especially considering their features. __________________ Dean Sensui Exec Producer, Hawaii Goes Fishing

March 11th, 2007, 01:59 PM	#18
Vincent Rozenberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 475	Can anyone compare these AT's with Sennheiser's G2's in terms of audio quality (besides it's diversity vs non) and build. And does the diversity really works on these ones, because I hear a lot of negative reactions from audio guys if I tell them that you can get a dual diversity kit for less then 1500...

March 13th, 2007, 06:56 AM	#22
Chris Li Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wash. DC area Posts: 154	Receiver position Dean, Can AT receiver (or any diversity receiver) function well in a horizontal position? I often use a Jimmy Box under my HVX/HDV cameras with non-diversity systems. Aloha, chris /DC metro dop

March 13th, 2007, 12:53 PM	#23
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	Chris... The unit itself can be in any orientation. But the antennas will work best if they're vertically oriented and clear of any obstructions as much as possible. That's true with any type of radio receiver. It would be possible to set up the antennas on a bracket, place them high on the camera, and run a pair of coax cables to the receiver below. You could also connect the antennas with a 90-degree BNC connector and point the antennas downward. A lot of aircraft have their radar transponder antennas mounted that way under the fuselage. __________________ Dean Sensui Exec Producer, Hawaii Goes Fishing

March 13th, 2007, 01:58 PM	#24
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Having transmit and receive antennas oriented in the same plane works, regardless of whether they are up or down or whatever. Having a bigger receive antenna also helps increase range and cut down on interference. Regards, Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

March 13th, 2007, 02:24 PM	#25
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	For greater efficiency you could use a full-wave antenna and ditch the less-efficient rubber ducky antenna. A full-wave antenna at these UHF frequencies (about 600 MHz to 700 MHz) would be about 17 inches long. A metal mounting bar could act as a decent ground plane. For diversity systems, a minimum of a quarter-wave of spacing is recommended. So in this case the antennas should be at least 4 to 5 inches apart. Preferably wider. Some recommend 2x to 10x the wavelength as the distance between the two antennas, and in this case that comes to 8.5 inches to more than 42 inches. For ideal reception antennas should be oriented based on the desired polarity of the radio signal. For omnidirectional applications, vertically oriented antennas are preferred. For certain beam applications, a horizontally oriented antenna might be employed. In either application, both the transmission antenna and the receiving antenna should share the same orientation. In what we do the ideal situation isn't likely to be maintained. But to ensure the best possible performance, it's better to create a setup that is as efficient as practical. I just thought of something: Since this is a diversity system, what if one antenna were oriented vertically and the other horizontally. Then you're covered in both axis should the transmission orientation shift. A dual diversity/multiple polarity system... Now that sounds impressive! :-) __________________ Dean Sensui Exec Producer, Hawaii Goes Fishing

March 13th, 2007, 09:31 PM	#28
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Which AT receivers. Ty Ford __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog

March 13th, 2007, 09:48 PM	#29
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	That was the ATW-101x. Operates around 700 MHz or so. Focus Enhancements said that the Firestore was a Class A device and that there was the possibility of RF interference. Matt from Focus sent some ferrite chokes for the Firewire cable to see if it would solve the problem but there was still RF being picked up. __________________ Dean Sensui Exec Producer, Hawaii Goes Fishing

March 13th, 2007, 09:55 PM	#30
Ty Ford Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 2,337	Dean, I'm going out on a limb here, but I have heard of proximity problems with the Sound Devices 744T and some wireless mics in certain frequency ranges. Not always heard as noise, but as a reduction of range. I have an FS4Pro and a U100 (no x) in the higher frequency range. Haven't tried them together yet. The different receive frequency MAY make a difference. I'm sort of jammed, but I'll try to check my FS4 pro. Is that what you have? Regards, Ty __________________ Ty Ford's Audio Bootcamp Field Guide Ty Ford's Audio Video Blog