I am looking for a good wireless lav system under $1000 (I believe lectrosonics is out of the question at this point...).

Specifically, I've been looking at the Sennheiser Evolution G2 systems. I see that there are 100, 300, and 500 series systems. What is the difference between these? Is the difference a question of wireless range or one of sound quality?

Any ideas?

Evolution 100 series G3 would be the one (G2 is now discontinued).

300 series is mains receivers only as is 500 series.

500 series G2 has been replaced by 2000 series (this is top end G3).

The G3 and 2000 series camera receivers are now diversity (G2 was not).

I hope this helps.

You may also consider looking for used Lectro units...

G3 should be pretty good though. Still haven't heard from anyone who's used it much.

G3 should be pretty good though. Still haven't heard from anyone who's used it much.

Not surprising really, the G3 camera sets only came out very recently (this month I think).

not yet but soon. Prolly in Sept.

I have the 2000 body mic and AC powered rack receiver coming in for a review for TV Technology.

Ty

I have the 2000 body mic and AC powered rack receiver coming in for a review for TV Technology.


This is top end G3 with a 75MHz switching window.

BTW,

I asked them to send an MKE1 and MKE2 so I could hear the difference.

Ty

John's being quite modest really. The Sennheiser evo series from the first generation through to what I've heard about the G3 don't generate negative comments at all. From the users perspective, a system that can to a large degree be mixed and matched acording to needs, on top of decent quality, reliable electronics. Sennheiser made a sensible choice to offer a system where the more expensive ones were not better, quality wise, just had extra features with proper benefits. So a basic system that would never be required to change frequency or even be fiddled with was pretty cheap, price for price - but if you were touring and wanted quick access to the channels on either your license, then the higher ranges offer pre-programmed banks of channels and useful indicators on the display to show what is happening. There are cheaper systems on the market, but I've not bought any alternatives since I started using them on the first ones. I'm a happy user.

Natan:

Do some searching on here for the G2 threads and you can get a wealth of information.

I use it regularly with good results.

If you're willing to invest a few hundred more, you can get Audio Technica's ATW-1821 for about $1300. It will provide two wireless systems with a pair of body packs and a diversity receiver that will reduce dropouts to almost zero.

It also has a scanning feature that helps you select a clean channel to minimize the possibility of interference. That's saved me a few times.

The stock lav mics are OK but to get the most out of it, I'd recommend the AT899CW lavs. They're $170 each but they sound very good.

Dean, I use the AT1821 and it is an awesome system. I use Countryman EMWs but the 899s are very good mics. I think the 1821 is great value for dollar spent.
More people should look into the system. I really don't think the Sennheiser systems offer anything more than the AT and for the money youd'd spend on 2 you can get the AT.
As you can tell, I love the system.
Thanks for mentioning it

Dean, I use the AT1821 and it is an awesome system. I use Countryman EMWs but the 899s are very good mics. I think the 1821 is great value for dollar spent.

I have four wireless lavs feeding an Edirol R-44 and that allows me to get most of the key people aboard a typical fishing boat. I've used that a few times and so far it's worked nicely. I use time-of-day timecode to help sync camera with audio media in post.

The signals come through rock solid.

The receivers and recorder are mounted in a Pelican case and there's a short carbon fiber mast that supports all four antennas about 18" above the case. This makes it fairly compact and weather resistant.

Right now the receivers and recorder are powered with a nano-lithium battery pack I built. Runs for 5 hours. I'll come up with an arrangement that has more amp-hours which will save me from having to swap batteries at all if possible.

AT has a longer antenna which provides a bit more gain than the stock antennas. I had a kid fishing along the shoreline about 150 yards away and the signal was clean. I wasn't rolling at the time but it was an easy way to keep track of him when he wandered off. Sort of a one-way radio monitor. It was across the water with no obstructions. The transmitter was behind him, but that didn't seem to attenuate the signal much.

Generally, when discussing wireless lavalier systems, does the final sound quality of the recording (including the amount of noise/hiss and everything that would be considered quality) depend more on the microphone used or on the receiver and transmitter? When different systems are compared, is the only relevant info the quality of the receiver and the transmitter (and their capacity to transmit a clear signal without interference), with the idea that any lav mic can be used to improve the sound quality of system?

you need both. A good Xmitter and Receiver combination and quality mics. The better the system the better it will sound. The better the mic, the better it will sound. Now you can use a good system with not so mics and it would be better than using a low end system with top line mics but the better stuff you use the better the audio is.
Also keep in mind that SOME noise is from the camera itself (if you're going directly into the camera without a field mixer or seperate recorder). Depends on the settings you use on the camera among other things.

Don makes good points. The actual size of the diaphragm comes into play. The larger the diaphragm, usually the more sensitive the mic.

Smaller ones may sound better, but have more hiss. If the ambient noise is high enough, you'll be OK. If not, you will hear the hiss if the tracks are bare.

There's also something about how a particular lav mates with a particular transmitter. Lots of gray area here, but it's true.


Regards,

Ty Ford

If you're willing to invest a few hundred more, you can get Audio Technica's ATW-1821 for about $1300. It will provide two wireless systems with a pair of body packs and a diversity receiver that will reduce dropouts to almost zero.

I have an ATW 100 and plan to replace it with a G3. I love my ATW 100 and I can't remember the last time it dropped out. A G2 I was using dropped rarely, but occasionally. I'm hoping the G3 is more robust.

The main reason I'm going with Sennhesier is the smaller receiver for mounting on the hotshoe of an EX1 camera. Also I want a plug-on with phantom power. With Sennhesier I can get the SKP 2000 and have a wireless shotgun.

I've found the G2s to be extremely reliable, both indoors and outside, even in theatres with 10+ channels of stage mics and other radio stuff present. I found it hard to believe they weren't diversity at first. G3s should be rock solid (or as near as you get with wireless).

.... Also I want a plug-on with phantom power. With Sennhesier I can get the SKP 2000 and have a wireless shotgun.

Not a bad idea but don't forget the boom operator needs to hear the mic in order to keep it positioned properly. With a plug-on tranmitter on the mic itself, he can't do that. Perhaps a better solution for wireless booming is a headphone amp/mic preamp such as a Sound Devices MM-1 worn on the op's belt and whose output is connected to the line input of a beltpack transmitter he also wears. The MM-1 supplies phantom so the transmitter actually doesn't need to. Of course, if you plan to use a stick mic from time to time, having a plug-on available that does supply phantom will increase your flexibility and the number of mic options you have to work with.

The size of the diaphragm makes a difference, but in practical terms, all condensers are more sensitive than dynamics. I have yet to find a condenser microphone at any price point that has any form of noise issue in normal useage. Noise in a microphone chain that includes a radio link invariably comes from RF issues. The reduction in signal to noise that results from poor signal strength is the prime culprit for noisy mic channels. Some cheap input stages on cameras or audio mixers are a little noisy, especially in quiet locations when the auto gain kicks in. The small omni mics found on cheaper radio systems are made from commonly available electret condenser elements that cost just a few dollars/pounds and I've never found any of these to be noticably noisy.

There is no doubt that moving from say a ME2 to a MKE2 will result in better sound, but these differences are not the kind that hit you in the face. Clarity and tone get better, handling noise seems to reduce. Better ones also have a smoother frequency response, especially at the top end - perhaps more important for live use with a PA, where feedback control is more predictable.

For video work, where the recording environment is often flawed, there is a limit to the value in having expensive microphones when the actual audio is compromised before you start. I can think of plenty of occasions I've used a $50 lav mic rather than a $500 one and not heard the difference. However, in a controlled, acoustically nice room, the expensive one has fine detail that the other won't have.

I used to do live TV here in the UK and we did one regular programme from a converted scenery store, next to one of the big studios. From time to time we needed extra kit which was hired in to suit the show, and in the sound suite the audio quality of the various mics could be clearly heard. The expensive Countryman mics were actually more difficult - they clearly picked up a low level rumble from the air con, while the cheaper Audio technicas on the hired in kit didn't. We rolled off the low end on the desk on the Countrymans to get rid of the rumble - and once done, I don't think the difference was worth talking about.

Not a bad idea but don't forget the boom operator needs to hear the mic in order to keep it positioned properly. With a plug-on tranmitter on the mic itself, he can't do that. Perhaps a better solution for wireless booming is a headphone amp/mic preamp such as a Sound Devices MM-1 worn on the op's belt

Yeah that would be ideal, but would require a crew of three. Camera, sound and interviewer. These days I'm doing everything stripped down. So the interviewer usually holds the mic. Or sometimes I do all three roles.

I have a Shure headphone amp that doesn't phantom power which would work for a boom operator in that rare situation I have a sound person.

Yeah that would be ideal, but would require a crew of three. Camera, sound and interviewer. These days I'm doing everything stripped down. So the interviewer usually holds the mic. Or sometimes I do all three roles.

I have a Shure headphone amp that doesn't phantom power which would work for a boom operator in that rare situation I have a sound person.

Surely you don't mean you're using a shotgun as a handheld mic in the hands of an interviewer or you are trying to operate camera and boom by yourself? If the interviewer is holding the mic, a reporter's stick mic such as an EV 635 or RE-50 or a Sennheiser MD46 is a much better option than a typical boom mic - less handling noise, etc - and as they are dynamic mics, no phantom is required.