I am considering buying a pair of either AT-899s or Shure MX184s to use in the field. However, I am wondering if I could also use them in a studio setting instead of current radio mics we use, which we connect to a mic processor, specifically a dbx-286a. Would this sound good or should mics of this type NOT be connected to a processor?

Technically, any microphone with a conventional XLR connector can be plugged into the DBX-286. That would appear to include the AT899 (assuming the standard XLR option) or the Shure MX184 (again, assuming a standard XLR connector version). Most lavs (including the AT and Sure models you mention) require phantom power, but the DBX-286 provides phantom power.

A Phantom Power adapter and /or battery adapter can be purchased for most wireless mic plugs, however they ain't cheap. For instance the Tram TR-79 is $170+. This an extreme case, but it will still cost at least $50 for a RODE or OST.

If you are asking about lav mics that can be used with BOTH wireless body-pack transmitters AND with conventional XLR inputs, then I highly recommend the Rode Lav mic. It not only has a field-replaceable cable, but also field-interchangeable connectors for either XLR or wireless use.

Also available as a headset mic with the same features. I like mine so much I am buying another 1 or 2. Rode's interchangeable connectors (including phantom-powered XLR) are VERY inexpensive (US$25) in comparison to the vastly overpriced adapters other vendors try to foist on us.

Lav mics typically require low voltage power (in the range of 6V) from the wireless transceivers. This means they won't work with the 48V phantom power typically delivered XLRs on mic processors. Not to mention the different connectors.

I second the Rode Lavalier as a very flexible system with a good price for good sound.

Lav mics typically require low voltage power (in the range of 6V) from the wireless transceivers. This means they won't work with the 48V phantom power typically delivered XLRs on mic processors. Not to mention the different connectors.

I second the Rode Lavalier as a very flexible system with a good price for good sound.

Do the AT-899s or Shure MX184s not work with 48v phantom power?

Your question is incomplete and impossible to answer. Those microphones are available in versions and there is no single answer possible that covers all the versions.
If you are asking about the XLR versions of those microphones, then yes, you can connect them to a mic input with phantom power. Indeed they likely REQUIRE phantom power (or else an internal battery).
If you are asking about the wireless body-pack transmitter version of those microphones, then NO they DO NOT operate on the kind of "P48" phantom power you see from an XLR input.
There are adapters available for SOME microphones that allow a wireless-style lav mic to be used with an XLR output (and P48 phantom power).
And there are the Rode lav and headset mics which are designed with interchangeable connectors for either the wireless transmitters or for direct connection to conventional XLR inputs.

I always try to ask incomplete questions that are impossible to answer.

I was referring specifically to the WIRED AT-899s or Shure MX184s that work with phantom, and whether they could work with the DBX-286. I take it from your response that the "low voltage power" you mentioned only applies to the wireless use of the mics, given the electrical characteristics of the transmitter and receiver.

Since you seem to want only a simple answer: NO microphone that is wired and connectored for wireless use is compatible with an XLR mic input with phantom power. There appear to be no options for either the AT-899 or the MX-184 that are compatible with XLR and phantom power.

I always try to ask incomplete questions that are impossible to answer.

I was referring specifically to the WIRED AT-899s or Shure MX184s that work with phantom, and whether they could work with the DBX-286. I take it from your response that the "low voltage power" you mentioned only applies to the wireless use of the mics, given the electrical characteristics of the transmitter and receiver.

You certainly CAN send them through a processor but whether you SHOULD is another question. If you're doing live broadcast such as in a radio or TV station then running the mics through a processor to refine the sound on its way to the transmitter might make sense (and in fact is common practice). But if you're shooting camera original that will later go through a post production stage, best practice says to record your sound as clean and pristine as possible, reserving any signal processing for post. If your original recording is unprocessed you can always apply processing as needed later, but if you apply, say, compression as you record the original and then later on decide that it isn't needed or some other processing might work better, you've already baked that cake and there's no un-baking it.

Steve, the question seems to be about simple interfacing, not processing.

Virtually all wireless body-pack transmitters use 3.5mm or Lemo or QG connectors or similar miniature connectors.

Clearly those connectors cannot be used with conventional XLR mic inputs.

Steve, the question seems to be about simple interfacing, not processing.

Virtually all wireless body-pack transmitters use 3.5mm or Lemo or QG connectors or similar miniature connectors.

Clearly those connectors cannot be used with conventional XLR mic inputs. Certainly true. But both of the aforementioned mics are available in versions equipped with an 48p power supply/ XLR connection intended for hard-wired applications instead of feeding a wireless transmitter so I'm assuming that is what he's planning to purchase and his question is actually "is it appropriate to use a signal processor inline with a hard-wired lav mic?"

Shure MX184 - Supercardioid Wired Lavalier mic MX184 B&H Photo

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/102fa42601dd18dc/index.html where if you look at the specs under "Included Accessories" it says the mic comes with an AT8537 XLR power module

BTW Natan, the Shure MX184 you mentioned is a supercardioid pattern mic. That's really more for sound reinforcement applications where feedback control is an issue. The downside of a directional pattern like that is the timbre of the voice recording changes as the subject moves his head. An omnidirectional mic, the MX183 in the Shure lineup, is generally preferred for film and video recording

"Clearly those connectors cannot be used with conventional XLR mic inputs" and furthermore, if one attempts to apply Phantom Power via hardwired adapters or adapter cables, the mic could be permanently damaged. As I previously stated the only way to use a lav which is wired for a body-pack transmitter or other "plug-in power' device is though a Phantom Power transformer specifically designed for the mic. For instance, the 899 would need a AT8537 In-line type power module.

. But both of the aforementioned mics are available in versions equipped with an 48p power supply/ XLR connection intended for hard-wired applications instead of feeding a wireless transmitter

I went to both the AudioTechnica and Shure websites and could see no evidence of XLR versions of those models. Perhaps I missed them. Can you cite URLs?

I went to both the AudioTechnica and Shure websites and could see no evidence of XLR versions of those models. Perhaps I missed them. Can you cite URLs?

See my original reply as just edited for URLs

Certainly true. But both of the aforementioned mics are available in versions equipped with an 48p power supply/ XLR connection intended for hard-wired applications instead of feeding a wireless transmitter so I'm assuming that is what he's planning to purchase and his question is actually "is it appropriate to use a signal processor inline with a hard-wired lav mic?"


That is exactly what I am wondering. In a TV/radio show I work on, we use standard radio mics (EV-re20) hooked up to the dbx-286a processor I mentioned previously. We are trying to transition to using more of a TV-studio look and are looking at wired lavs as possible alternatives.

Here is a clip of what our show currently looks like: Taxes = Investments in USA, Indefinite Detention = Imprisonment without Trial - YouTube

I'm not really sure how a low-budget wired lav like the AT-899 would sound compared to this; any ideas would be appreciated.

That is exactly what I am wondering. In a TV/radio show I work on, we use standard radio mics (EV-re20) hooked up to the dbx-286a processor I mentioned previously. We are trying to transition to using more of a TV-studio look and are looking at wired lavs as possible alternatives.

Here is a clip of what our show currently looks like: Taxes = Investments in USA, Indefinite Detention = Imprisonment without Trial - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFSm4dNv8gE&feature=channel_video_title)

I'm not really sure how a low-budget wired lav like the AT-899 would sound compared to this; any ideas would be appreciated.

LOL when you said "radio mics" most of the folks here would assume you were referring to wireless lav systems. The RE-20 is an industry standard radio studio mic in North America but wouldn't generally be referred to as a "radio mic" in film/video circles. At any rate, I think you could go either way for the sort of show you're doing - either sweetening your audio on the fly as you record or doing it later in post and your choice of mic won't affect that. My earlier advice to do it in post still holds. But I sort of like the visual effect of the RE-20 there on the desk, kind of like Larry King or Howard Stern and there's nothing wrong with that mic as far as the sound you can get from it. Johnny Carson's trademark RCA ribbon desk mic was actually a prop most of the time but added visual interest to the set.

The studio-mic-on-the-desk effect is one factor, but we may change the general layout of the studio and the host may be standing up and moving around a bit, in which case a lapel mic might be better. I might be getting one of these wired lavs for some field work, and then we can try it out in the studio.

Consider using "headset" microphones. They keep the microphone optimally positioned no matter what the talent is doing. Again, the Rode headset microphone features the same replaceable cable and interchangeable connectors. (In case you decide that wireless would be more convenient for moving about.) I am very happy with mine. I have a Rode lav and a Rode headset mic.

RODE Microphones - HS1-B (http://www.rodemic.com/mics/hs1-b)

Not sure if this helps, and I've never used a Rode product, but I do have one A-T 899 (omni), five A-T 831R (cardiod), and 5 Shure SM-11 (omni) lavs.(The A-T 899 is my favorite).

I run them directly into either an HMC-150, an HVX-200, a 4-mic JuicedLink mixer on a DVC-20P, a Shure M367 field mixer, or a Soundcraft EPM-8. The A-T lavs have always worked fine with Phantom power whether connected directly to the cameras or the mixers. The SM-11s are dynamic, and I've been underwhelmed with their performance.

I ordered 2 AT-899s so we'll see how they do.