You can fix bad video with stills and in some cases, video grabs, motion graphics, etc, fixing bad audio is darn difficult and often impossible. Add a music track, try to cut down on background, boost vocals, increase "thickness". At the end of the day, while you can patch video, there is only so much to be done with Audio. I am with Tom on this, buy the highest level audio you can afford and even then, there are risks. What the test in the above video does not demonstrate is what happens when there is a ton of competition for signals nearby.

Hi Tim

It does actually! He is testing on a sound stage with a lot of cabling with power and a lot of computers in the building too. At one point he actually goes right up to a laptop being used in the sound stage area. I really would wonder how a UHF system would fare in the same area? Last Saturday I was getting interference just from the officiant's wired mic (not even wireless) My signal changed significantly when she came close to the groom...There is often little time at wedding ceremonies to test various scenarios at the front end and just the close proximity of another mic can cause issues. The same kit at the reception again with a wired mic gave no issues at all. I wonder how a wired mic would affect a 2.4GB system???

Obviously doing things like interviews and such, you don't have the issue with 3rd party gear coming in close proximity to your audio gear

Chris

Some good points, Chris.

I view a good interference test as the same sound stage with tables full of students and their laptops running, texting on their cells, and more congestion. How about in a real crowd where there is a lot of background clutter, both voices and signals? Or outside with the wind alternately howling and then not, and people walking closer and then farther away from the babbling brook, and just when you get all of that figured out an airplane flies over. Good sound is more than signal, proper placement of the mike is important, too.

I didn't think about all the cabling, so that is a good point.

But otherwise, this looks like it was shot after class, as there seems to be almost no-one in the building and with almost no real world distractions. This guy makes it look easy because he is a pro. That includes knowing when and where to shoot the test.

But I hope you are right because the simpler I can make things the less I have to worry about. Less money spent on mics means money for other things...so long as the lower cost product really works. Perhaps this one will.

He's obviously a sound man as he's paid no attention to the video quality whatsoever - and clearly a very wide lens, so the distance looks greater than it is. I'm not saying he cheated, but if the idea is to show a test, he really made a mess of that. For a Phd too! Very subjective and as I'm actually a 2.4GHz user myself, it makes a good system appear a bit 'dodgy' somehow. Not sure if the hat was for anonymity, but pretty stupid.

The facts of 2.4GHz wireless are fairly simple. They work. In the two years plus since I have had mine (6 in a rack) they have not had a single dropout, and that cannot be said for the Sennheiser G3 system I also have in the same venue. In fact, it's 40m from stage to the front of house mixer, and the performance over that distance is always trouble free. It's good portable systems are now available.

The only negative point I have is that my system has two modes - one that uses more of the common wifi channels, and one that uses less. The upshot is that I use the original full mode - the more RF friendly mode is NOT so reliable. Still good, but not as good as full mode, which is 100% solid. This mode is not friendly to other wifi users. Sound designers now wander around with their iPad, setting levels and eq, and the lighting people will be using wifi for focussing. Other people will be trying to read emails and browse the net. It is very common to hear these people moaning about the wifi signal.

I'm very happy with my line 6 systems, and would happily buy more - I just bought some guitar systems and they're just as solid.

So good product, but that video is dreadful.

Hi Paul

Thanks for that! Just for interest, can you drop the transmitter into the groom's pocket or does it have to be well exposed for decent audio. I know my current UHF system does get signal attenuation when it's inside the groom's pocket ... bear in mind however at weddings there are two major influences that would help any 2.4GHZ system ... firstly all cell/mobile phones are turned off ... the celebrant tells all guests to do that .. secondly I'm rarely more than 5 metres from the groom anyway so distances are short!!

Yeah the guy on the camera was very wide .. when he said he was at 100' outside it looked like he was on the other end of the campus! I don't think top video shots were the object of the exercise!

I saw a couple of guitar systems on a site than also boasted a 3.5mm mic input ... do you use yours purely with instruments .. I would have thought that guitar pickups would have a fairly low output but not really the same as a mic level of -50 or 60db

I do like to be able to monitor my audio and adjust levels so a recorder dropped into the groom's pocket for me is really scary ...is it running, did I press record ...if you make any of these mistakes you only know when you get home which is somewhat too late so I don't want to go down that route at all and hooking up a transmitter to a recorder so you can monitor still doesn't allow any level changes while the camera is running

What model Line 6 units are you using Paul??

Chris

PhD, but not stated what field or where granted. Maybe it is in education? The PhD means he knows a lot about a vary narrow field which may or may not have anything to do with technical evaluation of wireless mic performance. In any case by admission he is, at times, a paid "consultant" to AT and TASCAM. His agenda would likely be to show that it works, not to show that it doesn't work.

In general, a lack of reviews of a product is more troubling (to me at least) than poorly executed good reviews.

Counting joints in the sidewalk, the outdoor shot started to break-up at something over 210 feet.

It is clear that while it might not work everywhere, it can work well in many places. Potential buyers need to evaluate all reviews in light of their specific requirements.

One thing is clear, the FCC is not as likely to steal spectrum from consumer devices the way they took the 700 MHz UHF from wireless use.

Hi Don

Yes it seems he is an educator now but seems to be quite experience in sound mixing which is a tad better than being some guy who bought a mic and did a You Tube review. He is quite well published.

FilmTVsound.com (http://filmtvsound.com/index.php/component/content/article/98-about/108-about-the-author)

I think any system has it's limitations in certain environments so we simply need to see what's best for our needs

Chris

The problem with 2.4GHz is that it is using the same frequency band as Bluetooth and WiFi.

As soon as you get people with smart phones, iPads and the like taking pictures and uploading them you run the risk of interference with your 2.4GHz system - which is why professionals don't use it.

Great topic but was the original question answered in the end??

What should a videographer really be looking at nowdays in the sub $1000 price range ... ?? I see quite a few people here talk around systems but no-one as yet has said " This is what you should be using .. best bang for buck and solid and reliable without any dropouts or issues.

Chris

The OP was looking for high quality in the sub US$600 price range, and wondering why that seemed to be the threshold for better products. From that point the discussion moved to options and reasons.

I would say the initial questions were answered, but perhaps not the answers the OP may have wanted to hear. The thread included additional information as well as it wound it way to where we are now.

"solid and reliable without any dropouts or issues"
A cable.
otherwise , it ain't gonna happen.
Even my $$$$ Lectro 400 series systems are not as good as a $20 cable..

I'm not trying to find good points with any system but surely any system ..either UHF or 2,4GHz should work in most instances if it's made by a well know manufacturer?? Just like a car .. would has to assume if General Motors spend millions of a new model and release it, it will run and it will get you from A to B consistently and be at least fairly reliable??? They surely wouldn't be foolish enough to produce thousands of one model that stalled every few miles??

If we look at reputable manufacturers like Audio Technica and Rode ..both which have new 2.4GHz Pro systems and around the $600 mark too ... surely they would never risk their good reputation in offering a 2.4Ghz system IF it wasn't going to work at all?

Why would good manufacturers even consider making a 2.4GHz wireless system if it didn't work ..even Sennheiser are bring one out shortly so there must be some good points on the system??

Certainly there are many <US$400 wireless kits out there appealing to the bottom-feeders. But they generally prove to be fiddly, unreliable, plastic, disposable toys.

The new scheme of 2.4GHz digital products have many potential benefits, but also many potential problems. It is so new in the game that we just don't know whether the 2.4GHz digital scheme will be a great idea or not.

There have certainly been commercial products that the manufacturers spent millions on research and development, but turned out to be spectacular duds. So, IMHO, it is just not reasonable to think that just because something is a big-budget commercial product, it is automatically good.

Wireless technology is ALWAYS a compromise and NEVER perfect. Like most things in life, it is a trade-off decision of convenience vs. risk; cost vs. benefit.

Most big companies will bring a product to market only if they feel confident it will sell. A few are as likely to float a failure as well in hopes their name alone will make it sell. (MS's BOB, and some Sony products for example).

ALL tools have limitations - even cables (tethers and trips). The trick is to find a tool that works for the application at hand. While the 2.4 may have a higher risk of interference and shorter range than current analog UHF, that may not be a problem in many applications. The trick is to know when and when not to use it. All part of being a professional, whether high or modest budget.

"Bottom feeders" is perhaps not the most polite term - try something more like limited budget operations. Bottom feeder brings with it an implication of non-professionalism and sleaze, at least in some contexts..

I have to agree that there are good and bad out there using the same technology! I found a Boya wireless mic set on eBay for under $100 but as expected most buyers tossed it in the bin and classed it as unusable! (I remember even buying a wireless setup on eBay many years ago with the same issues)

One would expect that something like the AT System 10 which is designed for video as being at least usable which justifies the $600 price tag where I am.

I guess what we need is a review and comments by someone using the system in the same environment as I am and giving it a thumbs up or thumbs down ... I bought a dual wireless system from Azden (the 330) for close to $1000 and seriously it was hopeless for a Church wedding ceremony, yet their cheaper L100 system using the same frequencies worked perfectly in all situations.

Sadly even a cable can fail miserably at a wedding if someone places a metal chair leg on it and splits it in two!!

I'd hate to fork out $600 for something that works fine in a review but fails in real life situations!!

The input here however is always greatly appreciated!!!

Azden has a very poor reputation and it doesn't seem surprising that you found it problematic. It is more surprising that you found an Azden system that worked OK. It would have been instructive to hear exactly what were the symptoms that inspired your description as "hopeless".

Now that the weather has improved here in the Northern Hemisphere, I will have to go out and shoot some tests of my two AT System 10 kits. The issue with the 2.5GHz ISM band is both a blessing and a curse. While it is license-free around the planet, it also means that there is practically endless competition for the channels.

Hi Richard

I think the issue was the fact that Azden neglected to use true diversity receivers in the 330 system as it would need 4 antennas as the receiver is a dual unit. I was in a Church that was full to the brim and the system simply was dropping out every couple of seconds ....I guess it was struggling with the signal even though we were talking about maybe 50' at the most! I even had dropouts when the camera and groom were a mere 15' away from each other

Now, the issue at weddings is trying to hide the transmitter yet still not have the antenna attenuated by being covered in clothing .... I tend to put transmitters on the side of the grooms belt and let the antenna peek thru the split in his jacket. If you are testing any 2.4Ghz system it would be greatly appreciated if you might test signal strength with concealed and non concealed transmitter units and see if there are dropouts if a transmitter unit is dropped inside a deep trouser pocket, totally hidden from view, compared to being "seen" by the receiver when it's clipped on a belt out in the open air with nothing between the signal path to disrupt. In real life people will come between the transmitter and receiver so a practical test for me would be a blocked path between the two units as well as the transmitter not having a "clear view" of the receiver.

The review I posted seemed to me like the talent had the transmitter on his belt and was in full view of the camera at all times .... throw a few people between the two and see what happens?

Chris

You don't need more than two antennas for diversity reception, no matter how many channels. Even Azden can figure out how to share a pair of antennas with multiple diversity receivers.

Did you check to see that you weren't colliding with any wireless mics at the venue?

Antennas don't have to be visible to be effective. But they need to be fully extended (not bunched up) and not right against the skin of the wearer (because the body absorbs the radio waves). The RF signal is also absorbed/attenuated if the antenna is on the OTHER SIDE of the person from the receiver.

The antennas (2 for diversity) in the AT System 10 are inside the plastic case of the transmitter (and receiver), so they don't have the problem of units with external antennas that can be folded, bunched, or attenuated.