Hi All—this is a somewhat rhetorical question, but also a real one...

In this day of dirt-cheap, ubiquitous electronic devices that are absolutely bombproof and last for years, why is it that producers on a budget STILL have to fork out $600+ for a reliable wireless mic system?

I ask because I've been assembling a list of equipment for the school I'm working for to purchase for general video production. In almost every category (cameras, lenses, tripods, etc.) there is an abundance of inexpensive, decent-quality alternatives to known higher-end products...*except* in wireless lav systems.

Oh sure there are the Azdens and the Samsons and the like, but after pouring through dozens (hundreds?) of reviews, all I read is "Crap, crap, crap—spend the money and buy a Sennheiser G3 system."

What is going on here? Why is so something as (seemingly) simple as reliably sending sound through the air from one point to another so ridiculously expensive?

Is it really impossible—from a technological standpoint—to do this for a less than a $600 price point? Or is there some sort of industry-wide price fixing going on?

I should add that the barrier doesn't seem to be the mics themselves, as their are lots of (ATR-3350) cheap lav mics out there that—while not as good as a Sennheiser mic—still provide perfectly usable, reliable results.

Yes, you can probably tell I'm a bit frustrated. Only a bit, because I don't mind just telling the school to buy a G3 system. But this question has been nagging at me for a while.

Anyone have an answer or care to speculate? :-)

Scott

Perhaps a direct comparison might help answer my question above.

What do folks here think of this Polsen UHF wireless system for $349?
Polsen ULW-96 Camera-Mountable UHF Wireless ULW-96 B&H Photo

Is it reliable? Is the sound quality good enough for an average listener to easily make out what the subject is saying? Is it likely to last for at least a few years if cared for? Will it operate without interference most of the time (if not ALL the time)?

Or is it total crap, a waste of $349?

---
Part of what drives my question is: I'd rather have 2 "just okay" wireless lav systems than one "really good" system. Because I want the added flexibility to mic more than one person at a time.

Thanks,
Scott

Price is driven by production cost as much an anything else, and production cost is driven in large part by sales volume and by features and "quality" of the build (which can translate into reliability and durability), after sale support, and warranty. Brand name also figures in - some brands just naturally can demand a higher price, and distribution channels also can add to cost. Use of proprietary technologies can also drive up costs, as can exclusive distribution agreements and import restrictions.

I have no information on the Polsen, and I see B&H has no posted user reviews of it as of today. It not is NOT a diversity receiver, which I expect would be a down-side for many applications.

A low cost wireless system may work well in some venues, but may have problems when things get crowded, or the talent abuses the system (e.g., dropping it, spilling their coffee or coke on it).

I can think of two reasons why professional audio systems cost so much:

1) superior design, build and component quality
2) the level of support available

If my Zoom H6 starts doing funny things I'll probably have to bin it and buy something else, whereas a Sound Devices recorder (apart from being much more robust and less likely to go wrong in the first place) will have parts and servicing available for years to come.

I've had very good support from Sennheiser on wireless gear (other makes are available :-). Even their budget stuff is well made.

Radio systems work by a mixture of magic and good luck at the best of times - I don't fancy increasing the odds.

Good points all, but they don't really answer my question. I guess ultimately it comes down to volume (which you mentioned, Don).

My original point is that outstanding quality and durability *has* been achieved in countless other electronic devices—but I suppose this is due entirely to millions of units of said devices being manufactured and sold.

But what I would think (not being an electrical engineer) is that all the components that go into (for example) a Sennheiser G3 system are produced very cheaply and on a mass scale. It's difficult to believe that there are any transistors, printed circuits, etc. in those $600 systems that are custom-manufactured specifically for Sennheiser.

That's why I can't figure out why the same quality can't be had for less.

Scott

Certainly the printed circuits *are* specific to that product. Every product has its own custom designed circuit board(s). And that is *not* a trivial part of the final price.

In the case of wireless mics, I suspect it's a combination of manufacturing quantity and R&D costs. R&D is especially tricky when it comes to RF devices. As frequency goes up, the "magic" becomes important. And as the product size becomes smaller, the "magic" becomes still more important.

Good RF performance isn't just a matter of having a certain set of components and a certain electrical flow. Dimensions and placement are surprisingly critical. Move one part by a few mm, and the performance can change. Use a right-angle turn in one trace on a circuit board, rather than a 90º radius, and the performance can change. If you've never contemplated the intricacies of RF design, you can't begin to envision the headaches involved.

You use your [expensive] CAD program to design a multi-layer circuit board. Have the board factory make a dozen prototype boards. Program the [expensive] robotics to assemble and solder the components to the board. Run some engineering tests using your [expensive] test gear. All this work is done by your [expensive] skilled and experienced staff. Then you decide you want to make some improvements, so you go back and repeat all those steps with your "rev. 2" circuit board. Etc. etc.

All that R&D is time-consuming and expensive. If you're going to spread those costs over 1,000,000 smartphones, it becomes a trivial part of the total. (And some of those phones cost $600, just like your wireless mic!) If you're going to spread those costs over 1,000 wireless mics, it becomes a significant part of the final cost.

There is no free lunch. If you want steak (i.e. respected name-brand mic) you pay for it. If you want baloney (i.e. a third-world knock-off) it's cheaper.

Ahh...I am now enlightened. :-) Seriously, I have no clue what goes into manufacturing these things. And I was thinking that the number of wireless mic systems made/sold in the world actually would number in the millions...but I suppose when you divvy it up between all the manufacturers, the numbers drop.

I wonder if designing/manufacturing a wireless RF system is any more expensive than coding a software video editing application? I ask because I wouldn't think there would be any greater demand for Adobe Premiere than for wireless mics...and yet Adobe Premiere is relatively cheap (for what it is)...while good wireless systems aren't.

Your explanation of the complexities of designing RF systems make sense...although it seems, in general, like the "desktop revolution" has yet to even come close to the wireless mic industry—which still seems mired in the days of "it's expensive broadcast stuff, or it's total crap!" :-)

Literally with everything else: lighting gear, bags, cameras, lenses, tripods—you name it, there are inexpensive alternatives that will last for years (when cared for) and do a perfectly adequate job. Yet this still doesn't seem true of wireless mic systems...

Scott

I have taught a few classes and bought low-end gear, and while it is easy to find a $25 tripod and a $10 mic, it's my experience that that stuff doesn't last long. The first class I ever taught I was given some hand-me-down gear from the previous instructor that included cheapo lights, cheapo tripods, cheapo cameras, and Sennheiser G3s (for the reason you mention). 7 years later when I'd bought new tripods, new cameras, new lights, and handed them down to the new instructor... all we'd done to the G3's was upgrade to rechargeable AA batteries.

I own some cheapo gear myself, and I baby it pretty good. (LED lights are also in the category you speak of). In my experience, student work and babying gear don't go together. You can have pro's baby gear, or you can have students manhandle it, but seldom do the two meet.

I suspect you have a faulty premise. Not all cheap products last a long time, are reliable and offer the same list of benefits to the user.

I have many direct imported Chinese products that are excellent value for money, and the electronics are actually very reliable. The real problem with cheaper products are that corners must be cut.

You mention the Sennheisers, as an example - we have alloy castings, metal covers properly engineered metalwork on the rack mount versions of the receivers. In the cheaper products, metal is replaced with plastic. The cheaper construction is in many cases fine, when treated with care. However, today I knocked two Sennheiser packs off a 7ft high shelf, and they fell to the hard floor. Both are undamaged. However, the plastic case on the network switch which also fell cracked right across. Doing one event, some crook swapped one of my genuine Sennheiser hand-held for a counterfeit. I used it for the next show and didn't notice anything apart from a small difficulty in getting gain before feedback - eventually tracked down to a cheaper mic insert with a few peaks in the frequency response - but it didn't sound bad. I spotted the swap when I removed the coloured tape around the head - it pulled off the paint sprayed over the alloy tube!

Next day, I went to do some more tests and discovered that even turned off, they draw current and the batteries were flat.

If you operate just one channel, things are pretty good - but cheaper designs often don't bother spending time on the receiver performance. Filtering either side of the operating frequency in the proper brands is tight, and helps ensure that multiple channels can exist happily together. Cheap systems have wider band spread in the transmitters, and poorer filtering in the receiver.

Radio systems of all kinds suffered similar problems. You can buy dirt cheap handheld walkie talkies from China - a tenth of the price of a Motorola or Icom, but again the RF design has limitations. They work pretty well actually, but the same things apply - poorer construction, less well designed RF stages.

It's not just radio systems. I have some DJ4000 GoPro lookalikes. Picture is fine, nice and simple to work, but the build quality is obviously not as hot - so they're cheap to make, but I doubt they will last as long. I buy moving head lights. Again, the construction is poorer. The aluminium chassis can be bent with your fingers, the plastic mouldings crack when given a whack, the optics are poorer, the design isn't bad, borrowing much from other expensive makes, but the implementation is poorer - so matching with others is a little off - one unit may well focus sharply at DMX value 100, while another needs a setting of 95 to achieve the same result.

So cheap products do the job - but slightly less well, with slightly less reliability, with very little resale value. Spare parts if you need them after a year are impossible to get, but you pay less for the product.

On a budget, I often take the risk. However, with radio systems, where failure wrecks the entire thing - I do not use cheaper products, it's just too risky when it's your income and reputation . I will save money in ancillary kit. I have a great zeppelin style housing that I use when there's a danger of wrecking it - because by Sennheiser one is now nearly 20 years old! The cheap one, however, has a kink in it - something heavy sat on it in the van, and distorted the plastic.

So don't fall into the mindset of believing cheap kit is as good - it isn't! It is, however, very cost effective and nearly as good - so that's a choice.

I wouldn't think there would be any greater demand for Adobe Premiere than for wireless mics...and yet Adobe Premiere is relatively cheap (for what it is)...while good wireless systems aren't.
Surely you jest. Adobe nearly gives away their software by means of "educational discount" to tons of students taking media-related courses. Of course it costs them about $10 per user to stamp out the DVDs, so this is a big source of revenue. The same economies of scale do not apply to hardware devices.

it seems, in general, like the "desktop revolution" has yet to even come close to the wireless mic industry
Obviously! Walk down the street a mile from your house. How many computers do you pass? Probably an average of at least one per home ... maybe more like one per person. Everybody has some use for a computer. How many wireless mics do you pass in that same mile? Most people have no use for a wireless mic. It's a specialty product.

Literally with everything else: lighting gear, bags, cameras, lenses, tripods—you name it, there are inexpensive alternatives that will last for years (when cared for) and do a perfectly adequate job.
Compare the technical complexity of making a camera bag with the complexity of making a wireless mic. Compare how difficult it is for a camera bag to be "perfectly adequate" to what a wireless mic needs to do. Comparing the two is naive at best.

--

There's another way to look your question: why does a Mercedes cost more than a Yugo? Do you think that the "automotive revolution" should have brought the price of a Mercedes down to the same price as a Yugo? Surely not. (At least I hope you don't think so!) Likewise, the economy of scale that affects the mass market for computers does not apply to wireless mics. Some mics are made better, for the subset of users where quality is of prime importance; other mics are made cheaper, for the subset of users who are reasonably satisfied with a "less perfect" product.

I've used Azden wireless kits for over 20 years, as have many of my local associates, and they have performed just fine for our needs (wedding, event, corporate). I feel they provide good value for the money. Do $1000-3000 units have cleaner sound, longer range? Quite possibly. But the Azden units have been good to me and I would never consider them an off-brand or "cheap" system.

Mine have taken a lot of abuse, and when I did break a crystal inside my handheld when it rolled off a table onto concrete, it was repaired quickly - and without charge! I should mention that the mic is very sturdy metal construction and did not have a mark on it after the drop. My receiver is also metal and built like a tank.

I don't think you'd be disappointed with Azden for the students to work with.

Thanks

Jeff Pulera
Digital Vision Productions

Go look at Rode's new wireless system. Might work for ya.

Frankly, significantly MORE population of wireless devices NECESSITATES more (and expensive) technology like digital encryption BECAUSE of an increasingly crowded frequency spectrum. It is becoming nearly impossible in Vancouver to consistently find a "clean" spectrum with non-digitally encrypted/locked wireless systems.

Back when a wireless system like Sony's venerable WRT/WRR8xx series was the defacto standard at over $5000 to "pitch-and-catch", only the Big Boys could afford them and we didn't have anywhere NEAR the difficulty finding clean spectrum.

But nobody wants to hear that - they want CHEAP and reliable, without considering what that really means.

For many years prior to my using the AT 18XX dual channel receiver, I used Azden 500U systems with Sony ECM44 mics along with the Azden plugin on my Shure SM63. The 500U receivers were built like tanks. All metal cases and frankly solid as a rock. My main reason for switching when the AT unit came out was the AT unit, dual channel so I could continue to run 2 lavs or a lav and HH at the same time, was about 1/2 the weight of the Azdens. In the years I used the Azden units I NEVER and I mean NEVER had an issue with them and frankly the sound I got was as good as the Lectro 100 units and the Sennheiser units that were out at the time. I believe they were the G1.
I'm just sayin' that you don't necessarily need to spend thousands if you shop wisely and get the right stuff.
BTW, the lavs I've been using on the AT unit are Countryman EMW although I had the AT899 for a while and they were outstanding. The right combination makes all the difference.

In spite of the "you gotta pay big bucks for quality products" mindset, it appears that quality lesser-cost options (not LOW-cost, but we're heading in that direction) are in fact appearing. Bruce mentioned the new Rode wireless system which I also found while digging around. It's getting RAVE reviews and only $400.

http://www.dvinfo.net/news/rode-breaks-new-ground-in-2015-with-multiple-product-launches.html

Audio-Technicas's System 10 is also around $350 and gets rave reviews.

Both of these operate at 2.4ghz...so this appears to be a bit of a breakthrough for wireless audio.

Here's another thought: it's been suggested that the demand for wireless systems is nowhere close to the demand for other products, but consider this: wireless audio systems aren't just used by video producers; they're used by musicians (a HUGE market)...and by churches (probably an even bigger market). The reality is that video production is probably the smallest market for wireless audio.

When you look at the music and religious markets, I'd say there is plenty of opportunity for someone to innovate and bring down the cost of these systems.

It's no different than the days (which I remember well) where if you wanted to produce REAL quality video, your only choice was to fork out $30,000-40,000 on a Sony BVW-300 Betacam system. Now you can get better video from a $1,000 camera. This is going to happen with audio too. Lectrosonics better be looking over their shoulder! :-)

Scott

It's difficult to believe that there are any transistors, printed circuits, etc. in those $600 systems that are custom-manufactured specifically for Sennheiser.


Er ..... every single printed circuit in the Sennheiser G3 is made by Sennheiser themselves / to their specific specifications.

Of course components are made by component manufacturers and are available to anyone - however, quality manufacturers like Sennheiser will choose high quality components made to a tight tolerance and these are more expensive than the cheapo cheapo ones.

Quality audio costs money - a decent mic. pre-amplifier often costs well over £1,000 per channel, so getting good audio quality in a small radio transmitter/receiver is not easy and cheap.

Radio transmission adds noise - top manufacturers like Sennheiser use proprietary noise reduction systems to minimise transmission noise.

Also - compared to the top systems, the G3-100 is dirt cheap - a top Sennheiser radio system retails at about £8,000 per channel!

You get what you pay for - and don't confuse professional systems that sell in quantities of a few thousand to consumer equipment that sells in millions.

Yes, pure and simple, when it comes to wireless systems and most everything else:
You get what you pay for

In spite of the "you gotta pay big bucks for quality products" mindset, it appears that quality lesser-cost options (not LOW-cost, but we're heading in that direction) are in fact appearing. Bruce mentioned the new Rode wireless system which I also found while digging around. It's getting RAVE reviews and only $400.

Audio-Technicas's System 10 is also around $350 and gets rave reviews.

Both of these operate at 2.4ghz...so this appears to be a bit of a breakthrough for wireless audio.
And there you see the "crossover" between the mammoth computer/wireless phone market and the miniscule semi-pro wireless mic market.

By using the jelly-bean commodity 2.4 HGz chips, etc. manufactured by the millions for consumer and business products, they significantly reduce both the development and the manufacturing cost of sending a continuous non-trivial bitstream through the air in order to create a digitial wireless microphone.

Another huge benefit to using the 2.4GHz ISM band is that it is universally allocated to portable digital devices (primarily 802.11x WiFi and BlueTooth) So that means that 2.4 GHz gear can be used legally essentially anywhere on the planet. This is a big deal for news crews, documentary producers,etc. who roam all over the place in different countries with different laws, bands, etc, for traditional wireless mics.

Of course, there is an accompanying downside to using the 2.4 GHz band. That ISM band is arguably already overloaded with other massive users, most notably WiFi (and BlueTooth). And don't expect to get reliable performance from ANY 2.4 GHz equipment near (3m/6ft) a consumer microwave oven.

I just took delivery of a couple of A-T System-10 systems and I am going to do some video tests in my office building, full of 100s of WiFi users. The 2.4 GHz mics (both A-T and Rode) appear to use the same channels as 802.x WiFi, but since they are sending only a single audio channel bitstream, they can use the channels more efficiently than 802.11x WiFi, so they have somewhat more options to operate within the band.

Here's another thought: it's been suggested that the demand for wireless systems is nowhere close to the demand for other products, but consider this: wireless audio systems aren't just used by video producers; they're used by musicians (a HUGE market)...and by churches (probably an even bigger market). The reality is that video production is probably the smallest market for wireless audio.

When you look at the music and religious markets, I'd say there is plenty of opportunity for someone to innovate and bring down the cost of these systems.

But compared to the general consumer wireless market, even the market for low-end consumer wireless mics is miniscule.

It's no different than the days (which I remember well) where if you wanted to produce REAL quality video, your only choice was to fork out $30,000-40,000 on a Sony BVW-300 Betacam system. Now you can get better video from a $1,000 camera. This is going to happen with audio too. Lectrosonics better be looking over their shoulder! :-)

But the same advances in solid-state technology (including imaging chips) has made even $300 cameras capable of making video that would be the envy of $30000 cameras in a previous generation. (Under GOOD lighting conditions, of course).

The new generation of 2.4GHz of wireless mics may indeed eat into the low-budget potential customers that would have considered Lectro (or those who rented instead of buying). But pro gear like Lectro have other features critical for pro users that you will be unlikely to ever find in pro-sumer products like the A-T System 10 or the RodeLink.

I've still got two of the Sony BVWs here, and I just can't get rid of them, mainly nostalgia, but also because they were amazingly well engineered bits of kit.

Now it's true that some sub 1 grand cameras do produce brilliant pictures - we all know that, but they are coupled with pretty average glass, and the lenses on my Sonys are still fetching good money on ebay, if I wanted to sell them. The cameras would fetch nothing, I guess!

So while electronics are getting cheaper as technology progresses, mechanics are getting more expensive. Look at how cheap, comparatively, 4K cameras are - but then how much the glass to do them justice costs?

Mass production = low cost, and that is the answer to the question here.

Richard - please do share you r results with the AT10 system.

Reliability and after market support are primary with professional gear. When money is on the line it must work every time. A few failures and a whole market is lost. Professionals talk to each other,

Things can be sold cheap with a great warranty - or is it. I bought some night lights, cost about $5 for a pack of three - life time limited warranty too - or was it. To replace one it I had to mail it back with $5 for shipping and handling.

Thanks for the informative 2.4ghz post Richard. I too am interested in hearing about the results of your testing with the AT System 10 system. I'm considering getting one myself, only because I need something relatively soon and don't want to wait around for the Rode system (though the Rode system looks better and costs a bit more).

And to others: I completely agree that---generally speaking---you get what you pay for. But as frequently as this old axe is stated, there are still plenty of times when you *don't* get what you pay for (e.g. you're paying for name only).

Also, there are many times when the added benefits of paying (for example) for a Lectrosonics system simply aren't worth the enormous extra cost.

It's a fact that the entire professional audio/video production industry lives and dies by gear. This is because they MUST. Imagine a world in which there was no differentiation in gear whatsoever (I know it'll never happen, but just indulge me for a minute!). If every producer alive had to use the identical gear, then (heaven forbid) differences in production quality would come down entirely to the producer's talent and creativity. And that scenario would terrify many in the industry who rely on investments in top-dollar equipment as their biggest differentiator. In such an imaginary scenario, half of the producers in the world would just give up and quit—because they wouldn't be able to gain an edge by spending more money on gear.

I'd love to see something like this happen eventually. (But I know I'm dreaming.) Back in the BVW-300 days, it used to make me irate that there were so many mediocre producers around who got work just because they had the balls (and/or income) to invest $30,000 in a camera, and for no other reason.

Anyway, forgive my little rant. :-) I'm just a big believer in equality and egalitarianism when it comes to production equipment: let everyone (rich or poor) have equipment that produces great results and then lets see who ends up on top. :-)

Scott

One equipment failure on a large shoot can eat 100 (or more) times the cost differential. in lost time and opportunity. The carefully selected high end gear can provide a measure of insurance. It goes to knowing what is quality, what is just marketing hype, and what is habit.

Insurance is lost money as is warranty - if you do not have to make use of them.

All a business decisions.

But compared to the general consumer wireless market, even the market for low-end consumer wireless mics is miniscule.

Yup - an average town will, say, have a small theatre, four churches and a few bands - so let's say thats 20 or 30 radiomics.

That same town is likely to have about 10,000 Wi-Fi links and maybe 25,000 mobile phones.

Do the maths.

I used the Wi Digital Audio Link last night during a party at the house to send stereo audio from the main computer near the kitchen to a powered set of stereo speakers in the living room. About 40 feet line of sight, not a tremendous distance.
However, there were about 40 people in the house with cellphones and the house and our neighbors all have Wi-Fi, plus the computer itself and I'm sure lots of the cellphones had Bluetooth active.
I didn't hear any problems during 4 hours of playback, but I wasn't right there listening intently the whole time.
It is amazing though that such inexpensive digital 2.4gHz tech can work this well and have great sound quality.

You want cheap? Here's CHEAP! Probably not GOOD but...

Hi All—this is a somewhat rhetorical question, but also a real one...

In this day of dirt-cheap, ubiquitous electronic devices that are absolutely bombproof and last for years, why is it that producers on a budget STILL have to fork out $600+ for a reliable wireless mic system?

I ask because I've been assembling a list of equipment for the school I'm working for to purchase for general video production. In almost every category (cameras, lenses, tripods, etc.) there is an abundance of inexpensive, decent-quality alternatives to known higher-end products...*except* in wireless lav systems.

Oh sure there are the Azdens and the Samsons and the like, but after pouring through dozens (hundreds?) of reviews, all I read is "Crap, crap, crap—spend the money and buy a Sennheiser G3 system."

What is going on here? Why is so something as (seemingly) simple as reliably sending sound through the air from one point to another so ridiculously expensive?

Is it really impossible—from a technological standpoint—to do this for a less than a $600 price point? Or is there some sort of industry-wide price fixing going on?

I should add that the barrier doesn't seem to be the mics themselves, as their are lots of (ATR-3350) cheap lav mics out there that—while not as good as a Sennheiser mic—still provide perfectly usable, reliable results.

Yes, you can probably tell I'm a bit frustrated. Only a bit, because I don't mind just telling the school to buy a G3 system. But this question has been nagging at me for a while.

Anyone have an answer or care to speculate? :-)

Scott

I don't know either , but all the years I'be worked with audio , Sennheisser have pretty much been the industry standard , probably because they 'just work' , and I go back to the VHF units of the 1970's .

While I still use Sennheisser today , I've heard some favourable comments about the new Audio Technica budget range - haven't tried them myself , but AT have a knack of sometimes making quality equipment at lower price points than the competition .

With radios, it's always going to come down to trusting what you have to work with. I trust what I have and am familiar with - so we'll all have some differences, but would I trust a cheapo no brand??? Probably not!

You want cheap? Here's CHEAP! Probably not GOOD but...

Should that one not be called "Pile-o'-poo" rather than "Pyle Pro"? :-)

"Pyle-o'-poo"
I like that Colin.
Speaking of VHS, I still a have a fixed frequency Lectro 185 system I bought way back when... wasn't cheap, but still works 20+ years later.. even better now-a-days since DTV came about, freeing up some of the VHF channels.

There is always the manufacturer angle on this sort of thing. If you R&D and make a top quality product ... why would you sell it cheaper than what it is worth?

Well, then there are those crazy-good guys at Rode. :-D They are so awesome with what they come out with. Pure applied genius.

Andrew

there are not so many choices in the UHF wireless , it's lectro , sennheiser g2-3, sony uwpd , sure and now polsen
I'll take the 2.4GHz systems (basically two , AT and Rode) aside for the moment, also because the reviews look suspicious and in conflict with the real life ones (mainly regarding the "safe" distance which looks too short -again at the moment).
The Polsen comes with two models, 16 channels (pre-set) and 96 channels at a ridiculous price the first and absurd price the second (too close to a real one) , but the first one (16 channels) works like a charm.
they are not diversity (but the G2 is not diversity as well)
the border? Polsen. what I have? a sennheiser g3 for a lav and a polsen for handheld.
the difference: the sennheiser works all the time and for cases where you have to "negotiate" a pass to cover some big event it gets in with no problem. The Polsen does not.
but covering private events, weddings and such the Polsen is as good as the Sennheiser. 16 channels are enough even in NYC (unless I go from 25 st to 59 street around 5th ave., where getting frequencies is a gambling for any wireless). I work around west village manhattan, queens and brooklyn, central NJ and never had a problem with the Polsen).

anyway I was checking the availability and they are sold-out at the moment, and that may be a good sign.

like I said in another thread here the handheld is average, looks like a cheap karaoke microphone with a wireless built-in. But does the job and It's metal.
The battery life is better then the G3, I mean slightly better. In case using lithium instead of alkaline will make a huge difference (8-9 times longer than regular alkaline).

In the end (of this post) I still recommend the G3 as the main system, and maybe the Polsen for a second lav or (like in my case) a microphone (handheld).

Oddly, we've now got the launch of 2.4GHz products from Sennheiser, that look really well thought through - so far no sign of a battery receiver, but it may arrive in the range soon. Nobody seems to have any in stock yet, but the reviews will be interesting. My own experience of 2.4GHz is extremely good, and I can't find any difference in the practical points between analogue and digital. They both work just as well as each other.

Oddly, we've now got the launch of 2.4GHz products from Sennheiser, that look really well thought through - so far no sign of a battery receiver, but it may arrive in the range soon. Nobody seems to have any in stock yet, but the reviews will be interesting. My own experience of 2.4GHz is extremely good, and I can't find any difference in the practical points between analogue and digital. They both work just as well as each other.

yeah but how they look is not important, how they work is way more important.
anyway everything kinda works fine in your living room , but then you'll have to go outside of the room eventually.
the sennheiser ewd is not meant for "camera use", anyway.
now about other 2.4GHz systems there are conflicting reports indeed. some showing how good they are and some showing the opposite.

take a look at this for example ... Microphone Reviews: Audio Technica System 10 Wireless Microphone and Rode Shotgun Mic - YouTube

let's take it for what it is obviously, but the technology doesn't look (at the moment) ready for camera use yet.

why I keep saying "camera use"? because we go everywhere with it.

take a look at this for example ...
Let's not. That is one of the more ridiculous "equipment reviews" I have ever seen on YouTube (and that is saying something).
Alas, YouTube is congested with "reviews" like this made by people who don't have the first clue what they are talking about.
If I were Audio-Technica, I would pay this guy to take that video down. Or at least help him understand a few things and made a legitimate "reviews".

In this day of dirt-cheap, ubiquitous electronic devices that are absolutely bombproof and last for years, why is it that producers on a budget STILL have to fork out $600+ for a reliable wireless mic system?

1) The more ubiquitous these low-cost, mass-market wireless devices become, the more congested the radio bands become, and the more difficult to get a good, reliable, relatively wide-band, real-time, low-latency connection.

2) OTOH, there are several recent examples of wireless microphone products taking advantage of wireless technology already in wide use for data. Specifically Audio Technica, Rode, and Sennheiser all now have wireless mic products that use the 2.4GHz ISM unlicensed band which is legal around the globe. To be sure, they must be agile enough to co-exist with all the band users (most notably 802.x WiFi and BlueTooth and even microwave ovens.)

That "review" is an embarrassment, although I have seen a lot worse. In the first 1:15 there is absolutely no content, he just says repeatedly that he is going to review the mic.

Then he tells us that he's out in the country, so probably an area with relatively little RF congestion. Does he show us a spectrum analyzer so we can see what interference he's coping with? No.

After the second time he said "gigaherz or G H Z, whatever that means" I shut it off. I don't think I could stomach another five minutes of this dreck.

The internet is a great source of information, but also a great source of ignorance.

Let's not. That is one of the more ridiculous "equipment reviews" I have ever seen on YouTube (and that is saying something).
Alas, YouTube is congested with "reviews" like this made by people who don't have the first clue what they are talking about.
If I were Audio-Technica, I would pay this guy to take that video down. Or at least help him understand a few things and made a legitimate "reviews".

hmmm ... so in your opinion what ya think the guy did wrong? setting the wrong frequencies? (no, not that one, there are no frequencies to set), what else? was he walking in the wrong direction? so you have to walk the "audio technica" way to make the system work? what else? batteries? no, they were fine right after the dropouts.
the system works in full auto: there is nothing to do beside turning it on.

so I'll ask again: what the guy did wrong?

methinks the guy did what we all do: walk and talk.. what else you wanna do with a 2.4GHz system?

and yes, it was embarrassing , for the system, not for the guy.

Anybody with camera can post a "'review'" these days.. and usually only serves to point out their ineptness. There ought be a law. Same thing goes an idiot with a budget video camera calling him/herself a 'DP' or an idiot with a Zoom and a broomstick, proclaiming themselves a 'Production Sound Mixer. Or does low-cost gear only require a low-skilled operator?

I think you guys are being a bit harsh.
At least people put up what they call reviews. You don't need to listen to what he is saying. (that doesn't sound right) but listen to the quality and make your own mind up.

Anybody with camera can post a "'review'" these days.. and usually only serves to point out their ineptness. There ought be a law. Same thing goes an idiot with a budget video camera calling him/herself a 'DP' or an idiot with a Zoom and a broomstick, proclaiming themselves a 'Production Sound Mixer. Or does low-cost gear only require a low-skilled operator?

skills to operate a 2.4GHz wireless system? skills for what? the thing has no settings, nothing: either works or it doesn't. Nothing in between.
Now about the law for internet reviews... that includes "us" too? or we are special? Just asking...

regarding the "reviews" you know that there are the "official" reviews made by the companies or distributors, no? and then there are the "normal" reviews. And then there are the reviews paid by the distributor but without saying anything about it (in the review), and guess what? products in those "well made" reviews magically work like a charm.. So in a way I agree that there should be a law, the same for ads on a magazine. You gotta write "paid by...." if you want to pass it as "editorial". right? right.

I think you guys are being a bit harsh.
No, actually, he deserves much worse.

At least people put up what they call reviews.
And what good is that supposed to be? If someone admits on camera that they don't know what they are talking about and what the specs mean, why should they post a "review"?

You don't need to listen to what he is saying. (that doesn't sound right) but listen to the quality and make your own mind up.
The problem is that it mis-informs thousands of people who don't realize that the "reviewer" doesn't know any more about the subject than they do, and quite possibly LESS. The only difference is that the people posting these "reviews" have more chutzpah and are oblivious to their cluelessness.

Even back in biblical times: "Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." Mathew 15:14

so I'll ask again: what the guy did wrong?.
It would take all afternoon to detail point by point what is wrong with that "review". Maybe when I have half a day free, I will attempt to draft an errata sheet. But the guy admits on camera that he doesn't even know what the specs mean. By those standards anybody could post a review for anything. It doesn't even matter if they know what it is or how to turn it on And, in fact, that is what YouTube has become.

this is another "take" of the 2.4GHz system in action. The member is pretty active promoting the system around here. That doesn't mean anything , but I'm wondering if this video here is better than the other video that you couldn't "stomach" and why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S39l7y1XPBk

now what do I think about the 2.4GHz systems?

they come from the DJ world and karaoke, basically in small halls/venues and low budget DJ stuff (parties, weddings and such). They use the 2.4GHz from quite some time now, even for the lights.

so the use for cameras is questionable because we never stay in 1 room , but we go literally everywhere.

I have a sennheiser G3 for lav and one of those "karaoke" low budget handheld (made by Polsen, probably on vocopro or even nady stuff), but it's UHF and works much MUCH better. The 2.4GHz systems actually cost a lot of money, WAY too close to a real wireless system for cameras (in my opinion).

Of course the review is rubbish, the reviewer incompetent, but the design audience probably found it useful. It's a user review with opinion. Look how many reviews begin with unboxing! If you want a technical review it's a different beast altogether. You can forgive a novice for thinking going into the country is best, because straight line range is their key feature. Knowledgeable users are looking for real work reviews, how they coexist with other wifi devices, and we know that's the problem with 2.4. Taking the mickey because he doesn't understand terminology or really, the product is understandable. Leave a YouTube comment if it really annoys you.

One thing to remember is that 2.4GHz is fine for controlling things that can fall out of the sky, and if it was unworkable there's far more to worry about with drones than wireless audio! That said, many are going up to 5GHz which has attractions for aerial devices.

Back to reviews. What do we want? Quality comment, from a technically competent source on real world attributes. We don't want personal opinion until the conclusion, when hopefully it mirrors our built up opinion. We want testing in real typical conditions, and comparisons with specifications. It's doubtful YouTube is going to be a source of this, being honest, is it? Our kind of review costs, and as soon as people give you money, you get assumptions made about your neutrality.

The Sennheisers and audio technica systems will be reviewed in reliable magazines soon. Until then, opinions are subjective.

Leave a YouTube comment if it really annoys you..
I did leave a comment. It was deleted.

...There ought be a law....

Too many of them already. We already have PC killing free speech, now you want laws too? Be careful, the next law might require you to read the reviews. (At last for now if I don't want to read a review, I can skip it.)

The last review serves a purpose for non-technical folks. While some might be interested in S/N, harmonic distortion, frequency response, image rejection, etc. to many buyers that is just technospeak gobble-de-gook. They see that it works videotaping in the outdoors (which is like in the park) and that works for them. It also provides separation from the sounds of the water fowl and fountain compared to the short shotgun.

Others can take away that yes, it does reach to 100' (or more) in a clean environment, and works in what looks like it might be in cold weather.

Why does better quality audio equipment cost more?

Because it's worth it.

You can not make good video with bad audio. Audio is just as important as the camera and the lens.

Bad audio is the bane of my existence, and we fight it on every shoot. Next week we'll be on location with five wireless setups.

Now, having said that, I'm still buying the $600 solutions rather than the $4,000 options. If I needed more range than about 100 feet, I'd buy Lektros.

Good transmitter, good receiver and and UPGRADED lav mic beyond what comes with the package. Basic unit. Plus a spare lav mic for when the wire or the jack gets damaged.

I'm seriously considering jumping to the 2.4GHz systems as our UHF frequencies have changed so my current Azdens are now illegal. The Audio Technica system 10 looks pretty good and the fact you can add up to 8 body packs with one receiver is a bonus doing Church weddings where I need dual wireless mics. On the UHF systems I still tend to have interference issues with either Church wireless systems or the officiant's system and 2.4GHz might sort that out a bit better.

Here we have a tiny band allocated for wireless so interference or frequency clash is a distinct possibility with the huge reduction in available frequency range.

Anyone using the AT system???? The new one from Rode is not available yet

Chris

Many interference issues are due to pilot error, (i.e: gain staging, frequency selection, antenna placement)
I have no experience with the 2.4GHz systems and I certainly would not trust a low-budget system of any type or manufacturer and I'm skeptical of a 2.4GHz system's reliability with the billions of wireless devices in that frequency range
BTW, Azden gear in general is not highly regarded amongst audio pros.

Hi Rick

Here is a test by an industry sound man and it looks pretty good to me and very clean audio too!!

System 10 camera mount wireless review and field tested by Fred Ginsburg CAS - YouTube