Field Audio Question

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

Not sure John as I thought it looked more like a loop of cable coming out of the mic and then something like a zoom or a micron type transmitter taped to the end of the boom arm.

It looked a bit square for that.

But it is common to run a short cable from the mic. to the plug-on transmitter as it makes boomng easier.

But I may be wrong, it was a bit fuzzy.

[Gary Nattrass]

Originally Posted by John Willett

It looked a bit square for that.

But it is common to run a short cable from the mic. to the plug-on transmitter as it makes boomng easier.

But I may be wrong, it was a bit fuzzy.

Either way there is far too much weight at the mic end, it would have been better to keep the transmitter at the op end although I use an AT875 r with an skp 500 mounted in a rode PG2 on gitzo carbon fibre booms without any real problems!

[Josh Bass]

There is some kind of perverse pleasure in seeing everyone ooh and ah over something and then having someone else come in and say "no, all of that was wrong." Is there a German word for that? There should be.

[Gary Nattrass]

I think the polite English phrase is "style over substance" and sadly the media industry is full of it these days!

I suppose the German would be "FooBarr" ??

and the American "Bullshit" ???

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

Either way there is far too much weight at the mic end, it would have been better to keep the transmitter at the op end!

I agree, that would be much better.

[Gary Nattrass]

Originally Posted by John Willett

I agree, that would be much better.

Even better to have one of these at the Op end too so they can hear the mic and listen to where it is placed:
ART Pro Audio

useful for wireless and cabled boom operation and if using cables you could even feed a talkback circuit or IFB into it, they cost less than £50.

[Paul R Johnson]

If you are using a wirless link, an extra receiver works pretty well too.

[Gary Nattrass]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

If you are using a wirless link, an extra receiver works pretty well too.

That's where I liked the old EW100 receivers as they had a headphone output with a level control.

[Steven Digges]

Gary & Paul,

I have the EW100. I think you just taught me something. Are you saying that in a situation where you don't want your field mixer and bag hanging on you to monitor the mix as I always do, that you can tune two receivers to the same frequency as the mic? Then put the mixer down and use the EW100 receiver with your cans in the AF out for a monitor?

Since I know exactly what happens when two transmitters are on the same frequency it scares me to run two receivers that way. I know it is not the same issue as transmitters but I have never been sure if both receivers would get exactly the same level and quality of signal from the mic?

Obviously I am not an audio genius or I would not be asking that question. That is why I hire boom OPs whenever I possibly can. I have never understood why an A-1 at a FOH console is always considered mandatory, even if it is just two mics but trying to get my clients to pay for a good field mixer is like pulling teeth sometimes. That is backwards to me. Almost any basic tech can ride gain on a stage mic....But a boom mix.... that's a different story!

[Steve House]

Two receivers are usually no problem. I say "usually" because it can happen that leakage from the internal oscillators in one of two receivers in very close proximity to each other can be picked up by the other receiver and interact to produce noise.

Why would you expect your clients to pay for a field mixer? It's a basic piece of kit, not an extra-cost add-in, and IMHO charging them when you use it is like charging them for each mic cable. Or do you use 'field mixer' in the sense of a person whose job is to operate the audio gear?

[Gary Nattrass]

We have used two receivers with one transmitter for decades in UK TV to cover huge or multiple areas, I even use older G1 radio mic receivers for multi cam talkback but now have an in ear monitoring system that will do the same!

One other handy application is to plug in an skp 100 to my mixer mono output and feed multiple cameras with guide audio via a receiver on each cam!

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by Steve House

Two receivers are usually no problem. I say "usually" because it can happen that leakage from the internal oscillators in one of two receivers in very close proximity to each other can be picked up by the other receiver and interact to produce noise.

In theory that's quite true. But IMHO the receivers would have to be pretty poorly designed and pretty poorly built for that to occur. The receivers' IF sections should be well shielded to prevent secondary emissions (and in fact the FCC has specifications about such things). Think about the thousands of people listening to the same broadcast station at the same time... although, of course, those receivers are usually more than a few feet apart.

For that matter, if you're using a second receiver to feed your cans, you could also feed it into a second field recorder, and you'd have a backup track in case there were dropouts on the "main" receiver/recorder track.

[Steven Digges]

Originally Posted by Steve House

Two receivers are usually no problem. I say "usually" because it can happen that leakage from the internal oscillators in one of two receivers in very close proximity to each other can be picked up by the other receiver and interact to produce noise.

Why would you expect your clients to pay for a field mixer? It's a basic piece of kit, not an extra-cost add-in, and IMHO charging them when you use it is like charging them for each mic cable. Or do you use 'field mixer' in the sense of a person whose job is to operate the audio gear?

That was just bad typing on my part. I do not nickle and dime clients over gear. I also do not usually refer to boom operators as "field mixers" but I did then. Most of the time I also don't refer to them as "audio guys" especially around clients, I call them the "A-1" to be more respectful of their specialty.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

That's where I liked the old EW100 receivers as they had a headphone output with a level control.

Only the mains powered EM 100 had this in the 100 series.

You needed the EK 500 pocket receiver for the headphone output - the EK 100 did not have this.

[Gary Nattrass]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Only the mains powered EM 100 had this in the 100 series.

You needed the EK 500 pocket receiver for the headphone output - the EK 100 did not have this.

I stand corrected John, it was someone else who owned those EK 500 receivers when we used them so I must have got confused over which one had the headphone output.

It is a shame that the G2 or G3 don't have headphone outputs but I suppose that would affect the sales of in ear monitors.