Decent wireless bodypack at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

All Things Audio
Everything Audio, from acquisition to postproduction.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 7th, 2016, 09:14 AM   #1
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NY, NY USA
Posts: 422
Decent wireless bodypack

I know Lectrosonics make one of the best wireless bodypacks but they are too expensive for me. I'm not looking for cheap but a set for no more than $1000 without a microphone. Any recommendations?
Kathy Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 09:52 AM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North Hollywood, CA, United States
Posts: 778
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

The Sennheiser G3 series are my go-to for inexpensive wireless.
Edward Carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 10:59 AM   #3
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,171
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

Yes, the Sennheiser G3 has long been considered the lowest-price DECENT wireless system. But that is 20 year old technology and picking a frequency band that isn't about to be taken away by the Government is getting more tricky.

However the new 2.4GHz digital wireless kits are becoming popular. Not only because of the high-performance digital technology and the lower prices, but also because they operate on an ISM band which is free to use without licence essentially anywhere in the world. Something that is important for folk to work at international locations.

Some of the 2.4GHz digital wireless products include:
* RodeLink RØDE Microphones - RØDELink Filmmaker Kit
* Audio Technica System 10 Portable Camera-Mount Digital Wireless System | System 10 || Audio-Technica US
* Azden PRO-XD PRO-XD Digital Wireless Microphone System For Cameras, Smartphones & Tablets

There are other makers of digital wireless systems (like Shure) but they don't appear to offer compact camera-mount receivers.
Richard Crowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 11:09 AM   #4
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North Hollywood, CA, United States
Posts: 778
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

You forgot the Sennheiser AVX system. It has a compact camera-mount receiver. I've used it with good results, but I'm not about to put all my eggs in the 2.4GHz basket yet.
Edward Carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 11:23 AM   #5
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,171
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

Yes, the Sennheiser AVX system was almost included on my list, but Ms. Smith seemed to be looking for lower priced solutions. The ME2 system is $700 in the body-pack/lav version which is around double what the other 2.4GHz digital systems are selling for.
Richard Crowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 12:04 PM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NY, NY USA
Posts: 422
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

I looked into Sennheiser AVX, it is under $1000 but it has delay issues.
The other sets Richard listed are so cheap that makes me leery about their quality. I already have a crappy wireless set (Shure FP5 receiver with SLX1 transmitter). I'm hoping to get something of a better quality.
Kathy Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 12:37 PM   #7
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,171
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

Sub-$400 wireless kits are rather deserving of the reputation of lousy performance when speaking of old analog technology. However, the ubiquitious proliferation of 2.4GHz consumer gear (WiFi, BlueTooth, et.al.) has made that digital technology very inexpensive and easy to design and cheap to build. So IMHO, the new-generation digital wireless mics cannot be lumped together with the old-technology analog wireless gear.

I have G3 and System 10 and PRO-XD kits and I keep promising to make an A-B-C comparison video. Maybe I should get a RodeLink and try them all.
Richard Crowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 12:43 PM   #8
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 1,799
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

In my experience, the Sennheiser AVX worked ok (though my usage was in a rural area) The frequency blocks however are below the 'already' crowded 2.4 GHz wireless range. The 18ms latency is discerning when monitoring close by the talent. It goes for around $900 with a decent mic. The receiver uses a rechargeable battery packs which can be swapped. (about $50 each) It turns on/off though with a Phantom Power audio connection.
The Rode and AT bodypack transmitters are larger than the Sennheiser or Azden. Azden gear doesn't have a great rep but I haven't personally used any in quite a while. It also has rechargeable batteries, so when they go depleted, the device will need recharge time.
With all these type of systems, a multi-cam hop with one transmitter is not possible.
Rick Reineke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 01:07 PM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NY, NY USA
Posts: 422
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

Rick

What do you mean by "a multi-cam hop with one transmitter is not possible"?
Kathy Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 03:14 PM   #10
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 1,799
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

With traditional VHF and UHF systems, multiple receivers with a single transmitter (all tuned the same frequency) will work perfectly. I do this frequently on multi-camera shoots, each camera gets the exact same mix. My audio recorder gets the same mix as well plus the ISO tracks. It's great in lieu of lock boxes and a great back-up when the TC goes south. Can't do that with new 2.4 Ghz digital systems where separate (transmitter/receiver) systems, would be needed for each cam.
Rick Reineke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 03:48 PM   #11
Trustee
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,171
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

Yes, the low-cost digital systems are based on 1:1 protocols (like WiFi and BlueTooth) where each block of data is transmitted to a specific receiver. But the older analog systems were exactly like AM or FM broadcast radio where a transmitter blasts the signal out into the air for anybody who wishes to receive the signal.

One advantage to the digital systems is "automatic pairing" so you don't have to fiddle with the transmitter and/or receiver frequency/channel to get them synchronized. But the downside is that it is 1:1 and there is no "broadcast mode".
Richard Crowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 04:01 PM   #12
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 461
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

When the frequency changed happened in Australia I went with Sony UWP-D-16 rather than the Sennheiser G3 series.
The reason being is that the Sony had a 'plug on' Tx unit that delivered phantom power (the lower end Sennheiser doesn't) this has significantly changed my location sound set up, I now have a wireless boom pole. Also doing sit down interviews are SO easy now just use 2x phantom powered shotguns or Hyper mics, plug on Tx and NO cables to setup........ easy.
Brian P. Reynolds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 05:06 PM   #13
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,202
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

I'm using the Rode gear and it's fantastic. Wouldn't ever go back.

Andrew
Andrew Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 06:38 PM   #14
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,257
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

Rode claims 3x the range of the AT or Azden system. Presumably all three spec distance under line-of-sight optimum conditions. Is the Rode receiver really that much more sensitive?
__________________
dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com
Don Palomaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2016, 11:02 PM   #15
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,202
Re: Decent wireless bodypack

I've never had problems with it, except for one recent usage in Adelaide.

I was getting very low distance out of the receiver for a good reliable signal. Eventually realised that it was because we had placed the TX unit between the legs of the woman (whilst she was sitting down), and that she was absorbing the bulk of the RF signal in to her legs. Placed it elsewhere and the problem was solved.

Andrew
Andrew Smith is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > All Things Audio

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:22 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network