Wireless Boom Mics?
 

With many prosumer cameras having XLR in now, it would be much more convienent to pump audio directly onto the DV tape rather than recording it on DAT and syncing it up later (especially on a documentary shoot, where there could potentially be hundreds of hours to sync, although most people would probably only sync once they've significantly reduced the footage)

Of course being tethered to your sound guy(or gal) also somewhat limits your mobility as a camera man, so that isn't exactly the best option.

What wireless boom mic setups are out there for the prosumer market (Under $1500) ? (I.e. what portable wireless transmitters/recievers that provide XLR without significant signal degregation should I check out?)

Thanks -

I have an ATR55, which plugs right into my Azden wireless lav bodypack. Are you starting to follow my drift? It isn't XLR, but will work as a wireless boom setup. Just plug the reciever into your cam, and you have the tool you are looking for.

Lectrosonics butt plug provides phantom power in it's xmitter.

I think the Zaxcom does as well, but check me on that.

That still doesn't really work without a way for the boom op to hear what the mic's picking up.

To do that, you need some sort of powered belt pack with a headphone jack for the boom op and a separate spigot to feed the wireless xmitter .


Regards,

Ty

Keith - I was wondering about XLR specifc solutions, as I have access to a few XLR-only mics -

Ty - I thought of that too, and was considering something like a Rolls PM50 if there were no wireless transmisters which had that functionality.

I just thought maybe there was a specific product designed for using medium to high-end boom mics (like a 4073a or something) wirelessly

Sorry Ari, but I don't use XLRs very often these days. I was just relaying one of my work-arounds, hoping it might help you come up with your own solution.

Keith - I appreciate your contribution, and it does seem like a nice easy way to go if I end up buying some new mics as well. Anyone else have any ideas?

<<<-- Originally posted by Ari Shomair : Keith - I was wondering about XLR specifc solutions, as I have access to a few XLR-only mics -

Ty - I thought of that too, and was considering something like a Rolls PM50 if there were no wireless transmisters which had that functionality.

I just thought maybe there was a specific product designed for using medium to high-end boom mics (like a 4073a or something) wirelessly -->>>

Ari,

I think a trip to a location audio website like John Coffey's place
www.coffeysound.com is in order.

John has lots of doo dads that do those jobs.

Regards,

Ty

You gotta' get a pretty good plug-on beyond even simply getting phantom to the mic... I used to love the convenience of a wireless boom until I A/B'ed my 416 wired and wireless. I couldn't believe how much soul the transmitter was sucking out of the mic... I called Lectro to have my transmitter tuned up and they said it was probably fine after I described the difference in sound quality.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, but you may be surprised at how much of the mic's quality that you lose when running it wireless... unless you get a REALLY good wireless set.

I ended up selling my Lectro plug-on set 'cause I can't imagine being in a situation where I'd accept the quality drop from the mic vs. dealing with a wire. (I still run a Lectro lav and love it.)

If Ty or somebody else can offer a suggestion for a plug-on that doesn't affect the mic detail too much... and is cheaper then a Zaxcom... I'm all ears.

Interesting. here's what I'm guessing. I said guessing.

The 416 requires full 48V DC phantom at 2 mA. It may be possible that the plug on you used was not capable of supplying the total power reqiured. Power being the product of voltage times current. 96 mW is a lot to ask for one 9 Volt battery.

Then too, it may be the wireless transmission and reception itself. Lectro makes a line of good and better gear. Which Lectro plugon and receiver were you using?


Regards,

Ty (who always prefers a wire) Ford

It was a cr187... I have two of these sets... one plug and one bodypack... (2 complete sets, not 2 transmitters and 1 receiver)... and maybe it WAS something in the one set. It's not like it sounded like crap... it just sounded like 75% a normal 416... The bass thinned out and there was a subtle "fizz" that you could only hear with headphones... but it drove me nuts.

When I plugged in a couple other mic types (that you wouldn't normally use wireless) such as large diaphragms... it would absolutely KILL them... and even ENG mics were hit or miss. A Beyer m58 sounded fine, but my AKG d230 lost it's soul too. So you how would you assess that? I'm thinking that the reason every ENG mic you see on TV is an re50 is 'cause it sounds best with a wireless. What do you think of all this?

Is there an "affordable" plug-on that DOESN'T have this anamoly?

<<<-- Originally posted by Matt Gettemeier : It was a cr187... I have two of these sets... one plug and one bodypack... (2 complete sets, not 2 transmitters and 1 receiver)... and maybe it WAS something in the one set. It's not like it sounded like crap... it just sounded like 75% a normal 416... The bass thinned out and there was a subtle "fizz" that you could only hear with headphones... but it drove me nuts.

When I plugged in a couple other mic types (that you wouldn't normally use wireless) such as large diaphragms... it would absolutely KILL them... and even ENG mics were hit or miss. A Beyer m58 sounded fine, but my AKG d230 lost it's soul too. So you how would you assess that? I'm thinking that the reason every ENG mic you see on TV is an re50 is 'cause it sounds best with a wireless. What do you think of all this?

Is there an "affordable" plug-on that DOESN'T have this anamoly? -->>>

Maybe the higher sensitivity condenser mics were overdriving the transmitter input and/or not mating well with the mic preamp?

Maybe the drain on the transmitter battery to provide phantom for the mic is pulling the system down.

There IS a mystical relationship between wireless mic inputs the the mics used, no doubt. :) RE50 + wireless = success is one example. I'm certain there are others.

You might have tried to run the 416 through a phantom powered mixer and plugged the lectro transmitter into the mixer output. That would eliminate the possibility of phantom drain and mic preamp mismatches.

And, NO. There isn't a cheap way to get quality. Having said that, there are some new mics for video that aound pretty darn good for the money. When I consult a shooter about sound and audio, we go over the options.

What's depressing to me is the number of people who make posts saying they have, for example, $300 for sound and want good sound. I can only read this sort of post as one made by someone who may have a passion for shooting, but doesn't really have a grasp of what's involved in getting professional quality; not only the equipment, but the process as well.

The flood of afforadble camcorders has empowered many people as never before. There's an ineresting sense of entitlement that sometimes surfaces among the newly empowered; an "I'm making a film (video) and I'm doing it MY way." sort of vibe.

In my gut, I'm seeing this as their reaction to overriding control issues elsewhere in their lives. "My job/wife/husband may be teling me what to do or keeping me from doing things I would like to do, but this is my own project." That's fine. I applaud everyone who goes for it.

There are, however, immutable laws of physics for picture, lighting and sound that control what can be done and what can't. You want a solid document on what professional sound people think about and what they believe is required to get good sound? Go to my website, click on location recording and click on The Letter.

After you read The Letter, you'll have a much better idea as to what it takes to get good sound and why the $300 solution tells me a lot more about you than you may realize. :)

Regards,

Ty Ford

I'm sure we're suffering a communication gap and that you weren't directing that speech at me, but after our couple of posts back and forth and the quote of me at the top a hasty reader may get that impression.

So I just have to add that I'm not a $300 solution kind of guy... 416 and Lectro 'aint cheap. Even a cr187 is $500-$700 in a 5 year-old edition. (My wireless boom with Rycote mount, Softie, Lectro, and CF K-Tek made a $2500 stick... my cost.)

The used Lectros I'm using were $1400 5 years ago. I bought 'em from some friends in NY who were doing sub-work for GMA with these just 2 years ago. (They replaced 'em with the 201 series.)

You're right. I wasn't.

Ty Ford

Any headphone amplifier for wireless boom mike out there?
 

Hi,
Do you know any good gear to get a headphone output to a boom operator with wireless mic to the camcorder?

I was thinking to get a Sennheiser SKP500 plug-on wireless transmitter with phantom powering to a MKH 416. But there s a need for something like a "plug-between" headphone amplifier to guide the boom man. Some recommendations please ar at least some idea what to use? /Regards Johan

Hi,

Sure.

http://www.studio1productions.com/am300.htm

Regards,

Ty Ford

Hi Ty,
Thank you. This is about what I need. If I had more time I could solder one myself.
I took a look at your informative web pages. Some useful information, thank you. How many pages is in your book? Regards Johan

Greetings Johan,

Thanks for communicating in english. My apologies. I'm not smart enough to speak your language.

76 pages; including a panic check list, appendix of gear that is always good and another appendix of rental facilities in the US from which you can rent the gear you can't afford today.

I don't know if any of them will ship to Sweden. I was expecting my little book to be consumed in the states but, to my surprise, it has found favor in New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, UK, Italy, Japan, Canada, Spain, Austria, France and a few other countries I can't recall at the moment.

In addition, I offer my free mic tutorial.mp4 video. It's in the Video folder in my On Line Archive. You can see and hear the different mics as I explain why each one has its own best use.

Regards,

Ty Ford

A more affordable option would be the Rolls XLR Personal Monitor AMP+ -
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

I actually have one which in barely used condition for sale for $35.00 if you are interested.

Look carefully at the specs. The Rolls you're selling is less expensive, but the audio does pass through the Rolls. In the studio 1 productions device, it doesn't. That's important. I don't think the Rolls clips a belt either.

Regards,

Ty Ford

DIdn't know that Ty, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
My rolls came with a belt clip -

Has anyone used the Sennheiser G2 kit with the mic plugin transmitter? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=324227&is=REG

I was thinking about ordering this as I use a shotgun on a boom frequently and would love to go wireless, but after hearing about the Lectrosonics losing a lot of sound quality doing this I think I'll just stick to wired.

The SKP 100 and SKP 100 G2 do not provide phantom power. You need to step up to the SKP 500 if you need phantom in a sennheiser butt-plug style transmitter. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

If purchased in the correct frequency block, the SKP 500 is compatible with the 100 and 100 G2 receivers.

All above is only relevant if you need phantom power for your mic.

I wanted to have similar functionality for shooting documentary stuff so i bought a handful of pieces.

I have a sound devices mixpre in a belly bag for the boom op to wear. The miniplug out hooks into a roland r-09 in a second pocket. Both of these are very very small and lightweight. The mixpre provides awesome preamps and phantom power which feed directly into the r-09. Using this you can use almost any xlr mic.

Then, i have a sennheiser G2. I suppose i could hook the normal feed from the mixer to the clip on transmitter, but i havent tried that. I have the skp 100 (non phantom) xlr butt plug that i plug directly into one of the xlr line outs of the mixpre. Then, i put a g2 receiver on the cold shoe of the camera.

To me its the best of all worlds for run n gun doco work. 99% of the time the audio from the wireless feed to the camera is great. Its in sync and it captures with the picture and for lots of projects its just not worth the effort to sync more audio. BUT, for the cost of a stack of dvd blanks and some dumping at the end of the day, i also have a really nice full range recording that i can even have in 24 bits if i feel like it.

You mentioned a $1500 budget. You can get my setup for for just a small bit more.

I paid $369 for the r-09 (sexy little recorder) http://www.roland.com/products/en/R-09/index.html

I paid $665 for my mix-pre and $592 for the evolution G2 system that also includes the xlr butt plug.

So thats a 24 bit recorder that will fit in your shirt, a KILLER portable AA powered preamp/phantom provider/limiter/mixer that can be used in all sorts of ways and a G2 system with a lavalier mic and transmitter, an xlr (non phantom) transmitter and an on camera receiver all for around $1630.

It probably isnt what an audio pro would use, but its a hell of a lot of versatility for the money.
You get a sweet preamp, a mixer for the boom op, a fantastic limiter (even boom ops get surprised), a really tiny solid state recorder AND a wireless feed back to the camera.

The G2 sounds great most of the time and for the few potential hiccups? you have a pristine 24 bit recording to fall back on. In a pinch you can even use the on-board microphones on the r-09 to record foley/location sounds.

You can save some money by using an old portadat or a minidisc recorder as your belt-recorder, but i wouldnt buy a lesser mixer or a lesser wireless setup.

Thats my 2c. I'm a post production guy who has morphed over to preproduction so i can do my own projects, so take my advice with a relative amount of sodium.

-a

Ari,

Thanks for letting ME know. :)
I've only seen them without!

Regards,

Ty

Guess I'm not following you here. It appears that
the audio also passes through the Studio 1.

The website makes a point of saying the audio does NOT pass through any circuitry.

Regards,

Ty

...or the Rolls PM50sOB
 

... and the Rolls PM50sOB is worth checking-out (make sure that you get the belt clip as well tho'..).. Mic passes straight through - and the headphone amp is suitably potent. I have one and it works a treat.. I use it wired, not wireless, into a SD302 which provides the necessary Phantom power for the mic..
Info / schematic at: http://www.rolls.com/rollsproducts/
Rgds, Ross.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

I don't want to appear argumentative, but the Rolls has level controls for the mic. I think that means it has to go through some circuitry. Any circuits though which the audio passes offers the opportunity to degrade the audio.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Rolls PM50sOB
 

From the circuit diagram it appears that there is a hard wire link between mic in and mic out. The headphone feed is taken from between the two, and the mic control is part of that feed - i.e. to adjust the level of the mic in the headphones only, not to set the downstream level itself. This particular unit (PM50sOB) also has a monitor input with a separate control to adjust its level as well, so the mic level can be 'mixed' with a 'Return' feed if the operator so wishes. Quite neat. I have one of these and can confirm that this is indeed how the unit works - i.e. that the Mic control does not affect the downstream Mic level, just its level in the 'phones.
Rgds, Ross.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Andrew - I'm interested in using your setup, but I'm not clear about one thing: what do you mean by "normal feed from the mixer"? How is that different from the "xlr line out of the mixpre" - or is that the same thing and you were just making the point that you could have used the clip on transmitter instead of the butt plug? Thanks! JP