What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems?

Anthony Lelli · February 13th, 2015, 04:56 AM

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).

Paul R Johnson · February 13th, 2015, 02:03 PM

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.

Anthony Lelli · February 13th, 2015, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

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 ...

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.

Richard Crowley · February 20th, 2015, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Lelli

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".

Richard Crowley · February 20th, 2015, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson

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.)

Greg Miller · February 20th, 2015, 12:01 PM

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.

Anthony Lelli · February 20th, 2015, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Crowley

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.

Rick Reineke · February 20th, 2015, 01:18 PM

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?

Donald McPherson · February 20th, 2015, 01:38 PM

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.

Anthony Lelli · February 20th, 2015, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Reineke

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.

Richard Crowley · February 20th, 2015, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald McPherson

I think you guys are being a bit harsh.

No, actually, he deserves much worse.

Quote:

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"?

Quote:

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

Richard Crowley · February 20th, 2015, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Lelli

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.

Anthony Lelli · February 20th, 2015, 11:24 PM

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?featur...&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).

Paul R Johnson · February 21st, 2015, 02:37 AM

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.

Richard Crowley · February 21st, 2015, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Leave a YouTube comment if it really annoys you..

I did leave a comment. It was deleted.

February 13th, 2015, 04:56 AM	#31
Anthony Lelli Major Player Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: New York City Posts: 329	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? 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).

February 13th, 2015, 02:03 PM	#32
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,016	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? 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.

February 20th, 2015, 12:01 PM	#36
Greg Miller Trustee Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,786	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? 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.

February 20th, 2015, 01:18 PM	#38
Rick Reineke Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: New York Posts: 2,038	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? 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?

February 20th, 2015, 01:38 PM	#39
Donald McPherson Major Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Aberdeen Scotland Posts: 815	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? 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.

February 20th, 2015, 11:24 PM	#43
Anthony Lelli Major Player Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: New York City Posts: 329	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? 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?featur...&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).

February 21st, 2015, 02:37 AM	#44
Paul R Johnson Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lowestoft - UK Posts: 4,016	Re: What is the barrier to cheap, GOOD wireless mic systems? 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.