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?

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

The Sennheiser G3 series are my go-to for inexpensive wireless.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

Rick

What do you mean by "a multi-cam hop with one transmitter is not possible"?

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.

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".

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.

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

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

Andrew

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?

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

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

The Sennheiser AVX does have delay issues. Trying to mix it with other analogue UHF wireless mics we measured about a 20 milliseconds delay which is close to half a PAL frame. Half a frame out causes unacceptable echo issues. Most broadcasters would not accept this on signal QC.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

What would you recommend for over $1000? Lectros? Is there a wireless system that sounds almost as good as wire (is that even possible?)?

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

You could get a used 200 series (UM200 transmitter; 211 receiver) for a little over $1k (usually w/o a mic). The receiver is kind of big for a small cam though and the internal batteries (two 9 volts) only run it for 3-4 hrs. There's usually some clean spaces in blocks 20 & 21 for Manhattan and those blocks are in the upper 400> 500 Mhz range so they'll be FCC legal for a few years anyway. If you upgrade to the 400 series, the receiver will also work with 200 series transmitters, not digitally though.

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

What if money was not an issue?
How are wireless sets from Zaxcom?

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

Over here on this side of the Pond, Lectrosonics and Zaxcom are at the top of the list, and over in the Old World they like Audio Ltd a lot.

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

The Zaxcom gear is something that I had my heart set on due to the digital quality and also the TX pack having its own internal .wav recording of audio ... giving you the ultimate in bullet-proof audio capture.

The price was an issue, though. Just couldn't stomach it ... and I'm a person who believes in buying once and buying well.

The Rode gear gives me the digital quality that I was aspiring to have, and I can't fault it at all. I'm very happy with what I have now. By all means spend more money if you really want to.

Andrew

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

Totally Sennheiser high end where I work and we have lots of channels working great.

Re: Decent wireless bodypack
 

I've reversed my opinion in the past year. I bought a sackful of 2.4GHz radio systems and they perform really well. However, I won't be buying any more because 2.4GHz is simply too busy - and I'm not just talking about the usual users - Every lighting control and sound mixer, sound processor and video link is now using the band too. The mics, to be fair, seem to be the strongest and most reliable link, but the lighting guy is sending his DMX via 2.4GHz, and has another system to control the desk from the stage area, where the mic receiver racks are. The sound people wander around with iPads and somebody always drops their link - and has a panic attack trying to regain control. If you don't work in live events, maybe it's not so bad - but I do and the over occupancy of 2.4GHz is becoming a problem.

If it helps - I'm planning to buy another 6 channels of Sennheiser in ch 38.