Wireless Microphones
 

I am looking for some good wireless mics and wanted to know what people recommend (model #'s etc). I plan on using it with my XL1. What would be ideal is a lavaliere style which would allow me to attach 3 different mics to 3 different people, come back to a small mixing station and then go into the XL1. I'd like to know what the distance range is and all of that good stuff. I'm also interested in any other recommendations that people might have.

Thanks in advance.

Hey Joe,

I just recently posted the same question in another forum...it's at http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=866. There have been a couple of responses so far. The best option given to date is Azden. I've looked at Azden and I'm just not crazy about it...but that might be the only choice.

One thing I haven't been able to get an answer on...here or from the dealers directly is what they mean in the info on certain wireless systems when they say

Number of channels: 32
Number of simultaneous systems: 32

"Simultaneous systems"? That sounds like separate transmitters to me. But 32? Somebody will have to hit me over the head with a microphone and say "Yes, John...32 transmitters are possible" before I'll believe that.

One model I'm talking about specifically is Samson's UHF Micro 32 at http://www.samsontech.com/wireless/products.html. The blurb says <<32 UHF channels in receiver and transmitters.>>

I'm just worried that I'm misconstruing what they mean here...because 32 transmitters at this price is unbelievable. Another site claims << PLL-synthesized VCO circuitry in the transmitters reduces RF interference from spurious emissions in multi-user applications.>> "Multi-user"...bottom line is I don't really care if 32 transmitters are possible, I'm hoping for 2 to 3, and "multi-user" seems to imply that. Just wish one of these sites would spell it out in plain English.

Remember John, you are in Korea ;)

So THAT's why the movie theaters here sell more dried squid snacks and boiled silk worm larvae than popcorn...I'm in Korea! How'd that happen?

Re. Wireless mics
 

Hi Joe.
Re your question regarding suitable wireless mics for the canon xl1. Don't make the mistake that we made a few months back by buying Azden for the following reasons.
1. To use 3 mics you will need 3 complete kits of mics and receivers.
2. Quality is very poor due to the frequency used. We experienced a lot of probs from emergency services, mobile phones and even telephone wires and nearby electrical appliances.
3. Effective range is about 100 feet-if you are very lucky!
4. Manufacturer says new batteries have to be used every time you use the mics.
Sollution> Buy Sennheiser EW100. The quality is nothing short of awesome with no interference and an effective range of over 500 feet (without obstruction) and you will only need 1 receiver at the camera end and a cheap 3 channel mixer back into the xl1.
Hope this helps
regards to all
David Gemini Films

I was recently looking at the Sennheiser EW100 range. While looking at the EW112-P I noticed that the audio connection was 3.5mm jack instead of XLR on the higher 500 model range.
Will the quality through a 3.5mm jack be less of that through XLR and is XLR worth the extra £200 or so?

Lectrosonic UHF
 

I use a Lectrosonic UHF 100 series, 256 frequencies
with the lavalier mic. In addition, I can use my Electro-voice RE50/B Omni hand held mic or my audio -technica AT835b shotgun attached to the transmitter.

I'm not sure, but I think you'll need 2 or 3 separate transmitter/receivers.

David,

You did not specify which Azden model you purchased but we have had GREAT results with our Azden UDR400 unit. It uses the UHF frequencies instead of VHF and has never given us a dropout. We have also never picked up extraneous radio signals. I will agree that it will only work with one transmitter but I believe that Azden does have some dual units available.

Wireless mics
 

Check out a company named AKG. I'm using 5 WMS80PT's, running into a small portable mixer. They are UHF and fairly afffordable. There are numerous mics available to plug into the recievers. I have been extremely pleased with the results that I have gotten. As for Azden having that many channels, there is a reason, it is possible that someone else might be using the exact same model nearby that may cause interfearance (not likely, but possible).

I Use The EW112p
 

I like the EW112p. On such a short run like that I doubt you would notice any difference with XLR. Besides, the XL-1 does not have XLR unless you add a mic adapter.

The other thing to realize is that ew112p IS NOT DIVERSITY!!! I believe the 300s and 500s are.

The only time I got the mics to fail was at extreme range. The rest of the time they have worked quite well.

The one I am using is running up around 740MHz. Some wireless users say that is one of the reasons I do not miss diversity.

Hope this helps,
Nathan Gifford

"The other thing to realize is that ew112p IS NOT DIVERSITY!!!"

Sorry if this is pretty basic but I'm what you might call an amateur... what is "Diversity"?

Thanks.

Diversity is the buzz word for a system that transmits simultaneously on two frequencies. This way if there's a signal drop-out on one frequency, the other will provide a backup. This way, there's no lost audio signal. It's rare for both frequencies to drop out at the same time.

Thanks for that clear explanation.
With these non-diversity ones, is this drop-out a noticable regular problem, as I am considering the ew112p?

I think it really depends on a lot of things. UHF systems are supposed to be better than VHF systems. The environment is pretty significant(the amount of reflected signal causing cancellation kind of thing), also distance from the receiver. Stuff happens.......the best way to be sure is redundancy. I can't quantify it, perhaps someone alse on this board can.

I have not had a problem.
 

After hours of use with the ew112p I never had a dropout except at extreme range. Mine works around 740MHz.

From other diversity users they suggest that these UHF units have less problems with dropouts than the lower frequency units.

Nathan Gifford