Just got my Audio Technica 1800 series today after waiting for a few months...Dang, but this system is da bomb!

2 channel, dual UHF diversity receiver, so I can have a butt plug on one channel and body mike on the other. Hirose connectors on the body pack, which some hate but I like.

The hot thing though, amongst other great things, is it has a build in "mixer."
If you've got a cam that has only 2 channels of input and you need more than two mics, use the wireless system as a 2 channel mixer, as it allows for as much blend as you'd like. Very impressed in the first 2 hours of playing with it, I hope to have a full review done by the weekend.
I wish they had an easy way to mount it on my Z1/V1 setups.

Beat me to it. Mine came friday and it's still on the dining room table. I'm jammed with work. Maybe the end of the week.

Regards,

Ty

I wish they had an easy way to mount it on my Z1/V1 setups.


Douglas,

Nothing better then getting a new toy. My set up is a little different. When I want to capture more than two audio sources, I use a set up that I bought intended for use with studio in ear monitors for bands not able to use floor wedges due to recording restrictions. I use the Shure personal monitor mixer. It allows for 4 line in inputs to the transmitter. It also allows the 4 channels to be mixed as well. I can daisy chain them if I need more. I use a mini to XLR on the bodypack receiver. Id clip it to my strap if I'm on the tripod or to my belt if I'm mobile. You have a more compact setup though needing only 1 mic transmitter for my two.

Jeff

yes, I too have a battery powered field mixer. The point of the 1800 is that I have two wireless sources that are independent, and can remain independent. Unless I need an additional channel on my camera, in which case I can sum the two sources into one channel, and use the other camera channel for whatever I need, perhaps a wired mic for a third channel, without having to drag out my mixer. The 1800 receiver mounts directly to the back of my camcorder. Nothing else needed.

Looks interesting, but I bet just like everyone else here, I want to know how it SOUNDS!

Clean and crisp but slightly sacrificing the bottom end like most typical high end analog body packs I've used? Is there any breathing or compander noise like the budget stuff? What about range and power consumption?

The web site says the retail price point is around $1800. That should put the street price comfortably under $1500 which looks pretty attractive for what is essentially a package of TWO wireless mic systems in a single unit.

Can't wait to read the full review(s).

B&H has 'em for under $1300... Steve

Very interested to know how these sound. My sales rep called me to let me know about the introduction of this setup and it looks pretty convenient. How big is the receiver pack? Comparable to 2 of the sennheiser G2's or closer to the Lectros? I'm working on a show now that's using the sennheisers, and they're dying fast! I like the sound of the Senn's, but they just aren't standing up in the field. The connectors on the cables and units are failing, so if this AT system has a similar form factor, I would certainly be up for trying it - seems to have a more robust connector setup. Any thoughts from you guys who have it would be most appreciated, thanks!

Are the included lavs useable?

It's a shame you can't buy the kits cheaper w/o lav mics included.

I just bought 2 Sony ECM77Bs and if I bought a wireless kit for each i'd have an extra two lavs that would do me no good whatsoever. I'd rather they remove it to drive the cost of the system down.

Any reviews on this yet? It seems like a great idea since mounting two wireless transmitters ontop of a camcorder is not too practical.

I've been working with one for a little over a month now and it certainly cuts down on the clutter at the back of the camera. I made a receiver mount out of Plexiglass. It's bolted to the back of my CAVision shoulder mount where it's out of the way and sort of helps to counter-balance the HVX-200.

The LCD display is a LOT easier to read than the LED's on the Audio Technica's ATW-101 system, particularly in daylight. This new receiver is the same size as the ATW-101 receiver but includes two independent diversity units in a single package.

Besides being a diversity receiver, the unit has the ability to auto-scan for clean channels. You can scan from the bottom upward for one channel, and from the top downward for the second. Makes finding usable channels quick and easy. Especially if you're working in conditions where wireless video taps and other wireless equipment are cluttering up the airwaves.

Antennas have standard BNC connectors to them which means you have the option of setting up seperate, higher-performance dipole antennas if you're operating from a fixed position.

There's an option to run just one channel of the receiver to save on batteries. And everything runs on AA's, not 9v batteries.

The transmitters now have ability to operate at 10mw or 30mw. The ATW-101 transmitter only operated at 10mw and sometimes had trouble punching through heavy clothing. Useful if you're covering dogsledding in Alaska.

Mics have 4-pin locking HRS connectors. If you do get this unit, I'd recommend getting the AT 899CW mics. They sound fuller than the stock mics which sound a little on the tinny side to me. Also, the mic clips aren't exactly low-profile. The ones I use are made by Shure and aren't too expensive.

Overall, the sound is about as good as the ATW-101, which was as good as the Lectrosonic 185.

I wanted to set up my Countryman B3's with these but no one has the wiring figured out for that yet. These units are too new. So I opted to get the AT 899CW mics. They're not quite as small as the B3's but the difference isn't THAT great, either in physical size or performance.

On a recent assignment in a 3-story house, I didn't start losing signal until I got down to the third floor. We were doing B-roll while the talent was conducting a seminar elsewhere in the house. And this was a very Big house!

Thanks Dean!

Not being an audio guy, where would this system fall compared to my existing Sony UWP units?

I'd like something better than the plastic build of those, and mounting two of those receivers on the back of my 350 is gaff tape/battery sillyness. I lust after a Zaxcom 2-ch receiver, but...realistically, gear at that level is a better investment for a real soundman, not me.

I think I just need/want something better than my Sonys for those shoots that are still going to be just me doing my own sound.

Lectrosonics
Zaxcom
Audio Ltd.
Micron

Those are four of the top shelf companies for wireless.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Lectrosonics
Zaxcom
Audio Ltd.
Micron

Those are four of the top shelf companies for wireless.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I understand that. The sound guys I hire have thought me that much. But realistically, my sound kit shouldn't be on the same level as the guys I hire, it's not smart money.

I just want something a little better/more convenient than I already have, but not to Lectro pricing.

Hey Nate,

I posted this earlier but I never left a link. I use http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/PersonalMonitorSystems/us_pro_P4MTRE3_content

I bought this as an in ear monitor system for bands when you can't use wedges. Now when I need multiple lav's, I can hook 4 lines in to each, mix them right and left and send a mix out or 4 channels to my laptop. I use the bodypack with a mini to XLR and clip it on my belt so it's always where I need to run & gun. I know it's not as portable as Spot's but I can get good reference on my tape while simultaneously sending signals to my laptop for better editing.

What do you think?

Jeff Mack

it's a great idea. I do much the same thing using a Firestation/Garwood system. This is an awesome means of monitoring a boom-mounted mic as well.
I'm one of those guys that believes in always monitoring a boom or any other mic, so the Garwood is perfect for me, allowing our boom ops to monitor two mics, a radio in one and boom in the other.

Can anyone compare these AT's with Sennheiser's G2's in terms of audio quality (besides it's diversity vs non) and build. And does the diversity really works on these ones, because I hear a lot of negative reactions from audio guys if I tell them that you can get a dual diversity kit for less then 1500...

Vincent...

Can't say how they sound compared to the G2's as I don't have G2's. But they do compare favorably to a Lectrosonic that I had, when I compared an AT system to a Lectro system using the same Countryman B3 mics.

As for diversity, these have individual receiver circuits and are supposedly true diversity units. You can see the receiver switching between the two antennas as the signal varies. Ideally the antennas should be much farther apart for really take advantage of a diversity unit. If you have the space and cabling you can rig them that way since the receiver has BNC antenna connectors. But trying to do that when everything is mounted on a camera isn't easy.

The build quality seems good. The transmitter has a plastic body that seems rugged enough. It's lightweight and the controls are easy to use. One of the transmitter's been dropped already. The talent stood up with the mic still attached. The transmitter was only resting on the chair and dropped almost two feet onto a stone floor. No damage.

The receiver is metal. The readout and frequency control is on the top. The output jacks and controls, however, are on the bottom. Could be hard for some to get at these, depending on how it's mounted on the camera.

The output jacks are mini-XLR's. AT provides a pair of short cables which adapt to standard XLR connectors. Or you can make your own to suit your particular setup.

All the mic and output jacks are multi-pin locking-type connectors. Way better than 1/8" TRS audio plugs. Connections are positive and stay in place.

Thanks a bunch Dean, for this information. So basically you say that you can compare the AT with a Lectrosonics, in terms of audio quality, or even better then. What about receive? Is that comparable as well? One of my sound guys uses Lectrosonics and I'm very happy with them, but if these are comparable and just at a fraction of the costs...

Vincent...

I'd say that the audio quality seems to be at least as good as the Lectro 185 that I was using. I notice a little bit of compression/expansion occasionally but not much.

Some of the Lectro units also put out a stronger signal. Up to 100 milliwatts, compared to 30 milliwatts. The stronger the signal the more reliable the signal can be. But so far I haven't had any dropouts or interference problems with this AT system.

I don't know if these AT units can hold up as well as the Lectro units in the long run -- some of those things go through a heck of a lot of abuse over a long period of time and keep coming back for more. Lectros are built like tanks and are milled from a solid piece of aluminum. That kind of workmanship doesn't come cheaply.

But for what I do the AT's are a great value. Especially considering their features.

Dean,
Can AT receiver (or any diversity receiver) function well in a horizontal position? I often use a Jimmy Box under my HVX/HDV cameras with non-diversity systems.

Aloha,

chris /DC metro dop

Chris...

The unit itself can be in any orientation. But the antennas will work best if they're vertically oriented and clear of any obstructions as much as possible. That's true with any type of radio receiver.

It would be possible to set up the antennas on a bracket, place them high on the camera, and run a pair of coax cables to the receiver below.

You could also connect the antennas with a 90-degree BNC connector and point the antennas downward. A lot of aircraft have their radar transponder antennas mounted that way under the fuselage.

Having transmit and receive antennas oriented in the same plane works, regardless of whether they are up or down or whatever. Having a bigger receive antenna also helps increase range and cut down on interference.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For greater efficiency you could use a full-wave antenna and ditch the less-efficient rubber ducky antenna. A full-wave antenna at these UHF frequencies (about 600 MHz to 700 MHz) would be about 17 inches long. A metal mounting bar could act as a decent ground plane.

For diversity systems, a minimum of a quarter-wave of spacing is recommended. So in this case the antennas should be at least 4 to 5 inches apart. Preferably wider. Some recommend 2x to 10x the wavelength as the distance between the two antennas, and in this case that comes to 8.5 inches to more than 42 inches.

For ideal reception antennas should be oriented based on the desired polarity of the radio signal. For omnidirectional applications, vertically oriented antennas are preferred. For certain beam applications, a horizontally oriented antenna might be employed. In either application, both the transmission antenna and the receiving antenna should share the same orientation.

In what we do the ideal situation isn't likely to be maintained. But to ensure the best possible performance, it's better to create a setup that is as efficient as practical.

I just thought of something: Since this is a diversity system, what if one antenna were oriented vertically and the other horizontally.

Then you're covered in both axis should the transmission orientation shift.

A dual diversity/multiple polarity system... Now that sounds impressive!

:-)

I
A dual diversity/multiple polarity system... Now that sounds impressive!

:-)

? sounds like my X's personality. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

? sounds like my X's personality. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Yikes!

Another consideration: My other AT wireless receivers got a bad case of RF noise when placed adjacent to a Firestore FS-100. Needed at least a few feet of separation to mimimize that problem. Even then it wasn't entirely eliminated.

Another source of RF noise: LaCie external hard drives. I was able to pick them up a few feet away, through a wall consisting of two 1/2" layers of drywall.

I don't know if other more expensive units, such as the Lectrosonics, are immune from this kind of interference.

Which AT receivers.

Ty Ford

That was the ATW-101x.

Operates around 700 MHz or so.

Focus Enhancements said that the Firestore was a Class A device and that there was the possibility of RF interference. Matt from Focus sent some ferrite chokes for the Firewire cable to see if it would solve the problem but there was still RF being picked up.

Dean,

I'm going out on a limb here, but I have heard of proximity problems with the Sound Devices 744T and some wireless mics in certain frequency ranges. Not always heard as noise, but as a reduction of range.

I have an FS4Pro and a U100 (no x) in the higher frequency range. Haven't tried them together yet. The different receive frequency MAY make a difference.

I'm sort of jammed, but I'll try to check my FS4 pro. Is that what you have?

Regards,

Ty

Ty...

I no longer use a Firestore as I had to give it up for a few reasons. One of the reasons was the RF problem.

Interesting there's a problem with the Sound Devices recorder. As I'd mentioned, I also noticed a noise problem with a LaCie external drive when doing a test. It's the hard drive. These things spew quite a bit of RF noise when spinning and especially when writing data.

The x-version I have operates at 656.125-668.500 MHz. Yours operates at 728.125-740.500 MHz.

Maybe the different band might make a difference but I'd guess probably not. The RF noise these hard drives emit are very broadband.

I wonder if the really expensive wireless systems filter out this interference better than th eless expensive ones?

Other than the rare instance of RF interference, I found all the AT units to be the next best thing to a hardwired mic at reasonable distances.

Can anyone please confirm whether or not you hear the click when you mute the AT1800 beltpack?

I've got the AT892 microset and was gonna buy their AWT-RMS1 remote mute switch.

If someone can convince me the AT1800 series system beltpack mute switch wouldn't be heard via an auditorium loudspeaker system, I'd more than likely go down this route.

TIA
Neil

Neil...

The muting at the transmitter end is absolutely silent. And if you turn off the transmitter there's no "hash" noise since the squelch seems to handle that instantly.

But if you turn off the receiver there's a click.

Neil...

The muting at the transmitter end is absolutely silent. And if you turn off the transmitter there's no "hash" noise since the squelch seems to handle that instantly.

But if you turn off the receiver there's a click.

Thanks for that Dean.

Your feedback has been very useful.

Neil

Is the output from the ATW 1800 receiver usable with stereo mini jack mic input on low end camcorders?
Another thing is that is the 1800 system usable all over the world (there are at least C and D bands)?

As far as I know two wireless channels on ATW 1800 can be mixed together to one output channel of the receiver so it is possible to use third wired mic additionally.

Is all that doable with the standard mini jack input on camcorder too or in other words does the mini jack mic input on consumer camcorder take the balanced output from the receiver? Can the mini XLR be terminated to do so?

Thanks in advance,
T

any sound quality comparison between the AT 1800 vs the sennheiser G2 yet ?

"Is the output from the ATW 1800 receiver usable with stereo mini jack mic input on low end camcorders?"

The input on the camera has to be able to take in a mic-level input. And you will need to convert or adapte the XLR connector to a 1/8" connnector.

"As far as I know two wireless channels on ATW 1800 can be mixed together to one output channel of the receiver so it is possible to use third wired mic additionally."

You can combine outputs on the ATW 1800 so that it mixes both inputs to a single cable, but to get another mic to feed your camera you're going to need a mixer. The ATW 1800 won't allow a third input.

"Another thing is that is the 1800 system usable all over the world."

You'd have to check each country's frequency listing to find out whether you can use a particular wireless mic system there. The mic manufacturers usually have a list available for the asking.

OK.. Just ordered this setup myself.

Based on seeing comments regarding the stock lav is there a consensus yet on the best mic element to use?

Chris

Hey DSE,

I have a question.

I got my AT1800 setup today. I connected it to my V1 and everything works fine. The question I have though is the unit seems to have some background white noise. It is coming from the receiver regardless of any incoming signal from either channel. I've been able to minimize it by turning up the mic output on the receiver and reduce the gain on the input of the V1. If I turn the V1's AGC on it becomes MUCH more noticeable (as I would have expected). The inputs are set for MIC level. I can even hear it over the headphone jack on the receiver.

Does your setup exhibit the same thing?

I've used my friends Lectrosonic setup and it doesn't do this at all. Dead silent.

I know we are talking about apples and oranges here when it comes to class of equipment between the AT and the Lec. If this is the way it is OK. Just wanting to know if I have a problem.

How are your AT 1800 transmitters holding up after about a year? That's the length of the warranty. Any issues with the belt clips or any little pieces of plastic breaking? Do they make a sleeve for the transmitters? I wish they were built like the metal casing of the dual receiver along with the sturdier clip.

So far I've had no problems with the mics and they're still delivering good audio.

AT does have a sturdy plastic sleeve to help weatherproof them, although they're a little too short if you tried to roll them up with the velcro seal. The antenna would have to be folded down to allow the sleeve to be folded shut.

Instead I seal up the opening with a piece of duct tape and that works well.

Hey DSE,

I have a question.

I got my AT1800 setup today. I connected it to my V1 and everything works fine. The question I have though is the unit seems to have some background white noise. It is coming from the receiver regardless of any incoming signal from either channel. I've been able to minimize it by turning up the mic output on the receiver and reduce the gain on the input of the V1. If I turn the V1's AGC on it becomes MUCH more noticeable (as I would have expected). The inputs are set for MIC level. I can even hear it over the headphone jack on the receiver.

Does your setup exhibit the same thing?

I've used my friends Lectrosonic setup and it doesn't do this at all. Dead silent.

I know we are talking about apples and oranges here when it comes to class of equipment between the AT and the Lec. If this is the way it is OK. Just wanting to know if I have a problem.

Might just be a mute that Lectro has. The AT folks are very attentive to phone calls. Call Ohio and ask to talk to their wireless mic dept.

Regards,

Ty

How are your AT 1800 transmitters holding up after about a year? That's the length of the warranty. Any issues with the belt clips or any little pieces of plastic breaking? Do they make a sleeve for the transmitters? I wish they were built like the metal casing of the dual receiver along with the sturdier clip.

no issues here at all. The metal case would be nice, but it's not an issue for us, even though we're pretty damn hard on our gear.

No problems here. Once I figured out that I needed to put the audio gain in manual I've not had white noise issues on tape. The V1 gains up a LOT and that was causing my audio hiss.

The only thing I've done is lost the mic clip. I've gotten around it by using a clip from a audio headset. Fits pretty well actually.

What mics ship with the Body Pack Transmitter versions of the 1800 wireless set?

Is it the AT830 (that looks a bit like a Tram)?

Thanks!

"What mics ship with the Body Pack Transmitter versions of the 1800 wireless set?"

The included lav basically stinks. It would be fine for an auditorium speaker I guess, but for any kind of dramatic material I wouldn't use it. Not only is too large to hide, the sound quality is noticeably lacking, even to untrained ears.

"What mics ship with the Body Pack Transmitter versions of the 1800 wireless set?"

The included lav basically stinks. It would be fine for an auditorium speaker I guess, but for any kind of dramatic material I wouldn't use it. Not only is too large to hide, the sound quality is noticeably lacking, even to untrained ears.

Do you or anyone know which microphone ships with the AT 1800 series body pack transmitter. What is the number?

The U100 use to ship with the AT830. Is this the same for the 1800, or is it a different mic?

Thanks! Since a number of people seem to have the system, I was hoping someone knew which mic (model number) was included. I can't find it on the AT website, on B&H, etc.

Can't seem to find it in the manual. Don't know what model it is.

I don't have the model number here, either. But the one you do want is the AT899cW.

Is the mic included shaped like a Tram TR-50, or is it shaped like a little barrel.

Is it side address or end address?

Thanks!