Wireless Microphones

Tim Borek · June 10th, 2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Todd Lamkin

I would look hard at the AKG PR/PT81 series. B&H has them at $449 and I love them. They are extreamly light, they use AA batteries (read cheap rechargeables), and most important, I have NEVER had a drop out while in the same room as the transmitter. I do churches that get close to 300 feet long, and they do great.

I think that AKG has a snazzy shoe mount, like the Sony. That's my only complaint about my Samson Micro32 receiver, it has no shoe mount, and the antennae can only rotate on one axis. If the antenna could rotate on the other axis, you could lay the receiver flat and strap it to the top of a small ENG camcorder top handle. If my Samson ever craps out, I'll replace it with the AKG or Sony $450 model.

Waldemar Winkler · June 16th, 2005, 06:20 PM

I've used wireless mic systems for 20+ years and continue to use them successfully. Having said that, I feel the use of stand alone recorders, specifically the iRiver, is an excellent and cost effective way to go.
If you take the time to learn and understand how wireless systems work one can acquire effective systems at a very reasonable cost. One MUST understand the idiosyncracies of wireless, however.
I use a NADY products. My system is rack mounted and includes two UHF receivers and two VHF receivers. There are lapel and hand mic transmitters for all frequencies. My total investment for four single systems, a rack case, a 4 channel audio mixer, and a light stand to hold everything at a reasonable height for clean reception is just under $700. The equivalent Lectrosonics system would have cost around $4000. To achieve this cost I had to do my homework, which included research into all reasonable interference broadcasts within a 200 mile radius.
The best recording systems are those which are immune to interference. I call them "closed" systems. Within this context, one can't get better than a mic connected to a single recording device via a shielded cable (which is what an iRiver is).
Every choice one makes about recording audio is about a trade-off between quality, set-up/tear-down time, testing, and convenience. Just about any approach will work well, provided one knows where the pitfalls will be and how to compensate for them.

June 16th, 2005, 06:20 PM	#17
Waldemar Winkler Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Durango, Colorado, USA Posts: 711	I've used wireless mic systems for 20+ years and continue to use them successfully. Having said that, I feel the use of stand alone recorders, specifically the iRiver, is an excellent and cost effective way to go. If you take the time to learn and understand how wireless systems work one can acquire effective systems at a very reasonable cost. One MUST understand the idiosyncracies of wireless, however. I use a NADY products. My system is rack mounted and includes two UHF receivers and two VHF receivers. There are lapel and hand mic transmitters for all frequencies. My total investment for four single systems, a rack case, a 4 channel audio mixer, and a light stand to hold everything at a reasonable height for clean reception is just under $700. The equivalent Lectrosonics system would have cost around $4000. To achieve this cost I had to do my homework, which included research into all reasonable interference broadcasts within a 200 mile radius. The best recording systems are those which are immune to interference. I call them "closed" systems. Within this context, one can't get better than a mic connected to a single recording device via a shielded cable (which is what an iRiver is). Every choice one makes about recording audio is about a trade-off between quality, set-up/tear-down time, testing, and convenience. Just about any approach will work well, provided one knows where the pitfalls will be and how to compensate for them. __________________ Waldemar