replacing mic cables with radio mics

[Mike Clayton]

I'm contemplating buying a pair of radio mic circuits to replace cable
runs on remote jobs. Hopefully I can get transmitters that plug directly
into the XLR sockets in the back of the microphones. Most of my material
is small and moderate size group classical.

Your recommendations would be valued.
--
Mike

[Mike Rivers]

On 4/30/2021 8:31 PM, Mike Clayton wrote:
> I'm contemplating buying a pair of radio mic circuits to replace cable
> runs on remote jobs. Hopefully I can get transmitters that plug directly
> into the XLR sockets in the back of the microphones.

There's a lot more to using wireless mics than just plugging them in.
I'd suggest that you first read whatever information is available on the
web sites of the makers of pro quality wireless mics such as Sennheiser,
Lectrosonics, Audio Technica, and Shure. Get a sense of what's involved
and who makes what, and fits your budget.




--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[palli...@gmail.com]

Mike Clayton wrote:
================

> I'm contemplating buying a pair of radio mic circuits to replace cable
> runs on remote jobs.

** Errr - why ??

> Hopefully I can get transmitters that plug directly
> into the XLR sockets in the back of the microphones. Most of my material
> is small and moderate size group classical.

** Know of anyone who has done this successfully?

Seems fraught with problems and risks to me.


..... Phil

[John Williamson]

As Mike Rivers says, there is a lot more to it than just plugging in.

Analogue radio mics have a reduced dynamic range, and often use a
companding system to improve the signal to noise ration in the radio
link that may cause problems for your use.

If you are using the mics to drive a live sound reinforcement system or
a monitor mix for the conductor, digital systems will have an
unavoidable delay in the ADC/ DAC chain, as well as more delays if they
use data compression to improve the bandwidth available.

It can be done but needs care and thought, as well as experimentation
with a few different types.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

1. The Lectrosonics system is far and above anything else available.

2. The fidelity of the Lectrosonics system is not acceptable for classical
recording.

3. The device you are speaking of is called a "butt plug" transmitter.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[palli...@gmail.com]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
=================

>
> >Your recommendations would be valued.
>
> 1. The Lectrosonics system is far and above anything else available.
>
> 2. The fidelity of the Lectrosonics system is not acceptable for classical
> recording.

** ROTFL !!!

That remark was *not* expected....

Care to elaborate a little please ??

> 3. The device you are speaking of is called a "butt plug" transmitter.

** Oooohhh - sounds painful....



...... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

palli...@gmail.com <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>=================
>>
>> >Your recommendations would be valued.
>>
>> 1. The Lectrosonics system is far and above anything else available.
>>
>> 2. The fidelity of the Lectrosonics system is not acceptable for classical
>> recording.
>
>** ROTFL !!!
>
>That remark was *not* expected....
>
>Care to elaborate a little please ??

If I can tell the difference between the input and the output, I don't
want it in my signal chain. This is an environment where even tiny
differences in sound become evident, in part because there are few mikes
so even a low level spot mike makes a considerable contribution to the
overall sound, and in part because we have a reference point to judge
the recording against. If it doesn't sound like a real orchestra in a
real room, it's no good.

The Lectrosonics is amazingly better than the wireless systems
of the past, but it's not anywhere near as good as a cable.

There have been a couple interesting attempts at high end digital
wireless systems that sacrifice low latency for sound quality (which is
a reasonable compromise for film sound even if not for PA). None
of them have succeeded in the market, though. Most of the existing
digital systems use Apt-X compression for lowest latency.

[Jason]

>
> 1. The Lectrosonics system is far and above anything else available.
>

Even better now, apparently, with the April 1 release of the
"Negative Delay" feature!

https://www.lectrosonics.com/april-press-releases/1279-lectrosonics-
announces-firmware-with-negative-delay-feature.html

[palli...@gmail.com]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
================
>>
> >> >Your recommendations would be valued.
> >>
> >> 1. The Lectrosonics system is far and above anything else available.
> >>
> >> 2. The fidelity of the Lectrosonics system is not acceptable for classical
> >> recording.
> >
> >** ROTFL !!!
> >
> >That remark was *not* expected....
> >
> >Care to elaborate a little please ??
>
> If I can tell the difference between the input and the output, I don't
> want it in my signal chain. This is an environment where even tiny
> differences in sound become evident, in part because there are few mikes
> so even a low level spot mike makes a considerable contribution to the
> overall sound, and in part because we have a reference point to judge
> the recording against. If it doesn't sound like a real orchestra in a
> real room, it's no good.
>
> The Lectrosonics is amazingly better than the wireless systems
> of the past, but it's not anywhere near as good as a cable.
>

** OK - but I was thinking of some other issues that would definitely ruin a classical recording

1. You cannot use phantom powered mics - only dynamics & batt powered electrets.

2. Typical wireless mic systems are engineered to work with vocal mics, so big signal levels coming from the mic.
Not so good with only mV or sub mV levels.

3. Even with diversity receivers, RF level drops and brief noise bursts are common.
Just one of them and you have to start all over.

4. RF interference from other wireless mics, broadcast TV and data signals can cause the same as above.

Not worth it, for just a bit of convenience.


..... Phil

[Chris K-Man]

_______

I'm chuckling at the thought of a burst of audio from 'General
Hospital' being recorded in the middle of someone's precious
violin quartet!

[palli...@gmail.com]

Chris K-Man wrote:
palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > >
> > > The Lectrosonics is amazingly better than the wireless systems
> > > of the past, but it's not anywhere near as good as a cable.
> > >
> > ** OK - but I was thinking of some other issues that would definitely ruin a classical recording
> >
> > 1. You cannot use phantom powered mics - only dynamics & batt powered electrets.
> >
> > 2. Typical wireless mic systems are engineered to work with vocal mics, so big signal levels coming from the mic.
> > Not so good with only mV or sub mV levels.
> >
> > 3. Even with diversity receivers, RF level drops and brief noise bursts are common.
> > Just one of them and you have to start all over.
> >
> > 4. RF interference from other wireless mics, broadcast TV and data signals can cause the same as above.
> >
> > Not worth it, for just a bit of convenience.
> >
>

> I'm chuckling at the thought of a burst of audio from 'General
> Hospital' being recorded in the middle of someone's precious
> violin quartet!

** LOL !

Only ever saw a case like that once here in Sydney.
Involved a Vega R22 wireless receiver on 204 MHz - similar to this one.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/193427859801?chn=ps

Worked just fine with the matching mic, but if another mic used with a similar R22 was brought near the first - the sound from TV Ch 9 popped up clear as day.

Seemed the signal from the second mic mixed with the TV FM sound carrier in the RF stage and the result came in on the image frequency of the particular R22.


..... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

palli...@gmail.com <palli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>** OK - but I was thinking of some other issues that would definitely ruin a classical recording
>
>1. You cannot use phantom powered mics - only dynamics & batt powered electrets.

This is no longer the case! A bunch of the newer butt plugs will now
supply 48V phantom. Shortens battery life, though.

>2. Typical wireless mic systems are engineered to work with vocal mics, so big signal levels coming from the mic.
> Not so good with only mV or sub mV levels.

The Lectrosonics systems are better than most in this regard. All of the
systems using companding will do some weird things with wide dynamic range
signals, but not all of them are as bad as the current Sony generation.
But yes, this is a fidelity issue and a big one.

>3. Even with diversity receivers, RF level drops and brief noise bursts are common.
> Just one of them and you have to start all over.

This is much better than it used to be. I wouldn't call wireless systems
reliable, but they are much more reliable and have better link margins than
they did a decade ago.

>4. RF interference from other wireless mics, broadcast TV and data signals can cause the same as above.

This is why frequency coordination is critical and if it's any sort of live
event you need to have a dedicated frequency coordinator who does nothing
but look for undocumented noise sources and plot out intermodulation products.
At festivals, the security guys are on the alert to stop anyone who has
anything with an antenna that doesn't have a yellow flag on it and send them
to the frequency coordinator in the press room and get them tested and flagged.

> Not worth it, for just a bit of convenience.

Agreed, but more and more people are demanding it.

[geoff]

And AKG...

geoff

[palli...@gmail.com]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
===================

>>
> >1. You cannot use phantom powered mics - only dynamics & batt powered electrets.
> This is no longer the case! A bunch of the newer butt plugs will now
> supply 48V phantom. Shortens battery life, though.
> >2. Typical wireless mic systems are engineered to work with vocal mics, so big signal levels coming from the mic.
> > Not so good with only mV or sub mV levels.
> The Lectrosonics systems are better than most in this regard.

** This is may be what Scott is alluding to:

https://www.lectrosonics.com/Product-Links/product/hma-plug-on-transmitter.html

Click on "data sheet" for tech details.

A cool US$ 1,700 for one transmitter.
Another US$ 1,300 for one receiver, batt powered.

So US$ 6,000 for the OP to replace two XLR cables.



..... Phil

[geoff]

On 3/05/2021 4:14 pm, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> ===================
>>>
>>> 1. You cannot use phantom powered mics - only dynamics & batt powered electrets.
>> This is no longer the case! A bunch of the newer butt plugs will now
>> supply 48V phantom. Shortens battery life, though.
>>> 2. Typical wireless mic systems are engineered to work with vocal mics, so big signal levels coming from the mic.
>>> Not so good with only mV or sub mV levels.
>> The Lectrosonics systems are better than most in this regard.
>
> ** This is may be what Scott is alluding to:
>
> https://www.lectrosonics.com/Product-Links/product/hma-plug-on-transmitter.html
>
> Click on "data sheet" for tech details.
>

One thing not mentioned in the data sheet is the latency. Unless I
missed it.

geoff

[palli...@gmail.com]

geoff wrote:
-----------------

>
> >>> 1. You cannot use phantom powered mics - only dynamics & batt powered electrets.
> >> This is no longer the case! A bunch of the newer butt plugs will now
> >> supply 48V phantom. Shortens battery life, though.
> >>> 2. Typical wireless mic systems are engineered to work with vocal mics, so big signal levels coming from the mic.
> >>> Not so good with only mV or sub mV levels.
> >> The Lectrosonics systems are better than most in this regard.
> >
> > ** This is may be what Scott is alluding to:
> >
> > https://www.lectrosonics.com/Product-Links/product/hma-plug-on-transmitter.html
> >
> > Click on "data sheet" for tech details.
> >
> One thing not mentioned in the data sheet is the latency. Unless I
> missed it.
>

** Think the fact the Rx is tiny & batt powered is a clue .....


...... Phil