Probably me that made that comment. We have abound 6 Sennhiesers. Rock solid. Leads to the mics get killed every once in a while by people shutting the Pelican case lids on them. Apart from the paint wearing off over the years of use, still going strong.
Need to put a little effort into getting good levels into transmitter and matching the output of the reciever to what it's going into.
We've even had them used desk line out -> xmitter -> reciever->camera. You can select line or mic input by different cables.

There are some better kit using digital encoding, QSX seems to be aname that comes to mind, uses spread spectrum RF, very expensive, but you did ask!

Before I came over here, I went to the B&H site and was looking at their mics.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=3785

What do you guys think of the ones listed here? There seem to be quite a few from Samson, Sony, AKG, Audio Technica, Sanheiser, all in the $500 range.

If you had a $550 limit, what would you buy to go with a Canon GL2?

JBJones

Post the question on this site. Post under "Audio Solutions". You will get some very good answers, particularly from Jay Rose and Jerry R among others. You will have to sign up to read and post questions. You can try their "search" feature, but it is virtually useless.

John

Spot recommended AT88W audio technica(sp?) if I am reading my notes right.

Haven't ordered one yet, so do not have any first handed experience.

Don't really have much basis for comparison, but I LOVE my Sennheiser Evolution 100s. Solid construction, no interference, good sound. I'm not the pickiest audiophile, and I mainly use them for mono dialogue tracks. If you're doing high-end music recording, maybe you want a more expensive mike.

For my purposes, however, I can't imagine what kind of performance would justify paying 2-3 times the cost of these units.

"For my purposes, however, I can't imagine what kind of performance would justify paying 2-3 times the cost of these units. "

My uses included following a reporter around our downtown area once (think tall buildings & interference possibilities everywhere). He walked into a restaurant while I was at least 2 blocks away in a car. I could still hear every word he said. For me, that more than justified the cost of the Lectrosonic unit (and this was only a VHF model, not a UHF diversity one).
YMMV.

Mike

if its on camera receiver - i would definitely go with UHF Dual Diversity.
Moving around you can hit 'bad spots' as the radio waves bounce around - having a 2nd attenna/channel resolves this problem.

One day i will be able to afford one :)

& little note - DO NOT go cheap on these... first one i bought was Azden VHF pro - or something like that - KrAP. get what u pay for

For the record, the Sennheiser Evolution 100s are UHF multi-channel units. You have to manually select the channel, so I believe they are not "true" diversity. (Do I have my terminology right?)

Still, have yet to experience any dropouts or interference, and they have a good range.

Brian,

From what I've read the Sennheiser's do not have diversity antenas on the portable units. But, yes they do have mutiple frequencies to choose from.

So, It looks like I'm going to try the Sennheiser Evolution 100s.

Something strange about the Evolution G2 100. No one has them in stock and B&H said they were recalled for some reason. I liked the look of the new G2 100 but I guess I'll have to go with the plain Evolution 100. In any case, we'll see in about two days if the Evolution will suit my needs.


Thanks everyone, for relaying all the experience.

JBJones

I'm with Tadpole, a True Diversity system is a must. Here is an excerpt from the Audio Technica web site that explains it very well:

Diversity Versus Non-diversity

Diversity wireless systems always out-perform otherwise similar non-diversity systems. However, despite the inherent advantages of diversity operation, many other aspects of equipment design are also very important. For this reason, it is not unusual to obtain more satisfactory results with a high-quality non-diversity system than with a poorly-designed or cheaply-made diversity system. This is especially likely in areas where interference is a serious problem.

A diversity system is highly desirable because it effectively combats the most common problem with wireless microphone equipment: signal dropouts due to multipath. Multipath occurs when RF signals arrive at a location via different transmission paths (usually referring to a combination of direct and reflected signals). Under these conditions, the audio output of the wireless receiver may become noisy, or the audio may be lost entirely for a short time. Multipath is most likely to occur in closed areas where many metal objects are present, but can occasionally be troublesome in most situations.

Diversity receivers are able to avoid dropouts due to multipath because they have two antennas and two receiver channels. Special circuits in the receiver select the audio from the antenna and receiver channel with the best signal. Because the chances that there will be simultaneous dropouts at both antennas are extremely low, diversity receivers provide almost complete immunity from dropouts due to multipath.

Diversity operation can also improve the useful operating range for wireless systems. This is because even when there are no actual total dropouts, multipath effects can reduce the amount of signal available at long ranges. This can cause the receiver to briefly lose audio well before the transmitter is truly out of range. With diversity, complete signal loss is much less likely and the useful operating range of the wireless system will be extended.

There are two types of diversity systems available: true diversity and phasing diversity. While true diversity can be shown to be superior to phasing diversity, the equipment is also more expensive to manufacture, and phasing diversity works acceptably well in many situations. Diversity equipment is more expensive to purchase than similar non-diversity equipment, but the improved reliability and enhanced performance is almost always worth the added cost.

It is recommended that diversity equipment be purchased unless the budget simply will not accommodate the extra cost. However, the use of non-diversity equipment should not be rejected entirely. Despite its limitations, non-diversity equipment can provide satisfactory operation in many less-demanding applications, perhaps at the expense of some additional setup and checkout time. The use of non-diversity systems should also be considered for situations where interference might become a serious problem and the cost of diversity systems of comparable quality is out of reach.

The 88 is a low-end, used for only close range uses, but it sounds friggin' incredible, due to the lack of companding in the circuit. I would have never believed this had I not seen them on more than one Hollywood set. After contacting AT, I was informed that a lot of Hollywood sound crews use these due to the omission of companding, which makes a large difference in the sound. And you know what? It really is a great system for under 200.00. Just need to be aware of its weaknesses. Distance is the biggest one. Anything more than 25' and you are at high risk.
The 88 is a non diversity system, which can also make it scary. Further, it is VHF rather than UHF, which is equally scary. But..I've used these in many situations and been *pretty* happy with them. Bad ballasts will drive them nuts, so be aware of that too. Not too many cheap ballasts on film sets though...
We use the 100 series with the Bauer mounts, or belt mounted for use with the GL or PD cams for most things. I love them. Sony's new wireless seems to be great. The Senn's are nice too, but I'm hearing lots of bad things about the new G2 even though it's been hyped to death. I'm an AT fan, what can I say...
On the DVInfo.net forum for "Now Hear This" you can find an extremely long thread from fairly high end users of various wireless units.

So has anyone had a chance to compare the Audio Technica diversity ATW receiver against the Sennheiser Evolution 100 non-diversity receiver?

The dude at B&H seemed to think the Sennheiser's were better. Not that he knew what he was talking about.

JBJones

I have used both and I prefer the Audio Technica. Here is a link to a bunch of useful information from Audio Technica regarding wireless systems in general:

Using Wireless Systems

John

Spot,

You may be interested in these recommendations for improving the performance of the Pro88.

John

John,
Thanks for the point on the antenna! I've got my own workaround for their 'balanced' cable, but never thought of using a stud to replace their antenna.

It depends on your definition of "best". I've limited experience with AT and Azden for weddings. In terms of sound quality, the AT's win hands down, but the receivers were bulky and had to be driven by 110v so I ended up with cables everywhere. They were rented for the event. I know they have battery powered stuff too.

When I decided to own, I got hold of a couple of Azden lavs and their two channel non-diversity receiver. The results were less than impressive, with some low level hetrodyne noise when both receivers were in use. I contacted the dealer who put me in touch with a tech at Azden who suggested I return one of the mics and the receiver and upgrade to two of their diversity receivers and another mic (they now do a slightly higher band version). this gives me the most flexibility as I can choose 2 of 4 frequencies (VHF, but so far no issues) and true diversity in an entirely self contained battery powered setup ideal for two-channel event capture. So, for me in my particular circumstances, the less well regarded Azden setup is "better" than the AT stuff.

I'm on a mailing list with a bunch of consultants who design sound systems for a living and they have a lot of respect for Lectrosonics.

One of them has an informative, vendor neutral paper, on the various design issues and what is important. It’s a little slanted to installed systems but still good reading. http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/wireless.pdf

Larry

Lectrosonics, like some of the other extreme high end tools, are very, very good. They are also very expensive. But indeed, they are good. So are the Comtech's, built here in Utah. But pricey.

Thanks for the link Larry.

I also strongly advise everyone using or considering wireless to read the article http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/wirelessDTV.pdf
It talks about how the introduction of DTV (in the USA & Canada) has the potential to truly mess your wireless systems up if you're not aware of it.
I found out about this problem from a Lectrosonics rep I deal with. He told me about a Canadian station (London, Ont.) experiencing interference from a Cleveland, Ohio station who was testing their DTV system - and they're 50 miles away!! Unfortunately for London, it's a straight shot across Lake Erie and the signal strength was still strong enough to mess them up :-(

Mike