Wireless advice?

[brianwflood]

Hey all

Using the G3's, gotta admit I don't think these things are professional level at all. Pro level meaning, real-world crunch-time, everythings gotta work NOW, no time to bs... Then again, I'm using them in NY which is a sh*t storm of RF interference, but I feel like things could be better.

I use the SCAN function before a shoot, pick a signal and go. If I encounter issues I re-SCAN... I keep the antennae out and try to keep them upright and I try to stay as close to the talent as I can. Also try to avoid metal in my path (but this is impossible most of the time.)

Any way to get these things working more reliably? I'm planning on buying some used lectros but I simply can't afford them for a while.

Thanks.

[brianwflood]

Oh, maybe wasn't clear: By reliable I mean better at rejecting interference.

[philper]

Originally Posted by brianwflood

Oh, maybe wasn't clear: By reliable I mean better at rejecting interference.

Work at as short a distance from the TX as you can. Try to get the RX antenna higher than the TX. Have you looked at the Sennheiser site and checked if your block choice is a good one for your area? They have a lot of good info there--I check it before every out of town job to see how my radios will do in the new location. NYC is pretty terrible RF-wise--but do some research so you know where the known users of your block are.

phil p

[pkautzsch]

Any true diversity system will be a big step up.
Instead of making that fancy menu, they should make more reliable stuff with better ergonomics - if they want their stuff to be used in a movie. Having to open the lid just to switch the receiver on/off is a major PITA when you have them stuffed in a bag.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

Any true diversity system will be a big step up.
Instead of making that fancy menu, they should make more reliable stuff with better ergonomics - if they want their stuff to be used in a movie. Having to open the lid just to switch the receiver on/off is a major PITA when you have them stuffed in a bag.

G3 is diversity.

The idea of having the on/off switch under the lid means that it can't easily be switched while someone is wearing it, or someone is fiddling with it - it's actually a good idea. The small pocket receiver is normally used on a camera.

G3 is the low cost stuff - for a movie the 3000 or 5000 series would be used.

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by John Willett

G3 is diversity.

Well, they claim they are. But I've never encountered a second antenna fixed rectangularly in respect to the other antenna. Using the output cable as second antenna doesn't mean the angle is correct.

The idea of having the on/off switch under the lid means that it can't easily be switched while someone is wearing it, or someone is fiddling with it - it's actually a good idea. The small pocket receiver is normally used on a camera.

The idea indeed is good - in controlled settings like stage performances or even ENG interviews. It is a bad idea if one needs to work with four of them crammed into a portabrace bag together with a 788. Meaning for each battery change or on/off you have to fiddle it out of that bag, open the lid (which stops being locked properly quite soon!), and press that button for a longer time to switch off.
In addition, whenever the TX is switched off (by talent or low batt) one gets a friggin' loud noise out of the RX. Proper RX units don't do that.
Look at, say, the AD 20x0 line: they do have a switch, but you can leave it in the ON position and interrupt power just by unplugging the output cable.

G3 is the low cost stuff - for a movie the 3000 or 5000 series would be used.

I'm not saying they're bad generally. They're just bad for movie sound - which unfortunately not all rental houses and producers seem to know.

[Rolo 46]

With radio you get what you pay for
Those splats are expensive
Diversity does not give better range or immunity to shash just fewer splats.
RX should be physically remote from the 788 and any TX, they generates RF which decreases range.
For movies its Micron ,Audios ,Lectros and Top Sennys, especially in RF hells like NYC, HK and LA

[Jaymz]

The only issues I've had with my G3's are when they take hits due to distance, which I just keep in mind when using them. Next step-up for me will be to Lectro 411's.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

Well, they claim they are. But I've never encountered a second antenna fixed rectangularly in respect to the other antenna. Using the output cable as second antenna doesn't mean the angle is correct.

I have known manufacturers to have a rt.angled antenna so the two antennas have 90° between them. Using the output cable means that the second antenna is polarised differently from the first which tends to give greater safety than two parallel antennas.

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

The idea indeed is good - in controlled settings like stage performances or even ENG interviews. It is a bad idea if one needs to work with four of them crammed into a portabrace bag together with a 788. Meaning for each battery change or on/off you have to fiddle it out of that bag, open the lid (which stops being locked properly quite soon!), and press that button for a longer time to switch off.
In addition, whenever the TX is switched off (by talent or low batt) one gets a friggin' loud noise out of the RX. Proper RX units don't do that.
Look at, say, the AD 20x0 line: they do have a switch, but you can leave it in the ON position and interrupt power just by unplugging the output cable.

Four receivers crammed in a bag using their own antennas and not via a splitter is not a good idea, whatever manufacturer they are. This can cause all sorts of problems. WHich is why several manufacturers make splitter boxes to slot in individual receivers for greater safety (not on the evo series, though).

You shouldn't get a loud noise if someone switches off the transmitter - you should get a silent mute. The noise will only happen if you have switched off the "Pilot" in the receiver and/or set squelch to zero.

To cure your switching problem - how about externally DC powering the receivers and switching off the power from one point?

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

I'm not saying they're bad generally. They're just bad for movie sound - which unfortunately not all rental houses and producers seem to know.

I would agree that G3 is a bit down-market for a high budget movie. Not that they won't do the job, but, as you say, it is rather a fiddle.

For a movie, I would have thought 3000 series, Audio Ltd. or Lectro would be the more obvious choice.

[philper]

Originally Posted by John Willett

I have known manufacturers to have a rt.angled antenna so the two antennas have 90° between them. Using the output cable means that the second antenna is polarised differently from the first which tends to give greater safety than two parallel antennas.




Four receivers crammed in a bag using their own antennas and not via a splitter is not a good idea, whatever manufacturer they are. This can cause all sorts of problems. WHich is why several manufacturers make splitter boxes to slot in individual receivers for greater safety (not on the evo series, though).

You shouldn't get a loud noise if someone switches off the transmitter - you should get a silent mute. The noise will only happen if you have switched off the "Pilot" in the receiver and/or set squelch to zero.

4 or more receivers in a bag together on their own antennas is how nearly all of verite/doco/ENG etc sound people work all the time. It works just fine if you are using professional RX. You don't need an antenna splitter at all, this will just cost you range, add weight and complexity to your bag, and mean that you will need a broadband community antenna set if you are using wireless that are in more than one TV channel (and many of us are these days, as a precaution). A receiver with a set of antennas cut to the specific length required for its block is more efficient for its size and weight than a broad band antenna. We tend to use splitters and community antennas when we have RX mounted (close together) in a rack on a sound cart which may be located some distance from the action. This allows the single antenna to be raised to a height where it can "see" the TX directly, over the lighting equipment etc. What we've found over the years is that these elaborate antenna splitting and even amplification systems work not a whit better than the onboard antennas on the receivers (and in some cases work not as well) if you can get the receivers close to the action. (Either by having the sound rig be small and portable or remoteing the receivers and running audio lines from them back to the console.)

Re the 90 degree polarization: every test I've ever done about this was inconclusive. Lectrosonics just did a lot of testing (again) in the last month or so on this very subject and also came up with inconclusive results. The general thought is that there are too many other factors affecting reception (walls, metal objects, other RF sources etc etc) for the 90-degree thing to make any consistent difference in practice.

You can get a loud noise from your receiver when you turn off your transmitter if you have picked a frequency that is in use by someone else. When you arrive at a location, try turning on all your receivers first w/o their transmitters being on to see "who is home" on your freqs. This is about to get a lot more complex (in the USA anyhow)--on Monday official testing of "White Space Devices" for wifi over TV bands (which we also use for wireless mics) begins. If you are a professional USA user of wireless mics I very much encourage you to get your FCC part 74 license so that you can take part in the database construction that will tell these new (and legal) wifi devices what freqs they can operate on where.

phil p

[tourtelot]

Hey Phil-

Seem that if licensing up will help keep some spectrum open, I will do it.

The FCC site is a giant mess. Do you have a form number to apply for the proper license? Do I need one per system or just one as a user?

D.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by philper

4 or more receivers in a bag together on their own antennas is how nearly all of verite/doco/ENG etc sound people work all the time. It works just fine if you are using professional RX. You don't need an antenna splitter at all, this will just cost you range, add weight and complexity to your bag, and mean that you will need a broadband community antenna set if you are using wireless that are in more than one TV channel (and many of us are these days, as a precaution). A receiver with a set of antennas cut to the specific length required for its block is more efficient for its size and weight than a broad band antenna. We tend to use splitters and community antennas when we have RX mounted (close together) in a rack on a sound cart which may be located some distance from the action. This allows the single antenna to be raised to a height where it can "see" the TX directly, over the lighting equipment etc. What we've found over the years is that these elaborate antenna splitting and even amplification systems work not a whit better than the onboard antennas on the receivers (and in some cases work not as well) if you can get the receivers close to the action. (Either by having the sound rig be small and portable or remoteing the receivers and running audio lines from them back to the console.)

Re the 90 degree polarization: every test I've ever done about this was inconclusive. Lectrosonics just did a lot of testing (again) in the last month or so on this very subject and also came up with inconclusive results. The general thought is that there are too many other factors affecting reception (walls, metal objects, other RF sources etc etc) for the 90-degree thing to make any consistent difference in practice.

You can get a loud noise from your receiver when you turn off your transmitter if you have picked a frequency that is in use by someone else. When you arrive at a location, try turning on all your receivers first w/o their transmitters being on to see "who is home" on your freqs. This is about to get a lot more complex (in the USA anyhow)--on Monday official testing of "White Space Devices" for wifi over TV bands (which we also use for wireless mics) begins. If you are a professional USA user of wireless mics I very much encourage you to get your FCC part 74 license so that you can take part in the database construction that will tell these new (and legal) wifi devices what freqs they can operate on where.

phil p

It's a lot better in Europe where the specs are tighter and more regulated.

You will only get the splats on G3 if there is another transmitter with the same pilot tone operating. Otherwise the receiver will silently mute.

I agree that White Space Devices could become a problem for radiomics and would also encourage anyone to become involve din tests if they can.

[philper]

Originally Posted by tourtelot

Hey Phil-

Seem that if licensing up will help keep some spectrum open, I will do it.

The FCC site is a giant mess. Do you have a form number to apply for the proper license? Do I need one per system or just one as a user?

D.

It seems almost designed on purpose to make it impossible to register. I will admit that I hired a consultant: Bill Ruck, to help me navigate the registration and application. Here is part at least of what you have to do:

>>It is not hard to apply for a license but really arcane.

I can help you because I've done lots of these applications.

Here is how it could work:

1. *You need a Federal Reference Number (FRN). *If you don't already have one you get this from the FCC website.

Go to

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/coresWeb/publicHome.do

Click on the register button and follow the directions.

Then with that # you fill out FCC Main Form 601 (page 2)

Users like us are classified as "Television Program Producers" unless you're working in features all the time (then you are a "Motion Picture Producer").

After that you pay the fee (within 10 days of them giving you a password):

Steps to do this:

***FCC ULS Log In Page.

***FCC Universal Licensing System (ULS): ULS Home

***Look for QUICK LINKS *Other Online Systems. *Click on Pay Fees

***Enter your FRN and Password

***You should see your application.

***Give them a credit card number.

THEN it takes a few MONTHS for them to process everything and send you the license. They send you an email with your call sign in advance of the mailed license.

If you want to have Bill Ruck help you do this, as many of is have, his email is billruck a t earthlink d o t net . There is also some info about this posted by Jay Patterson over on JWSound.

phil p
(WQOC724)

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by philper

It seems almost designed on purpose to make it impossible to register. I will admit that I hired a consultant: Bill Ruck, to help me navigate the registration and application. Here is part at least of what you have to do:

>>It is not hard to apply for a license but really arcane.

I can help you because I've done lots of these applications.

Here is how it could work:

1. *You need a Federal Reference Number (FRN). *If you don't already have one you get this from the FCC website.

Go to

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/coresWeb/publicHome.do

Click on the register button and follow the directions.

Then with that # you fill out FCC Main Form 601 (page 2)

Users like us are classified as "Television Program Producers" unless you're working in features all the time (then you are a "Motion Picture Producer").

After that you pay the fee (within 10 days of them giving you a password):

Steps to do this:

***FCC ULS Log In Page.

***FCC Universal Licensing System (ULS): ULS Home

***Look for QUICK LINKS *Other Online Systems. *Click on Pay Fees

***Enter your FRN and Password

***You should see your application.

***Give them a credit card number.

THEN it takes a few MONTHS for them to process everything and send you the license. They send you an email with your call sign in advance of the mailed license.

If you want to have Bill Ruck help you do this, as many of is have, his email is billruck a t earthlink d o t net . There is also some info about this posted by Jay Patterson over on JWSound.

phil p
(WQOC724)

This is horrible - I can't believe it!

In the UK you can have a licence in minutes - It's just a phone call away.

[philper]

Originally Posted by John Willett

This is horrible - I can't believe it!

In the UK you can have a licence in minutes - It's just a phone call away.

We've always been better at pointlessly complex bureaucracy here in the USA.

phil p

[Rolo 46]

Very few were licensed in the UK
It was pointless if you were ultra mobile and arrived at a site with interferrence issues
The frequency police needed weeks of notice before they acted.
However the keen ones that paid the license at least got refunds on their kit when the Govt snatched their frequencies for G4 mobile wifi services.
However there are niggles with this compensation, users are being taxed on the refund...
RF spectrum is crowded all over the planet and mostly unregulated and ilegal.
Thats why its a nightmare traveling with radios, production never understand the problems, country to country.
My answer was VHF diversity, works most every where.
AM would have been even better....
Roger.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

Very few were licensed in the UK
It was pointless if you were ultra mobile and arrived at a site with interferrence issues
The frequency police needed weeks of notice before they acted.
However the keen ones that paid the license at least got refunds on their kit when the Govt snatched their frequencies for G4 mobile wifi services.
However there are niggles with this compensation, users are being taxed on the refund...
RF spectrum is crowded all over the planet and mostly unregulated and ilegal.
Thats why its a nightmare travelling with radios, production never understand the problems, country to country.
My answer was VHF diversity, works most every where.
AM would have been even better....
Roger.

Some corrections Rolo......

The Government grant is not taxed - it's not income - you just have to word it correctly when you do your tax return.

Those people who did not licence their equipment lost out on the Government Grant and if they had been caught the penalties were very high - I expect more policing in the future.

VHF equipment is now more expensive than UHF, but most radiomic. manufacturers no longer do VHF - and - VHF is a lot more prone to interference from digital equipment (computers and equipment that uses this sort of circuitry inside). Though VHF does travel further out of doors than UHF.

AM is just modulation - you can have AM at VHF or UHF frequencies if you so desire. It's just that Frequency Modulation (FM) is preferred to Amplitude Modulation (AM) nowadays.

[Rolo 46]

Johnny boy stop being pedantic....

Medium wave would be lovely.

[philper]

I think the USA TVBD testing database is probably more about proving that something the wifi industry badly wants to work WILL work--that they can go where ever they want with their TV channel-wide TVBD transceivers and no one of any importance or standing will bust them for it. This is why it is important for USA professionals who use wireless a lot to register, at least for their "shop" zone and for the temporary locations they get called for--show that the numbers of users are there. The FCC will pay no heed at all to small users that are not licensed.

phil p

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by philper

I think the USA TVBD testing database is probably more about proving that something the wifi industry badly wants to work WILL work--that they can go where ever they want with their TV channel-wide TVBD transceivers and no one of any importance or standing will bust them for it. This is why it is important for USA professionals who use wireless a lot to register, at least for their "shop" zone and for the temporary locations they get called for--show that the numbers of users are there. The FCC will pay no heed at all to small users that are not licensed.

phil p

People really should register for this trial.

In the UK it is thought that these "White Space Devices" will cause serious interference to radiomics. - possibly (probably) making radiomics unusable.

[tourtelot]

Back to single camera shows

D.

[Rolo 46]

Some of the best BBC Drama/Docs were made sans Radio Mics.

[tourtelot]

A lot of movies of all sorts were made without radio mics. Just hard to do it that way today.

D.

[aracu]

Originally Posted by tourtelot

A lot of movies of all sorts were made without radio mics. Just hard to do it that way today.D.

I have the impression that although wireless lavs are usefull tools, that when a budget and overall concept for the postproduction of a narrative film is substantial, that the final product consists almost entirely of sound picked up by a boom operator and ADR. The lav sound at it's best lacks the perspective of distance, which is the art of film dialogue sound. Production for high quality films can be simplified by illiminating the use of lavs as much as possible on set and substituting in it's place ADR in postproduction. I think
it's ironic that such a sophisticated and expensive technology as wireless
results in comprimised sound.

[philper]

Originally Posted by aracu

I have the impression that although wireless lavs are usefull tools, that when a budget and overall concept for the postproduction of a narrative film is substantial, that the final product consists almost entirely of sound picked up by a boom operator and ADR. The lav sound at it's best lacks the perspective of distance, which is the art of film dialogue sound. Production for high quality films can be simplified by illiminating the use of lavs as much as possible on set and substituting in it's place ADR in postproduction. I think
it's ironic that such a sophisticated and expensive technology as wireless
results in comprimised sound.

You have the wrong impression. Perspective and distance can be done in post. A sound recordist on a large scale production who wasn't prepared to wire everyone in a scene with a line and iso that mic to its own track would be fired after the first day. John Midgely (The King's Speech and many other big films) gave a good interview here: SoundWorks Collection | Exclusive Video Profiles of the Sound World where he describes his methods, which are fairly typical (booms too but a heavy reliance on wireless.) Even small indies tend to work this way when they can, a mix of both types of micing. Wireless lav mic sound doesn't have to sound "compromised" at all. I have never worked with a director who preferred the sound of ADR to that of production sound on a lav unless there was some major issue with sound or the performance, or the scene had been planned to be ADR all along.

phil p

[tourtelot]

Originally Posted by philper

You have the wrong impression. Perspective and distance can be done in post. A sound recordist on a large scale production who wasn't prepared to wire everyone in a scene with a line and iso that mic to its own track would be fired after the first day. John Midgely (The King's Speech and many other big films) gave a good interview here: SoundWorks Collection | Exclusive Video Profiles of the Sound World where he describes his methods, which are fairly typical (booms too but a heavy reliance on wireless.) Even small indies tend to work this way when they can, a mix of both types of micing. Wireless lav mic sound doesn't have to sound "compromised" at all. I have never worked with a director who preferred the sound of ADR to that of production sound on a lav unless there was some major issue with sound or the performance, or the scene had been planned to be ADR all along.

phil p

And even more so with TV and multiple cameras.

D.

[aracu]

Well, I agree to a certain point. In can't be denied that if a director
prefers lavs to ADR than they must be used, and that if a film is to be made as quickly as possible than they are often a practical solution. In practice sound engineers are obliged to use lavs on many but not all film shoots. There are also directors who will avoid using lavs. There is the esthetic problem that the lav, being positioned usually near the chest, records the sound of a person sounding as if your ears were unnaturally near to their chest. In actual use the lavs are often used in shots in which the camera is showing an image of the person from a fair distance away, because a boom would pick up too much ambient sound to stay out of the image. ADR has become easier to do with digital technology, and personally, I think it generally sounds more realistic and polished, if done carefully, then adding reverb processing to lav recorded sound, because the ADR mic can be positioned optimally. Also, performances are often improved with well directed
ADR.

[philper]

Originally Posted by aracu

Well, I agree to a certain point. In can't be denied that if a director
prefers lavs to ADR than they must be used, and that if a film is to be made as quickly as possible than they are often a practical solution. In practice sound engineers are obliged to use lavs on many but not all film shoots. There are also directors who will avoid using lavs. There is the esthetic problem that the lav, being positioned usually near the chest, records the sound of a person sounding as if your ears were unnaturally near to their chest. In actual use the lavs are often used in shots in which the camera is showing an image of the person from a fair distance away, because a boom would pick up too much ambient sound to stay out of the image. ADR has become easier to do with digital technology, and personally, I think it generally sounds more realistic and polished, if done carefully, then adding reverb processing to lav recorded sound, because the ADR mic can be positioned optimally. Also, performances are often improved with well directed
ADR.

I leave the aesthetic choices to the director. Many directors actually PREFER the sound of lav mics to booms anymore, and not just for convenience and speed of shooting. For many years the argument was been made that heavy reliance on wireless lavs for prod. sound was a hallmark of cheap episodic TV and low-budg indies. That is completely false today, as the interview I pointed you to illustrates. I don't deny that ADR is much easier with computer-driven technology and can sound fine, but what is very often NOT fine is the actor's performance, no matter how "well directed". Many otherwise really good actors can not only not speak in sync with playback that well, they can't do it while recreating the feeling they had on-set either.

phil p

[Rolo 46]

I like perspective
And hate hidden lavaliers under heavy clothing
They can be be eq d but rarely have life, and noise reduction further torments them
A mix of boom and lavs is best
However perspective is now out of production favour and the children prefer the sound of a buried crackling electret to a proper boom.
Hey Ho.
Bumpkin

[aracu]

Originally Posted by Rolo 46

I like perspective
And hate hidden lavaliers under heavy clothing
They can be be eq d but rarely have life, and noise reduction further torments them
A mix of boom and lavs is best
However perspective is now out of production favour and the children prefer the sound of a buried crackling electret to a proper boom.
Hey Ho.
Bumpkin

I like your "buried crackling electret" sound imagery.

I find the mix of lav and boom to usually sound less coherent than one or the other, although it is an accepted norm.