Record actors or interview in park, lots of competing sounds.

I used to use Pluraleyes. I don't know if automatic drift will do subframe accuracy? We are talking about audio sample rate, which is very high.

Lavs in the industry are already considered backup, as boom is favoured. Normally on location audio is always compromised anyway.

Glad we are on same page re: word clock.

Explanation as to why audio devices need to be synced together for capture:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/audio/tips-and-solution/whats-word-clock-keeping-perfect-sync-between-digital-audio-devices

With an analogue system it allows us to capture all to one device, hence all lapels / boom are by definition synced.

As a backup the tascam looks good.

Still haven't found any frequency world maps... :-(

So you would suggest 2.4 ghz unit? Like rode?

If I were to record all lapels seperate, then if there was bleed between lapels I would get a comb filter error. No matter how well I sync them in post the audio will always be out. Hence why when using multiple audio interfaces they are connected via word-clock.

Actually I think it was an article I read here that put me off 2.4GHz range for wireless lav.

Either way, I can purchase very inexpensive G3 lightly used system in Australia. I would just like to know if there are any dedicated frequency maps of the world, as opposed to choosing a city one by one.

Have you used G3? They are very good, and easy to set up.

I already have in mind a G3 EW100. I think I read on here a while back that 2.4Ghz being WiFi range wasn't best for mic, and also they tend to be digital.

I think maybe I should go with A, as its quite low, but I would like to know what other countries are using, like Japan for example? I think that they are ok as long as below 800MHz which would be all of the G3 series anyway.

Re Tascam: good idea. However if I have more than one person talking at same time and there is bleed between both units, (think close talking) the audio would not match up.

Also Tascam isn't 'inexpensive'. I found the small units for $400 each. That is kind of the same price as the G3 which itself isn't cheap.

I'm interested in purchasing a few EW100 G3's for interviews without boom mic. I am wondering if there are any maps available for worldwide use of frequencies? Obviously you need to do a scan before each shoot, but you are limited to the build in frequency ranges.

Currently you can get the G3 in 5 different frequency setups:

ew G3 100 Series:

• A = Frequency range 516 – 558 MHz
• B = Frequency range 626 – 668 MHz
• G = Frequency range 566 – 608 MHz

ew G3 100 Series LE Sets:

• A2 = Frequency range 518 – 554 MHz
• B2 = Frequency range 626 – 662 MHz

From my research it looks like you almost need one of each?! (A,B,G) even for within one country.

@feha, we have specific topic for them

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2015/samson-airline-wireless/p1

Sorry about that,I missed the other lavalier mic topic. I will repost it over there.

I have used the Zoom H1 w/Audio Technica ATR-3350, and although the results were not bad, the signal to noise ratio was a bit high due to the fact that the volume output was not very high (requiring the volume on the Zoom to be turned up quite high, which introduces noise from the recorders pre-amp). After doing some research, I decided to try the Oscar Sound Tech TL-40 ($80) http://www.oscarsoundtech.com, made by a small company in California, and the results are nothing short of stellar, clean sound with incredible depth. Miles ahead of the ATR-3350. I would recomend the TL-40 over their other mics, as they are more sensitive( higher output volume) so that the volume on the Zoom can be kept down. Although they are a small company, and their prices are very reasonable, they make world class mics that are used on many high budget productions.

@LPowell

I think it is cool.

How about make something like it with Line 6 digital systems?

@spacewig These mics are automatically squelched until the talent says something loud enough to turn them on. As a result, there's no audible noise when there's no dialog. The Shure lavalier is a cardioid that handles loud voices very well, so you can attach it as close to the person's chin as you can get it. Where background noise can be heard is when you need to turn up the gain to get a good recording level on a quiet speaker.

This is an interesting topic due to the wide range of wireless systems available. I have an audio engineering background, and one of the considerations that stands out is the difference between systems designed for voice presentation versus live music and recording applications. For public speaking, convenience and wireless range are more important than sound quality and dropout resistance, which are crucial concerns for professional performance applications. The really cheap systems (<$300/channel) are intended for public speaking while the expensive systems (>$1000/channel) are built to insure flawless performance.

For video recording purposes, I think our requirements fall in the midrange of both reliability and expense. When a shoot requires a high level of audio fidelity or reliability, I'll figure out some way to use a wired mic on a boom or in a concealed location. Where a wireless lavalier really helps is for getting consistent audio levels from performers who need the freedom to speak or move around without a mic getting in their way. It doesn't have to be a high-fidelity recording, just clear and uninterrupted.

The other side of the equation is the size, shape, and power requirements of the receiver. The high-end systems are designed for rack mounting with XLR connectors and AC power supplies, and aren't very practical for portable use with video cameras. The cheaper systems have hot-shoe camera mounts and mini-plug audio connectors which I personally find awkward and unreliable. What I want are XLR connectors and built-in rechargeable batteries in a case light enough to use with velcro attachments. A battery-powered receiver compact enough to stick to the bottom of a Zoom H4n or the side of an AF100.

So far, I've found three systems that come pretty close to meeting my needs, in order of expense:

1. Shure PG4 Wireless System (~$300/channel)

http://www.shure.com/americas/products/wireless-systems/performance-gear-systems/pg4-diversity-receiver

2. Sony UWP-V1 Wireless System (~$570/channel)

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-UWPV1%2F3032/

3. Sennheiser EW100 G3 Wireless System (~$630/channel)

http://www.sennheiserusa.com/professional_wireless-microphone-systems_broadcast-eng-film_ew-100-g3_503125

Sony and Sennheiser wireless systems are similar - hot-shoe mounted receivers with mini-plugs and replaceable batteries. I'll leave these to others to review, as I'm not fond of their exposed antennas and they cost a bit more than I wanted to spend.

The Shure PG4 has one major drawback, but is otherwise well-suited for video recording. The receiver is lightweight and a little bigger all around than a Zoom H4n. What's really attractive is that it's self-contained with an XLR connector and no protruding antennas. It will easily attach to either the H4n or AF100. The problem is that it requires an external 12-18v power supply.

Inside the receiver box, however, there's just enough room for a pair of rechargeable 9v batteries. These are available up to 550mAh capacity, enough to power the 160mA receiver for a few hours at a time:

http://www.amazon.com/Maximal-9-Volt-Li-ion-Rechargeable-Battery/dp/B0051WZ516/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1349507841&sr=8-2&keywords=9v+rechargeable+550mah

So with some velcro and a soldering iron, I should be able to put together a rechargeable, self-contained receiver I can stick to the side of the AF100, with just a short XLR cable to attach. A little bulky, but lightweight and about half the price of the Sony or Sennheiser. At that price, I can afford to buy two of them.