audio equipment

jmg181 wrote in post #12334527
Balanced cabling operates on the principle of differential signals, the the signal is carried over two wires with equal and opposite polarity.

Having worked many years as a broadcast engineer for Jefferson Pilot now known as Lincoln Financial (WLYF Miami) I do have a clue as to how balanced cabling works.

I already stated that and when it comes to shielding I was making a comparison between the unbalanced and balanced in which the unbalanced relies on the shielding making it more prone to inductive interference.

With that I disagree, if the cabling is done properly and professional microphones are utilized cell phone noise is not a problem, each and every morning we have no less than three people sometimes four (if there is a guest in the studio) with three or four open microphones and everyone has cell phones (AT&T T-Mobile etc.) and never have we had any electronic interference from any of them, as for the need to shield the microphones we have never had to and we are using standard EV RE-20 microphones.

And that would never be possible with un-balanced devices and cabling.

Wayne

Autonomous wrote in post #12331972
would i still also need to get the juicedlink thingy as well to go with the lavs?

Another option you might want to consider is the Audio-Technica AT803 lavalier it like the Sony is a phantom powered microphone and like the Sony can be powered from a 1.5 volt battery, however unlike the Sony it has a higher output power of -46dB versus -52dB for the Sony and has an impedance of 200 ohms whereas the Sony is a 100 ohm microphone making the AT803 a better match for the 600 ohm audio input impedance of the 7D which “should” allow you to connect the AT803 to the 7D without a JuicedLink by utilizing an XLR to 3.5 mini adapter and at -46dB it should not hammer the 7D’s ALC the way the Rode will.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_AT803B_Mini_Cl​ip_On.html

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #12334780
With that I disagree, if the cabling is done properly and professional microphones are utilized cell phone noise is not a problem, each and every morning we have no less than three people sometimes four (if there is a guest in the studio) with three or four open microphones and everyone has cell phones (AT&T T-Mobile etc.) and never have we had any electronic interference from any of them, as for the need to shield the microphones we have never had to and we are using standard EV RE-20 microphones.

And that would never be possible with un-balanced devices and cabling.

Wayne

...

Ok, I'll leave it at this. You were an audio engineer long ago? I design the audio and video systems for boardrooms, recording studios, and stadiums today. If you don't believe me that you are completely incorrect that balanced cabling solves RF issues, and that it is a matter of RF shielding at the microphone, then go ask Shure, Sennheiser, AKG, Audio-Technica, etc why they have designed RF shielding into their professional installation lines.

Its ok, I'll wait here.

jmg181 wrote in post #12334957
...Ok, I'll leave it at this. You were an audio engineer long ago?

No I still work in broadcasting, I just started a long time ago, and while you are trying to compare balanced to selected balanced equipment to prove a point that is not the comparison I began with which was balanced versus un balanced, by the way the EV RE-20 is a dynamic and it doesn't pick up cell phone interference.

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #12335049
No I still work in broadcasting, I just started a long time ago.

Wayne

Like I said, I'm not trying to start an argument. But cell phone interference is not a matter of balanced vs. unbalanced, its a matter of RF shielding. I don't want someone to go out and buy a prosonus one box or something thinking it will magically fix things, and then wonder if his system is somehow broken because his blackberry is causing noise. The links I posted are to either faq's, press releases, or the mics themselves regarding rf shielding systems being added. The majority of install mics are now rf shielded; not all pro mics are, and definitely not the consumer/prosumer end.


EDIT: You know what, I'm done. You know better than the people designing the microphones that you're buying. Thats fine. Enjoy.

Channel One wrote in post #12334890
Another option you might want to consider is the Audio-Technica AT803 lavalier it like the Sony is a phantom powered microphone and like the Sony can be powered from a 1.5 volt battery, however unlike the Sony it has a higher output power of -46dB versus -52dB for the Sony and has an impedance of 200 ohms whereas the Sony is a 100 ohm microphone making the AT803 a better match for the 600 ohm audio input impedance of the 7D which “should” allow you to connect the AT803 to the 7D without a JuicedLink by utilizing an XLR to 3.5 mini adapter and at -46dB it should not hammer the 7D’s ALC the way the Rode will.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_AT803B_Mini_Cl​ip_On.html

Wayne

wait, i can just buy this lavs without having to buy the juicedlink? sweet.
but how will this work? because i know the lavs will be on the interviewees.

on a side note, you guys are absolutely amazing, which each of you with your own talent in your own designed field. although i didn't understand a thing that was said back and forth, but thank you for not making it any worse. each to his own opinion, right?

But you are doing a good job of it.

I already gave you a couple of clues but you seemed to miss them so let’s put some clarity into the issue.

Cell phone interference is a matter of the low power digital signal from the phone being inductively coupled into the low level audio chain somewhere between the source and the final destination, as such eliminating such interference requires both an understanding of how RF effects that chain and how to design it to prevent such ingress, the majority of which is through the cabling not the microphones.

Not a problem if the engineer knows what he is doing and do keep in mind you us dopes in the broadcasting industry have been making microphones work around RF (5 to 50 Kw) for a long time now at RF levels which are oh maybe 1,000 times the output level (.75 watts) of what a mere Blackberry could produce and now with digital radio and TV the problem is multiplied ten-fold yet we manage to get the job done without needing to utilize any form of “shielded” of so called RF resistant microphones. Now that’s something to think about.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Autonomous wrote in post #12336153
but how will this work? because i know the lavs will be on the interviewees.

Since you used the term lavs do keep in mind that will require a mixer, single microphone into a 7D no problem multiple microphones will require a mixer.

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #12338231
Since you used the term lavs do keep in mind that will require a mixer, single microphone into a 7D no problem multiple microphones will require a mixer.

Wayne

i'm sorry i'm not getting it. so if i buy the lavs, i also have to buy the mixer?

jmg181 wrote in post #12335081
Like I said, I'm not trying to start an argument. But cell phone interference is not a matter of balanced vs. unbalanced, its a matter of RF shielding. I don't want someone to go out and buy a prosonus one box or something thinking it will magically fix things, and then wonder if his system is somehow broken because his blackberry is causing noise. The links I posted are to either faq's, press releases, or the mics themselves regarding rf shielding systems being added. The majority of install mics are now rf shielded; not all pro mics are, and definitely not the consumer/prosumer end.


EDIT: You know what, I'm done. You know better than the people designing the microphones that you're buying. Thats fine. Enjoy.

JMG is right in that cell phone interference is from the RF signals caused from the phone communicating to the tower.

chippy help me what to buy cause i'm going to b&h today.
i know i'm getting the audio technica lavs channel one suggested, but apparently i need a mixer to go with that?

Channel One wrote in post #12338226
That might be a good idea until you get a better understanding of RF and how it works beyond what you can Google.

*sigh*

Again, it is not a matter of balanced versus unbalanced. I see you're in Florida - go to Infocomm this year, grab an engineer from Shure or Sennheiser, and ask them. I really don't care to deal with people who act like a complete ass.

Autonomous wrote in post #12338597
chippy help me what to buy cause i'm going to b&h today.
i know i'm getting the audio technica lavs channel one suggested, but apparently i need a mixer to go with that?

If you have more than one channel of audio, and want to go in direct to your camera - yes, you're going to need a mixer to go with it. Personally, I'd recommend something that also has usb and perhaps an SD slot, so if you later have multiple camera sources, you've got something you can use as an audio interface, or save a mix direct to the SD card.

perfect for you: http://www.juicedlink.​com …-mixers-etc-c-66/jl-dt454 -- it's like the 214 but has more, better preamps and adds 2 xlr jacks.

Its a bit more though - about $400 - the 231 might be an option.

Beachtek makes one thats a little slimmer than the JL's, same under-cam mounting. Which isn't for me, I prefer something off the belt, no need to increase strain - I think B&H carries Studio 1 which makes a belt-pack style automixer.