Wireless LAV help! Sennheiser vs. Audio-technica

I am in the market for a wireless LAV setup for my Canon 6D. I shoot pranks so we wire up our guy with a hidden mic.

I have used the Sennheiser ew-112 wireless kit before and was extremely impressed by the audio quality. I am about to buy a set however,

The only thing I wish I had was the ability to monitor audio...

Looking through BHphoto I found a Audio-Technica System 10 - Camera-Mount Digital Wireless System with Lavalier Mic. The receiver appears to have a 3.5mm audio output on it to allow you to monitor the audio.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …m_10_digtal_wir​eless.html

I am having a hard time finding any videos or in-depth review about the system, my concern is the audio quality and how well the monitoring system is..

Can anyone chime in on this?

The A-T looks interesting... haven't used it. It's one of the new generation that uses a digital signal between the transmitter and receiver, which I have used. Generally very good audio quality from the new digital gear.

Why is a headphone jack on the receiver important to you? It can be handy during setups, but monitoring from the camera is best during shooting. Can you get that with the 6D?

The Sennheiser EW100 series is tried and true. If it were me, I'd try out the A-T and see if it works for what I want to do and return it if it doesn't. Do take a close look at range. Unlike analog systems that might experience hits or dropouts (a degraded signal), when you exceed a digital system's capabilities the sound will just be gone.

SailingAway wrote in post #17351466
The A-T looks interesting... haven't used it. It's one of the new generation that uses a digital signal between the transmitter and receiver, which I have used. Generally very good audio quality from the new digital gear.

Why is a headphone jack on the receiver important to you? It can be handy during setups, but monitoring from the camera is best during shooting. Can you get that with the 6D?

The Sennheiser EW100 series is tried and true. If it were me, I'd try out the A-T and see if it works for what I want to do and return it if it doesn't. Do take a close look at range. Unlike analog systems that might experience hits or dropouts (a degraded signal), when you exceed a digital system's capabilities the sound will just be gone.

Thanks for you input. Audio monitoring is important to because the camera itself does not have an audio output option.

Maybe I will order it and try it.

You need a mic preamp to set the audio level. There are a few great mixers from Sound Devices that are specifically made for capturing audio in the field. A 302 mixer, a MixPre-D, or even a single channel MM-1 (assuming you only need one channel) will all do the trick. I would also highly recommend recording the audio on something other than the camera. The audio circuitry on all DSLR cameras is a joke.

Also, the Sennheiser and Audio-Technica wireless units you're talking about are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to wireless transmitters and receivers. The only ones consistently worse are Azden.

I doubt the OP had Sound Devices in mind in terms of budget...

I can't speak for the AT, but the Sennheiser EW have been rock solid in my experience and I'm curious as to what you would suggest as a starting point.

The reviews on B&H and http://soundandpicture​.com …ra-mount-wireless-review/ are very positive. A dedicated preamp may provide for slightly better quality, but this seems pretty good out of the box with the only system with a built in headphone jack.

I've been using a Tascam DR-60D for recording--it provides nice monitoring output, as well as sending an input to the camera so the camera scratch is identical (as it can be) to the work recording.

I also use the Sennheiser wireless lav. The significant thing about it is that it continuously seeks the best signal as the environment changes, which could happen with prank recording--people moving around, cell phones about, et cetera.

I'm new to audio and am interested in purchasing a Sennheiser wireless lav mic setup. It appears the only difference in the EW 112 and the EW122 is that one has an omni directional mic and the other a cardioid. I will most be mic'ing up myself for video and some interviews. Was thinking of getting the 112 for more flexibility but at this time, I probably only need the 122. Just trying to make a decision on the best choice at this point.

Most people find omindirectional lavalier mics more useful. For one, the voice amplitude does not change as the person turns his head away from the mic, which includes not being prohibited from placing the mic where it doesn't point directly toward the mouth (such as under a shirt collar).

Cardioid mics come in handy when you might be in a location with too much noise from other directions, such as reflections from a hard floor or another person speaking too close to the person with the mic.

Thanks for the reply. It just seems to me the omni directional mic is more versatile but I understand the cardioid is a better quality microphone. I will be using pretty much in my studio. I called Sennehiser today and asked about whether the turning of the head while speaking would affect the sound quality and he said only if you were going to pretty much talk back over your shoulder. Not sure how true that is but...

I'm wondering if two people sat down to have a discussion, interview style sitting in chairs close to one another, would an omni directional mic have any issues? Eventually I want to get a second lav mic so I can mic up two people. Still trying to grasp all of this and make a good educated decision. I'm leaning toward the omni at this point. Your reply was quite helpful.

The most obvious choice for anyone who is new to audio is the Rode's Rodelink filmmaker kit.

Suggesting SD gear.. seriously ? It's like recommending a RED camera for someone who want's to capture clips of their kid.

Monitoring audio is indeed important and the poor pre-amps on the camera has far more impact on the quality then the level of lavel mic you use.

A external recorder would be the best route if your camera lacks a headphone jack and proper levels.

There are plenty of cheap recorders that will do the job, Zoom and tascam has plenty of them.

I'v personally used the G3's and now own and use the Rodelink, the G3's are slightly smaller and compact, other then that the Rodelink match it very well.

kcpyro wrote in post #17572696
Thanks for the reply. It just seems to me the omni directional mic is more versatile but I understand the cardioid is a better quality microphone.

Our gear is from several years ago so I don't know if this applies to the current lineup - I think the reverse of what you stated is true. Not only is the omni mic small and discreet, it is also more forgiving of placement, and proximity effect (increased bass) is not an issue. The cardioid on the other hand, is noticeably bigger and must be placed precisely for good sound. We've never really been happy with the sound it captures and it is currently relegated to our backup kit.