Re: Rigging a wireless Shotgun

[Ernest]

In article >, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:
>You do NOT want to use cheap wireless. Low end wireless is really, really
>horrible.
>--scott

This is a followup to say I came upon a great deal on a Sennheiser Evolution 100
system at B&H. The TX had an attenuation setting for condenser mics that, once
toggled into the right setting, resulted in everything working.

While I was skunked on my first outing and could not get it working on location,
I fiddled with it and the second time on location it worked fine. I like the
unit alot and found that when rigged directly into the camera, it gave cleaner
sound than when using a Sign Video XLR adapter. Also, the receiver appears to
support multichannel so theoretically, I can add up to 4 transmitters and use
the same receiver. (I dread trying to find 4 available frequencies tho :-)

Thanks to all for the definitive advice to go higher.

Ernest

[Oleg Kaizerman]

> >You do NOT want to use cheap wireless. Low end wireless is really,
really
> >horrible.
> >--scott
>
> This is a followup to say I came upon a great deal on a Sennheiser
Evolution 100
> system at B&H.

theoretically there is always great deal for cheap stuff ,try to come on
good deal for better systems ,theoretically ,You can :-)

> The TX had an attenuation setting for condenser mics that, once
> toggled into the right setting, resulted in everything working.

theoretically it is always working,not great ,but working

>
> While I was skunked on my first outing and could not get it working on
location,

theoretically -you have to read the manuals first ,twice ,try it before you
take it to work theoretically


> I fiddled with it and the second time on location it worked fine.

theoretically ,did your client was happy the time before ?


> I like the
> unit alot and found that when rigged directly into the camera, it gave
cleaner
> sound than when using a Sign Video XLR adapter.

theoretically ,you don't need it if the bias from the camera don't mess your
audio,theoretically you need it for 2 channels recording ,theoretically the
Beachteck with phantom is better,theoretically

>Also, the receiver appears to
> support multichannel so theoretically, I can add up to 4 transmitters and
use
> the same receiver. (I dread trying to find 4 available frequencies tho
:-)
>

practically you cant but theoretically its good to take a course on sound

> Thanks to all for the definitive advice to go higher.
>
> Ernest


--
Oleg Kaizerman (gebe) Hollyland ,theoretically

[L David Matheny]

"Ernest" > wrote in message ink.net...
<snip>
> Also, the receiver appears to support multichannel so
> theoretically, I can add up to 4 transmitters and use the same
> receiver. (I dread trying to find 4 available frequencies tho :-)
>
The receiver can receive many channels, but only one at a time,
of course. That's generally referred to as "frequency-agile". I
think "multi-channel" should refer to simultaneous channel use.