ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB Lounge => Topic started by: Kev Jones on November 01, 2014, 07:51:00 am

Title: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Kev Jones on November 01, 2014, 07:51:00 am
Recently came across the Alesis Miclink Wireless... which converts any xlr based dynamic mic into wireless.  Very reasonably priced - about 60 in the UK - but I have no idea what they sound like.  Anyone got any experience of these? Do they colour the sound?  Introduce latency?  etc etc?

Here's a link to the Alesis page:
https://www.alesis.com/miclink-wireless

Strange that the output is a jack socket instead of xlr?

Many thanks.
Kev
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Scott Olewiler on November 01, 2014, 10:49:37 am
Kev,

If you don't mind me adding on to your thread, I'm curious if anyone's used anything similar to this that works well.
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Jason Glass on November 01, 2014, 11:16:32 am
Kev,

If you don't mind me adding on to your thread, I'm curious if anyone's used anything similar to this that works well.

Variations of this have been the industry standard for broadcast ENG crews for decades:  http://www.lectrosonics.com/US/HM/product.html (http://www.lectrosonics.com/US/HM/product.html)

Sennheiser also has one that works just as well as all their other Evolution G3 gear: http://en-us.sennheiser.com/plug-on-transmitter-wired-wireless-microphone-skp-100-g3 (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/plug-on-transmitter-wired-wireless-microphone-skp-100-g3)
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Keith Broughton on November 01, 2014, 11:31:23 am
Recently came across the Alesis Miclink Wireless... which converts any xlr based dynamic mic into wireless.  Very reasonably priced - about 60 in the UK - but I have no idea what they sound like.  Anyone got any experience of these? Do they colour the sound?  Introduce latency?  etc etc?

Here's a link to the Alesis page:
https://www.alesis.com/miclink-wireless

Strange that the output is a jack socket instead of xlr?

Many thanks.
Kev
Having read the instructions, I see it's a 2.4 gig device. and as such, I would not recommend it for professional applications.

The plug on transmitters from Sennheiser (and others) work just like a regular UHF wireless mic and can be used with existing receivers.
Better for pro use.
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: jasonfinnigan on November 01, 2014, 12:23:24 pm
The Sennhesier G3 plugon transmitter works very well. It can also supply phantom power.
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Bill McKelvey on November 01, 2014, 02:52:18 pm
The Sennhesier G3 plugon transmitter works very well. It can also supply phantom power.

SKP-100 G3 does not supply phantom.
SKP-300 G3 will supply phantom.
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on November 01, 2014, 03:26:15 pm
SKP-100 G3 does not supply phantom.
SKP-300 G3 will supply phantom.

Thanks for the clarification.  Nice to get accurate info.
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: jasonfinnigan on November 01, 2014, 04:33:27 pm
SKP-100 G3 does not supply phantom.
SKP-300 G3 will supply phantom.

Good to know. We don't use anything from Sennhesier but, the EW300/EW500 Series so I don't know anything of the EW100 Series
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Kev Jones on November 01, 2014, 05:32:56 pm
In the UK, 2.4 KHz has the advantage that I wouldn't need to get licences for use (with a new licence required for each venue my band plays at).

Keith Broughton, why is 2.4KHz bad for pro use? Would value your views on this.

On a related matter... I use 2.4KHZ as a guitar transmitter - for gigs - and it works really well. However, I guess there's a lot of difference between guitar and voice!!  I wouldn't want to add wireless that screwed up the tone of the vocals etc.

Again, thanks for all your help.
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: jasonfinnigan on November 01, 2014, 05:49:25 pm
hy is 2.4KHz bad for pro use? Would value your views on this.

The 2.4Ghz specturm is already over crowded (at least it is in the US). Wifi, Cordless Phones (who still has them) Bluetooth and many other devices use 2.4ghz.

Also with RF the higher the wavelength the shorter the distance of the signal coverage. Which is why the 500-900mhz range is the normal range for wireless mics. Though the 700mhz(698-806mhz) band is now illegal for us inside the US.

In the US most operators do not have to have a license. TV Stations (under Part 74) do in for their mics but it's just a Ham radio operator license.
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Mac Kerr on November 01, 2014, 06:42:45 pm
with RF the higher the wavelength the shorter the distance of the signal coverage.

Actually, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency, the greater the attenuation through walls and other RF attenuators like bags of warm water.

Mac
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: jasonfinnigan on November 01, 2014, 06:53:26 pm
Actually, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency, the greater the attenuation through walls and other RF attenuators like bags of warm water.

Mac

It's true that higher frequencies can go through walls easier as they can penetrate more easily.

The problem is higher frequencies are more prone to being absorb/slowed down by molecules in the air. So in practice lower frequencies usually have a larger coverage area.

If you have a dual-band wireless AP you can likely even tell this in your house with the 2.4ghz coverage vs the 5Ghz coverage area which will be much smaller.
 
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Mac Kerr on November 01, 2014, 08:03:01 pm
It's true that higher frequencies can go through walls easier as they can penetrate more easily.

The problem is higher frequencies are more prone to being absorb/slowed down by molecules in the air. So in practice lower frequencies usually have a larger coverage area.

If you have a dual-band wireless AP you can likely even tell this in your house with the 2.4ghz coverage vs the 5Ghz coverage area which will be much smaller.

Your first sentence is not true. The error in your previous post was the use of the phrase "higher wavelengths". It is not clear, since wavelengths are longer or shorter being a distance, and frequencies are higher or lower, being a count of a number of events per unit time. If "higher" wavelengths are bigger, then the frequency is lower.

Mac
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Rob Spence on November 01, 2014, 08:09:41 pm
The 2.4Ghz specturm is already over crowded (at least it is in the US). Wifi, Cordless Phones (who still has them) Bluetooth and many other devices use 2.4ghz.

Also with RF the higher the wavelength the shorter the distance of the signal coverage. Which is why the 500-900mhz range is the normal range for wireless mics. Though the 700mhz(698-806mhz) band is now illegal for us inside the US.

In the US most operators do not have to have a license. TV Stations (under Part 74) do in for their mics but it's just a Ham radio operator license.

TV stations may NOT use HAM licenses! The FCC prohibits the use of Amateur Radio (Ham) licenses for any commercial use. Also, Ham licenses may not be used in the TV bands.

You really need to check your facts before posting blatantly incorrect information.

Rob Spence (n1icb)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Ivan Beaver on November 01, 2014, 08:12:10 pm
It's true that higher frequencies can go through walls easier as they can penetrate more easily.


What makes you say that? 
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: jasonfinnigan on November 01, 2014, 08:54:15 pm
TV stations may NOT use HAM licenses! The FCC prohibits the use of Amateur Radio (Ham) licenses for any commercial use. Also, Ham licenses may not be used in the TV bands.

You really need to check your facts before posting blatantly incorrect information.

Rob Spence (n1icb)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

They just used the ham radio as a test, to allow each operator to to register for extra use of low power channels. It may not be done anymore. But, it is not for actual ham use, nor was it for the TV channels it was for normally unlicensed devices. At least that's the way we had to do it back when I worked for an NBC affiliate. 
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: g'bye, Dick Rees on November 01, 2014, 09:04:02 pm
It's true that higher frequencies can go through walls easier as they can penetrate more easily.

The problem is higher frequencies are more prone to being absorb/slowed down by molecules in the air.

What?
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: jasonfinnigan on November 01, 2014, 09:17:27 pm
What?

Oh yeah it's some new theoretical science.
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Rob Spence on November 01, 2014, 10:49:14 pm
They just used the ham radio as a test, to allow each operator to to register for extra use of low power channels. It may not be done anymore. But, it is not for actual ham use, nor was it for the TV channels it was for normally unlicensed devices. At least that's the way we had to do it back when I worked for an NBC affiliate.

So, either a licensed operator was in violation of the law or the TV affiliate was illegaly using ham gear or frequencies. In either case, commercial use of the gear, frequencies or licenses is a federal crime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Scott Holtzman on November 01, 2014, 11:04:01 pm
Yeah wow,  as a licensed amateur at 12 years old and an engineer that has been in telecom/wireless for 30 years I can tell you that the suggestion an amateur license was obtained for using microphones is absurd.  In the day we use to hold first class commercial licenses to put our mitts on the transmitter.  Various things like STL's, ENG, translators, production FM repeaters all required spectrum coordination and an FCC license.  Frankly I have no experience with short haul video and audio for remote production buy I can assure you it is not coveted under part 22 (if memory serves me) that governs US amateur operations.  Also thw whole penetration/absorbsion/scintillation vs wavelength cant be simplified to this extent. Power and spectral width are also key coverage variables.
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Jason Glass on November 02, 2014, 09:01:55 pm
SKP-100 G3 does not supply phantom.
SKP-300 G3 will supply phantom.

OK, back to the subject at hand.  Bill is correct.  http://en-us.sennheiser.com/plug-on-transmitter-wired-wireless-microphone-skp-300 (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/plug-on-transmitter-wired-wireless-microphone-skp-300)

If you'd like to stay with Sennheiser products and require 48V phantom power, these models will also do it, albeit at higher cost:
http://en-us.sennheiser.com/wireless-microphone-plug-on-transmitter-skp-2000 (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/wireless-microphone-plug-on-transmitter-skp-2000)
http://en-us.sennheiser.com/wireless-microphone-live-audio-plug-on-transmitter-skp-3000 (http://en-us.sennheiser.com/wireless-microphone-live-audio-plug-on-transmitter-skp-3000)

If you're already equipped with Shure UR receivers, you can use this, which will do switchable +12VDC or +48VDC phantom:
http://www.shure.com/americas/products/wireless-systems/uhfr-systems/ur3-plug-on-wireless-microphone-transmitter (http://www.shure.com/americas/products/wireless-systems/uhfr-systems/ur3-plug-on-wireless-microphone-transmitter)
Title: Re: Wireless mic adaptor
Post by: Thomas Le on November 02, 2014, 09:19:07 pm
Recently came across the Alesis Miclink Wireless... which converts any xlr based dynamic mic into wireless.  Very reasonably priced - about 60 in the UK - but I have no idea what they sound like.  Anyone got any experience of these? Do they colour the sound?  Introduce latency?  etc etc?

Here's a link to the Alesis page:
https://www.alesis.com/miclink-wireless

Strange that the output is a jack socket instead of xlr?

Many thanks.
Kev

What do you need to send out wirelessly? If its outputs, try an IEM system. If its inputs, probably your favorite mic brand has a wireless option available.

Either way, don't skimp on wireless.