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: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: patrick major on March 30, 2011, 09:59:30 AM
-
Hi I have used some MIPRO wireless mics in the past and had good success. I am thinking of trying their MI808tr wireless in ears instead of my bad freq. psm 700s I wonder how they compare? The price is attractive but I need reliability and decent sound any opnions on MIPRO?
-
Hi I have used some MIPRO wireless mics in the past and had good success. I am thinking of trying their MI808tr wireless in ears instead of my bad freq. psm 700s I wonder how they compare? The price is attractive but I need reliability and decent sound any opnions on MIPRO?
I have one set. When I bought it I A/B'ed against Sennheiser G2 which was sort of the benchmark in that price range at the time.
My findings were:
- MiPro had MUCH greater range with much fewer drop-outs. Not surprising due to the diversity receiver. It really works. A non-diversity system CAN produce drop-outs even at 9 feet with direct line of sight if you're unlucky - not so with the MiPro.
- MiPro had less low end than Sennheiser. MiPro drops off around 80Hz while G2 drops off around 40.
- MiPro had a bit worse channel separation than the Sennheiser, but this only really matters when running dual mono - using two receivers on one transmitter.
- MiPro had better/less self-noise than Sennheiser.
And that was about it, I think. I haven't used it much, but it has performed very well every time I have and I'd say it's certainly a very very big step up from the PSM700 which I have quite a bit of experience with.
-
How many channels can be used at once? That would be my concern, but if you don't plan on using a lot at one time, based on Frederik's experience you may be just fine. Personally I am always skeptical of anything with "MI Pro" anywhere in the name or category. Perhaps this is one of those products that is opposite of the norm.
-
Hi I have used some MIPRO wireless mics in the past and had good success. I am thinking of trying their MI808tr wireless in ears instead of my bad freq. psm 700s I wonder how they compare? The price is attractive but I need reliability and decent sound any opnions on MIPRO?
I haven't used the MiPro IEMs but I do use the Act 707 series wireless and I love them. Anyone that won't try or is prejudging the MiPro gear based upon the name should pull their head out of thier ass! It is great gear, well built and when it comes to range, my Act series have worked at over 500 feet while doing some testing (not that I would trust them to work like that on a gig.) Compare that to my Shure SLX at about 150 feet max or my ULXP at about 300 feet max under the same conditions.
-
Hi I have used some MIPRO wireless mics in the past and had good success. I am thinking of trying their MI808tr wireless in ears instead of my bad freq. psm 700s I wonder how they compare? The price is attractive but I need reliability and decent sound any opnions on MIPRO?
I'm still on the fence, as far as down the road would I be better with a more name brand ? and any other high quality dual wireless mics or IEMs out there that are priced good? I know the high dollar brands looking for value and quality (not asking much ) let me hear ya.
-
A non-diversity system CAN produce drop-outs even at 9 feet with direct line of sight if you're unlucky.
If you're having drop outs at 9 feet with clear line of site, this has nothing to do with luck; this has everything to do with either faulty equipment, improper hardware selection/setup and/or incorrect frequency selection.
-
If you're having drop outs at 9 feet with clear line of site, this has nothing to do with luck; this has everything to do with either faulty equipment, improper hardware selection/setup and/or incorrect frequency selection.
I'm not saying you'll be having problems with drop-outs at 9 feet with clear line of sight, but due to the inherent problem with non-diversity systems, you will often be able to find nulls in the coverage even at those conditions, also with nominally working, correctly deployed equipment. They're not big and they're infrequent and not something that will cause any problems in practice, but often they're there if you look for them (mostly indoors where there are walls to create comb filtering).
-
How many channels can be used at once? That would be my concern, but if you don't plan on using a lot at one time, based on Frederik's experience you may be just fine. Personally I am always skeptical of anything with "MI Pro" anywhere in the name or category. Perhaps this is one of those products that is opposite of the norm.
True - it's a horrible name. It's a cheapish build quality, the price is quite low and it's designed and built in Taiwan.
But I have 24 ACT700-systems that see a lot of musical theater use and when 2013 comes about and the old permitted frequency slot (800-820MHz here in Denmark) is closed down, I predict I will have 24 new Mipro systems. In my opinion they are truly an exception to the rule of getting what you pay for.
I'm using them Mipro's own MU-55L lapel mics taped to the cheek with 3M Tegaderm tape. I was originally using DPA 4088's, but I found they were another exception to the rule of getting what you pay for - just the other way around :( In the same time that I broke 15 4088s I lost 1 MU-55L and the DPA is about 8 times as expensive. You do the math. Heck, let me do the math for you:
I had 8 x DPA4088 at any given time. I had on average about 16 x Mipro MU-55L. Inspite of being twice as numerous the Mipros failed only 1/15 as much, so in total they failed 1/30 as much as DPA. Multiply that by the cost difference factor (~8) and you get that the Mipro mics are about 240 times a better investment. The failures were all cable failures. Seriously, DPA, how hard can it be to use a proper cable. Go nuts, spend $50 on a Mipro mic and figure out what cable they're using! IMO the difference in sound is negligable - especially in practice considering how picky the 4088 is about placement. Of course they are cardioid and the Mipros are not, so that's a real difference.
Anyway, in my experience the ACT-700 system performs better than any other I've tried (which includes Shure UR, Senn EW300/500 and 3000-series, Samson UT6 and others) with respect to both sound quality, self noise, robustness and RF-performance. And of course I would never dream of comparing them to SLX even though the price is about the same.
When I started buying them I was planning on getting directional antennas and splitters and so forth. Never happened - don't need'em. The RF-performances is great.
This is one area where I feel strongly about X over Y. Rant over. (No affiliation)
-
If you're having drop outs at 9 feet with clear line of site, this has nothing to do with luck; this has everything to do with either faulty equipment, improper hardware selection/setup and/or incorrect frequency selection.
I'm not saying you'll be having problems with drop-outs at 9 feet with clear line of sight, but due to the inherent problem with non-diversity systems, you will often be able to find nulls in the coverage even at those conditions, also with nominally working, correctly deployed equipment. They're not big and they're infrequent and not something that will cause any problems in practice, but often they're there if you look for them (mostly indoors where there are walls to create comb filtering).
Then 'luck' is not at issue here.
"Comb filtering" is not a phenomena occurring in RF systems; I suspect you meant "multi-path", and the two are not the same.
-
I'm not saying you'll be having problems with drop-outs at 9 feet with clear line of sight, but due to the inherent problem with non-diversity systems, you will often be able to find nulls in the coverage even at those conditions, also with nominally working, correctly deployed equipment. They're not big and they're infrequent and not something that will cause any problems in practice, but often they're there if you look for them (mostly indoors where there are walls to create comb filtering).
Then 'luck' is not at issue here.
"Comb filtering" is not a phenomena occurring in RF systems; I suspect you meant "multi-path", and the two are not the same.
Yes, I meant mulit-path, but what would you say is the difference? I mean - I know it won't create the sound of comb-filtering, but AFAICS it IS comb filtering in the RF-domain in exactly the same way as audio waves do in the air in a different frequency range.
-
Yes, I meant mulit-path, but what would you say is the difference? I mean - I know it won't create the sound of comb-filtering, but AFAICS it IS comb filtering in the RF-domain in exactly the same way as audio waves do in the air in a different frequency range.
One difference is that comb filtering is a time and frequency based issue that happens over a broad range of frequencies, hence the "comb". Multipath is a similar phase cancellation, but it involves a single frequency.
Mac
-
Yes, I meant mulit-path, but what would you say is the difference? I mean - I know it won't create the sound of comb-filtering, but AFAICS it IS comb filtering in the RF-domain in exactly the same way as audio waves do in the air in a different frequency range.
Comb filtering is the result of multiple sources (acoustical transducers or speaker cabinets) delivering a broad frequency range of direct energy into the same space at the same time and having the energy levels of the individual frequencies add or subtract due to time arrival differences thus producing an uneven SPL across the reproduced frequency range.
Multi-path occurs when there are multiple propagation paths from a single source (transmit antenna); one direct, the others reflected.
Multi-path is the physical occurrence and does not necessarily have to result in self interference, and in fact does not the vast majority of the time. Comb filtering is the result, and generally a detrimental one.
-
Comb filtering is the result of multiple sources
I don't see why the same source reflecting off walls doesn't qualify as well?
Anyway, I see Mac's point that of course you can't call it "comb" filtering when there's only one point of the graph and not a full comb, but the phenomenon is the same - just different manifestations/descriptions. Either way "multi-path" is certainly a more accurate description of the situation in question.
-
Comb filtering is the result of multiple sources
I don't see why the same source reflecting off walls doesn't qualify as well?
Because reflections are not a source. As I've always understood it, "comb filtering" is the term used to describe the result of direct energy from multiple sources, without reflections considered. Comb filtering occurs in outdoor situations where there are no reflections, thus no multi-path. With that, I'll leave it to the more fluent in acoustical measurement to clarify the matter.