what is the best wireless dual channel mics

[Stewy]

my budget for these mics will be around 500.00 to 1,500.00 don't know yet how much I want to spend just want to askes some people with experience in dealing with wireless mics.

I been looking at Sennheiser and the Audio-Technica ATW-1821 Dual Wireless Microphone System.

To explain more I wish/was going to hire a soundman but its to expensive so I was going to get this dual mic set and add room tone background noise ect. in post.

I want to film a conversation with two people talking, I don't want to keep switching channels as they are doing their dialogue.

The Audio-Technica ATW-1821 Dual Wireless Microphone System seems to be perfect for this but I herd the sound is alright.

I had another question for you professional sound guys.

What if I recorded the sound with a shot gun mic and later sync the sound with PluralEyes,the mic I have is an Apple Yeti and I have a sound proof room for the actors to do their dialogue again, This would probably be the cheapest way of doing it and the easiest and the best sound,but will it look cheesy/not natural like some of those 80s movies Ive seen.

Thanks for reading
Sincerely
StewyJ

 

[Alcove Audio]

Okay, first off, no matter what you do, most mics are one (1) channel (mono). Yes, there are a few specialty mics that can capture two (2) channels (stereo), and there are a few four (4) channel "surround" mics.

A frequency agile wireless system can select a predetermined frequency within a given frequency block. Diversity wireless systems have two antennas and two receiver channels, automatically selecting the best signal/frequency.

Lectrosonics are extremely reliable and have a very robust build; one of the top choices for professionals. Between US$1,200 and US$3,500 per set. They do not come with lavs.

The Sennheiser G3 series wireless are also reliable and well built; "entry level" professional wireless. About US$650 per set it includes the Sennheiser ME-3 lav; most professionals replace the lav.

Audio Technica makes very solid prosumer gear. I don't have any practical experience with the 1800 series wireless systems, but they should be okay.

 

[AcousticAl]

Okay, first off, no matter what you do, most mics are one (1) channel (mono). Yes, there are a few specialty mics that can capture two (2) channels (stereo), and there are a few four (4) channel "surround" mics.

Just FYI, the Audio Technica 1821 is a dual system. Two individual transmitters with a dual-receiver unit. The receiver unit has two, separate, diversity receivers housed in a single chassis. It has a selectable output mode that can output separate signals via the two TA3 connections, or can output a mixed signal from both receiver channels.

Audio Technica makes very solid prosumer gear. I don't have any practical experience with the 1800 series wireless systems, but they should be okay.

The older AT-U101 systems were killer, and some of the best in the $500-700/channel range. That was before Sennheiser's G-series took hold, especially starting with the second generation. I had two of the U101 kits and sometimes wish I still had them.

Like Alcove, I have no practical experience with the 1800-series, though I have heard mixed reviews on the quality. The transmitters are the same used with the 3000-series (in fact, they're cross-compatible), and those are the systems I have in my church. Based on that, the quality is okay. Not as clean as Sennheiser Evolution wireless systems, but not awful.

The Sennheiser G3 systems are going to be the best investment if you must buy your own wireless systems. The stock lavs that come with them, or with the ATW-1821, are not going to be the best in the world. Upgrading the lavs to something better (Countryman, Tram, DPA, Sanken) is advisable.

As for your other question about using PluralEyes, it sounds like you're talking about ADR (Additional Dialog Recording), which is not what PluralEyes is for. PluralEyes can only take two copies of the same sound recording and match them up. ADR requires a lot more because the recordings are not identical; there will be places where individual syllables must be time-stretched or time-compressed in order to match the lip movements of the actors. PluralEyes cannot do this, but programs like VocAlign are made for it.

ADR is a complicated and time-consuming process, especially if you want to do it right, and a Blue Yeti is not the right mic for that. Your best bet is to get the dialog recording right the first time, during production. Yes, it can cost a bit, but hiring a sound professional is your best guarantee.

 

[Stewy]

If I did ADR why would the Blue Yeti not be the right mic wouldn't it be better sound then if I used a wireless mic because the actor/Actresses would be close to the mic in a sound proof room or I could just use my AZDEN sgm 1x shotgun mic, I don't really know about sound maybe you can explain to me about why the Yeti mic is not good for this. I would think any semi pro stereo mic in a sound proof room, later add the back ground noise in post would be better sound then any lavs.
I have more time then Money so syncing sound is no problem I did it before.

ADR is a complicated and time-consuming process, especially if you want to do it right, and a Blue Yeti is not the right mic for that. Your best bet is to get the dialog recording right the first time, during production. Yes, it can cost a bit, but hiring a sound professional is your best guarantee.[/QUOTE]

 

[AcousticAl]

If I did ADR why would the Blue Yeti not be the right mic wouldn't it be better sound then if I used a wireless mic because the actor/Actresses would be close to the mic in a sound proof room or I could just use my AZDEN sgm 1x shotgun mic, I don't really know about sound maybe you can explain to me about why the Yeti mic is not good for this. I would think any semi pro stereo mic in a sound proof room, later add the back ground noise in post would be better sound then any lavs.

First things first: dialog is a MONO source and should be recorded in MONO using a single mic. Using a stereo mic array to record dialog is a poor decision. You'll end up having to separate the two channels in post, and delete one of them, and then you're left with a recording that may drift off-axis from time to time.

So, IF you insist on recording ADR and IF you insist on using the Yeti, you'll need to select the cardioid pattern and not the stereo pattern.

HOWEVER, there are more reasons why both ADR and the Yeti are not your best choices. On-camera dialog captures the original performance that matches the actor's energy and movements, two things that are difficult to recreate later. Plus, having a mic in a "soundproof" room eliminates the natural ambience of the original space. Sure, the actors will be closer to the mic for ADR recording, but then you have a mic with a much different frequency response (good. ADR is recorded with the same mic/s used for production dialog) and a recording that does not have any of the natural resonance of the set/location. This means that, for ADR to be anywhere close to effective, a convolution reverb must be very carefully applied to recreate the reflections of the performance space. This is something that is often done poorly in low-budget ADR.

Second, all the movement of the actors will be lost. Clothing, shoes, props... these must all be replaced with FX and Foley later on, which is also expensive and time-consuming. A filmmaker on another forum produced a feature a couple years ago and opted not to record any production sound at all, relying strictly on ADR and FX/Foley. If I remember his argument correctly, he decided. That he didn't have the budget for production sound and that recording the ADR himself would be cheaper. It was terrible in the end because so many sounds were missing, sounding like they'd picked only the 3 or 4 top sounds in any shot to replace. This resulted in a sound mix that was sterile.

A properly-placed lav, or boom mic, during production will give you better results.

I have more time then Money so syncing sound is no problem I did it before.

Again, ADR is not like syncing dual-system sound. Your actors must recreate their performances and match both the energy and the delivery, as well as the timing. The timing won't be perfect, which is where a program like VocAlign comes in. Even still, the energy and delivery of the original performance is often not well-matched in ADR, and the illusion cannot be sold that way.

 

[Stewy]

First things first: dialog is a MONO source and should be recorded in MONO using a single mic. Using a stereo mic array to record dialog is a poor decision. You'll end up having to separate the two channels in post, and delete one of them, and then you're left with a recording that may drift off-axis from time to time.

So, IF you insist on recording ADR and IF you insist on using the Yeti, you'll need to select the cardioid pattern and not the stereo pattern.

HOWEVER, there are more reasons why both ADR and the Yeti are not your best choices. On-camera dialog captures the original performance that matches the actor's energy and movements, two things that are difficult to recreate later. Plus, having a mic in a "soundproof" room eliminates the natural ambience of the original space. Sure, the actors will be closer to the mic for ADR recording, but then you have a mic with a much different frequency response (good. ADR is recorded with the same mic/s used for production dialog) and a recording that does not have any of the natural resonance of the set/location. This means that, for ADR to be anywhere close to effective, a convolution reverb must be very carefully applied to recreate the reflections of the performance space. This is something that is often done poorly in low-budget ADR.

Second, all the movement of the actors will be lost. Clothing, shoes, props... these must all be replaced with FX and Foley later on, which is also expensive and time-consuming. A filmmaker on another forum produced a feature a couple years ago and opted not to record any production sound at all, relying strictly on ADR and FX/Foley. If I remember his argument correctly, he decided. That he didn't have the budget for production sound and that recording the ADR himself would be cheaper. It was terrible in the end because so many sounds were missing, sounding like they'd picked only the 3 or 4 top sounds in any shot to replace. This resulted in a sound mix that was sterile.

A properly-placed lav, or boom mic, during production will give you better results.



Again, ADR is not like syncing dual-system sound. Your actors must recreate their performances and match both the energy and the delivery, as well as the timing. The timing won't be perfect, which is where a program like VocAlign comes in. Even still, the energy and delivery of the original performance is often not well-matched in ADR, and the illusion cannot be sold that way.

Thank You for the sound lessons,good advice.