Forum Replies Created

  • Andrew Taylor

    October 14, 2015 at 4:04 pm in reply to: Microphone stand thread: 5/8 vs 15mm

    Thank you for the link, but I think Richard is right. The 15mm mentioned in the adapter description refers to how long the adapter is, not the thread (which is 5/8-27 to 3/8-16).

    I thought of retapping the female 15mm thread at the base the of microphone clip, since all the male counterparts (microphone stand, boom pole, etc.) are the standard 5/8-27 already.

    But the microphone clip came with its own set of adapters: one for a regular hot shoe, one for a mini hot shoe, one for a gorilla pod-type set of legs. So if I retap the female end of the microphone clip, I cannot use any of the accessories that came with it.

    I was hoping someone would manufacture a 5/8-27 to 15mm converter that I could use.

    Alternatively, I could get this thread saver (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1076269-REG/latch_lake_thsvr_5_8_thread_saver.html) and retap the male end of it to 15mm. But by the time I purchase the thread saver, plus a die, plus a die wrench, I’m better off buying a different microphone clip.

  • Andrew Taylor

    September 29, 2015 at 11:18 pm in reply to: 2.4GHz general questions

    Thank you for a very thorough write up on 2.4 GHz systems 🙂

  • Andrew Taylor

    September 29, 2015 at 7:02 pm in reply to: 2.4GHz general questions

    Thank you for the extra info. Interesting that I never thought of using a lav as a plant mic. I always assumed a lav would not have the reach, so for anything that was not on the body I would automatically go to a shotgun (hiding it within the frame whenever possible, on a pole otherwise).

    In retrospect, maybe it was the cheap lavs I used that did not have the reach 🙂

  • Andrew Taylor

    September 29, 2015 at 5:17 pm in reply to: 2.4GHz general questions

    If 500MHz is safest, then the Sennheiser ew 112-p G3 band A (516 MHz-558 MHz) or band G (566 MHz-608 MHz) would be a good option (band B is 626 MHz-668 MHz, not sure if interference may be an issue there).

    Now, as you mention, some of these systems are less expensive (than an equivalent UHF system, for instance). Is that because of inherent weaknesses in the 2.4MHz technology, so manufactures are trying to gain product acceptance by offering lower prices, or is it just that this technology (2.4MHz-based hardware) is cheaper to produce?

    Nice AT blog entry, by the way.

  • Andrew Taylor

    September 29, 2015 at 8:08 am in reply to: 600Mhz Wireless broadcast ban by FCC

    So I’m assuming buying a new wireless mic set that works in the 600MHz band would be ok, right? No surprises down the road (nothing is guaranteed, obviously, as politicians and policies change…)

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy