[Richard Crowley]

No, there is no reliable and readily available method of discerning the wiring/pinout of random lav mics.

In order to make adapters for XLR, as you say, you must know the pinout of the various connectors. The easiest and most reliable method of doing this is to identify what transmitter make/model the microphone was wired for, and then emulate that connection.

If you don’t know the make/model transmitter the mic was wired for, the next best is to open the connector shell and note the wire colors and which pins they are connected to. Then refer to the documentation for the microphone itself to discern which wire is signal, power, etc.

If you don’t know the make/model of the microphone itself you could resort to experimental tests to work backwards and figure out the wire color coding. But it is extremely easy to destroy the microphone by that method and I wouldn’t recommend it to the inexperienced.

[Richard Crowley]

Do BMD people even follow this forum? I see the names/photos of four BMD people at the top of this forum. But I can’t recall the last time (if ever?) I saw a response from any of them here.

A guy in the UK has started an unofficial forum specifically for ATEM users.

[Richard Crowley]

Budget?
Low budget: https://oscarsoundtech.com/ (but good reputation, I have 4 on order)
Medium budget: https://www.rodemic.com/mics/lavalier (VERY nice interchangable parts)
High budget: the usual suspects.

[Richard Crowley]

The ATEM Camera Converter IS full duplex. I understand Mr. Zelin’s arguments, but don’t necessarily agree with his suggested reasons. BMD is operating from a new generation of technology than the traditional intercom systems. I would argue that it is TWO generations newer. With the kind of data bandwidth they have on those fibers, throwing in intercom functionality is almost free. It is just an additional few K bytes of data along with the gigabytes of video data.

The problem comes when you have to interface that digital intercom world to the old-school, legacy analog intercom systems. BMD appears to have a rather provincial view of the world that doesn’t uniformly comprehend that their equipment is only PART of a larger system comprising equipment from other vendors and using other technology and interfacing.

There is also the matter of the size of the market and what the market will bear. There is FAR more technology in a consumer $40 bluetooth headset than in the typical professional intercom station. But the economies of scale and the traditional price of professional equipment make an intercom system cost many times what a bluetooth headset sells for.

Now BMD (or perhaps a 3rd party vendor) could make a small interface box the size of the BMD Tally/GPI interface box that could interface with the common 2-wire systems like Clearcom, RTS, et.al. Consumer goods that have the level of technology required to do this cost less than $100.

You could make the argument (and my suggestion was based on the theory) that one of the ATEM Camera Converter boxes is actually the best available analog interface into the ATEM intercom system.

BMD’s products are an interesting mix of products that are amazing value for the price and others that seem dramatically overpriced by comparison.

[Richard Crowley]

Yes, the manual explicitly states that you can feed audio (such as program audio, for example) INTO the “audio coupling” port. An examination of the schematic diagram (which I was referring to) shows that the “audio coupling” is essentially a hard-wired tap directly into the intercom bus, which makes it a full-duplex port.

Although not explained in the manual, you could also use that port to feed audio (one-way) from the RTS system to the ATEM system. But you cannot use that port to accomplish DUPLEX (two-way) communication.

As others have explained, you are trying to interface a 4-wire (ATEM = separate send and receive signals) system to a 2-wire (RTS/Clearcom = combined send/receive signals) system. Several ways of doing that have been described. The most straightforward way is to use the RTS SSA-324 Analog System-to-System Adapter with an ATEM Camera Converter box.

[Richard Crowley]

I’m not sure what “converter” you are talking about?
It appears that the “audio coupling” connector on the RTS PS-15 is a simple connection to the intercom bus. If you want to just run the intercom audio one way, “simplex” (from RTS to ATEM or from ATEM to RTS) then you can use a basic cable, with appropriate attenuation and isolation, of course.

But if you want two-way (duplex) communication between RTS and ATEM, it appears that you will need to use an RTS intercom station to properly handle the two-way audio.

[Richard Crowley]

The ATEM Camera Converter has a built-in intercom system, so an RTS (or Clearcom, et.al.) are not needed at the camera end(s).

However, if you want to interconnect the ATEM system to the rest of the production team, you need the kind of interface Mr. Pullen is asking about.

The ATEM system appears to use a digital stream like AES3 (or SPDIF?) for each direction of the intercom system (judging by the recommended interconnection diagrams.) However, it doesn’t seem terribly likely that it is a conventional/compatible AES or SPDIF data format since it is only one channel (and perhaps lower bit-rate as well since it is only intercom and not program audio).

It would appear that a digital-to-analog conversion for the outgoing audio and analog-to-digital conversion for incoming audio would be required. Unless somebody reverse-engineers the intercom digital data stream, it seems to me that it would be easiest to simply use an additional Camera Converter and interface the headset signals into a corresponding RTS (or Clearcom) unit. Of course, that would mean dedicating an ATEM Camera Converter and an intercom station to the task of interconnection.

[Richard Crowley]

Or you could acquire a second receiver appropriate for the hand mic and then you CAN use both mics concurrently. Be sure to get one of the same make and model because the frequency channel alone is NOT an indicator of compatibility. Different brands use different transmission schemes that are mostly incompatible.

[Richard Crowley]

PZM are dramatically overrated. They have a cult status that is completely unwarranted, IMHO. They are great (almost indispensable) in a few niche applications and barely adequate and extremely fiddly to completely inappropriate for everything else. I would not think that a PZM is at all useful for something like you are describing.

Of course you can barely get anything better than Lectro (maybe Zaxcom, etc.) But I would almost opt for wireless mics that were not quite the top-end, but more of them to get proper coverage. Recording each mic to a separate channel allows you to do a proper audio mix during editing as it sounds like you don’t have a dedicated audio crew person to attempt a real-time live mix. I would even consider omitting the mixer and buying another wireless lav. If you are recording the wireless receivers directly into the R-44 tracks, it is not clear why you even need a mixer?

“Reality” shows seem to have settled on literally dozens of wireless mic systems recorded multi-track because they are otherwise impossible to boom unless the subjects are stationary or seated or tied-down. And it should go without saying that any mic mounted ON the camera is useful only for room tone or background noises (if even that).

I would use an inexpensive condenser omni to capture general room tone (recorded to a separate track, of course). I don’t see how any external mic would be an effective “backup” for a proper lav mic on the primary speaking subjects. If you loose a wireless lav (OF COURSE you are monitoring the audio tracks AT ALL TIMES during shooting!) then you have to make the decision whether to stop and fix it, or to just use the audio-disabled video as B-roll or something.

[Richard Crowley]

The problem is that it may sound OK to you during editing, but when it gets re-compressed (in the distribution codec), it could very easily come out really really horrid.

I would IMMEDIATELY make a test recording of a minute or two in the ultimate output format (DVD or whatever) and evaluate THAT final, distributed sound track to see whether the quality meets your standards. Don’t hold your breath.

I would REALLY REALLY go after the sound guy to get the original files. Call his mother.