|
|
Posted by doc on 07/07/06 04:39
probably because this goofey group in washington don't like the idea of
audio being broadcast on a digital data frequency. BTW that group calls
themselves The FCC.
drd :o)
"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:448ca834$0$32680$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
> news:128oa5h8el3j3ba@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Just observing that you get more bang-per-buck with
>> a cheap MD recorder in the pocket than with any
>> "budget" toy-plastic wireless mic. I am fortunate
>> to have re-invested my money into reasonably good
>> wireless mics, but I rememeber when I was trying to make the most logical
>> choices on near-zero
>> budgets. This is only an option here in the era of inexpensive
>> computer-based NLE video post
>> produciton. And with the changing frequency
>> spectrum assignments, and the explosion of RF
>> devices that people carry around with them,
>> cheap wireless mics are becoming even less
>> attractive (if that is even possible).
>>
>> OTOH, I have learned (the hard way) that we must
>> now *require* everyone on-set to turn OFF their
>> cell phones, Blackberry's, etc. Even wired mics
>> are susceptable to the pseudo-random transmssions
>> of a cell-phone in the pocket of the talent.
>
> Is it feasible to make a digital wireless mic based on WiFi (802.11)
> technology?
> With WiFi, frequency conflict shouldn't be a problem (interferences
> reduces throughput but audio requires very little bandwidth, especially if
> digitally compressed), the receiver can handle multiple streams, and the
> components are cheap. But no such product exist. Wonder why.
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|