|
|
Posted by David McCall on 10/10/06 17:34
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:4p23fdFgnkeaU1@individual.net...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> But the significant premium price for the very tiny mics
>>> seems beyond reasonableness unless you are dealing with
>>> close-up TV shots or period dramas, etc. Certainly not
>>> worth it for your average TV application, and not at all
>>> worth it for audio-only recording, radio, etc.
>
> "Bill" wrote ...
>> By "very tiny" do you mean the B6, as opposed to the more inexpensive B3?
>> Or both the B6 and B3 (and similar models) compared to, say, a Shure SM
>> 11?
>
> Both. It is a continuous spectrum. The smaller you get, the more
> expensive the microphone. For the kinds of things I do, and the
> projects/ people I work with, it would take a very significant
> reason to splurge that much money on a microphone just because
> it is small vs. something more conventional (and cost-effective).
>
> Furthermore, the smaller the microphone, the higher the cost of
> ownership. They are frequently so small that people forget they
> are wearing them. And the folk over on r.a.m.p.s frequently
> complain about "talent" trying to remove those fragile mics
> themselves and damaging them. Their REPAIR budget for
> those things is bigger than my PURCHASE budget. It comes
> down to irresponsible stewardship as I see it.
>
> There are really excellent reasons to use those things, but
> absent one or more of those reasons, those things are just
> a liability and a pain in the neck.
I do some work in comunity theater and they are brutal on mics.
Perhaps we should add a mic fee or deposite to each actor,
but wave that fee if the actor buys the mic, or already owns a mic.
David
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|