Posted by William Davis on 06/02/06 20:47

> >
> > I don't mean to knock shotguns: In a very limited number of
> > circumstances, they are the best choice; but too often, they seduce the
> > user into making the lazy choice. ACAP is better at least 99% of the
> > time.
> >
> > Hey, you're a cable access guy, aren't you?
> >
>
> If fooling with cable access were like fooling with guns I'd have no
> toes left!-)
>
> I confess I'm enamored of the "zoom mic" that reads the camera zoom
> setting to adjust it's own setting. The perfect application IMHO is
> audience interaction of a medium sized room where all the participants
> think, "ve don't need no stinking mic".

Rick,

The fundamental truth is that all microphones must obey the laws of
physics.

The inverse square principle governing the amplitude of sound waves over
distance tells us that as you move ANY microphone further from the sound
source, the sound pressure level will drop off sharply.

So called "zoom" microphones simply roll off low frequency information
(which is inherently less "directional" while boosting the mics GAIN in
an ATTEMPT to compensate for distance.

Next time you "zoom" in on one of these, pay attention to the upper
frequency HISS they add to your signal.

"Low end rolled off and gain increased to the point of extra hiss" may
SOUND something like you're "zooming in" but it isn't.

It's the audio equivelent of "digital zoom" on a lens. Something I'd
describe as "trading the appearance of being closer for a crappier
signal."

Until you can break the laws of physics, the one thing you can do to
create the best signal to noise characteristics of any mic, is to move
it as close as possible to the sound you want it to record.

Period.

[Back to original message]