Posted by Rick Merrill on 06/02/06 21:35

William Davis wrote:

>>>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.

I'll have to recruit you to run a boom mic for me. That'll be great!-)

[Back to original message]