Posted by nappy on 12/03/07 08:13

"Jacques E. Bouchard" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns99FB70A3BD90jebouchard451yahooca@204.153.245.131...
> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in
> news:weG4j.79023$Um6.16229@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> "Jacques E. Bouchard" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99FA8190D16E8jebouchard451yahooca@204.153.245.131...
>>
>>> I'm sorry, maybe there was something about my post that wasn't
>>> perfectly clear. Here it is again. I typed more slowly this time to
>>> let you catch up:
>>
>> nice. You may not know this but typing slowly doesn't really have any
>> effect on the speed at which the words show up in a post.
>
> I think you must be putting me on. Yes, surely that's it.

No. I am serious. And I think I am right on that one.Do I look like I'm
kidding?

>
>>> The mic doesn't pick up any of the room's echo that a camera-mounted
>>> mic would (regardless of quality).
>>
>> Probably because it rolls off at 1000Hz?
>
> No, because it's not mounted ten feet away from the subject. I'm not the
> first one to mention distance in this thread. You know that perfectly
> well (or maybe not - I'm only *presuming* you're a competent
> professional), but you couldn't pass up the opportunity to sneer.


Wait a minute.. with a little thought you can determine if lavs are a good
choice for a situation. You don't need to buy cheap lavs to make the
determination. But if you do.. claiming they rival expensive mics.. is
silly. Especially if they roll off at 1000Hz

[Back to original message]