Posted by Arny Krueger on 12/03/07 12:13

"nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
news:yUO4j.79106$Um6.36574@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net

> "Jacques E. Bouchard" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> message
> news:Xns99FB76656B3Cjebouchard451yahooca@204.153.245.131...

>> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in news:J9G4j.79021$Um6.38224
>> @newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:

>>> "Jacques E. Bouchard" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>> in message
>>> news:Xns99FA8190D16E8jebouchard451yahooca@204.153.245.131...

>>>>> I bought a wireless lav mic on ebay for about $10. It feels very
>>>>> flimsy
>>>>> (the battery compartment is hard to snap close), there's writing in
>>>>> Chinese and Russian on the transmitter, but it's always performed well
>>>>> at
>>>>> distances of up to 20 feet (haven't tested it above that).

Like this one?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Clip-on-Wireless-Microphone-Set-Lapel-Mic-Receiver-USA_W0QQitemZ290187345576QQihZ019QQ

>>>>> The sound is
>>>>> still better than an expensive camera-mounted shotgun mic,

>>> I hear the music from the Twilight Zone for some
>>> reason. Or is it Outer Limits?

Nahh, its a comment on the primacy of acoustics over electronics.

>> Does it have horrible room echo, nappy? Because if it
>> does maybe you need to mount your mic closer to your
>> subject. Or use a $10 wireless lav mic.

Believable.

> If I were recording someon in a live room I wouldn't
> attempt it with a boom. I would run both a lav and a boom
> though. Always do. It isn't something I have to study and
> make a decision about. It's just common sense.

> The key is.. if you have to keep your mic ten feet away
> from a subject and you don't have lavs..there's a good
> chance your audio will be hollow and contain a lot of
> ambient sound and reflections.

> So if you are telling us that a lav is preferable to an
> omni ten feet a way..

> yes. That's true.

That's how I read it.

[Back to original message]