Inspired by another thread...

What is this compulsion by audio newbies (and even not-so-newbies) to
misuse shotgun mics?

I've seen it happen again and again. ENG shooter sets up camera at back
of room to tape a speech, and they set up a shotgun on a stand and
expect good audio.

Doing audio for a play. They set up 6 shotguns across the foot of the
stage.

Using one mic to pick up crowd questions, so they again put a shotgun
on a stand.

In my estimation, a shotgun is the mic of LAST RESORT, and is never
effective unless it is continuously AIMED in the direction of the
sound. In almost any fixed situation, a mic with a wider pattern is
better.

I think a shotgun mic is appropriate in a C-SPAN-type crowd situation,
when it is continuously positioned and aimed by a pro. Or on COPS. Or
as a "natural sound" mic to pick up punches in boxing, or the "thwack"
of a pitch hitting a glove in baseball, but very little else.

Scott said in the other thread that they're very limited mics. He was
right!

Taking your question as other than rhetorical (always a risk, but ...):

I suspect that there is an unconscious level on which people think of
microphones as the opposite of what they truly are; they think of
microphones as having "power" as if they were transmitters of energy
rather than receivers. If so, that might also help to explain the
widespread assumption (which is nearly impossible to dislodge, though
there isn't an ounce of truth to it) that large-diaphragm microphones
have better low-frequency response than smaller microphones.

A person stuck in the back of a room may think, "This is a lousy place
for a mike, so I'd better use a mike with a lot of 'reach' so as to
compensate for the bad placement." Of course what they have is a
diffuse sound field, and they've chosen a type of microphone that has
jagged diffuse-field response, so they get boomy, echo-ey, spitty sound
quality, and they imagine that they've done the best that's possible.

People need to consider the sound field around the microphone. A
microphone can (at best) only pick up the sound field that is around it
at the time! Most people do understand that an omni picks up the sound
field around it, but some folks seem to act as if a directional
microphone can pick up, in effect, the sound field existing nearer to
the sound source. It can't.

The fact that we call these microphones "shotguns" only encourages the
backwards thinking; maybe we should call them "drinking straw
microphones" instead?

--best regards

David Satz wrote:

The fact that we call these microphones "shotguns" only encourages the
backwards thinking; maybe we should call them "drinking straw
microphones" instead?

I remember seeing an article in Popular Electronics in
the '60s for a construction project which was a "shotgun"
mic built with drinking straws cut to various lengths.
What made the article memorable was that it featured a
photo of Dylan.

rd

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:32:09 -0500, David Satz wrote
(in article .com):

Taking your question as other than rhetorical (always a risk, but ...):

I suspect that there is an unconscious level on which people think of
microphones as the opposite of what they truly are; they think of
microphones as having "power" as if they were transmitters of energy
rather than receivers. If so, that might also help to explain the
widespread assumption (which is nearly impossible to dislodge, though
there isn't an ounce of truth to it) that large-diaphragm microphones
have better low-frequency response than smaller microphones.

A person stuck in the back of a room may think, "This is a lousy place
for a mike, so I'd better use a mike with a lot of 'reach' so as to
compensate for the bad placement." Of course what they have is a
diffuse sound field, and they've chosen a type of microphone that has
jagged diffuse-field response, so they get boomy, echo-ey, spitty sound
quality, and they imagine that they've done the best that's possible.

People need to consider the sound field around the microphone. A
microphone can (at best) only pick up the sound field that is around it
at the time! Most people do understand that an omni picks up the sound
field around it, but some folks seem to act as if a directional
microphone can pick up, in effect, the sound field existing nearer to
the sound source. It can't.

The fact that we call these microphones "shotguns" only encourages the
backwards thinking; maybe we should call them "drinking straw
microphones" instead?

--best regards


On the other hand, just yesterday, I used the Schoeps CMIT to record guitar
and guitar and vocal together in the studio. Sounded pretty darn nice in the
controlled environment. I'll put the clips up in a day or so.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

RD Jones wrote:
David Satz wrote:

The fact that we call these microphones "shotguns" only encourages the
backwards thinking; maybe we should call them "drinking straw
microphones" instead?

I remember seeing an article in Popular Electronics in
the '60s for a construction project which was a "shotgun"
mic built with drinking straws cut to various lengths.
What made the article memorable was that it featured a
photo of Dylan.

This is modelled after the old RCA design with the tuned pipes of
different lengths wrapped together into a helix? Except much smaller?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Ty Ford wrote:

On the other hand, just yesterday, I used the Schoeps CMIT to record guitar
and guitar and vocal together in the studio. Sounded pretty darn nice in the
controlled environment. I'll put the clips up in a day or so.

You could argue that the CMIT isn't really a shotgun. It's got an
interference tube, sure, but the interference tube is way shorter
than with a conventional shotgun design. I think about half of the
actual directionality comes from the capsule pattern and the interference
tube is just gravy.

It sure is cleaner off-axis than any shotgun I've ever used. It's still
not as clean off-axis as the worst omni I've ever used.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 24 Jan 2006 10:21:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
a
photo of Dylan.

This is modelled after the old RCA design with the tuned pipes of
different lengths wrapped together into a helix? Except much smaller?
--scott

That article still lives on the net, I ran across it a few weeks ago.

There's also a pdf of 'Build the shotgun sound snooper' that uses 36
3/8" aluminum tubes of graduated lengths from 1" to 36" enclosed at
one end with a funnel with a mic in the small end. Works at 250 yards
and looks way cool but Fidelity was not a consideration.


Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

IMHO Shotgun begins and ends with the Sennheiser 416 and its longer,
discontinued brother.

I am consistantly amazed by the mic in a variety of situations and on a
variety of sources.

Mark

On 23 Jan 2006 10:54:22 -0800, "
wrote:

Inspired by another thread...

What is this compulsion by audio newbies (and even not-so-newbies) to
misuse shotgun mics?

I've seen it happen again and again. ENG shooter sets up camera at back
of room to tape a speech, and they set up a shotgun on a stand and
expect good audio.


Yep, sounds like something a novice camera op would do. Just because
you know how to turn the camrea on, doesn't meen you know how to
record good audio.

Doing audio for a play. They set up 6 shotguns across the foot of the
stage.

You sure they were shotguns? I can't imagine that. I know cheap
recordists set up two shotguns for stereo recording at too close a
range, but 6 seems excessively moronic.


Using one mic to pick up crowd questions, so they again put a shotgun
on a stand.

Was the video crew put in charge of the question mics? I don't think
some know there are more than two types: omni and shotgun.


In my estimation, a shotgun is the mic of LAST RESORT, and is never
effective unless it is continuously AIMED in the direction of the
sound. In almost any fixed situation, a mic with a wider pattern is
better.


Well, for the video guys, a shotgun works better from a boom than a
cardioid. Take away the boom, and some get really confused.

I think a shotgun mic is appropriate in a C-SPAN-type crowd situation,
when it is continuously positioned and aimed by a pro. Or on COPS. Or
as a "natural sound" mic to pick up punches in boxing, or the "thwack"
of a pitch hitting a glove in baseball, but very little else.


Any dramatic production uses shotgun mics. Films use shotgun mics.
You reallise that every sound other than dialogue was added in post in
almost all studio films? They don't want to have the ambiant noise,
the camera motors, the shuffling of crew, and everything else picked
up. But yes, the mic still has to be relatively close and properly
positioned. That's why boom ops have their own headphones.

Scott said in the other thread that they're very limited mics. He was
right!

From the point of view of live sound, yes. From the point of view of
a filmmaker, no.

Brandon Anderson wrote:

Scott said in the other thread that they're very limited mics. He was
right!

From the point of view of live sound, yes. From the point of view of
a filmmaker, no.

From the point of view of a filmmaker, you'll get better noise rejection
from a good hypercardioid 90% of the time. Now, that last 10% of the
time (mostly when room ambience isn't an issue), the shotgun can be a
lifesaver. But it shouldn't be your go-to mike for any interior work
if you have a decent hyper in the kit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Shotgun microphones

Group: rec.audio.pro Date: Tue, Jan 24, 2006, 8:30pm From:
(Scott*Dorsey)
Brandon Anderson wrote:
Scott said in the other thread that they're very limited mics. He was
right!
From the point of view of live sound, yes. From the point of view of a
filmmaker, no.


From the point of view of a filmmaker, you'll get better noise rejection
from a good hypercardioid 90% of the time. Now, that last 10% of the
time (mostly when room ambience isn't an issue), the shotgun can be a
lifesaver. But it shouldn't be your go-to mike for any interior work if
you have a decent hyper in the kit.
--scott

All well and good until the frameline dictates you need a bit more reach
than a hyper can give you.

Eric

Eric Toline wrote:
All well and good until the frameline dictates you need a bit more reach
than a hyper can give you.

Which is why some films wind up discarding the location sound and
looping the vocals in the studio...

On 24 Jan 2006 10:21:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

a photo of Dylan.

This is modelled after the old RCA design with the tuned pipes of
different lengths wrapped together into a helix? Except much smaller?

Frank Vuotto wrote:

That article still lives on the net, I ran across it a few weeks ago.

There's also a pdf of 'Build the shotgun sound snooper' that uses 36
3/8" aluminum tubes of graduated lengths from 1" to 36" enclosed at
one end with a funnel with a mic in the small end. Works at 250 yards
and looks way cool but Fidelity was not a consideration.

I believe the article Frank refers to is this one:

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/ShotGunMike.pdf

The one I remember (with Dylan) was a few years later
(maybe around '68) and used the drinking straws instead
of aluminum tubes to form the 'helix'. Total length was
more like 16" or so. A 'baby' version of the above.

rd

"RD Jones" wrote ...
I believe the article Frank refers to is this one:

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/ShotGunMike.pdf

The one I remember (with Dylan) was a few years later
(maybe around '68) and used the drinking straws instead
of aluminum tubes to form the 'helix'. Total length was
more like 16" or so. A 'baby' version of the above.

And the laws of physics dictate that the more "miniature"
you make it the less directional it is at lower frequencies.

As a child, I remember seeing presidential press conferences
on TV where a couple of guys had shoulder-mount, bazooka-
size line-gradient microphones to aim at the reporters to pick
up their questions. The (in)famous ElectroVoice 643...
http://reel2reeltexas.com/vinAd65EV643.jpg

In article , "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"RD Jones" wrote ...
I believe the article Frank refers to is this one:

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/ShotGunMike.pdf

The one I remember (with Dylan) was a few years later
(maybe around '68) and used the drinking straws instead
of aluminum tubes to form the 'helix'. Total length was
more like 16" or so. A 'baby' version of the above.

This helix has little directional properties. This
mic amplifies sound by resonating to overcome tape
and preamp noise. Where is the commercial version if its good?
You can get much more directional with a dish or phased mic array.

greg

And the laws of physics dictate that the more "miniature"
you make it the less directional it is at lower frequencies.

As a child, I remember seeing presidential press conferences
on TV where a couple of guys had shoulder-mount, bazooka-
size line-gradient microphones to aim at the reporters to pick
up their questions. The (in)famous ElectroVoice 643...
http://reel2reeltexas.com/vinAd65EV643.jpg

GregS wrote:
In article , "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"RD Jones" wrote ...
I believe the article Frank refers to is this one:

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/ShotGunMike.pdf

The one I remember (with Dylan) was a few years later
(maybe around '68) and used the drinking straws instead
of aluminum tubes to form the 'helix'. Total length was
more like 16" or so. A 'baby' version of the above.

This helix has little directional properties. This
mic amplifies sound by resonating to overcome tape
and preamp noise. Where is the commercial version if its good?
You can get much more directional with a dish or phased mic array.

The helix is basically an interference tube. All the tubes wrapped
together basically work the same way as a single tube that is slit on
the side.

There is an RCA patent on the helix thing. It's heavier and more clumsy
than a comparable single-tube design, and the single-tube devices like
the EV 644 soon replaced it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:23:44 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Ty Ford wrote:

On the other hand, just yesterday, I used the Schoeps CMIT to record guitar
and guitar and vocal together in the studio. Sounded pretty darn nice in
the
controlled environment. I'll put the clips up in a day or so.

You could argue that the CMIT isn't really a shotgun. It's got an
interference tube, sure, but the interference tube is way shorter
than with a conventional shotgun design. I think about half of the
actual directionality comes from the capsule pattern and the interference
tube is just gravy.

It sure is cleaner off-axis than any shotgun I've ever used. It's still
not as clean off-axis as the worst omni I've ever used.
--scott




In that case the Pearls and some Sankens aren't really shotgun mics

Where will it all end!!!!

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Ty Ford wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:23:44 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote

You could argue that the CMIT isn't really a shotgun. It's got an
interference tube, sure, but the interference tube is way shorter
than with a conventional shotgun design. I think about half of the
actual directionality comes from the capsule pattern and the interference
tube is just gravy.

In that case the Pearls and some Sankens aren't really shotgun mics

That argument holds for the Sankens but I don't think it really does
for the Pearls. I think the Pearl is really a conventional tube, just
short, and all of the directionality comes from the interference tube.

In sort of the way the AKG C747 is really a shotgun, just one that is
no good at lower frequencies because the tube is so small.

Where will it all end!!!!

On tape, of course.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 25 Jan 2006 01:45:58 -0800, "RD Jones" wrote:


I believe the article Frank refers to is this one:

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/ShotGunMike.pdf


Yes, that's the sound-snooper project. The one I saw with drinking
straws is this one:

http://members.shaw.ca/roma2/circuit28.pdf

No Dylan tho..

Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

"Frank Vuotto" wrote ...
"RD Jones" wrote:
I believe the article Frank refers to is this one:

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/ShotGunMike.pdf

Yes, that's the sound-snooper project. The one I saw with drinking
straws is this one:

http://members.shaw.ca/roma2/circuit28.pdf

An interesting article. It recommends adding a large mailing
tube surrounding the 37 straws of various length. This outer
tube completely eliminates the directional effect and
demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the
physics involved. He would have been better off taking
the mailing tube and punching a bunch of holes along its
length with a sharp pencil.

And the OTHER one I find my students misusing is the damn PZM. These
things were all the rage in the 70s, and even I hoped they would be a
solution for picking up tolerable audio from groups with minimal phase
problems. But they soon proved to just suck at it. Sure, distant voices
are audible, although crappy, but so are foot shuffling, pen-clicking,
throat clearing, paper-shuffling, traffic, etc.

But I still get students saying "I'll use a PZM to pick up the sound
from a play", or some such thing. Are standard cardioid dynamic sticks
really that bad?

Sorry, just pet peeve time. As an educator, I should be more tolerant.
It just seems like everybody wants shorcuts to good sound, and there
aren't any. Wednesday rant.

For my next topic, how TV news audio guys don't get respect from
recording types...

GregS wrote:


This helix has little directional properties. This
mic amplifies sound by resonating to overcome tape
and preamp noise.

Resonance is not the same thing as amplification.

Resonance may increse the energy transfer by reducing the impedance
mismatch, amplification uses an external supply of energy to increase
the power of a signal.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote ...
GregS wrote:

This helix has little directional properties. This
mic amplifies sound by resonating to overcome tape
and preamp noise.

Resonance is not the same thing as amplification.

Resonance may increse the energy transfer by reducing the impedance
mismatch, amplification uses an external supply of energy to increase
the power of a signal.

They have found it pretty handy for radio reception for several decades.

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote ...
GregS wrote:

This helix has little directional properties. This
mic amplifies sound by resonating to overcome tape
and preamp noise.

Resonance is not the same thing as amplification.

Resonance may increse the energy transfer by reducing the impedance
mismatch, amplification uses an external supply of energy to increase
the power of a signal.

They have found it pretty handy for radio reception for several decades.

Tuning (resonance) is not the same thing as amplification.

The power coming out of a tuned circuit cannot be greater than the power
put into it.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:33:52 +0000, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote ...
GregS wrote:

This helix has little directional properties. This
mic amplifies sound by resonating to overcome tape
and preamp noise.

Resonance is not the same thing as amplification.

Resonance may increse the energy transfer by reducing the impedance
mismatch, amplification uses an external supply of energy to increase
the power of a signal.

They have found it pretty handy for radio reception for several decades.

Tuning (resonance) is not the same thing as amplification.

The power coming out of a tuned circuit cannot be greater than the power
put into it.

I can - briefly. It is the energy coming out that can't exceed that
going in.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:33:52 +0000, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote ...
GregS wrote:

This helix has little directional properties. This
mic amplifies sound by resonating to overcome tape
and preamp noise.

Resonance is not the same thing as amplification.

Resonance may increse the energy transfer by reducing the impedance
mismatch, amplification uses an external supply of energy to increase
the power of a signal.

They have found it pretty handy for radio reception for several decades.

Tuning (resonance) is not the same thing as amplification.

The power coming out of a tuned circuit cannot be greater than the power
put into it.

I can - briefly. It is the energy coming out that can't exceed that
going in.

Quite correct - but I was trying to sort out the confusion between
amplification and resonance, which catches out so many people.

There is a similar confusion between voltage step-up in a transformer
and voltage step-up in an amplifier ...but don't let's start that
again.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:49:47 +0000, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:33:52 +0000, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote ...
GregS wrote:

This helix has little directional properties. This
mic amplifies sound by resonating to overcome tape
and preamp noise.

Resonance is not the same thing as amplification.

Resonance may increse the energy transfer by reducing the impedance
mismatch, amplification uses an external supply of energy to increase
the power of a signal.

They have found it pretty handy for radio reception for several decades.

Tuning (resonance) is not the same thing as amplification.

The power coming out of a tuned circuit cannot be greater than the power
put into it.

I can - briefly. It is the energy coming out that can't exceed that
going in.

Quite correct - but I was trying to sort out the confusion between
amplification and resonance, which catches out so many people.

There is a similar confusion between voltage step-up in a transformer
and voltage step-up in an amplifier ...but don't let's start that
again.

I remember the thread with some considerable pain.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Hmm... Have you done production sound on a film?

On 24 Jan 2006 20:30:14 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Brandon Anderson wrote:

Scott said in the other thread that they're very limited mics. He was
right!

From the point of view of live sound, yes. From the point of view of
a filmmaker, no.

From the point of view of a filmmaker, you'll get better noise rejection
from a good hypercardioid 90% of the time. Now, that last 10% of the
time (mostly when room ambience isn't an issue), the shotgun can be a
lifesaver. But it shouldn't be your go-to mike for any interior work
if you have a decent hyper in the kit.
--scott

Brandon Anderson wrote:
Hmm... Have you done production sound on a film?

Yes, a few times on features but mostly shorts. Mostly with the Schoeps,
but sometimes with a 416.

Ask around on r.a.m.p.s and see what the general feeling among the first-line
film sound guys are about shotguns. You'll be surprised.

Believe it or not, I have a gig with the Nagra III this week, even. Pilot
tone and everything. Arri BL so there will be plenty of camera noise to
deal with.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Brandon Anderson" wrote in message
...
Hmm... Have you done production sound on a film?

On 24 Jan 2006 20:30:14 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Brandon Anderson wrote:

Scott said in the other thread that they're very limited mics. He was
right!

From the point of view of live sound, yes. From the point of view of
a filmmaker, no.

From the point of view of a filmmaker, you'll get better noise rejection
from a good hypercardioid 90% of the time. Now, that last 10% of the
time (mostly when room ambience isn't an issue), the shotgun can be a
lifesaver. But it shouldn't be your go-to mike for any interior work
if you have a decent hyper in the kit.
--scott

Brandon, Scott is right on. A shotgun microphone used in an interior space,
any place where there are reflections from walls, windows, etc., will result
in a colored sound that is often not pleasant. That is because the shotgun
microphone is not good at attenuating off axis lower frequencies. A hyper
cardioid has a much more even off axis response, a smoother and more
pleasant sound. Outdoors, the shotgun will provide better reach. Of
course, outdoors there will be no reflections to deal with. And, I have
done film sound and frequently hire film/video mixers who are more
experienced and more skillful than I am.

Steve King

Steve King

OK then, I stand corrected. It must be that the hyper's I've tried
aren't of the highest quality...

On 26 Jan 2006 22:33:11 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Brandon Anderson wrote:
Hmm... Have you done production sound on a film?

Yes, a few times on features but mostly shorts. Mostly with the Schoeps,
but sometimes with a 416.

Ask around on r.a.m.p.s and see what the general feeling among the first-line
film sound guys are about shotguns. You'll be surprised.

Believe it or not, I have a gig with the Nagra III this week, even. Pilot
tone and everything. Arri BL so there will be plenty of camera noise to
deal with.
--scott

Brandon Anderson wrote:
OK then, I stand corrected. It must be that the hyper's I've tried
aren't of the highest quality...

Go rent one of the Schoeps. Any place that rents film sound gear will
have them available. Just try one for an afternoon and you'll never go back.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey schrieb:
Brandon Anderson wrote:

OK then, I stand corrected. It must be that the hyper's I've tried
aren't of the highest quality...


Go rent one of the Schoeps. Any place that rents film sound gear will
have them available. Just try one for an afternoon and you'll never go back.
--scott

Scott,

any comments/comparisons to Neumann's small diaphragm hypers?
:-J

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Sch=F6pf?= wrote:
Scott Dorsey schrieb:
Brandon Anderson wrote:

OK then, I stand corrected. It must be that the hyper's I've tried
aren't of the highest quality...


Go rent one of the Schoeps. Any place that rents film sound gear will
have them available. Just try one for an afternoon and you'll never go back.

any comments/comparisons to Neumann's small diaphragm hypers?

I think the pattern is a little tighter than either the Neumann and the
Sennheiser hypers. And the lower midrange is a little funny on the
Sennheiser. On the other hand, the Sennheiser will keep running in
rainforest conditions when the humidity has killed both the Neumann
and the Schoeps.

I wouldn't turn down any one of the three and you can work well with
all of them. But if I were picking one out, I'd tend to grab the Schoeps.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:
And the OTHER one I find my students misusing is the damn PZM. These
things were all the rage in the 70s, and even I hoped they would be a
solution for picking up tolerable audio from groups with minimal phase
problems. But they soon proved to just suck at it. Sure, distant voices
are audible, although crappy, but so are foot shuffling, pen-clicking,
throat clearing, paper-shuffling, traffic, etc.

But I still get students saying "I'll use a PZM to pick up the sound
from a play", or some such thing. Are standard cardioid dynamic sticks
really that bad?

Sorry, just pet peeve time. As an educator, I should be more tolerant.
It just seems like everybody wants shorcuts to good sound, and there
aren't any. Wednesday rant.

For my next topic, how TV news audio guys don't get respect from
recording types...


Question for all..

I was reading the manual for the Sennheiser MKH60commonly used for film
production.

The manual describes this mic as a SHORTGUN (no typo I mean shoRtgun
not shotgun)

Was this a typo in the manual or is this a different animal?

Whats the difference between a SHOTGUN mic and a SHORTGUN mic?

thanks
Mark

"Mark" just HAD to give an opinion in
oups.com:


wrote:
And the OTHER one I find my students misusing is the damn PZM. These
things were all the rage in the 70s, and even I hoped they would be a
solution for picking up tolerable audio from groups with minimal phase
problems. But they soon proved to just suck at it. Sure, distant
voices
are audible, although crappy, but so are foot shuffling, pen-clicking,
throat clearing, paper-shuffling, traffic, etc.

But I still get students saying "I'll use a PZM to pick up the sound
from a play", or some such thing. Are standard cardioid dynamic sticks
really that bad?

Sorry, just pet peeve time. As an educator, I should be more tolerant.
It just seems like everybody wants shorcuts to good sound, and there
aren't any. Wednesday rant.

For my next topic, how TV news audio guys don't get respect from
recording types...


Question for all..

I was reading the manual for the Sennheiser MKH60commonly used for film
production.

The manual describes this mic as a SHORTGUN (no typo I mean shoRtgun
not shotgun)

Was this a typo in the manual or is this a different animal?

Whats the difference between a SHOTGUN mic and a SHORTGUN mic?

thanks
Mark



Short shotgun = shortgun

--
Steve L.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
_________

"Before you criticize someone you should walk a mile in their shoes.
This way, you're a mile away when you criticize them and you have their
shoes."
-- Unknown