I understand that a lavalier mic can be positioned on the forehead
someplace for the best sound. Is there a mic tha is specifically
designed to be worn this way? Our producer seems to think so. if so,
I need a brand name and model number if posible. Thanks

wrote:
I understand that a lavalier mic can be positioned on the forehead
someplace for the best sound. Is there a mic tha is specifically
designed to be worn this way? Our producer seems to think so. if so,
I need a brand name and model number if posible. Thanks

Take a look at this:

http://www.fivetowns.net/chrhs/Strom..._Placement.pdf

wrote:
I understand that a lavalier mic can be positioned on the forehead
someplace for the best sound. Is there a mic tha is specifically
designed to be worn this way? Our producer seems to think so. if so,
I need a brand name and model number if posible. Thanks

Not really. However, Countryman and Beyerdynamic both make popular
mikes that are often used this way. It's generally a disaster in my
opinion, but it's fairly easy to ide.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:

I understand that a lavalier mic can be positioned on the forehead
someplace for the best sound. Is there a mic tha is specifically
designed to be worn this way? Our producer seems to think so. if so,
I need a brand name and model number if posible. Thanks

Strange as it may seem and it is strange, this does appear to be a known
technique.
http://www.theatrecrafts.com/sound_radiomics.html

I'm sure I've heard of placing the mic in headgear too. There's a theatre group
where ppl know this stuff.

Graham

wrote:
I understand that a lavalier mic can be positioned on the forehead
someplace for the best sound. Is there a mic tha is specifically
designed to be worn this way?

Yes, this is absolutely normal for theater applications. The reason is
that you get much closer to the person's mouth than if you put it on
their chest somewhere (meaning better gain-before-feedback), you don't
have issues with clothing rustling, and you don't get their volume
level changing drastically as they look right to left.

The center of the forehead usually sounds the best. Off to one side or
the other has slight timbral changes which can be corrected with EQ. If
you need more GBF, you can go over the ear on a boom and down towards
the mouth.

Our producer seems to think so. if so,
I need a brand name and model number if posible. Thanks

The most popular mics for this application, in descending price, are
the DPA 4061, Sennheiser MKE-2 Gold, Countryman B6, Countryman B3, and
the Shure WLM83. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. If
you want something super tiny, the B6 is it. If you want something that
sounds great, is pretty small, and you have a lot of money, the DPA
4061 is it. The MKE-2 is probably the best combination of all things
good and at a reasonable price (around $200-$250 each) and is the
"standard" on Broadway. B3s are a bit cheaper, but not quite as smooth
sounding.

As for wireless systems, the "go to" brand is Sennheiser. Lectrosonics
also makes some good equipment though it's nowhere near as widespread.
The SK5012 is the "standard" if you have lots of budget. Otherwise the
Sennheiser Evolution G2 range is some good gear at a good price.

Hope that helps

-Todd

Hiding body mics is a topic of regular discussion by
working professionals on these two newsgroups:
news:rec.arts.movies.production.sound
news:rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft

Just wanted to chime in and say that I have used the DPA 4061's in 6
shows now on 12 cast members per show, and they work phenomenally. We
usually use a tape called "top stick" that is made for attaching hair
pieces, and the mic should me mounted on the temple facing down toward
the mouth.
Make sure to wipe make-up off of the spot where the mic is to be
applied, and if you have heavy sweaters in your cast then you might
want to try applying some antiperspirant to the face around where the
capsule sits on the face, as you will lose almost all sound from these
mics if a bead of sweat rolls in them.
Yeah, it sucks when the sweaty guy is your lead and the director is
hovering over you. In that case, keep a can of compressed air on the
side of the stage and blow the capsule out each time the sweaty ones
come off stage. Of course you will be muting their mics when you do
this... :-)

On 13 May 2006 18:00:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Not really. However, Countryman and Beyerdynamic both make popular
mikes that are often used this way. It's generally a disaster in my
opinion, but it's fairly easy to ide.

You see it done a lot though. I've had success with it, and with
taping the mic to the cheekbone. A current fad is for actors to
present me with the ear clip from a mobile 'phone earpiece with the
request to tape my mic to that. Works OK.

What position do you prefer?

JReynolds wrote:
Just wanted to chime in and say that I have used the DPA 4061's in 6
shows now on 12 cast members per show, and they work phenomenally. We
usually use a tape called "top stick" that is made for attaching hair
pieces, and the mic should me mounted on the temple facing down toward
the mouth.
Make sure to wipe make-up off of the spot where the mic is to be
applied, and if you have heavy sweaters in your cast then you might
want to try applying some antiperspirant to the face around where the
capsule sits on the face, as you will lose almost all sound from these
mics if a bead of sweat rolls in them.
Yeah, it sucks when the sweaty guy is your lead and the director is
hovering over you. In that case, keep a can of compressed air on the
side of the stage and blow the capsule out each time the sweaty ones
come off stage. Of course you will be muting their mics when you do
this... :-)

And remember these mics are omni so it doesn't matter which way they
are "pointing".

Eyeglasses are a good place to attach them if possible.

Avoid sweat dripping in to them, it will kill most of them.

And many voices need a cut of about 6dB at 200 to 300 Hz to remove the
boomyness that head mounted mics seem to create with some people.

Mark

Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On 13 May 2006 18:00:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Not really. However, Countryman and Beyerdynamic both make popular
mikes that are often used this way. It's generally a disaster in my
opinion, but it's fairly easy to ide.

You see it done a lot though. I've had success with it, and with
taping the mic to the cheekbone. A current fad is for actors to
present me with the ear clip from a mobile 'phone earpiece with the
request to tape my mic to that. Works OK.

I'd think that would work even worse than the forehead. The forehead
is definitely worse than the cheekbone, but easier to hide. My experience
here is limited but it's all been under marginal conditions.

What position do you prefer?

I'm not even sure I approve of PA for most performances that use it....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 14 May 2006 14:10:50 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

You see it done a lot though. I've had success with it, and with
taping the mic to the cheekbone. A current fad is for actors to
present me with the ear clip from a mobile 'phone earpiece with the
request to tape my mic to that. Works OK.

I'd think that would work even worse than the forehead. The forehead
is definitely worse than the cheekbone, but easier to hide. My experience
here is limited but it's all been under marginal conditions.

I find the trick, in either location, is to tape the CABLE down but
encourage the actual mic to stand a little away from the face.


What position do you prefer?

I'm not even sure I approve of PA for most performances that use it....

There's no option in musical theatre now.

Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On 14 May 2006 14:10:50 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I'm not even sure I approve of PA for most performances that use it....

There's no option in musical theatre now.

That's really sad. It's pretty much got me to stop going to broadway plays
entirely.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On 14 May 2006 14:10:50 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I'm not even sure I approve of PA for most performances that use it....

There's no option in musical theatre now.

That's really sad. It's pretty much got me to stop going to broadway plays
entirely.

At least he did just say Musicals.

Graham

On 14 May 2006 18:47:43 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

There's no option in musical theatre now.

That's really sad. It's pretty much got me to stop going to broadway plays
entirely.

It's not the concept of amplification that's bad, just that it's so
often done badly. Listen to those recordings of Mary Martin belting
out classic Broadway scores. She was Queen of that style, but her main
attribute were those iron lungs! She was the first to admit that she
couldn't act much. I wouldn't want to go back to casting on the basis
of volume alone. But once you start amplifying the ORCHESTRA to any
extent, you're running into trouble.

Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
It's not the concept of amplification that's bad, just that it's so
often done badly. Listen to those recordings of Mary Martin belting
out classic Broadway scores. She was Queen of that style, but her main
attribute were those iron lungs! She was the first to admit that she
couldn't act much. I wouldn't want to go back to casting on the basis
of volume alone.

Well, that's part of the thing. Once you stop casting for volume, you
wind up changing the style as a result. And the performance turns into
something different.

But once you start amplifying the ORCHESTRA to any
extent, you're running into trouble.

I know folks who do this deliberately, specifically because the audience
expects that close-miked sound. In fact, fifteen years ago I saw a
performance at the Fox theatre (ATL) where they put the orchestra into another
hall altogether, miked it, then pumped it into the main hall. The
conductor could see what was happening on stage on a video monitor but
they didn't have any audible feedback from the main hall. I asked why
this was done, and I was told it was because some halls on the tour didn't
have a proper orchestra pit.
--scott

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

On 14 May 2006 20:25:38 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I know folks who do this deliberately, specifically because the audience
expects that close-miked sound. In fact, fifteen years ago I saw a
performance at the Fox theatre (ATL) where they put the orchestra into another
hall altogether, miked it, then pumped it into the main hall. The
conductor could see what was happening on stage on a video monitor but
they didn't have any audible feedback from the main hall. I asked why
this was done, and I was told it was because some halls on the tour didn't
have a proper orchestra pit.

Fairly common practice. But are you SURE there was no foldback from
the stage?

Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:
On 14 May 2006 20:25:38 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I know folks who do this deliberately, specifically because the audience
expects that close-miked sound. In fact, fifteen years ago I saw a
performance at the Fox theatre (ATL) where they put the orchestra into another
hall altogether, miked it, then pumped it into the main hall. The
conductor could see what was happening on stage on a video monitor but
they didn't have any audible feedback from the main hall. I asked why
this was done, and I was told it was because some halls on the tour didn't
have a proper orchestra pit.

Fairly common practice. But are you SURE there was no foldback from
the stage?

I shudder to imagine that it is now common. I don't see the point, though...
if you're going to do this, you might as well just use a recording because
the experience for the audience will be the same.

Someone in the hall with the band may well have had foldback, it's entirely
possible. I only talked to the conductor, who didn't, and who was annoyed
at the fact.
--scott


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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

There's no option in musical theatre now.

That's really sad. It's pretty much got me to stop going to broadway plays
entirely.


Please excuse veering off OT, but I saw Fiddler on Broadway this fall
(with Harvey Firestein) and the orchestra was SO LOUD even the usually
imperceptive in such things family members were all turning to me and
asking what the hell the deal was. (As if it was my fault as an audio
guy! : ) ) It was not only as loud as a folk/rock concert, but
there was no discerning was the hell was being sung if three
instruments were playing at the time, forget about the full orchestra.
I live in NYC and I thought for sure I could now check out a musical
after a decade avoiding the schlock rock stuff.

I mean, HF is difficult enough to understand under ANY circumstances,
but holy moly! A freaking horrendous evening, and not because of
anything technical, but because of crazy mixing standards. It sounded
like somebody playing an over-compressed music CD waaaaay too loud
every time someone tried to sing. I guess if you put the music in a
nice little pocket in the background where it works the producers think
you're out of touch. Feh. It sucked. A waste of hundreds of my
dollars.

Sorry. Rant off. Mic the singer with whatever forehead thing you
want. Keep the ****ing music down. : )

On 14 May 2006 19:32:26 -0700, wrote:

Sorry. Rant off. Mic the singer with whatever forehead thing you
want. Keep the ****ing music down. : )

I've run various tech for our Rep Theater many times
over the decades of its existance, but I rarely go as an
audience member any more (and we used to have a box). No
matter how otherwise interesting a show might be, if I'm
to be assaulted by loud bad SR, I'll pass.

At my opry theater gig, seats 635, SR is rare, only for
a small child for a special role, or for a tiny orchestra
(which can work wonders in the total mix!; very exciting).

My rule of thumb is that if I can hear the SR, I'm doing
it wrong. Opera lighting works pretty much the same way,
except that *everything* is a special. Arf!

All the best,

Chris Hornbeck

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On 13 May 2006 18:00:23 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Not really. However, Countryman and Beyerdynamic both make popular
mikes that are often used this way. It's generally a disaster in my
opinion, but it's fairly easy to ide.

You see it done a lot though. I've had success with it, and with
taping the mic to the cheekbone. A current fad is for actors to
present me with the ear clip from a mobile 'phone earpiece with the
request to tape my mic to that. Works OK.

What position do you prefer?

Woman on top, generally. Aren't we going a bit OT now?

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

I feel like I should jump in again here on a few facets of this
discussion, as I have a fair amount of experience doing SR for
musicals.

1) On the position issue:

The center of the forehead usually provides the most natural sound. You
may need a touch of low rolloff, but usually not much, and assuming you
have a well designed speaker system and are not trying to bring the
level up too high (more on this later) you can get a very transparent
mix with this position.

Putting the mic on a boom or taping it to the cheek closer to the mouth
usually results in a sound that needs more low roll off, especially if
you're using a cardioid element (common on booms) since the proximity
effect obviously comes into play. The radiation of the human voice also
just isn't omnidirectional for all frequencies obviously, and it
happens that sibilance and other high frequencies don't tend to go back
towards the cheek/ear.

As always, use your ears to tweak the EQ. Different facial structures
can cause vastly different sound with the same positioning.

2) On the loudness issue:

This is a frequent topic of conversation on the theatre-sound mailing
list, which is frequented by many professionals on Broadway, West End,
regional theater, etc. The crux of the issue is that the loudness is
usually the fault of the producers. They pour a lot of money into a
sound system and sound design fees, and then if they get transparent
reinforcement, they get upset and want it louder. Today's audiences
listen to recorded music far more often than live music, so when the
singers aren't at that nice loud 85-90dB SPL they expect, it sounds
"quiet," not "real". The producers know this, and also think that
louder is better. I'm sure we've all had the experience of thinking a
recorded work sounds fuller and more exciting when you push the master
fader up a few dB. It's the same deal live for many people for whom
transparency isn't more satisfying.

I think if you talk to most sound designers and engineers doing
reinforcement of musical theater at the professional level they will
tell you that their primary goal for most shows is to transparently
deliver every line of dialogue to every seat of the house. As sound
designers, we spend most of our effort finding equipment with the most
transparent sound, speakers with tightly controlled radiation pattern,
and microphone techniques that work reliably and can be well hidden. In
designing a system, sophisticated delay matrixes are often used to
attempt to put the reinforced arrival of vocals within the precedence
window for transparent imaging. All of this effort can clearly be
wasted when the producer makes you push the mix 8-10dB higher than you
want, but the producer is the one paying the bills, so you either do it
or lose the next gig.

As a side issue, most musicals written in the last 30 years are
composed and orchestrated with reinforcement in mind. Blame the
composers/arrangers for putting 3 trumpets in unison with a single
vocal. You've got to get some serious "reinforcement" before that kind
of negligent orchestration can be beaten down.

We've gone far off topic for this NG, but anyone should feel free to
email me if they'd like to continue this discussion.

Thanks
-Todd Lipcon

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

I know folks who do this deliberately, specifically because the audience
expects that close-miked sound. In fact, fifteen years ago I saw a
performance at the Fox theatre (ATL) where they put the orchestra into
another
hall altogether, miked it, then pumped it into the main hall. The
conductor could see what was happening on stage on a video monitor but
they didn't have any audible feedback from the main hall. I asked why
this was done, and I was told it was because some halls on the tour didn't
have a proper orchestra pit.

There's another good reason to close-mic the vocal and instrumental
performers, and that is when the hall's natural acoustics just plain suck.
Not so much of a problem with purpose-built professional musical venues
especially the older traditional ones, but often a problem with churches.

Because of the multiple missions a church auditorium serves, no single set
of acoustical parameters are optimal.

Furthermore, many church auditoriums are designed to be capacious and
cost-effective with little regard for sound quality. For example a nearby
church built a 1,500 seat auditorium along with a few classrooms for about
$6 million dollars. The architect only had prior experience with industrial
buildings. By all accounts the original design did not consider acoustics or
video. Those features were tacked on after the room's basic design was
literally cast in cement.

The church I do most of my work in was designed by an architect whose area
of greatest experience was designing residences. AFAIK he had never designed
a large hall before, and did not have any professional help.

I was discussing my live sound and recorded efforts with a friend, and he
enquired how I "hype the sound" to make the reinforced sound and the
particularly the recordings sound so much "better". By most accounts the SR
sound and recordings are not only louder, but better-balanced, clearer and
more distinct, particularly the recordings. I thought about it for a while
and realized that the essence of my so-called hyping, is to simply
circumvent some of the worst acoustical properties of the room.

On 14 May 2006 21:14:13 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I shudder to imagine that it is now common. I don't see the point, though...
if you're going to do this, you might as well just use a recording because
the experience for the audience will be the same.

Someone in the hall with the band may well have had foldback, it's entirely
possible. I only talked to the conductor, who didn't, and who was annoyed
at the fact.

Not really. In orchestra pits we've been relying on monitors for many
years now. As long as I can see the stage (and, more importantly HEAR
the stage) and they can hear the music, it doesn't matter TOO much if
the players are under the stage or in another room entirely. Though
eye-contact between MD and performer is nice, it's long been common
practice to put TV monitors of the conductor FOH.

Your example of a remote MD and orchestra without audio foldback of
the voices must be a misunderstanding Maybe the foldback was
malfunctioning that night. But there's no way it wasn't designed into
the system.

yeah agreed...

Compressors should be sold and operated only to those that have passed
a test and are licensed...

Mark