Mic for indoor PA and live streaming?

[Greg Miller]

As a sound guy, I really ought to love headset mics. They do solve a lot of problems created by those pesky laws of acoustics.

But every time I see someone wearing a headset mic, it conjures up the mental image of "TV huckster" and "Michael Jackson a/k/a pedophile." I guess I will never really accept headset mics on a psychological level. [sigh]

[Paul R Johnson]

As a theatre person, oddly I also agree - they look horrible. Some of our sound designers still use hairline mics, and they can be dressed under wigs, and if hairline is no good, then others hide them in the sideburns. They then live with the less gain before feedback. For some productions it's fine, for others it just doesn't work, and a double ear loop, or single ear loop style is essential. even worse is when for certain actors the boom itself has to be stuck to the cheek to keep it in close - and it looks so ugly. From a few rows back I guess I can live with it, but it ruins photos and video.

[Ty Ford]

Marcus,

A Countryman E6 should do well. They even have a short version that doesn't extend as far down the cheek.

They do make a cardioid version. Don't know if you'd need that in your situation. Depends a lot on the PA and monitors setup.

You can hear the omni version here.

Ty Ford Mic Tutorial - YouTube

Regards,

Ty

[Marcus Marchesseault]

You guys echo what has been in my head the whole time, "A headset is the answer to fix the problem but they are ugly."

I've known this since day one and have gone fishing here grasping at straws. I've made some improvements to the sound board but it keeps coming back to mic placement as the real problem.

I have one question about headsets before going into another theoretical solution. Are the Shure E6 headsets that look just like the Countryman E6 the same mic? There are lots of them at B&H and few that are listed as actual Countryman brand. Does Shure own Countryman or perhaps license the E6?

Okay, I have one last idea as a possible solution without resorting to headsets. Would two mics placed a few inches below and to either side of the person talking be a workable solution? My concern would be that they might induce feedback as two mics seem to have problems when they get close. I've seen politicians at podiums with two gooseneck mics placed far enough below that they don't block their face on camera. I don't want to even think about spending this kind of money twice if there are going to be significant problems with two mics near each other. I suggest two mics spaced apart in order to catch the audio when the talker turns their head.

[Ty Ford]

Marcus,

I'm pretty sure that Carl Countryman was way out in front of Shure one the B6 and E6.

I think a mic on the cheek wins here.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Marcus Marchesseault]

This is what I'm talking about:

Shure Americas | Microphones, Wireless Systems, Headphones, Earphones

"Please note that the Countryman E6, B6, E6i microphones and Type 85 Direct Box are distributed by Shure, but are manufactured, warranteed, and serviced exclusively by Countryman Associates. "

and:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/294107-REG/Shure_WCE6T_E6_Omnidirectional_EarSet_Microphone.html

I think the answer is that Shure is distributing the E6 but B&H doesn't necessarily have the descriptions right on all the products.

[Ty Ford]

Marcus,

Countryman licensed to Shure.

Shure has done in the past with Sound Devices, and probably others.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Bill Davis]

Look, unless you can have them "dress once" I'd avoid using a headwork mic.They're notorious for getting tangled in ladies hair making any during the show transfer a nightmare.

This is largely why I suggested a short tripod with a gooseneck. It allows you to put a cardiod capsule directly in front of a presenter without a lot of weight and unweildyness for the rig.

I thought you indicated that these people would be low to the ground and not standing? If not than a standard mic stand is fine, but weighted round bases are REALLY easy to tip over. Tripod style stands are both lighter and more stable.

But as others have said, only you know your room and the behavior issues of the people who will be recorded.

Just don't OVER think it. In a live PA situation, even an amateur can easily hear when they're off mic.

Just give them a decent tool and remind them that the point of the exercise is to be heard - and they'll likely get accustomed to using the system pretty easily.

FWIW.

[Ty Ford]

Well, you do need a wrangler, that's for sure, but I've seldom seen an adult stay on mic unless very well trained. They are "in the moment" in front of a crowd and all that advice goes right out the window. They either eat the mic or forget it's there because they are overwhelmed by speaking in front of an audience.

If you have time for rehearsals, you might get them to do it right, but it's often like herding kittens.

How many people will have to speak?

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Marcus Marchesseault]

You both have good advice. I've been wrestling with both ideas quite a bit, but the problem with a gooseneck is that I would have to buy two - with two transmitters that supply phantom power. There is no way I can keep the presenter from looking side-to-side because of the layout of the room. Most of the audience is to the right and left of the person speaking. I have the added benefit of the ladies that speak mostly having short hair. I definitely heed Bill's warning, but I think the headset solution will be okay because I can probably afford two and therefore eliminate most of the passing back and forth. I'm going to have a small mic stand for one handheld and another handheld wireless available to pass around. I'm fairly certain this will provide a decent solution. I think a gooseneck mic will be a good idea for some things and it will probably be in next year's budget.

[Greg Miller]

The advantage of the handheld is that the presenter can easily move the mic when he turns his head... that will quickly become automatic.

Otherwise, I can envision two clip mics: one on each lapel. That would cover them when they turn their heads to the extreme side. When they're facing forward, each mic would pick them up but at a somewhat lower level; hopefully the sum of both mic signals would be an appropriate level.

But of course this just increases the "wrangling" problem (unless each person has his own pair of mics and transmitter) : they'd have one transmitter and two mics to take off, keep untangled, and pass to the next person. Seems to me that wrangling is going to be a hassle anyway.

-----

How about putting up a big plex wall (like a drum wall), floor to ceiling, between the presenters and the audience. Make sure there are no loudspeakers on the presenters' side of the wall. Then you could pick up everything with a bunch of PZMs, without feedback

/sarcasm

[Marcus Marchesseault]

I've decided to engage the cone of silence.

Two lavs is essentially the same as two gooseneck mics and has the drawback of being twice as expensive as one headset.

[Andrew James]

While it is very hard to determine what specific mic you will need in your setup, let me share the difference between an analog and digital wireless. You might be on a dilemma on what to pick. It is important to know that there is a difference between these two. With an analog wireless system, it basically sends your audio through the airwaves, while the wireless system will separate any noisy, interfering audio from your original signal. However, there is the potential for signal quality loss with this. On the other hand, high-quality analog wireless systems can be better against digital wireless systems in terms of audio quality and ease of use. But in the end, factor in all of your needs when choosing one. For more tips visit, Salt Lake City Studio.

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

I've decided to engage the cone of silence.

An excellent idea!

Just out of curiosity, do you ever wonder how people had church services (or analogous meetings of whatever denomination) before PA systems were invented? Or how people ever had plays or musical performances before PA systems were invented? You know... back when actors (and musicians, preachers, etc.) knew how to project their voices.

Did the preachers ("presenters") speak more clearly? Did the congregation ("audience") listen more closely? And what did people do for diversion before feedback was invented? Of course in this scenario, we'd all be out of work.

... Just sayin' ...

[Ty Ford]

1. congregations and churches were smaller
2. people could project

Regards,

TyFord