DA
The main one in this case, I assume, being that the audience on Strictly can be relied upon to stay quiet and not bray like a hyperactive donkey while the presenters are speaking.
Because different microphones are better in different circumstances.
The main one in this case, I assume, being that the audience on Strictly can be relied upon to stay quiet and not bray like a hyperactive donkey while the presenters are speaking.
MA
The main one in this case, I assume, being that the audience on Strictly can be relied upon to stay quiet and not bray like a hyperactive donkey while the presenters are speaking.
I think it's mainly the environment that affect the audience, remember the SCDs from Wembley Arena ? Awful.
Because different microphones are better in different circumstances.
The main one in this case, I assume, being that the audience on Strictly can be relied upon to stay quiet and not bray like a hyperactive donkey while the presenters are speaking.
I think it's mainly the environment that affect the audience, remember the SCDs from Wembley Arena ? Awful.
NG
noggin
Founding member
There is an element of style, but also an element of 'needs must'
Presenters often don't like using stick mics, but in very noisy surroundings they allow far more control of the on-air sound than an omni-directional personal mic miles away from the presenters mouth on a lapel or half-way down their body. There is the third option, popular in Europe and gaining ground in the UK, which is the DPA-style headset mic. They aren't universally popular (the little mic capsule by the side of your mouth / cheek is a bit ugly to some people) but they provide similar levels of noise isolation to stick mics, and certainly massively outperform personal mics AND importantly leave your presenters with both hands free (which can be useful if they need to hold cue cards, props, or just be a bit demonstrative with guests etc.), which isn't the case with a stick.
If you are performing in an environment with a large amount of PA - then personal mics are a really bad idea... Similarly if you have a very loud audience (and are close to it, or in it) then personals are a very bad idea.
It's basic physics, the closer a mic is to a presenters mouth AND the more directional that mic is, the more sound you will get from the source you want to hear, and the less you will get from sources you don't want to hear. This isn't rocket science.
Presenters often don't like using stick mics, but in very noisy surroundings they allow far more control of the on-air sound than an omni-directional personal mic miles away from the presenters mouth on a lapel or half-way down their body. There is the third option, popular in Europe and gaining ground in the UK, which is the DPA-style headset mic. They aren't universally popular (the little mic capsule by the side of your mouth / cheek is a bit ugly to some people) but they provide similar levels of noise isolation to stick mics, and certainly massively outperform personal mics AND importantly leave your presenters with both hands free (which can be useful if they need to hold cue cards, props, or just be a bit demonstrative with guests etc.), which isn't the case with a stick.
If you are performing in an environment with a large amount of PA - then personal mics are a really bad idea... Similarly if you have a very loud audience (and are close to it, or in it) then personals are a very bad idea.
It's basic physics, the closer a mic is to a presenters mouth AND the more directional that mic is, the more sound you will get from the source you want to hear, and the less you will get from sources you don't want to hear. This isn't rocket science.
LL
I've seen some people, one example being on Sunday Night at the Palladium, where there seems to be a flesh-coloured mic going over their forehead. At least it seems to be the case, as more than one person has had it, and hopefully it's not just a weird contagious forehead wart
HC
That's the style used in most West End musicals by the performers. They can get away with covering it with a hair piece, and you can't see it if sitting in the cheapseats.
But a close up zoom from a HD OB camera, it does look like a skin growth being hidden with an awful lot of foundation make-up!
But a close up zoom from a HD OB camera, it does look like a skin growth being hidden with an awful lot of foundation make-up!
DO
Style is an integral part of microphone choice. Nobody chooses the Shure 55SH for it's audio quality, feedback rejection or reliability, but they're still in wide use today (my heart drops every time I see someone turn up with one as I know I'm in for a rough day). For acts of a certain style or vintage, they're the mic, despite the lack of redeeming features, so that makes them the best mic for them.
Hand held mics are easy. Everyone knows how they work (which means if you use them to talk to someone you've not had a chance to prepare, they'll know how to use it), and you can get decent audio quality in most circumstances (even if there's a few thousand screaming girls a couple of metres away). However, they mean someone has to hold it, which can get in the way of other things they need to do. It's also a visual distraction. So depending on what you're doing, a hand held or a lapel could be the essential tool, even if what you're doing superficially the same thing (a presenter talking to camera).
On a Hozier show a few weeks ago we used about 21 different types of microphone in total, all chosen based on their particular benefits.
I'm not so sure that's true in every case. I think a lot of it is down to style these days.
Style is an integral part of microphone choice. Nobody chooses the Shure 55SH for it's audio quality, feedback rejection or reliability, but they're still in wide use today (my heart drops every time I see someone turn up with one as I know I'm in for a rough day). For acts of a certain style or vintage, they're the mic, despite the lack of redeeming features, so that makes them the best mic for them.
Hand held mics are easy. Everyone knows how they work (which means if you use them to talk to someone you've not had a chance to prepare, they'll know how to use it), and you can get decent audio quality in most circumstances (even if there's a few thousand screaming girls a couple of metres away). However, they mean someone has to hold it, which can get in the way of other things they need to do. It's also a visual distraction. So depending on what you're doing, a hand held or a lapel could be the essential tool, even if what you're doing superficially the same thing (a presenter talking to camera).
On a Hozier show a few weeks ago we used about 21 different types of microphone in total, all chosen based on their particular benefits.
SP
I'm guessing the personal-stuck-on-a-car-aerial used by Terry Wogan on Blankety Blank was more to facilitate visual gags by Kenny Everett rather than for any acoustic reasons?
LL
I doubt it was for technical reasons because I've never seen a programme use wand mics like that before. But at the same time I wonder how they pre-meditated the gags with Kenny given they used that mic from Day 1.
LL
London Lite
Founding member
France 2's afternoon lifestyle show Comment ça va bien springs to mind for variation of mics. The main presenter and guest have two standard clip on mics as used by most shows in the UK, while the regular rotation of experts all wear the tiny on the ear mics, which are visible when on a close up shot. Personally I find the mic quality from those mics are not as good as a clip on.