henny Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Saw the Beyer MPR 210 B at this years plasa north and it looks like it may be a noval approach to the lecturn pulpit problem http://europe.beyerdynamic.com/shop/ct/conference-technology/product-line/microphones/desktop-microphones-and-microphone-units/mpr-210-b-1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart91 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 It suffers from the same vulnerability as all boundary style mics - users can put books or papers on top of it. However some lectern designs make it easier to avoid this, e.g. if the mic sits on a raised rim, separate from the sloping bookboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solstace Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Another vote for the Shure MX412/418 series here, with the Cardioid capsule (R185, if I recall?). Came across it when a BBC gig came our way, and loved it in comparison to the AKG 747 and 451 I'd previously been using in similar scenarios. Shure's hypercardioid variant looks like it should work better on paper, but when I had a chance to compare it I found the hyper suffered worse rear-rejection on the top-end at all angles, which meant I actually had less working gain on the hypercardioid. I don't want a railway station sound; that's volume, not intelligibility. Perhaps in a more "dead" venue, or when using PA speakers with much tighter pattern-control than ours, there might be further gains to be had than in our case. Either way, since that last test around 3-5 years ago I've stuck with the cardioid variant and EQ for "quality" sound rather than "volume". Wider microphone "policy" issues - this is talking about a church setting after all, and I'm guessing those running the system aren't all "pro's": Rule number 1: RELATIONSHIPS, RELATIONSHIPS, RELATIONSHIPS. Without those in place, you'll never knowingly get ANYTHING done to anyone's satisfaction. Often I find that starts with an apology on my side - and as someone with as much pride and arrogance as me, that's a very hard thing to do. "Yes, I'm sorry you experienced that here last time you worked with me. Can we work together to solve it?" Preachers/readers/prayer-leaders who don't like the mic simply get told, firmly but fairly, to leave it alone (and they mostly do, in fairness). Can't remember the last time I had to give them the DDA or Loop-Amp lecture, actually. Just sidling up to them and finding out their anxieties, and working with them to defeat them usually bypasses the issue entirely. But does rely on my being there to run the sound, with enough time to actually have that conversation with them to start with. "Yes, I'll turn the mic down if you move in too close" or "Yes, I'll try and make it sound less like you have that stinking cold today" can do wonders for confidence and will bypass the wandering-mic issue entirely in many cases. When all else fails, I give them as much gain as the mic and system together will safely allow before feedback. Either all factors can work together to give a workable result, or they can't. Where they can't, we manage the areas we *can* control ourselves, and leave those areas we *cannot* to those who can. I'm too old, too weary and too busy now to do it any differently. And I care too much about the rest of my team to let them willingly go and do anything else. So that's how we work it here. And I get very shouty (in love ;)) with my team when I spot them pushing the envelope when there's no need. It just creates more tension and work for no real gain. In-house events: If they don't get heard because they speak too quietly and/or too far away because they "don't like microphones" or whatever, then any PA complaints from the congregation/audience get sent directly to them or their line managers to sort out. Very simple, and cuts nearly all emotion out of the what for us is a very simple technical matter with very simple factors involved - none of which are emotional at the end of the day. External events: I do the best I can to work to the above. First priority is to figure out who's who when everyone shows up, and what (if any) hierachy exists in case of any issues or clashes of expectations. Meanwhile I try and ease our visiting preachers/musicians into the way I/we work in our venue as we get set up and settled in together. Usually this involves lots of smiles here, a few offers of beverages and snacks there, a couple of lame sound-engineer-jokes just-because-I-am-one-and-can-get-them-out-the-way... and things usually work out surprisingly well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lewis Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Leviticus 19:14 predates the Equality Act 2010. I usually quote Romans 10;17, but the Leviticus quote is duly noted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solstace Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Leviticus 19:14 predates the Equality Act 2010. I usually quote Romans 10;17, but the Leviticus quote is duly noted! Both good points well made ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimWatson Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I have struggled with this for years - and have made various attempts to solve it. I now firmly attach a radio mic with lavalier mic to the preacher, with the comment that if their sermon is worth hearing, then everyone should be able to hear it. If it isn't worth hearing, I'm going home.. :-) Gain before feedback is always an issue - I have tried things like Rode NTG2 with some success, and various condensers with judicious use of the EQ - which is fine until someone moves something... I look forward to you all identifying the definitive answer ;-)Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.