On Wed, 14 May 2003 20:14:17 GMT, "Steve King" <steve@steveking.net> wrote:

>"DaveC" <dave+usenet3016@mailblocks.net> wrote in message

>news:0001HW.BAE7EC32001FBE68F0386600@news.cis.dfn.de...

>> On Mon, 12 May 2003 13:49:28 -0700, Walt Atwood wrote

>> (in message <BAE58119.1C255%walt.atwood@verizon.net>):

>> > 1: directional mic. This mic would have two uses: first, it would be

>used in

>> > the office through the iMic to the Mac to record voice-overs for video.

>> > Second, it could be plugged into the ZR40's 1/8-inch "mic" port to do

>> > "talking heads" style interview footage.

>>

>> I would recommend against using a directional mic for voiceovers, aka "in

>the

>> booth" recording. People must hold their head very still in order to avoid

>> changes in volume while speaking, which is not natural, and can lead to

>> stifled dialog. Use a cardioid mic for voiceovers.

>>

>> Dave (former voiceover'er)

>Forgive me, but a cardioid mic IS a directional mic. And, I believe that

>most people can pretty easily adapt to the relatively minor rigors of

>acceptable mic technique. I frequently record non-professionals who

>contribute to the corporate programs I produce. There have been a very few

>who are intimidated by a visible microphone, the idea of it being there, not

>its directionality. For those few a lavalier seems to be the best choice,

>but for all the rest a properly placed microphone on a boom or a stand seems

>to work quite well.

>

>Steve King

>Currently making my living doing voice-overs, when not scribbling video

>scripts.

You are both right...;-)

The video person considers a "shotgun" a "directional mic",

and a cardioid as not very directional at all (though the

rear is "dead"), and what Dave says is true for a shotgun

type of mic - but the audio person does consider the

cardioid mic directional (compared with an "omni"), and

would not choose a shotgun mic for most high-quality

recording purposes (though for a video person, the shotgun

can be *very* useful...;-).