Love to hear the updates as well. Emily, as a caller I prefer the headset.
I'd rather be handsfree. It's cumbersome to hold the mic, and it's physically uncomfortable for me to hold it all evening. The advantage of the hand held is the freedom to talk or cough or breath without putting it over the hall. I typically move or cover the mic on the headset, or simply turn the mute on where there is a mute. Someone with sound experience needs to talk about the differences in that aspect. There's a good bit of difference in headset models in terms of comfort and fit and sound interference. Also consider a mute button and the cords and the transmitter you need to hook onto something. I'm also in the market to purchase so I'm sending thanks in advance to current comments and to Will's survey. The communities I call with have their own systems but I need to borrow a system for weddings and festivals, and not all communities have wireless mics. Laurie West MI --- On Wed, 5/23/12, Emily Addison <eaddi...@trentu.ca> wrote: > From: Emily Addison <eaddi...@trentu.ca> > Subject: [Callers] wireless mics - headsets or handhelds? > To: call...@sharedweight.net > Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 1:01 PM > Hi Folks! > > I have a microphone question for this awesome community that > I'm hoping you can help us out with. Our contra dance > committee (Ottawa) would like to purchase a wireless mic to > use for introductory lessons as well as family dances. > However, we don't have major sound expertise on our > committee and were wondering a few things. > > (1) do callers prefer a handheld or headset (thinking of > family dances as part of this as we want to add 3-4 a year > to our regular contra schedule)??? > (2) suggestion for particular models of handhelds and > headsets??? > > I know that microphones have been discussed previously on > the list (I pulled some of the discussion from previous > years and put it below). However, more people may now > have more experience, maybe there are more current models... > ... > > Will (L) - did you ever do your microphone survey that your > mentioned back a few years ago? > > For those who have headsets, why did you go that way and do > you like your model? > For those who have handhels, similar questions! :) > > Help would be most appreciated as we would like to invest in > something that will be great for various callers to use. > > Much thanks! > Emily from Ottawa > ___________________________________________ > >From holt.e at comcast.net Tue Jul 31 16:27:23 > 2007 > From: holt.e at comcast.net (Rickey) > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:27:23 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] Opinions on Sound Equipment Needed > Message-ID: <000001c7d3b1$3712a770$020fa8c0@maxx> > > Hi All, > > We are shopping for sound equipment. We hold dances in > a small extremely > live hall. We get from 30 to 50 dancers. We also > do gigs in other halls > for up to 100. We are a community band: good musicians with, > sometimes > several sit-ins (also good): We are 2 Fiddles, 1 > recorder/clarinet/saxophone > (i.e. one person, who switches between these instruments), 1 > Silver flute, 1 > Irish (wooden) flute, 1 guitar (with pick-up soon I hope), 1 > keyboard, 1 > Bodhran, sometimes 1 added Bodhran, rarely another guitar, a > stand up > Acoustic Bass, and an Acoustic Piano (in place of > keyboards). With Caller at > most we need 12 inputs. Below is a list of the > equipment we are > considering. We are relatively new to equipment of > this caliber. Ease of > use is an issue. We are choosing from among the following. > Do you have > experience with these? Do you have preferences? > > MIXERS: > > 1. Allen & Heath PA20 - 16 mono inputs > plus 2 stereo inputs, and a > built-in equalizer > > OR > > 2. Soundcraft MPM12/2 - 12 mono inputs > plus 2 stereo inputs. Would > require an added equalizer, possibly the dbx 231 > 31-Band Graphic Equalizer, > from Sweetwater > > Speakers > > We are thinking of using 10" powered speakers, 2 for the > room, and 2 for > monitors. The two we are choosing between are: > > 1. Mackie SRM 350 > > OR > > 2. RCF ART 310A > > To this we would add a caller's monitor TC-Helicon VoiceSolo > VSM-200 > > MICROPHONES > > 1. Dynamic Vocal Mikes - Either > Shure SM 58, OR Shure Beta 58 > 2. And for General Purpose > Mikes: Shure SM 57 > > What has you experience with this equipment been. > > Thanks for you help, > > Rickey Holt. > > > > > >From peter at amidonmusic.com Tue Jul 31 17:19:02 > 2007 > From: peter at amidonmusic.com (Peter Amidon) > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:19:02 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] Opinions on Sound Equipment Needed > In-Reply-To: <000001c7d3b1$3712a770$020fa8c0@maxx> > References: <000001c7d3b1$3712a770$020fa8c0@maxx> > Message-ID: <p0623090dc2d5571b2a99@[192.168.1.100]> > > Hi, > > I am adding to the request. > > I need advice on what self-powered speaker with > at least an XLR and a quarter inch input in the > back. I would love a speaker big enough for > dancing with groups of children; right now I use > my amplifier with an EV X300 (I'm spoiled). > > I would be using it with my wireless headset > system (the XLR connection) and my iPod > (I have an adaptor into a quarter inch input). > > Of course I would love it if it were not too heavy. > It needs to be able to go on a stand. > > Any suggestions? > > Many thanks. > > Peter Amidon > peter at amidonmusic.com > 802-257-1006 > cell 917-922-5462 > > >From richgoss at comcast.net Tue Jul 31 17:31:49 > 2007 > From: richgoss at comcast.net (richgoss at comcast.net) > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:31:49 +0000 > Subject: [Callers] Opinions on Sound Equipment Needed > Message-ID: > <073120072131.11306.46afaa45000c022300002c2a22007601809c9c0109080c0...@comcast.net> > > Hi, > > I've been giving serious consideration to a Roland > AC-90. Peter, you described it exactly. It's > light weight, has both XLR and 1/4" input. Also has > Aux inputs in the back for an iPod (RCA and 1/4". the > cool thing about it is that it has a recepticle to mount it > on a speaker stand built in. Here is a link: > http://www.roland.com/products/en/AC-90/index.html Download > the owner's manual for a complete description. > > >From richard.a.green at hotmail.com Tue Jul 31 > 21:14:48 2007 > From: richard.a.green at hotmail.com (Richard Green) > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:14:48 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] Opinions on Sound Equipment Needed > In-Reply-To: <p0623090dc2d5571b2a99@[192.168.1.100]> > References: <000001c7d3b1$3712a770$020fa8c0@maxx> > > <p0623090dc2d5571b2a99@[192.168.1.100]> > Message-ID: <bay118-dav10acfcae2b122e0e522cb5b2...@phx.gbl> > > We recently purchased a complete sound system, and ended up > using FBT Jolly > 8ba for the stage speakers and 8ra for the monitors. > Both are powered, and > the ba has a more powerful amp. They weigh about 18 > lbs. We have used them > for contradances in grange halls and they have plenty of > sound. You can get > them from full compass. > > Richard > > >From gtwood at worldpath.net Tue Jul 31 22:14:27 > 2007 > From: gtwood at worldpath.net (Gale Wood) > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:14:27 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] Opinions on Sound Equipment Needed > References: <000001c7d3b1$3712a770$020fa8c0@maxx> > > <p0623090dc2d5571b2a99@[192.168.1.100]> > Message-ID: > <002701c7d3e1$b21ebe10$abe48c40@robbinsd490985> > > Hi Peter > Check places Like Daddys Junky music (is there one near > you?) They stock > some very good small 'amps' (5 watt)powered by small 9v > batteries ( strange > but it does work) > Look at the fenders, Roland Micro cubes are not cheap but > sound good (and a > choice of colors!) > happy hunting > Gale > > > >From jn32157 at hotmail.com Wed Aug 1 > 07:51:09 2007 > From: jn32157 at hotmail.com (John Nance) > Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 07:51:09 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] Opinions on Sound Equipment Needed > In-Reply-To: > <002701c7d3e1$b21ebe10$abe48c40@robbinsd490985> > Message-ID: <bay140-f38a5e014a18f8c6ecb490ff9...@phx.gbl> > > Weogo Reed runs an email forum much like this one > specifically for sound > technicians who work contra dances. This is the URL to > that page: > > http://www.harvestmoonfolk.org/sound.htm > > Be aware that the discussion can get pretty technical at > times. > > > >From chiph at rumney.org Wed Aug 1 13:59:36 > 2007 > From: chiph at rumney.org (Chip Hedler) > Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:59:36 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: [Callers] sound equipment [Callers Digest, Vol 36, > Issue 1] > In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1185984002.2260.call...@sharedweight.net> > References: <mailman.1.1185984002.2260.call...@sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: <49371.216.114.172.209.1185991176.squir...@earthcovenant.org> > > Hi all-- > > Been providing sound equipment for about half the dances I > do, many of > them private gigs in all sorts of indoor and outdoor > locations. In really > live setting, like old mostly-concrete school gymnasiums, > the most > valuable tool in my rack is the 31-band equalizer, which > I've learned to > use moderately well to identify and suppress the sound > frequencies that > echo loudest and cause feedback. The process ("ringing out") > is tedious > and I'm wondering if anyone's been using a digital > "feedback-destroyer" > sort of appliance to automate the task. > > The trickiest part of setting up has been adjusting monitor > placement and > levels for the musicians. They usually ask me to make > adjustments after > the dance is in progress. Give them too much, and the mics > start picking > it up, sometimes creating a shower-stall reverb effect or > feedback. My > dream: inconspicuous wireless monitor headsets with volume > controls for > musicians. > > Besides that, I've seen enough other people's rigs to > realize that usually > you get what you pay for, quality-wise. I started out with > cheapo mics and > found that replacing them with Shures made a huge > difference. My first > speaker stands were very affordable, but the knurled knobs > to clamp the > poles in place gradually stripped their threads so they're > now history. > Haven't gone to a wireless mic yet, but someday! > > Whenever I can, I do small gigs with no equipment at all, > perhaps like the > era when this genre of music and dance was more or less > contemporary... > > Chip Hedler > > > >From wpollans at gmail.com Mon Oct 1 > 16:23:56 2007 > From: wpollans at gmail.com (Warren Pollans) > Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:23:56 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] wireless mic recommendations > Message-ID: <4701575c.6020...@gmail.com> > > Hi Folks, > > I'm finally getting ready to consider buying a wireless > microphone - > handheld, not a headset. What are the minimum > requirements I should > consider? What should I expect to pay for such a mic > (with receiver)? > Any/all advice is appreciated. Feel free to point me > elsewhere. > > Thanks, > > Warren > > >From markrdjones at gmail.com Mon Oct 1 > 16:37:38 2007 > From: markrdjones at gmail.com (Mark R Dobyns Jones) > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:37:38 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] wireless mic recommendations > In-Reply-To: <4701575c.6020...@gmail.com> > References: <4701575c.6020...@gmail.com> > Message-ID: <2e45c3c90710011337r29fac9c9i7494b3cc7932f...@mail.gmail.com> > > Without halting people's comments here, > You may wish to check in with a sound-forum list, and report > back on > the advice you get. > Take a llook at Contra Sound Forum > http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/contrasf/ > I subscribe to it. > Mark Jones > > > >From ebay at hands4.com Mon Oct 1 17:06:38 > 2007 > From: ebay at hands4.com (Beth Parkes) > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:06:38 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] wireless mic recommendations > In-Reply-To: <4701575c.6020...@gmail.com> > References: <4701575c.6020...@gmail.com> > Message-ID: > <38D498EA8D964BF4BB1E05B7FBFFAA3D@BethLaptop> > > As a caller, I consider my mic my instrument. The musicians > you are working > with have paid thousands of dollars for an instrument that > helps them sound > good. We get off cheap, imho. Depending on whatever the hall > happens to have > limits how you sound. The mic is often the weak link in the > sound chain. All > of this is to say "Congratulations" on deciding to make this > investment. > > Tony and I have been very happy with our SM58s. They are > affordable > workhorses. I just got a new one. They come in several > grades. Do not get > the cheapest, it will not choose a frequency for you. Before > buying, be > absolutely sure to visit the Shure web site and get the list > of frequencies > for use in your area. The transmitter/receivers use the same > frequencies as > TV stations and shure will get you a set that are less > likely to be in > conflict. The midrange PGX24 has a street price around > $400. > > HTH, > Beth Parkes > > > >From jeffrey.petrovitch at verizon.net Mon > Oct 1 18:30:14 2007 > From: jeffrey.petrovitch at verizon.net (Jeffrey > Petrovitch) > Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:30:14 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] wireless mic recommendations > In-Reply-To: <4701575c.6020...@gmail.com> > References: <4701575c.6020...@gmail.com> > Message-ID: <470174f6.4050...@verizon.net> > > I currently use a wireless Shure SM58 with a PXG24 > transmitter (like > Beth). I was able to pick the system up for about > $400.00 and all and > all it has served me well. I also use a Beringer > pre-amp/digital voice > processor in combination that allows me to control the > frequencies, > gains, highs, lows, expander, compressor, de-esser, > etc. It really > allows me to have my voice sound exactly how I want my voice > to sound... > > My first recommendation would be try, try, try different > wireless > microphones if possible. Everyone is going to sound > different in the > same microphone and you want to find the microphone that > makes you sound > the way you want to sound. You are not going to be > able to do this by > reading about different frequency ranges of different > microphones. I > have also used a BETA58 and a BETA87A, which I can both > recommend. The > BETA87A (one of the top of the line microphones by Shure) is > my favorite > and I think it makes me sound like I want to sound, but I > have also > heard other people use the BETA87A and sound horrible, this > just means > spending more money is not always the best way of picking > out a microphone. > > My other recommendation would be is a wireless mic for > you? It seems > like there are a lot of advantages to having a wireless mic, > I use one, > and a lot of people use them, but it is important that it > once again > works for you! I would recommend calling with a > wireless microphone, > calling with a wire microphone, and calling with a > microphone and see > what works best. I would argue that this could be a > huge psychology > piece and you may find you just call better with a > microphone on a > stand. We could talk about proper technique on holding > microphones, the > frequency ranges of microphones, etc. all day long, but when > it all > comes out in the end, you need be comfortable with what you > are using > and you need to love how it makes you sound. I think > it is 90% psych > and 10% equipment IMHO. > > Respectfully Submitted, > > j_petro > > >From contradancerdave at yahoo.com Mon Oct 1 > 18:34:07 2007 > From: contradancerdave at yahoo.com (Dave Colestock) > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:34:07 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: [Callers] wireless mic recommendations > In-Reply-To: <4701575c.6020...@gmail.com> > Message-ID: <523554.5940...@web52601.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > > I like the Shure BG3.1 handheld. I got mine on ebay, > but they are generally found in the 200-300 price range > new. > > Dave Colestock > > > Warren Pollans <wpollans at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I'm finally getting ready to consider buying a wireless > microphone - > handheld, not a headset. What are the minimum requirements I > should > consider? What should I expect to pay for such a mic (with > receiver)? > Any/all advice is appreciated. Feel free to point me > elsewhere. > > Thanks, > > Warren > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers at sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers > > > >From rich at harts.mv.com Tue Oct 2 09:37:04 > 2007 > From: rich at harts.mv.com (Richard Hart) > Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:37:04 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] wireless mic recommendations > In-Reply-To: > <38D498EA8D964BF4BB1E05B7FBFFAA3D@BethLaptop> > References: <4701575c.6020...@gmail.com> > > <38D498EA8D964BF4BB1E05B7FBFFAA3D@BethLaptop> > Message-ID: <47024980.8000...@harts.mv.com> > > > > > > >From sharedweight.99.kyoto at spamgourmet.com Tue > Oct 2 14:59:28 2007 > From: sharedweight.99.kyoto at spamgourmet.com > (sharedweight.99.kyoto at spamgourmet.com) > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:59:28 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: [Callers] Japan dance and self intro/update > In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1191340801.17312.call...@sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: <74363.4139...@web38705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > > [n.b. this has been 'cross posted' to the yahoo traditional > callers list, in case anyone is on > both lists...] > > This post from a llooonnnngg time dancer and first time > caller who is > requesting some advice for an unusual situation...but as it > is my > first post, I will explain a little about myself, and along > the way > that will explain the unusual situation and help guide and > refine any > replies. > > My name is david crespo, a name some of you no doubt fear -- > I mean > recognize -- or would (recognize, that is) (if you saw my > ugly > mug) (well, maybe fear...) from my 20 odd (quite odd) years > of > dancing and involvement in the dance community in New > England, mostly > Vermont (Etna, Norwich, Thetford, to Northern Spy etc.) and > Maine > (SMFA (Yarmouth), Falmouth, Bates, Bowdoinham...). As some > of you > thus know, about 3 years ago, at a Wake the Neighbors Bates > dance I > was met by a cute and not very frightening Japanese exchange > student, > Yukie, who with a very little gentle nudging at Deffa a week > later, > eventually (rapidly, that is) was able to parlay that > happenstance > circumstance into what is now a beautiful and happy > marriage. She > returned to Japan shortly after we completed our courtship > and about > a year later I followed. We're living in Kyoto. > > Alas, there is one tragic note attending this otherwise > joyous and > perfect scenario. Japan, you see, is a land thouroughly > devoid of one > essential nutrient: contradancing. You can imagine my > dismay, tears, > and lamentations. Sadly, then, since my arrival, I have been > quietly > (well not so quietly) teaching english while secretly > incubating evil > plans to conquer Japan, then Asia, then the world in 64 > (drastic) > measures (hmmm--- good name for a dance). This month, my > long patient > agony of waiting has begun to pay off. I have been given > the > opportunity to indoctrinate a few trusting and innocent > souls into > the sublime mysteries of la dance du contra and create an > army of > swiftfooted robots, ready and willing to do my bidding at > every call. > SOON I WILL CONQUER THE WORLD!!! > > ahem. > > please excuse me while my medicine kicks in. Ah, yes, thank > you. OK, > where was I? The fact is, my wife and I have been invited to > lead a > contradance workshop at a local festival on October 20. When > we found > out, we began doing as much research as we could on calling > and so > on. We found a few basic dances, like Baby Rose and Diane's > Visit and > Atonement Reel that we like and figured would be suitable > and we have > been practicing calling them. But I really welcome any > suggestions... > > Actually, above and beyond some decades of doing things > proper and > improper, I took a caller workshop or two from Rick Mohr > (thanks > Rick) so I have a rough idea of what's involved. And I've > learned a > bit from practicing calling and writing a few ad hoc dances > on my > own. For example, I learned that being a dancer has > habituated me to > act ON the beat, but as a caller I need to act BEFORE the > beat, > eh....this flustered me at first. Are there any other > typical first > caller pointers we should be on the lookout for? > > In addition, there are a few other associated circumstances > in this > project that create the aforementioned unique situation. In > brief > (HA! fooled you), since I've rattled on too long, here is > what I mean: > > I don't speak more than the rudiments of Japanese. My wife > is still a > beginner dancer, to wit, she isn't a strong enough one to > call on her > own. Between us we are trying to teach each other what the > other > lacks and hopefully make one good caller out of the two of > us. One > question that has come up is is it better to keep the > standard names > for the figures, or to Japanify them. (We are leaning to > the > former...Japanese has a very high percentage of english loan > words, > and they learn english (poooooorly) in school.) Still, has > anyone > ever tried to call across a language barrier? > > Japanese are touch sensitve. They don't touch, they don't > give eye > contact. They don't give weight. (They give wait). They > don't hug. > They don't even say I love you. They are very shy. For > example, I am > told that this is to the point that standing in a line of > men facing > a line of women is likely be uncomfortable, even for the > younger > generation, so Yukie feels we should use mixed couples with > armbands > to distinguish "gender"--I mean position. As we build a > community of > experienced dancers, it would be expected that some of this > inhibition might wear off...). You can see why they need to > dance. On > the other hand, they are good followers. Any advice for > working with > a shy crowd? > > Some or many of the attendees at this workshop, we just > found out, > are likely to be children. Depending on the percentage, it > may be > necessary to do a kids dance, or at least a dance kids could > enjoy. I > am good at working with kids in general, but I would love > any advice > for doing a dance with young people. I don't know or haven't > been > able to find any children's dances, though I assume the > Family Dance > in Yarmouth is still up and I plan to contact Jeff Raymond > about it, > because I can't remember the caller's name (Nancy....) > (though we > have danced and chatted about dancing and calling several > times at > the May Day Festival...gads! say hi if you're listening..). > So, children's dances are one thing I am looking for. > > We are working in a small space...maybe two lines of six > couples > each. Advice for small spaces??? > > We are doing three workshops. If the same people return, we > may do > more advanced things, or we may just repeat teh > workshop...but I > would like to try different dances each time, for my > practice. > > The room will be full of beginners, so no experienced > dancers to rely > on. Ballroom dancing had a certain following here (and in > Kyoto there > is a small set dancing group that we visited...small 14 or > so... and > a square dancing group that we plan to visit. ) but not > enough to be > helpful, in the sense that there are few cultural supports > for > learning (i.e. in the US most everyone knows (even if they > don't > admit it) how to at least fake a waltz or ballroom > position...not > here.) Think martian territory... > > I should add that we are seriously working towards starting > a regular > dance here (we've found an available and very suitable > space, a > church hall in a nearby church, for example) and this is for > us a > tryout and possible stepping stone. We want to whet > people's > appetite, and leave them wanting more. We have a half hour > to do it... > > OK...apologies for the verbose and windy post. Fond regards > to all of > you I know, hajimemashite ("nice to meet you" in japanese, > literally > "beginning") to the rest and many thanks in advance for your > time and > help...cheers...david > > nothing rhymes with nostril... > > > > > > > >From will at dedicationtechnologies.com Wed Dec 10 > 09:38:22 2008 > From: will at dedicationtechnologies.com (Will Loving) > Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:38:22 -0500 > Subject: [Callers] Microphone/Headset Survey Questions > Message-ID: <c5653e8e.2f453%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > > I?m looking into getting a wireless microphone or headset > for calling and > while the past discussions have been helpful, the database > programmer in me > longs for more organized and detailed information. With that > in mind, I?m > thinking about making an online survey for individuals to > report the > experiences with various makes and models. My plan would be > to summarize the > results so we can get a sense what makes and models people > like and dislike > and why. > > Before I create the survey, I?d like to get feedback on the > questions as > follows below. Please feel free to comment on the following > and to suggest > revisions or additions. > > Will Loving > Amherst, MA > > -- > > Wireless Microphone/Headset Survey ? Sample Questions > (Again, these are suggested survey questions, please don?t > answer them now) > > 1. Microphone Type: __Handheld __Headset > > 2. Microphone > Brand:_______ Model:________ Year > Purchased:_________ > > 3. Base > Station: Brand:_______ Model:________ > Year Purchased:_________ > > 4. Transmitter (if sep) > Brand:_______ Model:________ Year > Purchased:_________ > > 5. Battery Type/Size: __Built-in __AAA > __AA __C > __D __Other > > 6. Does this unit use rechargeable batteries or have > built-in rechargeable > pack: __Yes > > 7. Do you use rechargeable batteries: __Yes > > 8. Preferred Battery Brand: ___________ > > 9. Battery capacity (If you know it) in MilliAmp Hours (mAh) > printed on the > battery: ____mAh > > 10. Battery life on a full charge or fresh set of batteries > (approx):____hrs > > 11. Does unit (mic or battery pack) have a > battery-charge-remaining > indicator: __Yes > > 12. Sound Quality 1 (poor) <-> 9 (superb) > > 13. Construction/Quality: 1 (poor) <-> 5 (Avg) > <-> 10 (superb) > > 14. Durability/Reliability: 1 (poor) <-> 5 (Avg) > <-> 10 (superb) > > 15. Range: 1 (poor) <-> 5 (Avg) <-> 10 > (superb) > > 16. Interference Rejection (resistance to interference from > other radio > sources): 1 (poor) <-> 5 (Avg) <-> 10 > (superb) > > 17. List up to three things you LIKE about this unit: > > * __________________ > > * __________________ > > * __________________ > > 18. List up to three things you DON?T LIKE about this unit: > > * __________________ > > * __________________ > > * __________________ > > 19. What kinds of calling/instruction do you use this for > (check all that > apply): > > * Contra Dance > > * Square Dance > > * Family/Community Dance > > * English Country Dance > > * Waltz > > * Ballroom > > * International/Folk > > * Aerobics > > * Other ______________ > > 20. What size group do you use this for: Average Size ___ > Largest Size ___ > > 21. Questions for Headset users: When you need to speak off > mike, do: > > * Switch the unit off > > * Cover the mike with your hand > > * Move it out of the way > > * Other_____________ > > 22. Would you recommend this system to other callers: > __Yes __No __Maybe > > >From will at dedicationtechnologies.com Tue Apr 21 > 17:54:15 2009 > From: will at dedicationtechnologies.com (Will Loving) > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:54:15 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] Earset microphone recommendations > In-Reply-To: <49ea7e52.1040...@gmail.com> > Message-ID: <c613b8c7.32064%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > > I am in the process of buying a Shure PGX1/PGX4 > transmitter/receiver system > with the intention of using it with an earset microphone, > the small, nearly > invisible 'rice grain' style. > > A friend of mine is singer and I borrowed her Countryman E6 > earset (the > omni-directional model) to use at a dance the other night. I > really liked it > though I did deal with some feedback getting too close to > one of the > speakers, so I'm thinking about the directional model. The > E6 is however > $310 > > http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/COU-E6IO5TSL-SL.prod?Origin=C > ategory > > and so I'm interested to know what else people like and find > durable. > > So, I'm looking for experience and recommendations on any of > the following: > > Countryman E6/E6i (omni) > Countryman E6/E6i (directional) > OSP HS-09 (omni) > > These next three all the same rig sold under different > companies > > MM-PSM Pro Series Earset > Electovoice RE97Tx > Point-Source Audio CO-7 > > In particular, I'm interested in knowing about the OSP HS-09 > and the > directional E6. Has anyone using the directional E6 had > problem with the > mike staying in proper position or being too sensitive? The > directional > aspect should make feedback a non-issue but I've been told > that positioning > can be a problem.... > > Thanks, > > Will > > -- > > Will Loving > Amherst, MA 01002 > > > > >From gregmck at earthlink.net Wed Apr 22 12:30:15 > 2009 > From: gregmck at earthlink.net (gregmck at earthlink.net) > Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:30:15 -0700 > Subject: [Callers] Earset microphone recommendations > In-Reply-To: <c613b8c7.32064%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > References: <49ea7e52.1040...@gmail.com> > <c613b8c7.32064%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20090422091957.01dc1...@earthlink.net> > > > Will wrote: > >I am in the process of buying a Shure PGX1/PGX4 > transmitter/receiver system > >with the intention of using it with an earset > microphone, the small, nearly > >invisible 'rice grain' style. > > Well, now that you mention it, here is another perspective > on this > technology. Before making the investment you might > want to consider > all of the implications. > > Regards, > Greg McKenzie > > ************ > > Un-tethered from Reality: Some Thoughts on Wireless > Microphones > > I have tried using a wireless headset microphone and found > the > experience wanting. I owned one for several years and > used it > regularly. I abandoned it for several reasons. > Not primarily > because of the increased instances of feedback--something I > find > devastating to the sense of safety and community spirit in > the > hall. And not because of the monetary and > environmental cost of > batteries, the extra trouble of setting up the mike and > receiver, the > complications of switching the mike off and on again to make > "off > mike" comments, or the feeling of being wired and walking > around with > an electronic device attached to my head. My decision > was also not > primarily based on concerns about exposing myself and others > to > high-frequency electromagnetic radiation--though I recognize > that > some people are very sensitive to the idea of such > exposure. > > My primary reason for giving up on the wireless headset was > because I > saw that it was interfering with my ability to connect with > the > dancers, musicians, and others in the hall. > > Any speaker at a public event needs to be in a position > where the > entire audience can see them. This is a very basic > principle. People naturally prefer to watch someone > who is speaking > to them. When someone hears a voice hailing them the > most natural > reaction is to turn one's head toward the source of the > sound. It > can be disconcerting to look toward the sound source and see > an empty > stage. The natural reaction is to feel a little bit > silly, and to > look around to try to find the source of the voice. > This is a > relative small matter but keep in mind that there are > probably dozens > of people going through this reaction whenever a speaker is > not in > the spot where the audience is accustomed to seeing > them. That means > that for at least a few seconds a big part of your audience > is > feeling silly and disconnected. Those people are not > feeling > confident or relaxed. They cannot listen carefully to > what the > speaker is saying. > > As an aside here I would point out that an "off-stage mike" > is > commonly used in theatre and stagecraft. Please note, > however, that > the purpose of the "off-stage mike" is always to build > suspense and > tension. Something that I, personally, try to avoid > when calling > because I want people to feel relaxed and sociable. > The off-stage > mike is, therefore, usually accompanied with a visual cue > (such as a > spotlight at the edge of the stage during an introduction) > to direct > the audience's attention in the absence of a physical > speaker they can see. > > I have attended dances where the caller has used a wireless > headset > mike off-stage freely during the evening. I always > found it > disconcerting to have to look for the caller in the > room. It also > seemed a bit creepy to think of a live microphone moving > around the > hall without warning. Callers sometimes use these > mikes while > speaking to individuals or small groups of dancers who are > confused. This is unprofessional because it draws the > entire hall's > attention to the confused dancers and exacerbates the > situation by > creating even more tension. > > I quickly learned that when using a wireless headset it is > the > speaker's duty to alert the audience whenever they change > locations--particularly if they move off stage. I > would say > something like: "Ladies and gentlemen. Please direct > your attention > to the center of the hall," before stepping off the > stage. This is > the courteous thing for a speaker to do. This helped a > lot, but it > also complicated the process of moving away from my regular > > location. Ultimately I found that the headset mike was > more trouble > than it was worth. > > I can see that these headset or "earset" mikes are very > appropriate > for entertainers who dance or move while singing or speaking > and, in > particular, when they have a spotlight to keep the audience > cued as > to their location. They also work well for instructors > who must > gesture or handle props while talking, such as in > demonstrations. I > think such mikes are of particular use to exercise > instructors such > as Jazzercise leaders who generally remain in the same > location while teaching. > > At calling gigs the sound engineer will often offer me a > wireless > mike to use. My response is that I am happy to use any > mike that > delivers a good range of high-frequency sounds so that my > voice can > be clearly understood. Wireless mikes are acceptable, > as long as > they are securely fastened to a mike stand where I will > leave them > during the entire dance. > > ######## > > >From mawild at sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 24 03:07:14 > 2009 > From: mawild at sbcglobal.net (Martha Wild) > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:07:14 -0700 > Subject: [Callers] Headset mikes > In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1240502427.35777.call...@sharedweight.net> > References: <mailman.3.1240502427.35777.call...@sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: <472256c1-af1a-4d2b-aab8-869874a2d...@sbcglobal.net> > > Well, I have an entirely different and positive perspective > on > headset mikes. > > We have a nice headset mike here in San Diego. I love using > it, and > our sound engineers set it up nicely so that I have no > trouble with > feedback. I have to remember to keep it a little ways from > my mouth > so that it won't pop on Partner and Promenade and any other > P sounds, > but as long as I do that, it's great. > > I call up on some steps here because I'm short and like to > see the > whole hall while I'm calling - and they can see me. I don't > usually > run around the hall while calling. During the beginner > sessions, a > handheld mike that is attached to a cable is a nightmare - > my voice > is not big, and I have a hard time teaching a large group > without a > mike. Trying to demo a ladies chain with a cable following > you around > is a recipe for disaster, and I hate having to use one when > I'm > calling elsewhere. During walkthroughs here I am no longer > tethered > to the stage, and can hop down to demonstrate a move, though > I often > just ask regulars to do it. I can move down once a dance > gets going > and briefly consult with the musicians without worry (I > usually just > move the mike away a little and then back, and don't worry > about the > mute). I can keep calling even if I need to quickly flip > through my > cards as I realize that the next dance might be too > difficult or too > easy and another would be better. > > I find that a handheld mike hurts my hand if I hold it all > night. > It's just too darned heavy and a real inconvenience. When I > call in > places that set up a mike in a stand, I find that I often > stand in > such a way in front of it that I'll end up with a backache > or my feet > or legs aching by the end of the night. Not fun. > > As far as connecting with the dancers, I really don't see > how > juggling a stupid mike in one hand or being constrained by a > mike in > a stand in front of you, inhibiting your ability to look > around you > at the dancers or at the musicians while calling, is in any > way > helpful. Those of you who enjoy having your hands cramp up > and > tripping over cords can keep doing it, but for anyone who > hasn't been > thrilled with the experience, I recommend you get a good > "Madonna > mike", as we call it, and free yourself from the tyranny of > a tether. > > Enjoy! > Martha Wild > > > > > > >From lcpgr at yahoo.com Tue Apr 28 23:54:14 2009 > From: lcpgr at yahoo.com (Laur) > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:54:14 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: [Callers] Headset mikes > In-Reply-To: <472256c1-af1a-4d2b-aab8-869874a2d...@sbcglobal.net> > Message-ID: <248537.13560...@web52906.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > > can you identify the mic,? Martha?? thx > > I agree,? if I could? find a? comfortable good? quality > headset I prefer hands free. > > Laurie~ > > --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Martha Wild <mawild at > sbcglobal.net> wrote: > From: Martha Wild <mawild at sbcglobal.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] Headset mikes > To: callers at sharedweight.net > Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 3:07 AM > > Well, I have an entirely different and positive perspective > on headset mikes. > > We have a nice headset mike here in San Diego. I love using > it, and our sound > engineers set it up nicely so that I have no trouble with > feedback. I have to > remember to keep it a little ways from my mouth so that it > won't pop on > Partner and Promenade and any other P sounds, but as long as > I do that, it's > great. > > I call up on some steps here because I'm short and like to > see the whole > hall while I'm calling - and they can see me. I don't > usually run around > the hall while calling. During the beginner sessions, a > handheld mike that is > attached to a cable is a nightmare - my voice is not big, > and I have a hard time > teaching a large group without a mike. Trying to demo a > ladies chain with a > cable following you around is a recipe for disaster, and I > hate having to use > one when I'm calling elsewhere. During walkthroughs here I > am no longer > tethered to the stage, and can hop down to demonstrate a > move, though I often > just ask regulars to do it. I can move down once a dance > gets going and briefly > consult with the musicians without worry (I usually just > move the mike away a > little and then back, and don't worry about the mute). I can > keep calling > even if I need to quickly flip through my cards as I realize > that the next dance > might be too difficult or too easy and another would be > better. > > I find that a handheld mike hurts my hand if I hold it all > night. It's just > too darned heavy and a real inconvenience. When I call in > places that set up a > mike in a stand, I find that I often stand in such a way in > front of it that > I'll end up with a backache or my feet or legs aching by the > end of the > night. Not fun. > > As far as connecting with the dancers, I really don't see > how juggling a > stupid mike in one hand or being constrained by a mike in a > stand in front of > you, inhibiting your ability to look around you at the > dancers or at the > musicians while calling, is in any way helpful. Those of you > who enjoy having > your hands cramp up and tripping over cords can keep doing > it, but for anyone > who hasn't been thrilled with the experience, I recommend > you get a good > "Madonna mike", as we call it, and free yourself from the > tyranny of a > tether. > > Enjoy! > Martha Wild > > >From will at dedicationtechnologies.com Wed > May 6 21:42:16 2009 > From: will at dedicationtechnologies.com (Will Loving) > Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 21:42:16 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] How to "Ring out a (microphone) channel" > Message-ID: <c627b4b8.3247e%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > > A very knowledgeable pro audio person just gave me a > mini-course on how to > do basic sound setup for a mike, something I?ve always > wanted to know more > about. At many dances there is a sound person who will do > this for you but > sometimes there isn?t and this little bit of info may be of > help. It > certainly demystified things for me. I wrote this up and > then edited it a > bit more after getting his feedback. Others may have > additional comments. > > How to ?Ring Out a Channel? for a microphone > > You overall goal is to adjust the sound coming out of the > house speakers to > get as much volume as you can without any ?ringing? sound. > Every room is > different in terms of what frequencies it absorbs and > reflects, so the > necessary settings will differ from place to place. > Different mikes will > also require different settings. The adjustment described > below can be done > systematically and in just a few minutes. > > 1. Setting Initial Gain from the Mic (aka input level or > ?trim?) > > * Turn house volume (for your mike) completely down ? > usually the last knob or > > slider > > * Set all EQ controls to flat (middle position) > > * Turn up Gain - usually the first control knob or > slider for your microphone > > ?channel? - while speaking into mike until you see > levels on the meter or the > > clipping light flashes. Adjust gain to just below > clipping or 0db (same thing) > > depending on what kind of feedback ? level meter or > clipping light - is > > available on the sound board. > 2. Setting EQ (balancing the sound for the room by getting > rid of the > ringing) > > * Turn up house volume on the mic channel until you > hear a ringing along with > > your voice > > * Reduce level on first EQ slider/dial (often labeled > ?highs?) to see if it > > reduces or eliminates ringing. If it does, increase > house volume again until > > ringing is again apparent. If no change, reset to flat > and go to next EQ > > range. > > * Reduce level on next EQ slider/dial to > reduce/eliminate ringing. Increase > > house volume again until ringing occurs. > > * Repeat for each subsequent EQ range available on > sound board ? some may just > > have highs, mids and lows, others may have multiple > mid-range adjustments. You > > may not need to adjust all the EQ?s, e.g. the low > frequency in particular, > > just keep running up the volume and adjusting out the > rings until you have > > plenty of volume. Your objective is to get as much > volume as you need for the > > performance without ringing. > 3. Fine-tuning: If time permits after you?ve rung out the > channel you can > then play with the EQ to adjust for sound quality. Keep > talking into the mic > and make very subtle adjustments to the EQ until you get a > smooth natural > sound. > > > > Will Loving > Amehrst, MA > > >From gregmck at earthlink.net Thu May 7 > 22:01:02 2009 > From: gregmck at earthlink.net (gregmck at earthlink.net) > Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 19:01:02 -0700 > Subject: [Callers] How to "Ring out a (microphone) channel" > In-Reply-To: <c627b4b8.3247e%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > References: <c627b4b8.3247e%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20090507185818.01d6b...@earthlink.net> > > > > Will wrote: > "Your overall goal is to adjust the sound coming out of the > house speakers to > get as much volume as you can without any 'ringing' sound." > > Thank you Will for this information. I > understand how this process would work for most > PA system setups at musical concerts and other > performances. It is certainly targeted at > minimizing feedback--a worthy goal in any situation. > > I have concerns, however, if this is the best way > to set up a caller's mike. When I attend dances > I find that the caller's mike is often set up > with a lot of low frequency response and little > high frequency. I wonder if that may be because > the audio person has followed this very advice. > > With little high frequency response the caller is > likely to have difficulty being understood > clearly because the highs are essential for > hearing the speech articulation sounds that help > us to distinguish between words. The words > "left" and "right," for example, will sound > almost identical when the high frequencies are removed. > > A concert is a very different situation than a > social event. At a concert the fans already know > the words and those who don't can simply buy the > album and read the insert, (if that kind of thing > is important to them). The voice is really being > used as a musical instrument and clear > articulation is not vital. The context of words > in a song will often reveal the meaning without > being able to make out every word. In any case > there is no pressure to catch every word either sung or > spoken. > > Do you remember the sound of a PA system on a > military ship? You've heard it in movies. The > voice is transmitted through metal horns that are > very tinny, reproducing all of the high > frequencies with great effectiveness. This may > not sound soothing or melodious but in a critical > situation--where lives depend on instructions > being understood clearly--this setup is perfect > for cutting through the roar of the sea, the > engines, and the wind to make the message understandable. > > At a contra dance we don't need the blare of a > ship's PA system, but the principle is an > important one. English is not a tonal language > and fricatives, stops, and glides are essential > for communication. We need to hear these speech > elements clearly, and they all occur in the higher > frequencies. > > Contra dances are social events. As such the PA > system is really there for reinforcement only and > high volume does not need to be the primary > goal. Perhaps our efforts would be better > directed at discussing the skills a caller uses > to earn and hold the attention of the hall so > that we can lower the overall volume. For many > dancers this would be greatly appreciated. It > would lower stress levels in the hall and > encourage a more sociable and gracious tone. I > find that at a lower volume I can crank up the > treble on my mike without feedback problems. It > is much easier to be understood at a lower volume > with the high frequencies emphasized. > > Thank you Will for educating me on this > technique. I can see why it is done and I can > also see how it can create problems for a dance caller. > > I would be very interested to hear what others think of all > this. > > Just a thought, > > Greg > > ********* > > >From joemicheals1 at yahoo.com Thu May 7 > 22:50:29 2009 > From: joemicheals1 at yahoo.com (joe micheals) > Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 19:50:29 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: [Callers] How to "Ring out a (microphone) channel" > In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.0.20090507185818.01d6b...@earthlink.net> > Message-ID: <758653.29737...@web50702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > > I totally agree with Greg on cutting the low frequencies.? I > also appreciate the info on ringing out the room.??I have > wondered: ?do men need to hear higher frequencies and women > not so much? > Joe Micheals > Seattle > > --- On Thu, 5/7/09, gregmck at earthlink.net <gregmck at > earthlink.net> wrote: > > From: gregmck at earthlink.net <gregmck at > earthlink.net> > Subject: Re: [Callers] How to "Ring out a (microphone) > channel" > To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers at > sharedweight.net> > Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 7:01 PM > > > Will wrote: > "Your overall goal is to adjust the sound coming out of the > house speakers > to > get as much volume as you can without any 'ringing' sound." > > Thank you Will for this information. I understand how > this process would work > for most PA system setups at musical concerts and other > performances. It is > certainly targeted at minimizing feedback--a worthy goal in > any situation. > > I have concerns, however, if this is the best way to set up > a caller's > mike. When I attend dances I find that the caller's > mike is often set up > with a lot of low frequency response and little high > frequency. I wonder if > that may be because the audio person has followed this very > advice. > > With little high frequency response the caller is likely to > have difficulty > being understood clearly because the highs are essential for > hearing the speech > articulation sounds that help us to distinguish between > words. The words > "left" and "right," for example, will sound almost > identical > when the high frequencies are removed. > > A concert is a very different situation than a social > event. At a concert the > fans already know the words and those who don't can simply > buy the album and > read the insert, (if that kind of thing is important to > them). The voice is > really being used as a musical instrument and clear > articulation is not vital. > The context of words in a song will often reveal the meaning > without being able > to make out every word. In any case there is no > pressure to catch every word > either sung or spoken. > > Do you remember the sound of a PA system on a military > ship? You've heard > it in movies. The voice is transmitted through metal > horns that are very tinny, > reproducing all of the high frequencies with great > effectiveness. This may not > sound soothing or melodious but in a critical > situation--where lives depend on > instructions being understood clearly--this setup is perfect > for cutting through > the roar of the sea, the engines, and the wind to make the > message > understandable. > > At a contra dance we don't need the blare of a ship's PA > system, but > the principle is an important one. English is not a > tonal language and > fricatives, stops, and glides are essential for > communication. We need to hear > these speech elements clearly, and they all occur in the > higher frequencies. > > Contra dances are social events. As such the PA system > is really there for > reinforcement only and high volume does not need to be the > primary goal. > Perhaps our efforts would be better directed at discussing > the skills a caller > uses to earn and hold the attention of the hall so that we > can lower the overall > volume. For many dancers this would be greatly > appreciated. It would lower > stress levels in the hall and encourage a more sociable and > gracious tone. I > find that at a lower volume I can crank up the treble on my > mike without > feedback problems. It is much easier to be understood > at a lower volume with > the high frequencies emphasized. > > Thank you Will for educating me on this technique. I > can see why it is done > and I can also see how it can create problems for a dance > caller. > > I would be very interested to hear what others think of all > this. > > Just a thought, > > Greg > > ********* > > > > >From markrdjones at gmail.com Fri May 8 > 00:00:28 2009 > From: markrdjones at gmail.com (Mark R Dobyns Jones) > Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 00:00:28 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] How to "Ring out a (microphone) channel" > In-Reply-To: <c627b4b8.3247e%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > References: <c627b4b8.3247e%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > Message-ID: <2e45c3c90905072100o8b95a42n6a974a811f56a...@mail.gmail.com> > > Speaking as a dance producer and sound mixer... > > Everything is in proportion to the need of the moment and > the current set-up. > > It is worthwhile and fundamental to ring out a hall for rock > concerts, > where the voice is often competing with extremely loud > instruments, > and the producer/sound engineer needs to have as loud as > possible > voice amplification, and feedback is a genuinely limiting > factor in > voice amplification. > > It is not so common that contra dance sound approaches the > limits of > feed-back levels, hence adjusting for the hall, by ringing > out the > channel may or may not be all that significant, and it can > be that the > contribution of either the hall or the speakers toward > emphasizing > some particular set of frequencies is less significant than > figuring > out the relationship between the current caller's > voice, microphone, > and sound system at hand. > > And it can be quite useful to ring out channels for > troublesome halls. > And even for non-troublesome halls. It matters in relation > to many > other things too. Placement of the speakers, if they can be > adjusted, > for example; also placement of the caller in relation to the > speakers. > > For Contra dance it may well be that adjustments made for a > turned-up > channel and speaker system are helpful, but also may not be > that > important. Further, it's an artistic and producer standard > for the > music to be turned down in relation to the caller, when > desirable, as > in a no-walk-through contra and for squares. > > Can there be value in ringing out the hall and the caller's > mike? Yes. > You can also end up with strange sounding vocals, because > you may be > adjusting for a sound level you will never approach during > the show. > > Intelligibility, which can involve ringing out the channel, > yet mostly > involves appropriately, as-needed reducing > low-intelligibility > fundamentals, especially but by no means exclusively for > male voices, > somewhere below about 700 or so hertz, and potentially > slightly > boosting higher ranges, 1,500 hz to 4,000 or so, depending > on the > voice, caller, hall, speaker location, monitor (if any), > type of > speakers, the pointing of speakers, sound system, humidity, > and so on. > > The typical caller doesn't have a monitor, and the > relationship with > the monitor is a primary starting point for feedback for > musicians, > where ringing out the channel can really matter. > > Caller technique, though, can have much more influence on > intelligibility. > > Does the caller have his mouth on the mic the whole time? > Then the > bass-proximity effect of directional cardiod microphones > will > emphasize the base end of the caller's voice, to great > detriment of > intelligibility in higher frequencies, even if the caller's > lows are > turned down radically. > > If the same caller spoke from a foot away from the mic, > intelligibility can be improved many-fold, by reducing that > bass-proximity effect, and this alone can be far far more > important > than adjusting the channel for the hall's reverberation on > certain > frequencies, and a god deal quicker. Indeed, this could aid > the caller > in challenging halls, if the sound person is not able to > change the > difficulty, for whatever reason. Step back from the mic and > speak up, > can be a useful strategy in such cases. (Recognizing the > caller must > save her voice for the next performance too.) > > Is the caller consistent in volume? > I can say that some callers are wildly inconsistent, by > spurts loud, > and by spurts soft, or maybe they are punchy in voice, or > perhaps > worse, loud on a walk through and soft when the music is > played. A > punchy voice which is loud and soft from phrase to phrase is > quite > challenging for a sound person to adjust for. If turned up, > then the > loud is booming. If compressed, by the sound system to > squash the loud > and bring the soft up in volume, then the vivaciousness of > the voice > can be quite flattened. > > Does the caller enunciate clearly, with verve, enthusiasm, > melody and joy? > > Are words well chosen, and few in number so that the > audience hangs on > every sound, instead of ignoring the caller because he talks > too much, > or a conversely a challenge to understand because only every > 3rd word > "counts" informationally? > > These non-sound amplification aspects of the caller > performance too > can be more important than technical sound efforts. > > Mark > > > >From will at dedicationtechnologies.com Fri > May 8 00:25:29 2009 > From: will at dedicationtechnologies.com (Will Loving) > Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 00:25:29 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] How to "Ring out a (microphone) channel" > In-Reply-To: <758653.29737...@web50702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > Message-ID: <c6292c79.3250b%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > > It's been my experience with contra dance that, in general > and with some > exceptions, I hear female caller's voices more easily than > those of male > callers. I've always attributed this to the timbre of many > men's voices > being closer to the background sound people talking and > moving about. > However, as I've recently been learning more about sound > management I've > realized that there are sometime other factors involved such > as the sound > mix and the type of microphone used. In particular, I've > discovered that the > Shure Beta 58A mic instead of the more common SM58 makes it > easier for > people to hear my baritone voice. > > Will > > > on 5/7/09 10:50 PM, joe micheals at joemicheals1 at > yahoo.com wrote: > > > I totally agree with Greg on cutting the low > frequencies.? I also appreciate > > the info on ringing out the room.??I have wondered: ?do > men need to hear > > higher frequencies and women not so much? > Joe Micheals > Seattle > > > > > > >From jeremykorr at hotmail.com Mon Nov 16 11:25:24 > 2009 > From: jeremykorr at hotmail.com (J L Korr) > Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:25:24 -0500 > Subject: [Callers] Digital audio recorder > Message-ID: <snt101-w226e591b736f6e80d488e8c7...@phx.gbl> > > > Greetings all, > > I'm looking to say goodbye to the 1970s and replace my > analog tape recorder with a portable digital one. (My > 4-year-old can inherit the old unit and play around with it > to his heart's delight.) The digital recorder will be used > for recording at dances as well as recording interviews in > my professional life. > > I've seen some callers and musicians using small digital > recorders, but I know little about the specific units. I'd > appreciate advice on recommended digital recorders and > external microphone attachments, from those of you who have > gone down this path long before me. Thanks in advance! > > Jeremy Korr, southern California > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one > place. > http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1 > > >From David.Millstone at VALLEY.NET Mon Nov 16 > 14:22:24 2009 > From: David.Millstone at VALLEY.NET (David Millstone) > Date: 16 Nov 2009 14:22:24 -0500 > Subject: [Callers] Digital audio recorder > Message-ID: <124966...@retriever.valley.net> > > An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... > Name: not available > URL: > <http://www.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers/attachments/20091116/f2d19fb7/attachment.txt> > > >From will at dedicationtechnologies.com Tue Nov 17 > 09:23:20 2009 > From: will at dedicationtechnologies.com (Will Loving) > Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:23:20 -0500 > Subject: [Callers] Digital audio recorder > In-Reply-To: <snt101-w226e591b736f6e80d488e8c7...@phx.gbl> > Message-ID: <c7281c08.35f2f%w...@dedicationtechnologies.com> > > Jeremy, > > I've been using the Zoom H4 for some time for recording > dances as well as a > number of other situations, and am extremely pleased with > it. The H4 costs > more than the H2, but the H4 has the advantage of having two > input jacks > that accept both XLR and 1/4" phone plug connections. I > regularly use this > ability to record from the "Tape/CD Out" jacks on the sound > board. When > that's not possible the Zoom devices (either one) do a > fabulous job with > their external mikes. > > You can record at various sampling rates including MP3, > standard CD quality > WAV files, plus two levels above that, and it has a built-in > limiter and > compressor which I've found quite useful. Using NiMH 2700mAh > rechargeable > batteries, I get 6-7 hours of recording time. And, recording > at the CD > standard 44.1Khz rate to a WAV file, I can easily fit a long > evening of > music on a 4GB SD card with room to spare. > > The Zoom H2 is smaller, has four built-in mikes that you can > use in twos or > all four for 90 degree, 120 degree or almost 360 degree > recording and it has > a standard tripod mount. But, the H2 doesn't have the same > inputs and input > control as the H4 (though it might accept a mini stereo mike > input...). The > H4 has a clumsy wrap on tripod mount but I've gotten used to > it. Both > devices suffer from a WAY too small screen, somewhat awkward > controls and > the inability to skip ahead quickly when checking a large > file (which is > what I always wind up with at a dance - a 1GB+ file for each > half of the > dance. > > If you are on a Mac and just getting started with sound > editing, I highly > recommend the shareware editing program "Fission" by http://rogueamoeba.com > > Will > > > >From aawoodall at verizon.net Sat Mar 6 > 23:35:16 2010 > From: aawoodall at verizon.net (aawoodall) > Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:35:16 -0500 > Subject: [Callers] card stand for callers > Message-ID: <4B92E6B4.7464.987191@localhost> > > Hi, > I am looking for a stand that attaches to a mic stand to > hold my > cards. I have seen some callers with one. Does > anyone know > what I am talking about and where to purchase one? > Send responses to aawoodall at verizon.net. > Thanks. > Andrea > > >From joy2the at mindspring.com Sat Mar 6 > 23:41:22 2010 > From: joy2the at mindspring.com (Joy Greenwolfe) > Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 23:41:22 -0500 > Subject: [Callers] card stand for callers > In-Reply-To: <4B92E6B4.7464.987191@localhost> > References: <4B92E6B4.7464.987191@localhost> > Message-ID: <643a5417-2d04-491b-9463-c3de0efe8...@mindspring.com> > > I'm also interested in a similar card stand! > > > > >From David.Millstone at valley.net Sat Mar 6 > 23:44:23 2010 > From: David.Millstone at valley.net (David Millstone) > Date: 06 Mar 2010 23:44:23 -0500 > Subject: [Callers] card stand for callers > Message-ID: <128884...@retriever.valley.net> > > An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... > Name: not available > URL: > <http://www.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers/attachments/20100306/8bd2b3a7/attachment.asc> > > >From richgoss at comcast.net Sun Mar 7 > 01:17:52 2010 > From: richgoss at comcast.net (Rich Goss) > Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:17:52 -0800 > Subject: [Callers] card stand for callers > In-Reply-To: <4B92E6B4.7464.987191@localhost> > Message-ID: <c7b88510.88bd%richg...@comcast.net> > > I got mine at our local music store. You may have > better luck at music > stores that carry band instruments vs a Guitar Center type > place. > > > >From limerickfarm at gmail.com Sun Mar 7 > 05:55:24 2010 > From: limerickfarm at gmail.com (Donald Primrose) > Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 05:55:24 -0500 > Subject: [Callers] card stand for callers > In-Reply-To: <4B92E6B4.7464.987191@localhost> > References: <4B92E6B4.7464.987191@localhost> > Message-ID: <1bf75db1003070255s5f486764labbe926da5563...@mail.gmail.com> > > They come in two sizes... actual card size 3x5 and page size > 81/2 x 11. The > 3x5 works for me. Any music store. . usually needs to > be ordered. -don > > > >From meedwards at westendweb.com Sun Mar 7 > 10:33:11 2010 > From: meedwards at westendweb.com (Martha Edwards) > Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:33:11 -0600 > Subject: [Callers] card stand for callers > In-Reply-To: <1bf75db1003070255s5f486764labbe926da5563...@mail.gmail.com> > References: <4B92E6B4.7464.987191@localhost> > <1bf75db1003070255s5f486764labbe926da5563...@mail.gmail.com> > Message-ID: <7d8d864a1003070733k2e811273xd2af80b102af7...@mail.gmail.com> > > Online, Elderly Instruments has them - I bought one last > year. It's pretty > good, though you'll have to find little extra bits of grippy > stuff to keep > it stable on the mic stand. I used a tip of a pressure > curtain rod and bits > of that shelf stuff you get at the grocery store that is > so...rubbery sticky > grippy. > > M > E > > > >From jeremykorr at hotmail.com Tue May 25 19:29:46 > 2010 > From: jeremykorr at hotmail.com (J L Korr) > Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 19:29:46 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] Wireless mikes -- many soon illegal > In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1274803201.99857.call...@sharedweight.net> > References: <mailman.3.1274803201.99857.call...@sharedweight.net> > Message-ID: <snt101-w40db28b8262348d631af54c7...@phx.gbl> > > > Hello friends, > > I received the following message from a local sound tech, > and found to my dismay that my wireless mike, and many > others, become illegal in three weeks. I encourage anyone > with a wireless mike who isn't familiar with this imminent > policy to follow the links below. Meanwhile, a quick plea > for advice: I have been very pleased with my Samson Airline > system, recommended to me by users of this listserv, and > would love to know what Samson Airline systems you all would > recommend that don't operate in the 698-806 MHz band. Thanks > --Jeremy, Southern CA > In January 2010, the FCC announced that the operation of > wireless microphones in the 700 MHz band (698 ? 806 MHz) > will not be permitted after June 12, 2010. These frequencies > have been reallocated for new wireless communication > services (cell phones and public service). > For more information: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/wirelessmicrophones/ > > To see if your wireless microphone operates on the 700 MHz > band, go to; http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/wirelessmicrophones/manufacturers.html > Click on the name of the manufacturer and see if your model > is listed. > If it is listed, it is a 700 MHz wireless microphone and can > not be used (sold or repaired) after June 12, 2010. > If you can find your manufacturer?s name and your equipment > is not listed, then you may continue using your wireless > microphone because it does not operate in the 700 MHz Band. > If your manufacturer is not listed, please contact the FCC > for additional assistance. > > Some of the 700 MHz equipment can be modified and there are > trade-in rebates available. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get > more from your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > >From chris.weiler at weirdtable.org Wed May 26 > 06:55:45 2010 > From: chris.weiler at weirdtable.org (Chris Weiler (home)) > Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 06:55:45 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] Wireless mikes -- many soon illegal > In-Reply-To: <snt101-w40db28b8262348d631af54c7...@phx.gbl> > References: <mailman.3.1274803201.99857.call...@sharedweight.net> > <snt101-w40db28b8262348d631af54c7...@phx.gbl> > Message-ID: <4bfcfe31.8000...@weirdtable.org> > > It's important to note that this is not every microphone, so > it's > important to check to see if yours is affected. My Shure PGX > system > operates in the 600-650 range, so will be fine, for example. > There is > usually a label on the product that indicates what > frequencies it uses. > > Chris > > > > >From ebay at hands4.com Wed May 26 19:28:45 2010 > From: ebay at hands4.com (Beth Parkes) > Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 19:28:45 -0400 > Subject: [Callers] Wireless mikes -- many soon illegal > In-Reply-To: <4bfcfe31.8000...@weirdtable.org> > References: <mailman.3.1274803201.99857.call...@sharedweight.net> > <snt101-w40db28b8262348d631af54c7...@phx.gbl> > <4bfcfe31.8000...@weirdtable.org> > Message-ID: > <001201cafd2b$3015da40$90418ec0$@hands4.com> > > In our household half our wireless mics affected and the > other half not (we > have 4). So Tony has to upgrade his mic. Poor guy. > > Beth > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > call...@sharedweight.net > http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers >
