"Iain Churches" wrote in message


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Yes, that pretty fairly sums up this mic. Bright - too
bright for many applications and harsh is a description
I've often heard.

Bright instruments (glock, celeste etc) sounded quite
good - crisp and clean. No sign of harshness, but this might
show itself more on vocals. A 50's rock'n'roll tenor
saxophone might be fun too:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Ymov6JhRE

Two bad jokes - Iain is expecting us to judge a microphone based on the
highly-lossy-encoded audio tracks on a YouTube download, and we have no idea
at all how the file was produced.

Of course
any flavour of mic will find an application, even if it
is "enhanced intelligibility" in a church, oxymoron
though that clearly is.

Yet another bad joke. The common problem with intelligibility in churches is
due to excess reverberation. This *can* be addressed with both microphones
and loudspeakers, but a mic like the C1000 is exactly the opposite of the
correct way to go. I'd give Iain a clue, but he'd just throw it away.

I can't imagine that I would ever find a use for the
presence boost module. I wonder if that merits a 15p
discount? :-)

Yet another bad joke. Iain has no idea about how to obtain a presence boost
with *any* mic using standard audio production tools. Or, do the opposite -
make an extant presence boost go away.

If you want advice about real-world recording or sound reinforcement, you
can listen to Iain to hear very bad advice, or you can make other choices.