Hey Ruperts, one advantage to stereo is having a backup channel for loud situations. Live music for example. You set one channel at a reasonable level, and set the other maybe 6db below it. That way if you get any crazy peaks you can just delete the standard channel during that scene and double up your backup. AQ Sent via dynamic wireless technology device
-----Original Message----- From: Rupert Howe <rup...@twittervlog.tv> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:51:41 To: <videoblogging@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Rode Videomic versus Rode Stereomic excellent - i can have a thread all to myself. well, Rupert, it seems to me after a moment's consideration that the Stereo videomic is probably better for atmosphere and group discussions, whereas the more directional mono videomic would be better for interview use. does that sound right? Yes, Rupert, that would seem to make sense. Thanks. No problem. On 31 Mar 2010, at 12:37, Rupert Howe wrote: > here's another general question for the audiophiles like Richard - is > there really much difference between a mono and a stereo mic at this > level? surely in most cases - recording someone talking, or capturing > general atmos for instance, both channels will be almost exactly the > same? and the range and response isn't improved by having stereo, is > it? what am i missing? > > > On 31 Mar 2010, at 12:30, Rupert Howe wrote: > >> Does anybody have any experience comparing the quality of the Rode >> mono & stereo videomics? I know they're popular with videobloggers. >> >> >> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links
