QUESTION ABOUT WIRELESS MICS

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

when performing live... (or anything in the early 90s), and using a
wireless mic, would using that be able to let this happen:

a singer was singing live with a wireless mic, and had the mic a good
distance from his mouth but still in front of him... maybe at arms
length or a little less, and it still sounded as if his mouth was right
up next to mic... and not further off. when using the regular mic, it
wasnt like that, you could tell it was at a distance."

could a wireless mic cause it to sound as if his mouth was right up
against it as opposed to further away?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

normaloil wrote ...
> this was regarding a live concert movie. not a bootleg.. but an
> official release and nothing else really seemed to be questionable.

The singer either had another body mic closer to his
mouth or else it was "looped" for the video/recording.

You can't break the laws of physics and get away with it.

That the mic was wireless has nothing to do with it.

In fact "wireless" mics are likely prefered by those who
are lip-syncing. :-) Wasn't it on "American Bandstand"
where all the acts were just lip-syncing to a recording of
their latest "hit" that the sound engineer just stuck a piece
of wire on an XLR connector to make a dummy mic look
like it was "wireless"?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

did they use the extra body mics back in the early 90s, like 1992-93?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

normaloil wrote ...
> did they use the extra body mics back in the early 90s, like 1992-93?

Less likely. Which throws suspicion on the sound track being
replaced with something recorded in a studio.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:

> normaloil wrote ...
>> also, can a mic be able to pick up an OK amount of vocals at that
>> length/distance? not where it sounds so close, but a good amount other
>> than distance vocals?
>
> Generally no. Whether wired or wireless.
> I suspect the audio track was replaced.

That seems likely, once we had the information that it was an official
release of a film.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

he had it up to his mouth and was still singing a low and soft part of
the song, and while still singing... slowly pulled it further away from
his mouth... and further.. and then kinda like finger tip to elbow
length away.. and it never sounded different.. like as if the mic was
further away and it sounded like he was still right up against mic.
like you can hear the "click" of him singing the "c" in "can't" in the
song, etc.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

normaloil@aol.com wrote:
> when performing live... (or anything in the early 90s),
and using a
> wireless mic, would using that be able to let this happen:
>
> a singer was singing live with a wireless mic, and had the
mic a good
> distance from his mouth but still in front of him... maybe
at arms
> length or a little less, and it still sounded as if his
mouth was
> right up next to mic... and not further off. when using
the regular
> mic, it wasnt like that, you could tell it was at a
distance."
>
> could a wireless mic cause it to sound as if his mouth was
right up
> against it as opposed to further away?

Very unlikely. Some wireless mics systems use mics that are
interchangable with wired mics. IOW, you can attach the same
basic mic wirelessly or via a wire. All other things being
equal, they sound pretty much the same. If anything the
wireless system has a bit more noise, not quite the dynamic
range, and maybe a little less frequency response.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

krueger: this was a LIVE CONCERT DVD.

U2 rarely, if ever does any redoing like that, and it sounds horribly
live at times and everyting else from this specific show matches with
the audio bootlegs made by fans and soundboard as it was that day. so
it is a little weird.

has anyone else ever seen this concert on tape?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (More info?)

On 31 May 2005 14:39:00 -0700, normaloil@aol.com wrote:

>U2 rarely, if ever does any redoing like that, and it sounds horribly
>live at times and everyting else from this specific show matches with
>the audio bootlegs made by fans and soundboard as it was that day. so
>it is a little weird.

Sounds like that particular song may have sounded just TOO "horribly
live" so they dubbed it.