On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:49:51 -0000, Ron Johnson wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:38:59 -0000, Ron Johnson wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:43:09 -0000, Ron(UK) wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Ron wrote:

Lame. I keep hearing this silly excuse. This is consumer high-street
shop level thinking. The whole audio industry is riddled with it. For
decades dull black boxes have been shifted with the letters PRO on
them, regardless of how tacky they are, never has an industry blown its
trumpet so loudly.
Err, we're talking radio mics here. And pro ones are in a different league
to the low end stuff. They have to be rugged - and possible to fix if
damaged.
In an industry where possibly 40 or 50, radio packs may be used nightly
on a single live show, do you really think they would use the more
expensive solution of using replacable batteries without good reason if
they could get away with using rechargables and saving money?
One microphone failure on a West End or Broadway show could cost a lot
of money and someone his or her job.

Ron(UK)
If you use decent NiMH batteries, and only use them for a year, you will be no more likely to have a flat mic than if you use alkalines.

And you are an expert on professional audio production?

Why would I need to be to know about batteries?


You are arguing with people who use radio microphones on a daily basis
as part of their profession, and you think you know better than them?

Like I just said, microphones are nothing to do with battery chemistry.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

If trains stop at train stations, what happens at workstations?