After completing our midterms, we came away with a lot of real good experience in terms of feeling what is and isn’t possible within a certain time frame. With these lessons in mind, we are now given more time to complete our final projects and more specifically plot out our goals, intentions and options. The first part is clear ideation of what we might want to build, so we can discuss feasibility and research solutions.
For a while now, I’ve had an idea for a device that I have wanted to create. Essentially, it is a “cuff” that would fit around a microphone that would have different inputs on it. This would allow for the person using the microphone to control actions of a computer in their performances. Seeing as there are all kinds of “digital accompaniment” ranging from Power Point slide shows to full on theatrical lighting rigs, I thought that giving the speaker or singer more direct control could help create more of a direct feedback loop. One that isn’t broken by visits to a laptop keyboard, mediated by a tech person behind a big board, or ones that don’t exist at all because a performer has to keep up with a pre-made track.
The basic approach is that of enhancing the basic mic clip. If there were inputs on it, a performer could use them. If it was built like a standard mic clip, it could fit all standard sized microphones. With proper matching software, it could adapt itself for all different kinds of applications.
Part of our first step is research, and seeing what already exists. I didn’t know if it, but I wasn’t surprised to see something like this:
http://www.zzounds.com/item–TCEMP76?siid=173937&-lQDmA=
I’m intrigued by it, but it strikes me as too proprietary, task specific, and expensive. I think that the capability of this should be able to be achieved by what I’m proposing through paired software, but not *only* fixed to the realm of manipulating the audio of that microphone.
I kept looking, not finding much more than that, until I found this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dYdWrbhUNI
There are always those moments where you say to yourself, “Damn… but I really *did* think of it on my own!” The overall approach here seems to be the direction I want to go in. A mic that sends data. However, as I kept watching, and researching, I became a little more optimistic. First, I don’t think these controls should be built into the mic itself. And second, this appears to have been issued as a prototype, but I haven’t seen it released anywhere (as of this writing).
So I think that perhaps the spirit is the same, but I have some important distinctions that I am opinionated about. I think having a proprietary mic that can do this is a mistake. Letting people choose their own preferred mic, and then temporarily enhancing its function is more flexible. Also, building the control only greatly reduces cost, which would make performers and presenters much more likely to try it. Additionally, with these aspects in mind, there could be a series of different kinds of layouts. If the costs were low enough, maybe there could be a variety of approaches: one with only buttons, the other with sliders, the other mimicking a piano key layout, etc. This might be able to cater to many use cases.
And this isn’t even bringing more complicated input and output, like bluetooth or accelerometers. But again, perhaps that approach can be more appropriate for some performers than for others. At the end of the day, my user is a vocal performer (yes, even the bland Power Point speech) that may need more interaction with their digital counterparts. I think even though there seems to be things that have kind of touched this realm, I haven’t yet come across something that is truly close to what I’m proposing when thinking about the microphone specifically.
Looking forward to bringing this idea to the class and seeing what people think.