On Mar 17, 2016, Mindpro wrote:
Unfortunately sound and production are an art and science few performers take the time to master or understand well.

On Mar 17, 2016, Al Desmond wrote:
A handheld and stand has multiple advantages.

When the mike is on the stand, it gives you a home spot, helps you command the stage and gives the audience a focal point.

When the mike is in your hand, you have the opportunity (as mentioned above) to catch a spectators verbiage.

When the mike is in your hand, you can gesture with it, use it as a pointer at the right moments, once again you are controlling audience focus

Things not to do with a handheld.

Put it down your pants.

Bop an uncooperative spectator with it.

Sneeze on it.

That's all you need to know

On Mar 16, 2016, Robb wrote:
Ok, say you need to use both hands *while in motion*... A mic stand won't help you there.

On Mar 16, 2016, David Thiel wrote:
I use a Shure headset with the transmitter built into the headpiece, so there are no wires to crackle and rustle. It was very expensive and worth every cent. Crisp clean sound. I also have complete freedom to go anywhere onstage or into the audience...and I like that too.

David

On Mar 17, 2016, ddyment wrote:
I will -- again -- strongly urge folks interested in this topic to read Ken Weber's Maximum Entertainment. Even though there are no magic tricks to be found therein.

It is pretty obvious from the comments here that most have not read the book (or weren't actually paying attention when they did so). One clue: the two major reasons for using a handheld are tellingly absent from the opinions expressed thus far.

High audio fidelity is certainly important, but can be achieved in multiple ways; this is not the point of the hand-held vs body-mounted issue.

On Mar 17, 2016, ddyment wrote:
I will -- again -- strongly urge folks interested in this topic to read Ken Weber's Maximum Entertainment. Even though there are no magic tricks to be found therein.

It is pretty obvious from the comments here that most have not read the book (or weren't actually paying attention when they did so). One clue: the two major reasons for using a handheld are tellingly absent from the opinions expressed thus far.

High audio fidelity is certainly important, but can be achieved in multiple ways; this is not the point of the hand-held vs body-mounted issue.

On Mar 18, 2016, ddyment wrote:
Not saying that anyone's opinions should be followed with blind allegiance.

Just pointing out that the arguments put forth in the comments here do not even address the important reasons why Ken recommends hand-helds.

Rather, they seem to focus on audio fidelity (something of a moot point, since both hand-held and body-mounted microphones can be had with pretty decent fidelity -- though you're unlikely to see a recording studio switch to the body-mounted versions), and the peculiar (to me) notion that the convenience of the entertainer is somehow of more concern than the quality of the performance.

Most entertainers, of course, have difficulty measuring the quality of performances, particularly their own: this is why the role of a director is so essential.

To say that the quality of the performance would necessarily or even likely suffer because of one's choice of microphone... well, I think that's going too far.

And frankly, I think it's insulting and disrespectful to imply that those who use a headset mic are somehow less concerned with the quality of their performance and, apparently on top of that, not even objective about their performances.