VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

Lee Gordon · Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:52 am Post subject: Testing 1-2-3(-4)

I just added a new mic to my arsenal and recorded a little side-by-side test with it and three others from the collection. If you have about a minute and a half to kill, please feel free to tell me what you think.

Lee's Mic Test

IDs to come.
_________________
Lee Gordon, O.A.V.
Voice President of the United States
www.leegordonproductions.com
Twitter: @LeeGordonVoice

Bill Campbell · DC Joined: 09 Mar 2007 Posts: 621

#1 is a bit muddy and dull. 2, 3, and 4 sound similar.

I pick 3 as the best.
_________________
www.asapaudio.com

DeadDillo · Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 6:41 am Post subject:

The difference between 1 and 2 were pretty extreme.

Lots of room tone in those recordings.
_________________
www.MarleyAudio.com

SkinnyJohnny · Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:24 am Post subject:

Here's my take…

#4 sounds best to me, but there's a lot of room tone
#3 second best
#2 third
#1 don't like it at all. Muddy and some kind of buzz going on.

I look forward to seeing what mics these are.
_________________
John Weeks Voice Overs
www.johnweeksvoiceovers.com

Lance Blair · M&M Joined: 03 Jun 2007 Posts: 2281 Location: Atlanta

Ditto what John wrote.
_________________
Skype: globalvoiceover
and now, http://lanceblairvo.com the blog is there now too!

Rob Ellis · M&M Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 2385 Location: Detroit

I'm guessing #3 is a 416

Frank F · Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:40 am Post subject:

Lee, wow what a variety! thoughts are as follows:

#1 Less than stellar, a bit muddy and muted on the low end.

#2 Cleaner, but sounds a bit "poppy", may be over-driven.

#3 This si the better of the first three microphones, however it it a little sharper and lacks low end body. Good mic for most things VO, but may need a bit of EQ for "body".

#4 Overall this is the better of the mics presented, nice low end roundness, full body, not shrill, just lacks the ooomph which you voice offers. Best of the four mics presented.

I could guess as to what mic you have selected, but that would be unfair for others to offer opinions.

Frank F
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

Bill Roberts · Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:42 pm Post subject:

# 4 - I would say is the goto for you (Best)
# 3 - Second best
# 2 - AM Radio….
# 1 - Books and IVR-s!
_________________
-----
VO-BB Member # 764 (Dec 2009)

captain54 · Lucky 700 Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Posts: 744 Location: chicago

Listened to on an iPad3.

Mics #1 and #2. Almost unusable

Mic #3. Needs a tweak but very good

Mic #4. No tweaking necessary. Between this and #3 I would say the go to's and would cover a wide variety of projects
_________________
Lee Kanne
www.leekanne.com

captain54 · Lucky 700 Joined: 30 Jan 2006 Posts: 744 Location: chicago

What are the Mics?
_________________
Lee Kanne
www.leekanne.com

Jason Huggins · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:59 am Post subject:

The room noise rejection on 1 and 3 are better, but 2 and 4 (especially 4) have way too much room noise to sound good (IMO). It sounded like you recorded 1 and 3 in your booth, and then 2 outside the booth in the studio and 4 it your office with the computer running.

Personally, I'd say use #4, upgrade the acoustics and remove the hum at around 200hz.

Lee Gordon · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:57 am Post subject:

Actually, I recorded all four at the same time, at my desk. Now for the (surprising) reveal.
Mic #1 is an RE-20. Definitely does not have the brightness of any of the condenser mics.
Mic #2 is the Harlan Hogan VO: A1
Mic #3 (this is the surprise) that so many people liked is my travel mic, the $100 MXL V67N
and Mic #4 is the MKH-416.
_________________
Lee Gordon, O.A.V.
Voice President of the United States
www.leegordonproductions.com
Twitter: @LeeGordonVoice

Rob Ellis · M&M Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 2385 Location: Detroit

(Frank picked the 416....?????.)

Frank F · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:15 am Post subject:

Shhh, Rob.

I knew it was the 416, but again I hedged my bet. by typing the truth ---- it lacks ooomph. I would not use it as a "go-to" mic in any case. I just said it was better than the others presented.

Where was the "compressed, movie trailer, radio push" that the 416 is touted to have? Where is the cut and clarity which wannabe promo voices declare is inherent in the 416? I'll tell you where... it does not exist.

Frank F
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

Jason Huggins · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:22 am Post subject:

Huh...I'm surprised that the 416 picked up the room tone so much. Must have been pointed at a particularly reflective part of the room. Was there a computer near by?