VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

Roar-duh

I added a new mic to my arsenal today and I think I'm in love, but I'd like the group's opinion. Which do you think sounds better with me?

Levels were kept as similar as I could, then normalized to -3. This file is two :12 segments of the same script. Thanks!

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=76092229607560629091

Bruce · Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 5:00 am Post subject:

B gives is clearer/cleaner. Neither knocks my socks off.

B
_________________
VO-BB Member #31 Enlisted June, 2005

I'm not a Zoo, but over the years I've played one on radio/TV. .

Mike Harrison · Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 5:21 am Post subject:

I agree with Bruce on both counts: Sample B shows a very slight increase in clarity (higher frequencies). That might improve even a bit more without the use of the foam windscreen (a fabric mesh pop screen might work better for you if positioned properly). But, overall, the sonic quality of neither recording is above average.
_________________
Mike
Male Voice Over Talent
I have taken leave of my sensors.

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

Mic B

Roar-duh · Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:11 am Post subject:

Thanks guys. My initial impressions were the same, and they were so surprising to me that I wasn't trusting my newbie ears and needed the input of veterans.

Here's where the surprise comes in... A is a CAD E100, and B is a humble $20 Behringer XM8500. I like the dynamic warmth of the Behringer, but this immediately makes me wonder what I'm doing wrong that the CAD didn't fare better in comparison. I'm wondering if I need to play with different combinations of gain vs. main mix to see if that brings the CAD to life, or if this is an indicator that it's time to step up from my Behringer mixer to a "real" pre/interface.

Edit: the only foam involved is whatever's inside the XM8500's headbasket, mesh pop filter used on both.
_________________
John Roorda
http://johnroorda.com

Mike Harrison · Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:43 am Post subject:

Are you doing either or both of the following:

– using the mic at very close proximity
– rolling off low frequencies and, if so, beginning at what frequency
_________________
Mike
Male Voice Over Talent
I have taken leave of my sensors.

Roar-duh · Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:47 am Post subject:

I didn't note proximity exactly... but it was approx. 5" for the CAD, maybe 3 for the Behringer. No rolloff or EQ on either.
_________________
John Roorda
http://johnroorda.com

vkuehn · Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:51 pm Post subject:

Roar-duh · Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:36 pm Post subject:

Detective Vernon... Thanks for your analysis! You had mentioned the dummy load to me before, but I hadn't actually tried it until tonight.

I had previously been fighting much worse noise problems, and I thought they were resolved... in reality, tonight I just found out that they were "less bad than before", but far from resolved.

I recorded some room tone, cranked my cans up to 11, and I was shocked and annoyed when I heard so much interference that I thought I was listening to the play-by-play of a Sox game in Morse code. After switching every port and turning off every device in the room, I found that it's my laptop itself that's generating the noise. I found that my laptop itself is the source of the noise.

I plugged the CAD back in and grabbed some room tone, first with the problem laptop and second with my wife's laptop. Both with Audacity, same levels, nothing different except disconnecting my interface from one laptop and connecting it to another.

My noise floor dropped by 9 freeeeeeaking db.

I've attached 3 :05 WAV files so you can hear the difference. The first is room tone with the problem laptop, the second is room tone with my wife's laptop, and the third is with the dummy load on the problem laptop.

Now I either have to spend money on a new laptop for my booth, or rearrange the basement to move my booth to the other side of the room closer to my desktop... and much closer to the noisy water pipes in the ceiling. Sick

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=97238821428173796489

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=75277215671792592276

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=09810760474609733967
_________________
John Roorda
http://johnroorda.com

vkuehn · Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:21 pm Post subject:

John: I just listened to your three recordings and then pulled them up so I could measure them and analyze them. The only difference between the room tone recorded on the two laptops is 9 or 13 dB gain difference, depending on whether you measure peak voltages or RMS levels. But the noises, the sounds are identical.

Where is the analog to digital conversion taking place? Is that in the Berringer... or in sound cards in the two different computers.

Actually, the room tone on "the bad computer" is -52 dB... but since there is no program content, I can't compare the noise-to-program-content levels.

With the dummy-plug in place, your noise level is maybe 80 dB down. There are people who would love to have their noise level down there.

I think you are dealing with at least TWO distinct issues here, maybe more.

1. Yes, with the mic plugged in, your room-noise below 150 hz is nasty. Maybe your room is nasty... maybe your mixer/sound-card is nasty. But if that is true, why isn't there low frequency problems when the dummy plug is in place. So I am guessing that you have a lot of very low frequency noise in your room.

2. None of this really addresses your original question. There is something in the sound of both microphones that is not what you want. Take out the low frequency room noise problem and you will still have voice recordings that are not crisp, clean and clear. (That problem is in BOTH mics.) So we are back to: (a) what device is doing your your analog-to-digital conversion? (b) Have you experimented with mic placement in the room? I have a feeling that your mic placement within the room is like two small children in the back seat of the car squabbling over who gets to sit where. How large is your recording space?

Roar-duh · Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:11 am Post subject:

Vernon,

My mixer is a Behringer Q502USB, which I'm also using as my USB interface.

I think that part of my problem is that my room is in fact a bit nasty. I have some control over that, but I guess I thought that my booth was doing a better job of filtering it out than it really was.

All of that low frequency nastiness you're hearing is the air handler / furnace, which is about 20 feet away from my booth on the other side of an un-insulated wall. I'm using an audiology booth in my basement office, positioned about as far away from the air handler as I can possibly go. There are some construction and insulation issues I may have to look into, but due to some "interesting" layout issues in my house, I don't think any of the options will take care of everything...

I've been trying the on-mic HPF, and that seems to do the job at the expense of sucking some life out of my voice. Haven't tried an expander yet, and I'm trying to figure out why Apple's Audio Units plug-ins seem to be missing from my mac.

Anyhoo... here's me reading the same copy, with my E100 with the "good" laptop, no HPF, and the air handler turned off so you can hear the difference. Same copy as before, to give you a baseline. Thanks for all of your help!

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=90313811464824769881
_________________
John Roorda
http://johnroorda.com

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

Sounds much better with no HPF....some HPFs (especially the built-in ones on mics) can really strip the life out of a mic's sound, IMO.

vkuehn · Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:39 am Post subject:

Experiment, experiment experiment. All the Audiology booths I saw on the Internet tended to be quite small. Not a problem when the person be tested is sitting in the booth and listening to tones on a headset. But stuff an entire human being in a small space, and add to that the lower frequencies of the male voice, and things can get a bit "dicey" for your microphone.

Just for grins... make a test recording in your normal posture and position. Then scoot way over to one side and instead of speaking straight ahead into the wall, turn you head a bit and speak to the center of the wall (which will be at an angle from you to the wall) and see if that makes any difference in your test recording.

Pop your door open while making a test recording and see if the sound changes.

Pick up (disconnect from your stand if necessary) your mic and walk out of the booth while talking and recording. Stand on your head while recordin.... nah! forget that one.

Bigger recording spaces tend to give you a larger "sweet spot" to locate you and to locate your mic. Small recording spaces are very, very demanding about where you locate your mic and where you locate yourself.

Change your elevation in all this testing. Try sitting on a bar stool. Try standing. Try sitting in a chair. Does the sound change any?

You can spend a lot of money chasing equipment trying to fix what is actually the acoustic connection between you and your mic rather than an equipment issue.

Roar-duh · Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:15 am Post subject:

Yeah... re-positioning myself in that booth is a challenge. Not only is it tiny inside, but that's compounded by the fact that I'm a pretty big guy. My shoulders touch both walls inside, and it's not tall enough for me to stand in. I can try twisting in the seat or a bar stool, but that's about it.

This is definitely a temporary solution, and there will be a better studio build down the line when I have some ROI to show for my efforts.
_________________
John Roorda
http://johnroorda.com