VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

[Don G.]

I'm trying to narrow down a mic selection and could use some (other) professional ears. If you are so inclined, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a minute to listen to this file and see if you have a preference among the three mics used. If you don't like any of them, or if you'd care to comment on anything else (room noise, etc.), that's fine, too. (It's about a 6MB file)

Much obliged.

Don

[Frank F]

Don,

I like microphone #3.

Microphone #2 is a bit, hmmmm - muddy(?) in the upper mid-range and not as clear as it could be. This microphone or setting lacks presence.

So, #1 is nice, clean but lacks the "presence" factor, it almost sounds like you are hoarse.

Microphone #3 is clean, has the solid presence your voice requires. This microphone (#3) creates a fuller more robust sound which offers clarity.


I hope this little review will help make your decision easier.

Toodles

F2
_________________
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

[Diane Maggipinto]

i like mic #3 too, then #1, and not #2 at all. as frank mentioned, about mic #2, it's so sensitive or perhaps not quite right for your voice, that it picks up all the little mouth noises and clicks and you don't want that! (i'm dealing with that headache myself, arrrrr!). #3 sounds the richest, best for your voice, and has presence.

just call me frank. i might as well quote his entire post, but that's not allowed
_________________
sitting at #8, though not as present as I'd like to be. Hello!

www.d3voiceworks.com

[Jowillie]

Yeah....1 & 3 for real.
2 sounds like a dynamic with upper mid boost.
I hear more room ambience on 1.
Either should be fine depending on type of job.
OK. how about telling us what they are.
Willie E.

[vic44139]

3

[Don G.]

Thanks for the opinions, thus far. I must say that the consensus here is exactly what I was thinking. If I can, I may attempt to rustle up a couple more mics to check before the "reveal" of which is which.

In the meantime, any more opinions are always welcome. I know it may be difficult to tell, but do you detect any room coming through under my voice? It's fairly quiet here, but we do strive for absolute silence.

[tackerman]

Definitely 3 for me.

[roger]

Don,
Could you let us in on what the mics were, after the fact, or don't you want to divulge that info for objectivities sake?
Number three for me as well. Number two was, well, number two. Too sibilant, among other things.
Thanks,
-Roger
_________________
Roger Tremaine
www.MyFavoriteVoice.com
http://rogertremaine.voices.com/
No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted. AESOP (The Lion and the Mouse)

[steveanthony]

I liked 1, then 3. On my system, 1 sounded fuller. 3 was nice but a tad brittle. Were the mics running clean or did you run them through some processing?

[paddyo]

I liked # 3 and I too am curious what mics they are.

Paddyo

[Don G.]

[Jowillie]

...and thanks for your efforts. They are appreciated.
_________________
Wild Willie Edwards
www.hometowntvtoday.com
http://vomictest.blogspot.com

[Lance Blair]

At first I though "Holy Frijoles! These recordings have like a -80 noise floor!"...then I put on the headphones: gate!

My notes as I was listening:
1.) Smooth, a little hollow, suits voice, bad background noise
2.) Dynamic mic? Nasal, mouth noise, muffled AND sibilant.
3.) MKH-416? Other shotgun? Hollow, unfocused mid range, not too bad on voice, a tad sibilant.

I love your voice, but I didn't like any of these mics too much. What do you use for a preamp? I think you could use something warmer or more colored than what you have now (I know I'll probably look foolish when you tell me you have awesome preamps).

[Edo]

Hi there... the condenser mic (number three) works best for your voice... something tells me this was probably also the cheapest one of the three... dunno why I say this... I'm probably wrong anyway

[allensco]

Number 3 for me. Sounds nice and clean and suits you.