View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
juliaknippen Club 300
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 Posts: 348 Location: NYC
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:42 pm Post subject: 2-Mic Shootout on a Lady |
|
|
The shootouts are usually posted by the distinguished gentlemen in our midst, so I'm hoping you will find this exercise somewhat novel, even though it's been done hundreds of times in the archives.
Mic 1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bgjumrngtvelle2/JMK_mic1.mp3?dl=0
Mic 2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7bjkp100i247oa6/JMK_mic2.mp3?dl=0
I really don't want to give any info because I'm very interested in hearing your opinions on the sound of each, but if you have any questions, ask away. Please excuse the mic technique - I'm still experimenting with placement, angles, etc.
Thank you for lending me your ears. _________________ www.juliaknippen.com
Her Voice Will Grow on You |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Voxman Contributor
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 Posts: 40 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good Julia, listening way down here in New Zealand you sound great on the mic. Mic 1 is more natural in sound while Mic 2 sounds hotter, like your just about to appear out of the speaker. Is there any processing? On both mics I can hear a bit of room tone especially on mic 1, also on Mic 2 you may be too close on the mic. Perhaps move around and find those sweet spots on the mic. FYI I've listened on studio monitors.
Cheers
Peter |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Voxman Contributor
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 Posts: 40 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Julia I've just tried a real world situation and listened on small computer speakers. Here I don't hear the room tone and Mic 2 is nice, warm and close. Nice clean sound. Mic 1 is good but just not as present. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
juliaknippen Club 300
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 Posts: 348 Location: NYC
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for the feedback! The exact same processing has been applied to both recordings because my noise floor sucks. I had a feeling I was too close to mic 2, so that is very constructive. Thank you so much. I am still trying to find my ears in this art form. _________________ www.juliaknippen.com
Her Voice Will Grow on You |
|
Back to top |
|
|
vkuehn DC
Joined: 24 Apr 2013 Posts: 688 Location: Vernon now calls Wisconsin home
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I downloaded the two files and "peeked and poked" around the files.
#2 seems to have some Proximity Effect at play. Using Adobe Audition, I did a 'high pass filter' where I rolled of everything below 180 hertz with a slope of 12 db per octave. Now when you display the "Frequency Analysis" the file ends up with a frequency curve that matches recording #1. But they don't sound exactly the same!
This is a test I have wanted to run since a conversation here in the forum a few days about Proximity Effect. Prfoximity Effect usually happens because the person speaking in very, very clost to the mic. But it can also occur in the mic is too close to some hard object: the wall behind it. The monitor speaker or the computer screen too close to one side.
From conversations I read in various forums there seems to be a "conventional wisdom opinion" that proximity can be repaired by simply filtering off the excess low frequencies. My experience tells me that is not toatally correct. There is a TIGHTNESS or a RIGIDITY in the sound in addition to the increased low frequencies. My crude analogy is that it is like recording a tune played on a fine quality wood violin, and then giving the artist a violin made of concrete.
Good acoustics is like being suspended on bungee cords; acoustics containing proximity effect is a little like being suspended on stiff steel cables. Sometimes that is a good sound for the read, sometimes that is a bad sound for the read.
So play with the location of mic 2... both in relation to your mouth, and in relation to surrounding objects.
But yes... Mic 2 does have more room noise. Maybe 6 dB more. But after you processed the files, even the noise in the Mic 2 sample is pretty well down where we are wanting to be... down in the -60 range. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Philip Banks Je Ne Sais Quoi
Joined: 20 Jun 2005 Posts: 11060 Location: Portgordon, Scotland
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I could pepper this response with jargon but there is no point. I hear your room and I shouldn't be able to hear your room. Deal with that issue first. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
juliaknippen Club 300
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 Posts: 348 Location: NYC
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you both so much for listening, and for the feedback. Messages received! _________________ www.juliaknippen.com
Her Voice Will Grow on You |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dayo Cinquecento
Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 544 Location: UK
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vkuehn wrote: | I downloaded the two files and "peeked and poked" around the files.
#2 seems to have some Proximity Effect at play. Using Adobe Audition, I did a 'high pass filter' where I rolled of everything below 180 hertz with a slope of 12 db per octave. Now when you display the "Frequency Analysis" the file ends up with a frequency curve that matches recording #1. But they don't sound exactly the same!
This is a test I have wanted to run since a conversation here in the forum a few days about Proximity Effect. Prfoximity Effect usually happens because the person speaking in very, very clost to the mic. But it can also occur in the mic is too close to some hard object: the wall behind it. The monitor speaker or the computer screen too close to one side.
From conversations I read in various forums there seems to be a "conventional wisdom opinion" that proximity can be repaired by simply filtering off the excess low frequencies. My experience tells me that is not toatally correct. There is a TIGHTNESS or a RIGIDITY in the sound in addition to the increased low frequencies. My crude analogy is that it is like recording a tune played on a fine quality wood violin, and then giving the artist a violin made of concrete.
Good acoustics is like being suspended on bungee cords; acoustics containing proximity effect is a little like being suspended on stiff steel cables. Sometimes that is a good sound for the read, sometimes that is a bad sound for the read.
So play with the location of mic 2... both in relation to your mouth, and in relation to surrounding objects.
But yes... Mic 2 does have more room noise. Maybe 6 dB more. But after you processed the files, even the noise in the Mic 2 sample is pretty well down where we are wanting to be... down in the -60 range. |
Beautifully put and fully agreed with. Thanks for a thoughtful insight that strikes a chord here. _________________ Colin Day - UK Voiceover
www.thurstonday.co.uk |
|
Back to top |
|
|
juliaknippen Club 300
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 Posts: 348 Location: NYC
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was just reminded that I never revealed the mics. In case anyone was curious:
Mic 1 = Rode NT1A
Mic 2 = Senn MKH 416
Both recorded in 3.5x3.5 double walled whisper room with acoustic panels and bass traps, in a building that rumbles a lot. _________________ www.juliaknippen.com
Her Voice Will Grow on You |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rob Ellis M&M
Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 2385 Location: Detroit
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like #1 better. Better balance and noise level. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|