[joe h]

Hello,

I'm trying to create a vocal narration outboard setup that has good
sound quality, a small amount of components, and reasonable cost.

I have a usb mic/headset right now. While the convenience is
unbeatable, I notice that there is a perceptible amount of distortion
in the audio capture (it's a Microsoft Lifechat LX-3000). This has
nothing to do with level setting or mic placement. Believe me, I went
through the options on this. It's not that the distortion is
terrible, but it's not like a super clean Millennia setup. I can't
even seem to find the specs as to whether it is recording at 16bit/
44.1 or 16bit/22.5, etc. The consumer stuff out there doesn't seem to
publish many of the specs that matter.

I've been looking at some basic ($300 and under) usb mics for
podcasting. This has brought me to three mics:
Rode Podcaster, Blue Yeti, Audio Technica 2020usb. There is also the
sE Electronics USB2200a at a higher price point of $400.

The Yeti is the only one of the four that has anything resembling gain-
staging: it has an analog input attenuator knob. I know you typically
want a strong clear analog signal that hits the converter. For these
mics, if you are speaking at normal volume, you might not be climbing
anywhere near fully through the A-D ladder before it gets converter to
the digital USB signal. The Yeti Pro also has 24/192khz specs. It
seems like most of these budget usb mics are 16 bit, if they bother to
publish the specs at all.

The other idea is to get a small usb converter box and run a good mic
like a Shure SM7b. But then the cost and complexity rises.

My speaking voice has a lot of midrange, but cleans up nicely with a
simple, wide-q eq drop of a few db centered around the 2k range. I'll
be using this setup for turning out a lot of podcast-type work, rather
than trying to create an epic rock album. So being able to work
quickly is important. I'd be looking to do the basic recording, do a
mild eq drop and a little limiting on the range, set the peak to minus
3dbfs, and then be done. I don't need "the best sound ever". But a
step up from the sub-$30 usb headset sound (particularly in the levels
of distortion). would be nice.

I know all about the really expensive brands with discrete
components. But then I would end up having this giant setup, when I'm
really looking to just hang out with notebook computer and do some
quality podcasting. On the other hand, having a good analog channel
strip with the eq set to my voice ahead of time will save me time over
the long run because I won't have to play around with eq in the
computer after the fact. It's always a tradeoff, right?

Maybe I am over-emphasizing the drawback of not being able to gain-
stage the a-d ladder. If so, maybe an all-in-one USB mic will be the
right choice for me.

There's a lot of different routes to take with this. So if anybody
has any ideas that could help sensibly narrow the selection process,
that would be great.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 8/21/2011 9:11 PM, joe h wrote:
Hello,

I'm trying to create a vocal narration outboard setup that has good
sound quality, a small amount of components, and reasonable cost.

I have a usb mic/headset right now. While the convenience is
unbeatable, I notice that there is a perceptible amount of distortion
in the audio capture (it's a Microsoft Lifechat LX-3000). This has
nothing to do with level setting or mic placement. Believe me, I went
through the options on this. It's not that the distortion is
terrible, but it's not like a super clean Millennia setup. I can't
even seem to find the specs as to whether it is recording at 16bit/
44.1 or 16bit/22.5, etc. The consumer stuff out there doesn't seem to
publish many of the specs that matter.

I've been looking at some basic ($300 and under) usb mics for
podcasting. This has brought me to three mics:
Rode Podcaster, Blue Yeti, Audio Technica 2020usb. There is also the
sE Electronics USB2200a at a higher price point of $400.

The Yeti is the only one of the four that has anything resembling gain-
staging: it has an analog input attenuator knob. I know you typically
want a strong clear analog signal that hits the converter. For these
mics, if you are speaking at normal volume, you might not be climbing
anywhere near fully through the A-D ladder before it gets converter to
the digital USB signal. The Yeti Pro also has 24/192khz specs. It
seems like most of these budget usb mics are 16 bit, if they bother to
publish the specs at all.

The other idea is to get a small usb converter box and run a good mic
like a Shure SM7b. But then the cost and complexity rises.

My speaking voice has a lot of midrange, but cleans up nicely with a
simple, wide-q eq drop of a few db centered around the 2k range. I'll
be using this setup for turning out a lot of podcast-type work, rather
than trying to create an epic rock album. So being able to work
quickly is important. I'd be looking to do the basic recording, do a
mild eq drop and a little limiting on the range, set the peak to minus
3dbfs, and then be done. I don't need "the best sound ever". But a
step up from the sub-$30 usb headset sound (particularly in the levels
of distortion). would be nice.

I know all about the really expensive brands with discrete
components. But then I would end up having this giant setup, when I'm
really looking to just hang out with notebook computer and do some
quality podcasting. On the other hand, having a good analog channel
strip with the eq set to my voice ahead of time will save me time over
the long run because I won't have to play around with eq in the
computer after the fact. It's always a tradeoff, right?

Maybe I am over-emphasizing the drawback of not being able to gain-
stage the a-d ladder. If so, maybe an all-in-one USB mic will be the
right choice for me.

There's a lot of different routes to take with this. So if anybody
has any ideas that could help sensibly narrow the selection process,
that would be great.

Try a Heil PR40 with a Blue Icicle or Shure X2U XLR-to-USB converter. There are
many options for what you want to do, but this one is as close to universal as
you can get. You obviously know that not every mic works well on every voice,
but the Heil PR40 is currently the "podcasters' choice", whatever that means.

Then again, if you get the USB converter and a Heil PR20 or an AKG D880, you'll
save a lot of money, and you may get what you want. The best solution is to find
someone that will let you try to mics, and you get to pick the one you want.

The XLR converters are not Avalon mic pres, but they're great for what they
cost. My choice for absolute lowest cost would be the PR20UT ($99) and the Blue
Icicle ($40). If you go this route, don't plug the converter directly into the
mic. Use an XLR cable. If you have to do any processing, you can do it in post.

Unless you have a room with great acoustics, I wouldn't use a condenser mic.
While the quality of your voice may be better with a condenser, you're probably
going to hear more of the room. For voice-only podcasting, that's not desirable.

I also bought a dbx 286s voice processor. If you're room is not too bad, the
gate can be set very low, and it can provide a good result for the application.
If your room is very noisy, the gate has trouble differentiating the background
from the foreground. In that case, you'll clearly hear the gate working, which
is no good.

[joe h]

thanks for the info about the Heil. I remember the Heil talkbox.
maybe the ghost of peter frampton lives on!

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/21/2011 9:11 PM, joe h wrote:

I'm trying to create a vocal narration outboard setup that has good
sound quality, a small amount of components, and reasonable cost.

I have a usb mic/headset right now. While the convenience is
unbeatable, I notice that there is a perceptible amount of distortion
in the audio capture (it's a Microsoft Lifechat LX-3000).

That's designed for on-line conversation so it's optimized
for clarity, not necessarily pleasantness. You can indeed do
better for your project by getting a better quality mic. But
the mic (unless you haven't told us everything yet)
shouldn't be the only thing in your investment plan. You
need a decent acoustical environment as well. The best mic
in the world will still sound unpleasant in the wrong
environment. You don't need to buy or build a serious vocal
booth unless you're making serious money from your voice,
but there are some gadgets and treatment that you should
also be looking at so that you can get the performance that
you're paying for with a better mic.

A better acoustical environment probably won't help your
headset mic because it's designed for close-talking and
suppresses ambient sound, but with a good mic, you can back
off and get a more balanced version of your voice as long as
it's not corrupted from reflections.

I've been looking at some basic ($300 and under) usb mics for
podcasting. This has brought me to three mics:
Rode Podcaster, Blue Yeti, Audio Technica 2020usb. There is also the
sE Electronics USB2200a at a higher price point of $400.

Blue makes quality products, as does Rode and Audio
Technica. Samson and MXL also have some decent mics of this
type, some incorporating some gain control (either
continuous or switched to get into the right ballpark) and
some incorporating monitoring with headphones. If you want
to hear yourself on phones while you're recording (most
voice talent does) you'll want to be sure that the
monitoring gives you a direct analog path from the mic that
doesn't go through the computer first before it gets to your
headphones. The typical approach to this design is with a
control on the mic that allows you to adjust the balance
between the direct mic output and the computer output. This
is useful for people using the mic for studio work so they
can do overdubs, but you'll probably want to listen to your
playback on speakers for evaluation and editing.

The other idea is to get a small usb converter box and run a good mic
like a Shure SM7b. But then the cost and complexity rises.

That can work. I have a CEntrance MicPort Pro that works
fine. I'm sure the Shure equivalent does, as well. It gives
you the interface to the computer, both going and coming,
and also gives you the freedom to choose the mic that suits
your voice and your budget.

having a good analog channel
strip with the eq set to my voice ahead of time will save me time over
the long run because I won't have to play around with eq in the
computer after the fact. It's always a tradeoff, right?

I certainly haven't seen everything, and I certainly don't
remember everything I've seen, but I don't recall seeing a
modestly priced channel strip with USB output. Even if you
found one, it's difficult to EQ your own voice while you're
listening on headphones. You're probably better off planning
to do a pass through the computer before shipping out your
piece. Once you get accustomed to the mic and the space
you're working in, you can probably come up with a standard
EQ curve that you can use as a preset to process everything.
Maybe add some compression as well. You probalby don't want
to get too fussy, but you might want to do some editing as
well.

Maybe I am over-emphasizing the drawback of not being able to gain-
stage the a-d ladder. If so, maybe an all-in-one USB mic will be the
right choice for me.

I think that most of the designers of this sort of product
want to make it as simple as possible for the user because
they don't want to have to explain and teach stuff like
that. So they make it so that it'll work for the hip-hop
poet who works with the mic right up to his lips, the rock
singer who screams like he does on stage, and the podcaster
who will find a way that works. Getting a proper record
level is always a good idea, and it's important if you're
broadcasting live. Its importance, though, depends on your
workflow and the basic quality of the audio chain. If you're
recording with 24-bit resolution you can easily amplify by
20 dB without digital problems, but you don't want to
amplify noise from a crummy mic input stage (that you can't
do anything about). So the value of some sort of gain
control at the mic depends on how it's implemented. And
that's something that you usually can't determine from the
spec sheets.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Steve King]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 8/21/2011 9:11 PM, joe h wrote:

I'm trying to create a vocal narration outboard setup that has good
sound quality, a small amount of components, and reasonable cost.

I have a usb mic/headset right now. While the convenience is
unbeatable, I notice that there is a perceptible amount of distortion
in the audio capture (it's a Microsoft Lifechat LX-3000).

That's designed for on-line conversation so it's optimized for clarity,
not necessarily pleasantness. You can indeed do better for your project by
getting a better quality mic. But the mic (unless you haven't told us
everything yet) shouldn't be the only thing in your investment plan. You
need a decent acoustical environment as well. The best mic in the world
will still sound unpleasant in the wrong environment. You don't need to
buy or build a serious vocal booth unless you're making serious money from
your voice, but there are some gadgets and treatment that you should also
be looking at so that you can get the performance that you're paying for
with a better mic.

A better acoustical environment probably won't help your headset mic
because it's designed for close-talking and suppresses ambient sound, but
with a good mic, you can back off and get a more balanced version of your
voice as long as it's not corrupted from reflections.

I've been looking at some basic ($300 and under) usb mics for
podcasting. This has brought me to three mics:
Rode Podcaster, Blue Yeti, Audio Technica 2020usb. There is also the
sE Electronics USB2200a at a higher price point of $400.

Blue makes quality products, as does Rode and Audio Technica. Samson and
MXL also have some decent mics of this type, some incorporating some gain
control (either continuous or switched to get into the right ballpark) and
some incorporating monitoring with headphones. If you want to hear
yourself on phones while you're recording (most voice talent does) you'll
want to be sure that the monitoring gives you a direct analog path from
the mic that doesn't go through the computer first before it gets to your
headphones. The typical approach to this design is with a control on the
mic that allows you to adjust the balance between the direct mic output
and the computer output. This is useful for people using the mic for
studio work so they can do overdubs, but you'll probably want to listen to
your playback on speakers for evaluation and editing.

The other idea is to get a small usb converter box and run a good mic
like a Shure SM7b. But then the cost and complexity rises.

That can work. I have a CEntrance MicPort Pro that works fine. I'm sure
the Shure equivalent does, as well. It gives you the interface to the
computer, both going and coming, and also gives you the freedom to choose
the mic that suits your voice and your budget.

having a good analog channel
strip with the eq set to my voice ahead of time will save me time over
the long run because I won't have to play around with eq in the
computer after the fact. It's always a tradeoff, right?

I certainly haven't seen everything, and I certainly don't remember
everything I've seen, but I don't recall seeing a modestly priced channel
strip with USB output. Even if you found one, it's difficult to EQ your
own voice while you're listening on headphones. You're probably better off
planning to do a pass through the computer before shipping out your piece.
Once you get accustomed to the mic and the space you're working in, you
can probably come up with a standard EQ curve that you can use as a preset
to process everything. Maybe add some compression as well. You probalby
don't want to get too fussy, but you might want to do some editing as
well.

Maybe I am over-emphasizing the drawback of not being able to gain-
stage the a-d ladder. If so, maybe an all-in-one USB mic will be the
right choice for me.

I think that most of the designers of this sort of product want to make it
as simple as possible for the user because they don't want to have to
explain and teach stuff like that. So they make it so that it'll work for
the hip-hop poet who works with the mic right up to his lips, the rock
singer who screams like he does on stage, and the podcaster who will find
a way that works. Getting a proper record level is always a good idea, and
it's important if you're broadcasting live. Its importance, though,
depends on your workflow and the basic quality of the audio chain. If
you're recording with 24-bit resolution you can easily amplify by 20 dB
without digital problems, but you don't want to amplify noise from a
crummy mic input stage (that you can't do anything about). So the value of
some sort of gain control at the mic depends on how it's implemented. And
that's something that you usually can't determine from the spec sheets.




I, too, am a big fan of the MicPort Pro. It has a gain control for the mic
pre section of the device, a beefy headphone output for both the microphone
and playback from the computer, as well as phantom power for condenser
microphones. Another poster suggested that dynamic mics might be better for
accoustically challanged spaces. I disagree. I think that the pattern of
the mic - wide/narrow - has more to do with how a mic behaves in reverberent
spaces. If I were you, I'd combine a micport pro from B & H Photo @ $149,
an XLR cable of suitable length, about $20, and a MCA SP1 condenser mic from
B & H Photo @ $45.50. Don't let the low prices scare you. The MicPort Pro
is a very, very decent mic preamp/USB AD/DA convertor and the SP1 mic is a
real sleeper. It has a relatively flat frequency response that should be a
good match for your voice unlike many VO mics that have mid-range boost
built in. Of course, there are many other ways to go, but for Podcast use
the above are the choices I would make. By the way I own and use the
equipment above, so my opinion is based on experience. I use the identical
kit as part of my travel equipment. A lot of voice-overs recorded in hotel
rooms using it have gone on broadcast TV with no complaints ever.

Steve King

[joe h]

Thanks guys for the info on the CEntrance MicPort Pro. I had never
even heard of it before. It's like the Blue Icicle, but better. It's
got two key features that you want: a high sample/bit rate and a gain
control knob. That could be a really good way to go.

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:46:46 -0400, joe h wrote
(in article
):

Thanks guys for the info on the CEntrance MicPort Pro. I had never
even heard of it before. It's like the Blue Icicle, but better. It's
got two key features that you want: a high sample/bit rate and a gain
control knob. That could be a really good way to go.

Mic Port Pro (24/96) is very good.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Dec [Cluskey]]

On Aug 22, 2:11*am, joe h wrote:

There's a lot of different routes to take with this. *So if anybody
has any ideas that could help sensibly narrow the selection process,
that would be great.

Joe

I do a lot of YouTube stuff and find that the Monacor DM-500USB mic.
is totally stunning.

For voiceover stuff it is quite amazing ... it is subtlely enhanced
for warmth and just good talking quality.

I have been recommending this now for six months to anyone who will
listen. At circa £30 from Studiospares.com it is a steal. It goes
straight into my Mac and IMovies ...

Of course, the room ambience is all important. I am lucky to have
amazing vocal/intrument acoustics in my studio.

Dec [Cluskey] http://www.deccluskey.co.uk/blog

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 8/22/2011 11:43 AM, Steve King wrote:

I, too, am a big fan of the MicPort Pro. It has a gain control for the mic
pre section of the device, a beefy headphone output for both the microphone
and playback from the computer, as well as phantom power for condenser
microphones.

Yes the $140 MicPort Pro is a great little unit. It definitely has more features
than the $35 Blue Icicle.

Another poster suggested that dynamic mics might be better for
acoustically challenged spaces. I disagree. I think that the pattern of
the mic - wide/narrow - has more to do with how a mic behaves in reverberant
spaces.

Whatever the reason, whether it by the type of element or the pattern of the
mic, we're getting better results with dynamics than with condensers. I was in
denial until someone with significantly less audio experience proved it to me.

If I were you, I'd combine a micport pro from B & H Photo @ $149,
an XLR cable of suitable length, about $20, and a MCA SP1 condenser mic from
B & H Photo @ $45.50. Don't let the low prices scare you. The MicPort Pro
is a very, very decent mic preamp/USB AD/DA convertor and the SP1 mic is a
real sleeper.

We bought four MCA SP1s for podcasting. I wish we hadn't done it. As you say,
they are more than worth the purchase price, but they're just not the right mic
for our application. The acoustics in the podcasting studio are not good. Guests
who are not naturally mic savvy are not good at working the mics. They
understand where to talk into a PR20, but they often move away from the sweet
spot on the side-address condenser mics.

It has a relatively flat frequency response that should be a
good match for your voice unlike many VO mics that have mid-range boost
built in. Of course, there are many other ways to go, but for Podcast use
the above are the choices I would make. By the way I own and use the
equipment above, so my opinion is based on experience. I use the identical
kit as part of my travel equipment. A lot of voice-overs recorded in hotel
rooms using it have gone on broadcast TV with no complaints ever.

As with all equipment recommendations, opinions differ. That's what makes this
stuff so much fun.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"joe h" wrote in message
...
Hello,

I'm trying to create a vocal narration outboard setup that has good
sound quality, a small amount of components, and reasonable cost.

I have a usb mic/headset right now. While the convenience is
unbeatable, I notice that there is a perceptible amount of distortion
in the audio capture (it's a Microsoft Lifechat LX-3000). This has
nothing to do with level setting or mic placement. Believe me, I went
through the options on this. It's not that the distortion is
terrible, but it's not like a super clean Millennia setup.

It is also not like any halfways competent mic/converter setup. As you
subsequently allude to, the presence of some kind of analog volume control
and adequate dynamic range in the microphone itself are key factors. We
usually take that for granted.

For example, my standard laptop/field mic setup is composed of a Rolls MP13
mic preamp and a Behringer UCA 202 USB interface. Nets out for less than
$100. When used with a mic with adequate dynamic range for general purposes
(of which I have several dozen) it meets all reasonable requirements.

I can't even seem to find the specs as to whether it is recording at
16bit/
44.1 or 16bit/22.5, etc.

If the product doesn't come with a driver disc or download, its depending on
the standard USB drivers for Windows or Mac, which are 16/44. That's more
than enough for a first rate result.

The consumer stuff out there doesn't seem to
publish many of the specs that matter.

Ditto for much of the alleged "pro" suff including the Blue Icicle and the
AT 2020 USB. Both vendors should know better.

I've been looking at some basic ($300 and under) usb mics for
podcasting. This has brought me to three mics:
Rode Podcaster, Blue Yeti, Audio Technica 2020usb. There is also the
sE Electronics USB2200a at a higher price point of $400.

If I was going to pick one blind, I'd go with the AT 2020 because I already
have a couple of them and IME they are really good general purpose mics.

The Yeti is the only one of the four that has anything resembling gain-
staging: it has an analog input attenuator knob.

Your apparent presumption that no physical knob = no analog gain control
could but not necessrily is a rush to judgement. If you further assumed
that no physical knob *and* no special driver = no analog gain control, then
that would be very reasonable.

I know you typically
want a strong clear analog signal that hits the converter.

Well, the problems you are experiencing my be due to too much signal hitting
the converter. Or, the cheap electret element that your current mic using
could be running out of dynamic range all by itself. This begs the question
of what you've been doing with the microphone wand of the Lifechat to move
it away from your mouth. If its wand isn't bendable enough as it is, you do
have access to a heat source to soften the plastic, right?

For these mics, if you are speaking at normal volume, you might not be
climbing
anywhere near fully through the A-D ladder before it gets converter to
the digital USB signal.

Rule of thumb is that the greatest source of noise is ambient. I seriously
hope that you understand that the problem that you are complaining about,
which appears to be distortion, has nothing to do with lack of a robust
signal coming into its ADC, right? In fact, the problem is the exact
opposite of what you are talking about at this point.

The Yeti Pro also has 24/192khz specs. It
seems like most of these budget usb mics are 16 bit, if they bother to
publish the specs at all.

The sonic consequences of 24/192 versus 16/44 in this application is
basically zero. The web seems to foster obsessing over irrelevant technical
factoids involving simple numbers, but I like to get the job done clean,
quick and with nominal expense. That takes attention to the right details,
not every sales pitch that rolls down the internet. ;-)

The other idea is to get a small usb converter box and run a good mic
like a Shure SM7b. But then the cost and complexity rises.

They tell me that SM7s are great VO mics and I have no reason to doubt that.
I've done a certain amount of VO work with far less expensive stuff, such
as SM 57s, CAD 95s, $39 MXLs, and the like and nobody seems to complain.
The results are generally clear and lifelike. One reason is that I pay
attention to another factor that has come up on this thread, which is
recording in an appropriate acoustic environment. My first choice is sitting
around a picnic table on my patio. My second is usually a bedroom at the
artist's house, you know the one with nothing but bed(s) and stuffed
furnature and deep rugs. Common thread - very low reverb.

Bottom line is that you don't need to spend the big bucks to get unclipped
VOs.

The alternatives that provide you with a headphone jack for monitoring may
not be everything that you want. Usually, the talent wants to hear any
background music or other sounds that they are working with through the
headphones. A zero-latency analog monitoring facility built into the mic or
its cable can't do that. The only way I know to get that is with a mixer,
and not necessarily the simplest one.

[Steve King]

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...
On 8/22/2011 11:43 AM, Steve King wrote:

I, too, am a big fan of the MicPort Pro. It has a gain control for the
mic
pre section of the device, a beefy headphone output for both the
microphone
and playback from the computer, as well as phantom power for condenser
microphones.

Yes the $140 MicPort Pro is a great little unit. It definitely has more
features
than the $35 Blue Icicle.

Another poster suggested that dynamic mics might be better for
acoustically challenged spaces. I disagree. I think that the pattern of
the mic - wide/narrow - has more to do with how a mic behaves in
reverberant
spaces.

Whatever the reason, whether it by the type of element or the pattern of
the
mic, we're getting better results with dynamics than with condensers. I
was in
denial until someone with significantly less audio experience proved it to
me.

I don't dispute your experience. I wonder what it is? Typically reduced
high freq. response compared to a condenser? I do know that I still don't
understand why a Beyer Dynamic 260 ribbon mic has such a very good rejection
of not only off-pattern sound but also on-pattern sounds at a distance. Its
been awhile, but my recollection is that you pull that mic a few feet away
from a source and the drop off is dramatic. It's a hypercardioid. That
part I understand. In any case it was a real problem solver, when miking
reeds in a small studio---great isolation. Maybe the PR20 has its own
magic.


If I were you, I'd combine a micport pro from B & H Photo @ $149,
an XLR cable of suitable length, about $20, and a MCA SP1 condenser mic
from
B & H Photo @ $45.50. Don't let the low prices scare you. The MicPort
Pro
is a very, very decent mic preamp/USB AD/DA convertor and the SP1 mic is
a
real sleeper.

We bought four MCA SP1s for podcasting. I wish we hadn't done it. As you
say,
they are more than worth the purchase price, but they're just not the
right mic
for our application. The acoustics in the podcasting studio are not good.
Guests
who are not naturally mic savvy are not good at working the mics. They
understand where to talk into a PR20, but they often move away from the
sweet
spot on the side-address condenser mics.

I hadn't thought about that. Also, the pattern on the SP1 is pretty wide.
That's great for people with poor mic technique, but not so good if you have
several mics open in a reverberent space. Harlan Hogan sells a side-address
name-branded condensor mic, (which I really like). He says he gets a call
every week from a purchaser who complains about the sound. All are trying
to talk into the 'bottom' of the mic;-)


Steve King

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 8/23/2011 11:39 AM, Steve King wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message
...
On 8/22/2011 11:43 AM, Steve King wrote:

I, too, am a big fan of the MicPort Pro. It has a gain control for the
mic
pre section of the device, a beefy headphone output for both the
microphone
and playback from the computer, as well as phantom power for condenser
microphones.

Yes the $140 MicPort Pro is a great little unit. It definitely has more
features
than the $35 Blue Icicle.

Another poster suggested that dynamic mics might be better for
acoustically challenged spaces. I disagree. I think that the pattern of
the mic - wide/narrow - has more to do with how a mic behaves in
reverberant
spaces.

Whatever the reason, whether it by the type of element or the pattern of
the
mic, we're getting better results with dynamics than with condensers. I
was in
denial until someone with significantly less audio experience proved it to
me.

I don't dispute your experience. I wonder what it is? Typically reduced
high freq. response compared to a condenser? I do know that I still don't
understand why a Beyer Dynamic 260 ribbon mic has such a very good rejection
of not only off-pattern sound but also on-pattern sounds at a distance. Its
been awhile, but my recollection is that you pull that mic a few feet away
from a source and the drop off is dramatic. It's a hypercardioid. That
part I understand. In any case it was a real problem solver, when miking
reeds in a small studio---great isolation. Maybe the PR20 has its own
magic.


If I were you, I'd combine a micport pro from B & H Photo @ $149,
an XLR cable of suitable length, about $20, and a MCA SP1 condenser mic
from
B & H Photo @ $45.50. Don't let the low prices scare you. The MicPort
Pro
is a very, very decent mic preamp/USB AD/DA convertor and the SP1 mic is
a
real sleeper.

We bought four MCA SP1s for podcasting. I wish we hadn't done it. As you
say,
they are more than worth the purchase price, but they're just not the
right mic
for our application. The acoustics in the podcasting studio are not good.
Guests
who are not naturally mic savvy are not good at working the mics. They
understand where to talk into a PR20, but they often move away from the
sweet
spot on the side-address condenser mics.

I hadn't thought about that. Also, the pattern on the SP1 is pretty wide.
That's great for people with poor mic technique, but not so good if you have
several mics open in a reverberent space. Harlan Hogan sells a side-address
name-branded condensor mic, (which I really like). He says he gets a call
every week from a purchaser who complains about the sound. All are trying
to talk into the 'bottom' of the mic;-)


Steve King




Steve, I really wish that you could so some A/B testing of an RE20/RE320/Heil
PR40 with an SP1 in a room with not-so-good acoustics, like a dining room or
kitchen (no processing.) I had to eat some words because I love the sound of a
condenser on spoken voice. However, the PR40 compared with a KSM105 made me a
believer in dynamic mics for VO is an acoustically challenged room.

Scott will have to weigh in on the laws of physics. That discussion is beyond my
pay grade.

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve King wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message

Whatever the reason, whether it by the type of element or the pattern of
the
mic, we're getting better results with dynamics than with condensers. I
was in
denial until someone with significantly less audio experience proved it to
me.

People get too damn hung up over the technology inside the microphone,
which is really mostly irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's a dynamic
or a condenser, it matters how well it performs in the job.

The RE-20 is one of the best vocal mikes every made, and it's one of only
two mikes still being made with variable-D control so that the response
stays the same at different distances.

say,
they are more than worth the purchase price, but they're just not the
right mic
for our application. The acoustics in the podcasting studio are not good.
Guests
who are not naturally mic savvy are not good at working the mics. They
understand where to talk into a PR20, but they often move away from the
sweet
spot on the side-address condenser mics.

That's the purpose of the RE-20/PR20. It has no sweet spot. You can be
anywhere.

I hadn't thought about that. Also, the pattern on the SP1 is pretty wide.
That's great for people with poor mic technique, but not so good if you have
several mics open in a reverberent space. Harlan Hogan sells a side-address
name-branded condensor mic, (which I really like). He says he gets a call
every week from a purchaser who complains about the sound. All are trying
to talk into the 'bottom' of the mic;-)

If you don't want to go the variable-D route, the only way to get good
performance from people with bad mike technique is to use a very very wide
pattern, so wide it's omni. And that means you need a very good studio
without a lot of noise and reflections.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 wrote:
Steve, I really wish that you could so some A/B testing of an RE20/RE320/Heil
PR40 with an SP1 in a room with not-so-good acoustics, like a dining room or
kitchen (no processing.) I had to eat some words because I love the sound of a
condenser on spoken voice. However, the PR40 compared with a KSM105 made me a
believer in dynamic mics for VO is an acoustically challenged room.

The KSM105, though, is phenomenally peaked up on top. On the right voice
it is breathy and wonderful. On the wrong voice, it exaggerates tonsil noise
and just becomes screechy and thin. It is a very highly colored mike, but
when it's the right mike, it's the right mike.

Scott will have to weigh in on the laws of physics. That discussion is beyond my
pay grade.

People worry too much. Just use what sounds good and don't worry about it,
but don't get hung up on condenser vs. dynamic. Get hung up on pattern and
tone.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve King]

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...
On 8/23/2011 11:39 AM, Steve King wrote:
"mcp6453" wrote in message
...
On 8/22/2011 11:43 AM, Steve King wrote:

I, too, am a big fan of the MicPort Pro. It has a gain control for the
mic
pre section of the device, a beefy headphone output for both the
microphone
and playback from the computer, as well as phantom power for condenser
microphones.

Yes the $140 MicPort Pro is a great little unit. It definitely has more
features
than the $35 Blue Icicle.

Another poster suggested that dynamic mics might be better for
acoustically challenged spaces. I disagree. I think that the pattern
of
the mic - wide/narrow - has more to do with how a mic behaves in
reverberant
spaces.

Whatever the reason, whether it by the type of element or the pattern of
the
mic, we're getting better results with dynamics than with condensers. I
was in
denial until someone with significantly less audio experience proved it
to
me.

I don't dispute your experience. I wonder what it is? Typically reduced
high freq. response compared to a condenser? I do know that I still
don't
understand why a Beyer Dynamic 260 ribbon mic has such a very good
rejection
of not only off-pattern sound but also on-pattern sounds at a distance.
Its
been awhile, but my recollection is that you pull that mic a few feet
away
from a source and the drop off is dramatic. It's a hypercardioid. That
part I understand. In any case it was a real problem solver, when miking
reeds in a small studio---great isolation. Maybe the PR20 has its own
magic.


If I were you, I'd combine a micport pro from B & H Photo @ $149,
an XLR cable of suitable length, about $20, and a MCA SP1 condenser mic
from
B & H Photo @ $45.50. Don't let the low prices scare you. The MicPort
Pro
is a very, very decent mic preamp/USB AD/DA convertor and the SP1 mic
is
a
real sleeper.

We bought four MCA SP1s for podcasting. I wish we hadn't done it. As you
say,
they are more than worth the purchase price, but they're just not the
right mic
for our application. The acoustics in the podcasting studio are not
good.
Guests
who are not naturally mic savvy are not good at working the mics. They
understand where to talk into a PR20, but they often move away from the
sweet
spot on the side-address condenser mics.

I hadn't thought about that. Also, the pattern on the SP1 is pretty wide.
That's great for people with poor mic technique, but not so good if you
have
several mics open in a reverberent space. Harlan Hogan sells a
side-address
name-branded condensor mic, (which I really like). He says he gets a
call
every week from a purchaser who complains about the sound. All are
trying
to talk into the 'bottom' of the mic;-)


Steve King




Steve, I really wish that you could so some A/B testing of an
RE20/RE320/Heil
PR40 with an SP1 in a room with not-so-good acoustics, like a dining room
or
kitchen (no processing.) I had to eat some words because I love the sound
of a
condenser on spoken voice. However, the PR40 compared with a KSM105 made
me a
believer in dynamic mics for VO is an acoustically challenged room.

Scott will have to weigh in on the laws of physics. That discussion is
beyond my
pay grade.

Great. Send me those mics. I have an SP1. I'll also add an SM7. And,
include a KSM105. You know, these tests could take awhile;-)

Steve

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve King wrote:

Great. Send me those mics. I have an SP1. I'll also add an SM7. And,
include a KSM105. You know, these tests could take awhile;-)

Skip the KSM105. Try the RE-20, or if you don't have the budget for the
RE-20, an RE-16. Also the original Sennheiser 421 which isn't very
popular today but really is a remarkably natural announcer mike.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:18:28 -0400, mcp6453 wrote
(in article ) :

Steve, I really wish that you could so some A/B testing of an RE20/RE320/Heil
PR40 with an SP1 in a room with not-so-good acoustics, like a dining room or
kitchen (no processing.) I had to eat some words because I love the sound of
a
condenser on spoken voice. However, the PR40 compared with a KSM105 made me a
believer in dynamic mics for VO is an acoustically challenged room.

Scott will have to weigh in on the laws of physics. That discussion is beyond

my
pay grade.

Especially if the room is a racquetball court.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[joe h]

That's a good point about the usb headset mic component. It's
probably under-speced and underpowered, so it distorts at every turn
in the road. It's not extremely bad distortion, but you can totally
hear it's there if you know what to listen for. And then when I hear
example recordings of people spending somewhere between $300-1000 to
get their sound, the difference in quality is quite noticeable. It
goes from "acceptable utilitarian" sound to "nice studio" sound. Not
"ultimate studio" but definitely nice.

I still have high praise for this LX-3000. It works rock-solid
straight out of the box. And it's relatively complicated for a sub-
$30 unit, having headphones a mic and the drivers to make it work
right.

After all of the great comments by rec.audio.pro, I'm leaning toward
this:

1) A channel strip with a digital output and a good mic for at-home
studio work
2) the MicPort Pro if I had to travel.


Through reading this, I see that Mr. Dorsey strongly recommends the
RE-20. I was thinking about a condenser to get a bit of a sheen, and
bright presense-peak mics tend to work well with my voice. But he
brings up a great point about the variable-D. I'm trying to minimize
hassles on the recording, basically trying to get to a zero-editing
solution on the audio. Maybe with the RE-20 and the channel strip set
exactly to my eq/compression/level needs, I can get that "set and
forget" solution I'm looking for. If I could do the audio "on the
fly" like a radio show does and go straight to rendering after content
capture, that would save me 1/3 of my production time. That time adds
up.

I wish to not have to be hyper-concerned with proximity to the mic. I
plan to talk comfortably with the mic on a table near the notebook
computer. The mic will be about 8-15 inches away. It's probably
going to be too cumbersome and distracting to have the mic right up in
front of me, because I have to do a lot of other stuff simultaneously
besides talk.

Maybe that's why after all these years of technology, talk-style
studios still use the RE-20, even if they could drop $10k on a Brauner
in two seconds if they wanted to.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Steve King wrote:

Great. Send me those mics. I have an SP1. I'll also add an SM7. And,
include a KSM105. You know, these tests could take awhile;-)

Skip the KSM105. Try the RE-20, or if you don't have the budget for the
RE-20, an RE-16. Also the original Sennheiser 421 which isn't very
popular today but really is a remarkably natural announcer mike.
--scott

The Senn MD431 can also be good for VO work. Very workable pattern and
proximity effect.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Steve King]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Steve King wrote:

Great. Send me those mics. I have an SP1. I'll also add an SM7. And,
include a KSM105. You know, these tests could take awhile;-)

Skip the KSM105. Try the RE-20, or if you don't have the budget for the
RE-20, an RE-16. Also the original Sennheiser 421 which isn't very
popular today but really is a remarkably natural announcer mike.
--scott

The Senn MD431 can also be good for VO work. Very workable pattern and
proximity effect.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Ditto on the MD431. 12 to 15 inches away is a bit far unless your space is
fairly dead. You might want to check into this: K&M Stands 23850. It is
the spring-loaded adjustable microphone support arm that most radio stations
use. With this you can get the microphone closer to you without intruding
on your desk space. A closer mic will overcome a lot of your accoustic
issues.

Steve King

[hank alrich]

Steve King wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Steve King wrote:

Great. Send me those mics. I have an SP1. I'll also add an SM7. And,
include a KSM105. You know, these tests could take awhile;-)

Skip the KSM105. Try the RE-20, or if you don't have the budget for the
RE-20, an RE-16. Also the original Sennheiser 421 which isn't very
popular today but really is a remarkably natural announcer mike.
--scott

The Senn MD431 can also be good for VO work. Very workable pattern and
proximity effect.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Ditto on the MD431. 12 to 15 inches away is a bit far unless your space is
fairly dead. You might want to check into this: K&M Stands 23850. It is
the spring-loaded adjustable microphone support arm that most radio stations
use. With this you can get the microphone closer to you without intruding
on your desk space. A closer mic will overcome a lot of your accoustic
issues.

What Steve said.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2011-Aug-25 18:08, hank alrich writes:
snip
You might want to check into this: K&M Stands 23850. It is
the spring-loaded adjustable microphone support arm that most radio stations
use. With this you can get the microphone closer to you without intruding
on your desk space. A closer mic will overcome a lot of your accoustic
issues.

What Steve said.

YEp, and if that's a little pricey, get one of those
bulkhead fittings that mounts to a floor or wall sized for
regular mic stand tubing, mount a boom and/or gooseneck from it, have the mic right close and the real estate taken up in a corner you can't otherwise use as functional desktop real
estate anyway. That's what I did here at the ham radio
operating position. I've got a little miniboom attached to
one of these flange mounts that I screwed into the desk in
an out of the way place, a gooseneck attached to the
miniboom. MIc is just inches from my mouth when needed.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"joe h" wrote in message
...

I wish to not have to be hyper-concerned with proximity to the mic. I
plan to talk comfortably with the mic on a table near the notebook
computer. The mic will be about 8-15 inches away. It's probably
going to be too cumbersome and distracting to have the mic right up in
front of me, because I have to do a lot of other stuff simultaneously
besides talk.

Maybe that's why after all these years of technology, talk-style
studios still use the RE-20, even if they could drop $10k on a Brauner
in two seconds if they wanted to.

If you want maximal freedom from proximity effect, then its either a
variable-D cardioid or an omni that you want.

There's a reason why mics like the RE 20 and the 635 are still in new
production or at least NOS from the OEM - VO, live talk, and ENG.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 8/25/2011 1:37 PM, joe h wrote:

Through reading this, I see that Mr. Dorsey strongly recommends the
RE-20.

The RE20 is a great mic. However, the PR40 is a little cheaper, and for a lot of
users, it sounds better. You should compare the two before you commit. I got my
second one used for $215 including the $100 shock mount. It was in like new
condition.

Also compare the PR40 with a condenser mic. You might be surprised at the "sheen".

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"mcp6453" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2011 1:37 PM, joe h wrote:

Through reading this, I see that Mr. Dorsey strongly recommends the
RE-20.

The RE20 is a great mic. However, the PR40 is a little cheaper, and for a
lot of
users, it sounds better. You should compare the two before you commit. I
got my
second one used for $215 including the $100 shock mount. It was in like
new
condition.

Also compare the PR40 with a condenser mic. You might be surprised at the
"sheen".

Is there any evidence that the PR40 controls the usual directional
microphone's proximity effect?

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Is there any evidence that the PR40 controls the usual directional
microphone's proximity effect?

It does not.

As far as I know the only currently manufactured variable-D mikes are
the RE-20 and RE-16.

However, just because it doesn't have proximity reduction doesn't mean
you should avoid it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Is there any evidence that the PR40 controls the usual directional
microphone's proximity effect?

It does not.

As far as I know the only currently manufactured variable-D mikes are
the RE-20 and RE-16.

However, just because it doesn't have proximity reduction doesn't mean
you should avoid it.
--scott

True, though often, if inexperienced people are working a mic closely,
their lack of strict control of the distance from their mouth to the mic
can make trouble. That's where those variable-D mics can shine.

But you knew that already.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 8/26/2011 1:46 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Is there any evidence that the PR40 controls the usual directional
microphone's proximity effect?

It does not.

As far as I know the only currently manufactured variable-D mikes are
the RE-20 and RE-16.

However, just because it doesn't have proximity reduction doesn't mean
you should avoid it.
--scott

In fact, a lot of VO guys buy them BECAUSE of the proximity effect.

How did I end up with an RE10, RE15, RE18, and RE20, but no RE16?

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:26:42 -0400, Steve King wrote
(in article ):

Steve, I really wish that you could so some A/B testing of an
RE20/RE320/Heil
PR40 with an SP1 in a room with not-so-good acoustics, like a dining room
or
kitchen (no processing.) I had to eat some words because I love the sound
of a
condenser on spoken voice. However, the PR40 compared with a KSM105 made
me a
believer in dynamic mics for VO is an acoustically challenged room.

Scott will have to weigh in on the laws of physics. That discussion is
beyond my
pay grade.

Great. Send me those mics. I have an SP1. I'll also add an SM7. And,
include a KSM105. You know, these tests could take awhile;-)

Steve


You can't eat 105 unless you have no bottom on your voice at all, so it
wouldn't work well in that situation. What might would be an Audio technica
AE5400 with the low end rolled off.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA