[joe h]

Hello,

I've been trying to work with more "awesome" studio mics. But my
environment where I record (tabletop podcasting stuff) has specular
reflections from the table, computer, etc. The room itself is big.
But the mics seem to get very interested in the flat surfaces in the
immediate area. I can hear hollowed-out phase aspects...lame!

I'm thinking a better strategy will be to "de-environment" my
recording. Like the mic can't hear the room, just the close-up voice.
Once I discovered the SM7B and RE20 have really low mv/Pa, I shied
away from them. But now I'm seeing how their low sensitivity can be an
advantage in a hostile reflections environment.

So that has me thinking about the SM7B or the RE20. I've already tried
an SM7B. It sounds kind of wooly with all of the foam windscreen
stuff going on, but it definitely subtracts the environment out of the
scene. I could make a second try at that mic and try to eq it more.
I don't dislike the sound (the thing I hate most is distortion, and
the mic doesn't bother me in that regard). I could try to make it
work.

The RE20 has the variable-D aspect, but I'm not sure how it does with
sound reflections off of tables, computer screens, etc.

I made a fantastic mistake of listening to mics on similar sources as
me, but in different *environments*. The sounds sources I listened to
had the advantage of not having hostile reflective surfaces anywhere
in the nearfield.

So now I'm trying to copy the professionals whose production
environments look more like mine. I see the SM7B and the RE20 a lot
in sports call-in talk shows. And they have the same tables, walls and
computer screen stuff like I do.

So basically I'm thinking SM7B or RE20 into a Focusrite ISA One with
the 24/192 AD card. And also getting one of those boom arm things
like a r.a.p. person recommended.

[PStamler]

You're barking up the wrong tree in several respects. A mic of lower
sensitivity (i.e., lower-voltage output for a given SPL) will have
lower output from the reflections, but equally lower output from the
direct sound. Given a particular pickup pattern, the net ratio of
reflections to direct sound, and therefore the amount of difficulty
you have with phase cancellation, will be the same regardless of the
mic's sensitivity.

On the other hand, the off-axis response of the microphone will affect
the amount of bounce that comes in from reflective sources which are
off-axis, and the off-axis response will also affect the coloration of
the bounced sound. The RE20 is noteworthy for having off-axis response
which is pretty close to its on-axis response, and also a fairly tight
pattern. Those are the relevant factors, not sensitivity. After all,
if you put a pad in line with any microphone, you're dropping its
sensitivity, but you won't change the relative amount of bounce or
phase cancellation one jot.

If you're truly having problems with phase cancellation from the
reflections from flat surfaces (a problem which isn't uncommon), you
have a few alternatives (in addition to picking a mic with a tighter
pickup pattern):

1. Move the reflecting surfaces away from your mic position, or move
your mic position away from reflecting surfaces.

2. Change the angles of flat surfaces so the sound reflects away from
the mic.

3. Cover the reflecting surfaces with sound-absorbing materials.

4. Move closer to the mic; this makes your voice louder in the mic
without significantly changing the bounce; this makes the direct-sound-
to-bounced-sound ratio higher.

Peace,
Paul

[joe h]

Thanks, Paul.

Great points.

Point 4 has me thinking the RE20 could be good. The variable-D will
allow you to get a strong signal-to-background ratio (new term?)
without the bass boost.

I'll try working on the different concepts.

[Scott Dorsey]

joe h wrote:
I've been trying to work with more "awesome" studio mics. But my
environment where I record (tabletop podcasting stuff) has specular
reflections from the table, computer, etc. The room itself is big.
But the mics seem to get very interested in the flat surfaces in the
immediate area. I can hear hollowed-out phase aspects...lame!

This is why a good studio is important.

I'm thinking a better strategy will be to "de-environment" my
recording. Like the mic can't hear the room, just the close-up voice.
Once I discovered the SM7B and RE20 have really low mv/Pa, I shied
away from them. But now I'm seeing how their low sensitivity can be an
advantage in a hostile reflections environment.

The sensitivity has absolutely zero to do with how the microphone deals
with bad acoustics, and everything to do with the antenna pattern. The
mike can be sensitive or not... you could take a 30dB pad and stick it on
the output of a mike and make it much less sensitive but it wouldn't do
a damn thing about bad rooms.

So that has me thinking about the SM7B or the RE20. I've already tried
an SM7B. It sounds kind of wooly with all of the foam windscreen
stuff going on, but it definitely subtracts the environment out of the
scene. I could make a second try at that mic and try to eq it more.
I don't dislike the sound (the thing I hate most is distortion, and
the mic doesn't bother me in that regard). I could try to make it
work.

The RE20 has the variable-D aspect, but I'm not sure how it does with
sound reflections off of tables, computer screens, etc.

The RE20 is one of the more directional microphones available for this
sort of application, and as such it does better at dealing with lousy rooms
than most. But the real solution to dealing with lousy rooms is to fix them.

I made a fantastic mistake of listening to mics on similar sources as
me, but in different *environments*. The sounds sources I listened to
had the advantage of not having hostile reflective surfaces anywhere
in the nearfield.

So now I'm trying to copy the professionals whose production
environments look more like mine. I see the SM7B and the RE20 a lot
in sports call-in talk shows. And they have the same tables, walls and
computer screen stuff like I do.

I suggest fixing the room, you will gain a lot more by improving the room
than you will get by improving the microphone in almost every case.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

joe h wrote:
Hello,

I've been trying to work with more "awesome" studio mics. But my
environment where I record (tabletop podcasting stuff) has specular
reflections from the table, computer, etc. The room itself is big.
But the mics seem to get very interested in the flat surfaces in the
immediate area. I can hear hollowed-out phase aspects...lame!

I'm thinking a better strategy will be to "de-environment" my
recording. Like the mic can't hear the room, just the close-up voice.
Once I discovered the SM7B and RE20 have really low mv/Pa, I shied
away from them. But now I'm seeing how their low sensitivity can be an
advantage in a hostile reflections environment.

So that has me thinking about the SM7B or the RE20. I've already tried
an SM7B. It sounds kind of wooly with all of the foam windscreen
stuff going on, but it definitely subtracts the environment out of the
scene. I could make a second try at that mic and try to eq it more.
I don't dislike the sound (the thing I hate most is distortion, and
the mic doesn't bother me in that regard). I could try to make it
work.

The RE20 has the variable-D aspect, but I'm not sure how it does with
sound reflections off of tables, computer screens, etc.

I made a fantastic mistake of listening to mics on similar sources as
me, but in different *environments*. The sounds sources I listened to
had the advantage of not having hostile reflective surfaces anywhere
in the nearfield.

So now I'm trying to copy the professionals whose production
environments look more like mine. I see the SM7B and the RE20 a lot
in sports call-in talk shows. And they have the same tables, walls and
computer screen stuff like I do.

So basically I'm thinking SM7B or RE20 into a Focusrite ISA One with
the 24/192 AD card. And also getting one of those boom arm things
like a r.a.p. person recommended.

The EV RE20 is the cardioid successor to the super-cardioid RE15. Both
have Continuously Variable-D resulting in flat off-axis response and
minimal proximity effect. I used RE15s throughout TV orchestras because I
was mixing almost as much leakage as direct sound. On-camera, baffles were
unacceptable. I think flat leakage sounds better.

The RE15 was developed to replace the beyerdynamic M160N on mic booms at
ABC-TV, Hollywood. We rejected that application because the off-axis
response was too good! We heard too much of the environment. We went back
to the M160N. Later, some used the Sennheiser MKH 416, I preferred the EV
CH15S. It is easier to hide the shadow of a 4" long hyper-cardioid mic,
the 416 is about 12" with connector.

The RE20's lack of proximity effect will let you use it very closely,
making the reflections negligible.

EV founder Lou Burroughs told me that the RE20 could have been the size of
the RE15 but "Marketing" wanted it to be the size of the Neumann U-67. It
seems that they were correct.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

joe h wrote:

So that has me thinking about the SM7B or the RE20. I've already tried
an SM7B. It sounds kind of wooly with all of the foam windscreen
stuff going on, but it definitely subtracts the environment out of the
scene.

You have remembered to engage the bass roll-off switch?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

Roy W. Rising writes:

snips

Roy, thanks for that bit of audio history. I'm always fascinated.

You mentioned this:

I preferred the EV CH15S

That didn't ring a bell as an EV I'd known, and a google search turned up engine
parts and light fixtures -- is there a typo in that model number?

Thanks!

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 11/21/2011 2:07 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Roy W. writes:

snips

Roy, thanks for that bit of audio history. I'm always fascinated.

You mentioned this:

I preferred the EV CH15S

That didn't ring a bell as an EV I'd known, and a google search turned up engine
parts and light fixtures -- is there a typo in that model number?

Thanks!

Frank
Mobile Audio

Odd, I just did a quick search and it popped right up.
http://www.coutant.org/ev_ch15s/index.html

Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/21/2011 11:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

I suggest fixing the room, you will gain a lot more by improving the room
than you will get by improving the microphone in almost every case.

For sure. Anyone who knows enough to type "specular
reflections" almost surely knows how to use a hammer.


--
"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

[Frank Stearns]

Ron Capik writes:

On 11/21/2011 2:07 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Roy W. writes:

snips

Roy, thanks for that bit of audio history. I'm always fascinated.

You mentioned this:

I preferred the EV CH15S

That didn't ring a bell as an EV I'd known, and a google search turned up engine
parts and light fixtures -- is there a typo in that model number?

Thanks!

Frank
Mobile Audio

Odd, I just did a quick search and it popped right up.
http://www.coutant.org/ev_ch15s/index.html

Thanks, Ron.

Too weird. Google on the production machine included this link (cute little EV I
never knew about); Google on the admin machine did not list it. Both googles via
Firefox are unfiltered, theoretically.

However, the production machine runs a much older version of Firefox. No doubt the
newer version is being "helpful" by omitting this link. When upgrading browsers,
it seems to be a uneasy balance between security improvements and breakages.

I'll have to look into this. Sigh.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Michael Beacom[_3_]]

In article
,
PStamler wrote:

You're barking up the wrong tree in several respects. A mic of lower
sensitivity (i.e., lower-voltage output for a given SPL) will have
lower output from the reflections, but equally lower output from the
direct sound. Given a particular pickup pattern, the net ratio of
reflections to direct sound, and therefore the amount of difficulty
you have with phase cancellation, will be the same regardless of the
mic's sensitivity.

On the other hand, the off-axis response of the microphone will affect
the amount of bounce that comes in from reflective sources which are
off-axis, and the off-axis response will also affect the coloration of
the bounced sound. The RE20 is noteworthy for having off-axis response
which is pretty close to its on-axis response, and also a fairly tight
pattern. Those are the relevant factors, not sensitivity. After all,
if you put a pad in line with any microphone, you're dropping its
sensitivity, but you won't change the relative amount of bounce or
phase cancellation one jot.

If you're truly having problems with phase cancellation from the
reflections from flat surfaces (a problem which isn't uncommon), you
have a few alternatives (in addition to picking a mic with a tighter
pickup pattern):

1. Move the reflecting surfaces away from your mic position, or move
your mic position away from reflecting surfaces.

2. Change the angles of flat surfaces so the sound reflects away from
the mic.

3. Cover the reflecting surfaces with sound-absorbing materials
Carpet tiles on the desk top might help here.

4. Move closer to the mic; this makes your voice louder in the mic
without significantly changing the bounce; this makes the direct-sound-
to-bounced-sound ratio higher.

Peace,
Paul

Cheers
Mike

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Frank Stearns wrote:
Roy W. Rising writes:

snips

Roy, thanks for that bit of audio history. I'm always fascinated.

You mentioned this:

I preferred the EV CH15S

That didn't ring a bell as an EV I'd known, and a google search turned up
engine parts and light fixtures -- is there a typo in that model number?

Thanks!

Frank
Mobile Audio

Frank ~ The CH15S is the Hypercardioid head on the Short body in EV's
System C. See http://www.coutant.org/ev_ch15s/index.html. Stan Coutant's
site is a great resource!

When Marketing asked Lou Burroughs to develop some condenser mics, he
said he would, but not until he could make them at least as good as their
best dynamics. He told me that during the development, photomicrography
was used to look at the condenser diaphragms while being bombarded by
sound. He thought the images might show something like annular rings,
resembling the wave of a "pebble tossed into a pond". Instead, he said the
diaphragm more closely resembled what would happen if someone crumpled a
piece of aluminum foil and then tried to re-flatten it. Fascinating! No
wonder condenser mics have an inherent character of distortion. EV's
dynamic mics use a convex mylar Acoustalloy diaphragm that not only is
rigid, the dome diffuses reflected waves that otherwise can result in
interference with incoming waves as in the case of a condenser mic's flat
surface.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Frank Stearns]

Roy W. Rising writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:
Roy W. Rising writes:

snips

Roy, thanks for that bit of audio history. I'm always fascinated.

You mentioned this:

I preferred the EV CH15S

That didn't ring a bell as an EV I'd known, and a google search turned up
engine parts and light fixtures -- is there a typo in that model number?

Thanks!

Frank
Mobile Audio

Frank ~ The CH15S is the Hypercardioid head on the Short body in EV's
System C. See http://www.coutant.org/ev_ch15s/index.html. Stan Coutant's
site is a great resource!

When Marketing asked Lou Burroughs to develop some condenser mics, he
said he would, but not until he could make them at least as good as their
best dynamics. He told me that during the development, photomicrography
was used to look at the condenser diaphragms while being bombarded by
sound. He thought the images might show something like annular rings,
resembling the wave of a "pebble tossed into a pond". Instead, he said the
diaphragm more closely resembled what would happen if someone crumpled a
piece of aluminum foil and then tried to re-flatten it. Fascinating! No
wonder condenser mics have an inherent character of distortion. EV's
dynamic mics use a convex mylar Acoustalloy diaphragm that not only is
rigid, the dome diffuses reflected waves that otherwise can result in
interference with incoming waves as in the case of a condenser mic's flat
surface.

Roy -

Quite interesting comments! I wonder which types of condesor diaphragms they looked
at -- mylar or actual metal? Seems that a metal diaphragm might be less prone to
wrinkling than something (such as gold) sputtered onto mylar. And while not very
rugged and very expensive, I suspect this is why the nickel diaphragms in various
Nuemanns are sought after.

So how did the EV dynamics compare sonically to the EV condensors?

Did you ever have a chance to compare these EV condensors to, say, original KM180
series with nickel diaphragms?

Thanks again for great historical info.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Frank Stearns wrote:
Roy W. Rising writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:
Roy W. Rising writes:

snips

Roy, thanks for that bit of audio history. I'm always fascinated.

You mentioned this:

I preferred the EV CH15S

That didn't ring a bell as an EV I'd known, and a google search turned
up engine parts and light fixtures -- is there a typo in that model
number?

Thanks!

Frank
Mobile Audio

Frank ~ The CH15S is the Hypercardioid head on the Short body in EV's
System C. See http://www.coutant.org/ev_ch15s/index.html. Stan
Coutant's site is a great resource!

When Marketing asked Lou Burroughs to develop some condenser mics, he
said he would, but not until he could make them at least as good as
their best dynamics. He told me that during the development,
photomicrography was used to look at the condenser diaphragms while
being bombarded by sound. He thought the images might show something
like annular rings, resembling the wave of a "pebble tossed into a
pond". Instead, he said the diaphragm more closely resembled what would
happen if someone crumpled a piece of aluminum foil and then tried to
re-flatten it. Fascinating! No wonder condenser mics have an inherent
character of distortion. EV's dynamic mics use a convex mylar
Acoustalloy diaphragm that not only is rigid, the dome diffuses
reflected waves that otherwise can result in interference with incoming
waves as in the case of a condenser mic's flat surface.

Roy -

Quite interesting comments! I wonder which types of condesor diaphragms
they looked at -- mylar or actual metal? Seems that a metal diaphragm
might be less prone to wrinkling than something (such as gold) sputtered
onto mylar. And while not very rugged and very expensive, I suspect this
is why the nickel diaphragms in various Nuemanns are sought after.

So how did the EV dynamics compare sonically to the EV condensors?

Did you ever have a chance to compare these EV condensors to, say,
original KM180 series with nickel diaphragms?

Thanks again for great historical info.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Frank ~ I'm pretty sure they were looking at mylar diaphragms, that's what
ended up in the System C mics. These EV condenser mics were very good
sounding. The CH15S does not have the annoying dead-on-axis sizzle of the
Sennheiser MKH 416 (Some perceive that as better "reach", I hear it as HF
distortion). I still like the sound of the EV RE55 dynamic. I used it for
voice-overs on Funniest Home Videos clips, among others. It was much
easier to match the V.O.s to Bob Saget's Sennheiser wireless in the studio.
When the V.O.s were taken out of house, probably using a 416, the proximity
effect was unmanageable for matching. The RE55 has been used as a
secondary standard in some labs. Its smooth, flat, extended highs do
something no condenser can on voices. With hindsight, I wish I'd been able
to use EV DO54/PL9s (same capsule as RE55) instead of 635As for vocals. I
never had a chance to compare with the KM180s.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Sean Conolly]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message
...

When Marketing asked Lou Burroughs to develop some condenser mics, he
said he would, but not until he could make them at least as good as their
best dynamics. He told me that during the development, photomicrography
was used to look at the condenser diaphragms while being bombarded by
sound. He thought the images might show something like annular rings,
resembling the wave of a "pebble tossed into a pond". Instead, he said
the
diaphragm more closely resembled what would happen if someone crumpled a
piece of aluminum foil and then tried to re-flatten it. Fascinating!

Now as a drummer, that makes complete sense to me. When you hit a membrane
(ok, different kimd of impulse but stay with me) you get all kinds of
complex wave patterns on the membrane. Below a certain level of tension the
membrane 'flaps' and produces a sound like, well in the case of a drum head
a piece of plastic flapping. When it gets above that threshold it resonates
and produces a composite tone. For a condenser diaphragm I suspect that the
optimal tension is just high enough to keep it from flapping, but resonant
below any reasonable frequency we can hear.

Not that I know crap about this stuff, I just see a parallel there.

Sean