Live Interview Microphone

[mcp6453[_2_]]

I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I don't know about its
pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just kidding.)

[geoff]

On 19/06/2017 5:39 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
> omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
> as do almost all other mics.

Easy. Don't hold them so close.

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:39:49 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:

>I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
>omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
>as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I don't know about its
>pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just kidding.)

Just get an omnidirectional mic. It won't pop and its sensitivity to
wind noise will be much lower. omni mics work purely on pressure. It
is the added velocity component of directional mics that causes all
the problems with moving air.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/18/2017 4:23 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:39:49 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
>> omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
>> as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I don't know about its
>> pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just kidding.)
>
> Just get an omnidirectional mic. It won't pop and its sensitivity to
> wind noise will be much lower. omni mics work purely on pressure. It
> is the added velocity component of directional mics that causes all
> the problems with moving air.

I've tried an omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise.

[John Williamson]

On 18/06/2017 21:53, mcp6453 wrote:
> On 6/18/2017 4:23 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:39:49 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
>>> omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
>>> as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I don't know about its
>>> pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just kidding.)
>>
>> Just get an omnidirectional mic. It won't pop and its sensitivity to
>> wind noise will be much lower. omni mics work purely on pressure. It
>> is the added velocity component of directional mics that causes all
>> the problems with moving air.
>
> I've tried an omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise.
>
I've seen a short shotgun in a furry cover used successfully at waist
level by a video crew. It depends how inconspicuous you want to be.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

mcp6453 > wrote:
>I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
>omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
>as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I don't know about its
>pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just kidding.)

On camera or off-camera?

And why can't you pull the microphone back until it's not popping?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 19/06/2017 9:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> mcp6453 > wrote:
>> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone
>> that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an omni, which is
>> good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient
>> noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy as do almost all other mics.
>> Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I
>> don't know about its pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8"
>> foam ball windscreen. (Just kidding.)
>
> On camera or off-camera?
>
> And why can't you pull the microphone back until it's not popping?
> --scott
>

.... and it's not as if is has to be very far away to not pop. To my
mind to have a mic popping in and interview situation sounds like a very
intrusive 'in your face' interview !

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/18/2017 4:53 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
> I've tried an omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise.

So make lemonade.

Live interview recordings should have some ambient SOUND (not noise), so
take advantage of it in your production. If there are too many
jackhammers or lawn mowers around, move to someplace quieter for your
interview. If it's a "man in the street" it's OK to sound like he's in
the street.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[david gourley[_2_]]

mcp6453 > said...news:BaidnZB8qt55J9vEnZ2dnUU7-
:

> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is
highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
> omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much
ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
> as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low
handling noise, but I don't know about its
> pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just
kidding.)
>

What kind of omni? How about an EV655? It was good enough for Dick Clark.

david

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

mcp6453 wrote:

----------------
> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that
> is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an omni, which is good for
> popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise.
> SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy> as do almost all other mics.
>


** What sort of "ambient" noise are you facing ??

Monster trucks and dragster engines ?


...... Phil

[Trevor]

On 19/06/2017 6:23 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:39:49 -0400, mcp6453 > wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
>> omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
>> as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I don't know about its
>> pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just kidding.)
>
> Just get an omnidirectional mic. It won't pop and its sensitivity to
> wind noise will be much lower. omni mics work purely on pressure. It
> is the added velocity component of directional mics that causes all
> the problems with moving air.

Strange that he says "I've tried an omni, which is good for popping and
wind noise, *but it picks up too much ambient noise*".
Then you suggest an omni anyway.
A dead cat windscreen will reduce both wind noise and popping though.
And a bit more bass cut when necessary. An omni wouldn't be my first
pick anyway.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 19/06/2017 11:19 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/18/2017 4:53 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
>> I've tried an omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it
>> picks up too much ambient noise.
>
> So make lemonade.
>
> Live interview recordings should have some ambient SOUND (not noise), so
> take advantage of it in your production. If there are too many
> jackhammers or lawn mowers around, move to someplace quieter for your
> interview. If it's a "man in the street" it's OK to sound like he's in
> the street.
>

Really hate those "man in the street" interviews myself where you can
hardly understand what is being said because of the background
"sound"/noise! A little is fine, but it's usually a matter of keeping it
low enough not to distract from what is being said.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 19/06/2017 7:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> mcp6453 > wrote:
>> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
>> omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
>> as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I don't know about its
>> pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just kidding.)
>
> On camera or off-camera?
>
> And why can't you pull the microphone back until it's not popping?

At a guess because "it picks up too much ambient noise" perhaps?

Trevor.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

mcp6453 > wrote:

> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is
> highly impervious to popping. I've tried an omni, which is good for
> popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and
> SM57s pop like crazy as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a
> Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I don't know about its pop
> susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just
> kidding.)

If you hold a directional microphone off to one side of the mouth, still
pointing at the mouth but away from the direct blast of air, there will
be no problem with popping. People don't do it that way because it
looks odd and they have never seen anyone else do it (and they have
never really thought about the problem), but it is the obvious simple
solution.

There will still be a lot of bass lift, but without the overloading
caused by popping, that can be dealt with electronically.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/19/2017 12:31 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Strange that he says "I've tried an omni, which is good for popping and
> wind noise, *but it picks up too much ambient noise*".
> Then you suggest an omni anyway.

What's strange about that. Lots of people use omni mics for recording
interviews. Without more information about where the interviews are
being conducted and the nature of the ambient noise, I wouldn't
recommend anything else. Maybe the original poster will describe his
projects more accurately and I can make a better recommendation.

Perhaps a shotgun mic is appropriate, but there's much more to know
about choosing the right shotgun than choosing the right omni.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 19/06/2017 09:52, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> If you hold a directional microphone off to one side of the mouth, still
> pointing at the mouth but away from the direct blast of air, there will
> be no problem with popping. People don't do it that way because it
> looks odd and they have never seen anyone else do it (and they have
> never really thought about the problem), but it is the obvious simple
> solution.
>
> There will still be a lot of bass lift, but without the overloading
> caused by popping, that can be dealt with electronically.
>
>
I do this on guided tours all the time, and have found the best position
for the microphone is touching the tip of the guide's chin, but they do
have an excellennt pop screen built in, being designed to be used by
singers and others that swallow the mic to get the bass boost they want.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 06:19:22 -0400, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 6/19/2017 12:31 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> Strange that he says "I've tried an omni, which is good for popping and
>> wind noise, *but it picks up too much ambient noise*".
>> Then you suggest an omni anyway.
>
>What's strange about that. Lots of people use omni mics for recording
>interviews. Without more information about where the interviews are
>being conducted and the nature of the ambient noise, I wouldn't
>recommend anything else. Maybe the original poster will describe his
>projects more accurately and I can make a better recommendation.
>
>Perhaps a shotgun mic is appropriate, but there's much more to know
>about choosing the right shotgun than choosing the right omni.

Exactly. If I was asking a member of the general public to talk into a
mic, an omni would be my only choice. It doesn't have to be much
closer than a cardioid to have the same level of background noise, and
at that distance it would be far more inconspicuous than any kind of
pop filter or windshield.

Sorry, but no contest.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

Geoff > wrote:
> .... and it's not as if is has to be very far away to not pop. To my
>mind to have a mic popping in and interview situation sounds like a very
>intrusive 'in your face' interview !

That is key number one: do not ever let the talent touch the microphone.
You hold the mike, they do not.

A really huge windscreen can help, and Olson Audio still makes the Ultra
US-1: http://www.windtech.tv/Large_Windscreens.php
--scott

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

[Trevor]

On 19/06/2017 8:19 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/19/2017 12:31 AM, Trevor wrote:
>> Strange that he says "I've tried an omni, which is good for popping and
>> wind noise, *but it picks up too much ambient noise*".
>> Then you suggest an omni anyway.
>
> What's strange about that. Lots of people use omni mics for recording
> interviews. Without more information about where the interviews are
> being conducted and the nature of the ambient noise, I wouldn't
> recommend anything else. Maybe the original poster will describe his
> projects more accurately and I can make a better recommendation.

Agreed, but since he already said he'd tried an omni and got too much
ambient noise, I see no point in recommending one anyway. I'd guess he
was looking for other suggestions.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/19/2017 10:51 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Agreed, but since he already said he'd tried an omni and got too much
> ambient noise, I see no point in recommending one anyway. I'd guess he
> was looking for other suggestions.

Yeah, probably not looking for suggestions on better ways to use what
he's already found to be unsatisfactory.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone who asked for advice here would tell the
whole story?

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Irwin]

Trevor > wrote:
>
> Agreed, but since he already said he'd tried an omni and got too much
> ambient noise, I see no point in recommending one anyway.

If the ambient noise is coming from many different directions then
a cardioid, hypercardioid or figure 8 won't help reduce ambient noise
pickup enough to solve a problem.

If unwanted noise is coming from specific directions then a microphone
pattern with nulls in those directions may help a great deal.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/18/2017 11:34 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> mcp6453 wrote:
>
> ----------------
>> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that
>> is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an omni, which is good for
>> popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise.
>> SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy> as do almost all other mics.
>>
>
>
> ** What sort of "ambient" noise are you facing ??
>
> Monster trucks and dragster engines ?

The most recent event was on the floor of a convention. Think NAB. Way too much background noise for an omni.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 6/19/2017 10:32 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Geoff > wrote:
>> .... and it's not as if is has to be very far away to not pop. To my
>> mind to have a mic popping in and interview situation sounds like a very
>> intrusive 'in your face' interview !
>
> That is key number one: do not ever let the talent touch the microphone.
> You hold the mike, they do not.
>
> A really huge windscreen can help, and Olson Audio still makes the Ultra
> US-1: http://www.windtech.tv/Large_Windscreens.php
> --scott
>

Ordered.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Peter Irwin wrote:

--------------------

>
>
> If the ambient noise is coming from many different directions then
> a cardioid, hypercardioid or figure 8 won't help reduce ambient noise
> pickup enough to solve a problem.
>

** Normally it will.

Partly because it is directional but more importantly due to proximity effect - which at close rage is dominant. Omnis have no such effect.


> If unwanted noise is coming from specific directions then a microphone
> pattern with nulls in those directions may help a great deal.

** Only if you are outdoors and only if you aim the rear of the mic at the noise source. In practice, a near impossible task.


...... Phil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

> Peter Irwin wrote:

>> If the ambient noise is coming from many different directions then
>> a cardioid, hypercardioid or figure 8 won't help reduce ambient noise
>> pickup enough to solve a problem.


On 6/19/2017 10:01 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

> ** Normally it will.
>
> Partly because it is directional but more importantly due to proximity effect - which at close rage is dominant. Omnis have no such effect.

Proximity effect is a rise in low frequency response when the source is
close to the mic. How does this reduce ambient noise? Mostly it makes
the subject sound un-natural, ranging from god-like to muddy.

However, if the surrounding noise is objectionable when the subject is a
foot and a half away from the mic, moving the mic so that it's a few
inches from the subject's mouth will increase the SPL of the subject at
the mic substantially, however that change in mic position, unless the
subject is standing next to the cement mixer, will make a nearly
insignificant increase in SPL of the noise. And miking up close, you
usually don't want the proximity effect bass boost, so an omni is
usually the better choice.


>> If unwanted noise is coming from specific directions then a microphone
>> pattern with nulls in those directions may help a great deal.

> ** Only if you are outdoors and only if you aim the rear of the mic at the noise source. In practice, a near impossible task.

Shotgun mics have nulls off to the sides, though these are really
intended to reduce noise from reflections in a room rather than actual
noise sources.




--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

-----------------------
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > ** Normally it will.
> >
> > Partly because it is directional but more importantly due to proximity effect - which at close rage is dominant. Omnis have no such effect.
>
>
>
> Proximity effect is a rise in low frequency response when the source is
> close to the mic.
>

** Mid and lows are involved.

> How does this reduce ambient noise?

** By increasing the volume of the voice.

> Mostly it makes
> the subject sound un-natural, ranging from god-like to muddy.
>

** Big over statement.

Close up, cardioid sound is warm and pleasing to most folk.

The cardioid effect does not apply to distant sound.



> However, if the surrounding noise is objectionable when the subject is a
> foot and a half away from the mic, moving the mic so that it's a few
> inches from the subject's mouth will increase the SPL of the subject at
> the mic substantially, however that change in mic position, unless the
> subject is standing next to the cement mixer, will make a nearly
> insignificant increase in SPL of the noise.

** Makes my point, very nicely.


> And miking up close, you
> usually don't want the proximity effect bass boost,

** Tell that to the entire live music industry.

Get you a big laugh.



...... Phil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/19/2017 9:43 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
> The most recent event was on the floor of a convention. Think NAB. Way too much background noise for an omni.

Aha! The truth comes out!

This is exactly the reason, though at a NAMM show rather than NAB. When
I got out to the show floor, I discovered that many of the exhibitors
brought literature with them, so I didn't have anything to take away to
remind me of what I saw and to take notes on to expand on the printed
material. As a substitute, I attempted to use my phone with its built-in
mic to record notes to myself or an explanation from someone
demonstrating a product, and that experiment was a big failure. While I
never intended to publish a recorded interview, I could barely
understand the speech for all the background racket (which, by the way,
I wouldn't call "ambient noise" even though it's ambient and noise).

I was able to mooch a handheld iRig Mic from IK Multimedia (a new
product from them that year), plugged it into my phone, and that solved
the problem. This mic was designed specifically for interview recording
in a noisy environment. It's a cardioid condenser mic with a fixed low
frequency rolloff that makes it reasonably flat at a working distance of
3 to 6 inches. It's powered from the phone's headset connector and has a
three-position output level switch to get a closer match to the phone's
external analog input sensitivity.

The low frequency rolloff reduces rumble-line noise coming from any
direction (most cardioids are pretty much omnidirectional below 100 Hz
or so) while leaving voices nice and clear. It's a lousy mic for
recording a concert from a seat in the audience, but I have better mics
for that.

It's a special purpose mic designed to solve a specific problem, and it
works.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/20/2017 7:51 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
> ** Mid and lows are involved.
>
>> How does this reduce ambient noise?
> ** By increasing the volume of the voice.

Exactly my point, thank you. But what's called "proximity effect" is a
bass boost, not a broadband boost.

What you're talking about is a consequence of the "inverse square law"
which means that sound level decreases in proportion with the square of
the increase in distance between the source and microphone.

Proximity effect can be useful AS AN EFFECT, but it must be controlled.
A performer who has learned how to take advantage of it can control it,
and in the studio we can place a singer at a specific distance from the
mic that adds just the right amount of warmth if that's what's needed.
But in the situation that mcp described, you usually don't want warmth
in a voice, you want clarity.

This is why I emphasized, several times, that we don't know what to
recommend to solve his problem when we don't really know what his
problem really is.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>
>> ** Normally it will.
>>
>> Partly because it is directional but more importantly due to proximity effect - which at close rage is dominant. Omnis have no such effect.
>
>Proximity effect is a rise in low frequency response when the source is
>close to the mic. How does this reduce ambient noise? Mostly it makes
>the subject sound un-natural, ranging from god-like to muddy.

It boosts low frequency of close sources, meaning that you can then cut the
low end down to get flat response on close sources and therefore reduced low
frequencies from distant (noise) sources. Which is a win.

>However, if the surrounding noise is objectionable when the subject is a
>foot and a half away from the mic, moving the mic so that it's a few
>inches from the subject's mouth will increase the SPL of the subject at
>the mic substantially, however that change in mic position, unless the
>subject is standing next to the cement mixer, will make a nearly
>insignificant increase in SPL of the noise. And miking up close, you
>usually don't want the proximity effect bass boost, so an omni is
>usually the better choice.

This is all true, but the real problem is invariably that the microphone isn't
in the right place, and the talent won't stay in the right place, and then the
talent starts trying to control where the microphone is and then it all goes
wrong.

>>> If unwanted noise is coming from specific directions then a microphone
>>> pattern with nulls in those directions may help a great deal.
>
>> ** Only if you are outdoors and only if you aim the rear of the mic at the noise source. In practice, a near impossible task.
>
>Shotgun mics have nulls off to the sides, though these are really
>intended to reduce noise from reflections in a room rather than actual
>noise sources.

Shotgun mikes use a trick.... they eliminate distinct noise sources from
off-axis but the interference tube is of no use at all for dealing with
noncoherent sources like room reverb. For the most part they are a win
outdoors and a total loss indoors. Where they work they are invaluable,
where they don't work you'd be much better off with a hypercardioid.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:13:20 -0400, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 6/20/2017 7:51 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
>> ** Mid and lows are involved.
>>
>>> How does this reduce ambient noise?
>> ** By increasing the volume of the voice.
>
>Exactly my point, thank you. But what's called "proximity effect" is a
>bass boost, not a broadband boost.
>
>What you're talking about is a consequence of the "inverse square law"
>which means that sound level decreases in proportion with the square of
>the increase in distance between the source and microphone.
>
>Proximity effect can be useful AS AN EFFECT, but it must be controlled.
>A performer who has learned how to take advantage of it can control it,
>and in the studio we can place a singer at a specific distance from the
>mic that adds just the right amount of warmth if that's what's needed.
>But in the situation that mcp described, you usually don't want warmth
>in a voice, you want clarity.
>
>This is why I emphasized, several times, that we don't know what to
>recommend to solve his problem when we don't really know what his
>problem really is.

Proximity boost is completely corrected by eq, and in doing this the
level of low end extraneous noise is likewise reduced, as is any
residual popping. But when you are close enough to really make use of
this, even small changes in distance produce large changes in the
required eq curve.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 20 Jun 2017 09:13:16 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article >, Mike Rivers > wrote:
>>
>>> ** Normally it will.
>>>
>>> Partly because it is directional but more importantly due to proximity effect - which at close rage is dominant. Omnis have no such effect.
>>
>>Proximity effect is a rise in low frequency response when the source is
>>close to the mic. How does this reduce ambient noise? Mostly it makes
>>the subject sound un-natural, ranging from god-like to muddy.
>
>It boosts low frequency of close sources, meaning that you can then cut the
>low end down to get flat response on close sources and therefore reduced low
>frequencies from distant (noise) sources. Which is a win.
>
>>However, if the surrounding noise is objectionable when the subject is a
>>foot and a half away from the mic, moving the mic so that it's a few
>>inches from the subject's mouth will increase the SPL of the subject at
>>the mic substantially, however that change in mic position, unless the
>>subject is standing next to the cement mixer, will make a nearly
>>insignificant increase in SPL of the noise. And miking up close, you
>>usually don't want the proximity effect bass boost, so an omni is
>>usually the better choice.
>
>This is all true, but the real problem is invariably that the microphone isn't
>in the right place, and the talent won't stay in the right place, and then the
>talent starts trying to control where the microphone is and then it all goes
>wrong.
>
>>>> If unwanted noise is coming from specific directions then a microphone
>>>> pattern with nulls in those directions may help a great deal.
>>
>>> ** Only if you are outdoors and only if you aim the rear of the mic at the noise source. In practice, a near impossible task.
>>
>>Shotgun mics have nulls off to the sides, though these are really
>>intended to reduce noise from reflections in a room rather than actual
>>noise sources.
>
>Shotgun mikes use a trick.... they eliminate distinct noise sources from
>off-axis but the interference tube is of no use at all for dealing with
>noncoherent sources like room reverb. For the most part they are a win
>outdoors and a total loss indoors. Where they work they are invaluable,
>where they don't work you'd be much better off with a hypercardioid.
>--scott

Bear in mind also that the directional quality of a shotgun relies on
sound entering the tube vents at essentially the same level all the
way along the tube. Once you are close, the front vents are getting
the lion's share of SPL, so the directional effect of the shotgun is
largely lost.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/20/2017 9:25 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> Proximity boost is completely corrected by eq, and in doing this the
> level of low end extraneous noise is likewise reduced, as is any
> residual popping. But when you are close enough to really make use of
> this, even small changes in distance produce large changes in the
> required eq curve.

I wouldn't say that proximity effect is completely correctable with EQ,
but the effect can certainly be modified. But why spend a lot of time
chasing a constantly changing vocal recording when you can get it much
closer to being right by using the proper microphone correctly?

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:38:06 -0400, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 6/20/2017 9:25 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> Proximity boost is completely corrected by eq, and in doing this the
>> level of low end extraneous noise is likewise reduced, as is any
>> residual popping. But when you are close enough to really make use of
>> this, even small changes in distance produce large changes in the
>> required eq curve.
>
>I wouldn't say that proximity effect is completely correctable with EQ,
>but the effect can certainly be modified. But why spend a lot of time
>chasing a constantly changing vocal recording when you can get it much
>closer to being right by using the proper microphone correctly?

I'm with you there. I started my contribution by saying that an omni
is the right mic for the task.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:39:54 PM UTC-4, mcp6453 wrote:
> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
> omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
> as do almost all other mics. Someone recommended a Sennheiser MD46 for low handling noise, but I don't know about its
> pop susceptibility. Maybe an MD421 with an 8" foam ball windscreen. (Just kidding.)

When Bobby Darin was recording Mac The Knife, at that "pearly white" part, he was told to tone the "p" down, due to popping!!

Jack

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "On 19/06/2017 5:39 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
> I'm looking for a recommendation for a live interview microphone that is highly impervious to popping. I've tried an
> omni, which is good for popping and wind noise, but it picks up too much ambient noise. SM58s and SM57s pop like crazy
> as do almost all other mics.

Easy. Don't hold them so close. "

2" rule. Nuff said.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/20/2017 6:22 PM, wrote:
> 2" rule. Nuff said.

Plus or minus how much? If you're going to make up a rule, at least put
a tolerance on it. Or would you suggest putting the mic on a stand and
gaffer-taping the speaker to another stand to keep his head in position
to comply with your rule?

A better rule: "Do what sounds best."

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

>... would you suggest putting the mic on a stand and
> gaffer-taping the speaker to another stand to keep his head in position

A record company once booked a theatre as a studio to record a famous
crooner. They hung the mic on a rope over the orchestra pit so he
couldn't get anywhere near it. Apparently it was one of his
best-regarded records.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:31:28 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/20/2017 6:22 PM, wrote:
> > 2" rule. Nuff said.
>
> Plus or minus how much? If you're going to make up a rule, at least put
> a tolerance on it. Or would you suggest putting the mic on a stand and
> gaffer-taping the speaker to another stand to keep his head in position
> to comply with your rule?
>
> A better rule: "Do what sounds best."

That is like saying what Stereo mix sounds best.

Jack
>
> --
>
> For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 21/06/2017 15:31, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/20/2017 6:22 PM, wrote:
>> 2" rule. Nuff said.
>
> Plus or minus how much? If you're going to make up a rule, at least put
> a tolerance on it. Or would you suggest putting the mic on a stand and
> gaffer-taping the speaker to another stand to keep his head in position
> to comply with your rule?
>
<Grin> Now why didn't I think of that? Or nail them to the stand by
their ears.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/21/2017 12:43 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> Or nail them to the stand by their ears.

Puts a new slant on "turn the monitors up so their ears are bleeding"

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers:

Ok, fair enough: 2-3" rule.


"Do what sounds best"

Easy enough, but I like *some*
rules and technique. Remember
the speaker discussion? ;)

[None]

< thekhhhhhhma @ goatbowlers..com > dribbled...

> Ok, fair enough: 2-3" rule.

Making up a phony "rule" by pulling a number from your asshole is
stupid. Pulling two numbers is twice as stupid. Especially because you
don't even know what 2 and 3 mean.

> "Do what sounds best"

You don't like that because you don't actually care what the ****
anything sounds like. You can’t even tell the difference. The way
thinks actually sound is something you can't even think about.

> Easy enough, but I like *some* rules and technique.

Making up your own phony "rules" and "technique" by defiantly and
impotently pretending you can refute the benefit of the advice you get
here may be easy enough, and you may like it, but you're still a
****ing idiot about it, and you clearly do not understand. People are
discussing something they have some knowledge about, and you come her
to foul the thread with the manure of your own trolling ignorance.

> Remember the speaker discussion?

Where you proved, yet again, that you're not here to learn, partly
because you're incapable of learning, and partly because you prefer to
be a trolling douchenozzle. You took the fact that you're a retard and
a dumb**** and a painful rectal pustule, and you smeared that foul
fester all over a thread about how people select speakers. And in the
end, you did not learn a goddamn thing, and you went to considerable
lengths to prove it

CKWAFA! FDNGBH.