a good mic pls

[plautus]

there’s no need…
to get a good quality mic?
to spend $600 when you can ‘mod’ a mic?
spend any more time on this thread because you **** on everyones responses?

the sound starts at the source then is effected by the room-work on those two first. if you can’t square that away, then even Franks U47 won’t help you.

does the ceiling also have to get treatment?

 

[beatsnblunts]

That might even be related to movie trailers nowadays showing you basically the entire plot "anyway", so you know going in, what you're signing up for. That's the best / only(?) way the movie industry figured out to entice people to go see movies in cinemas, i guess

yeah, i hate that! my wife often says “great, now i dont need to see the movie”

 

[beatsnblunts]

does the ceiling also have to get treatment?

Yep, at least over your mic and listening positions.

 

[DFischer]

thats a .... shotgun mic *sigh*

First off, no it's not.

Secondly... So NOW nuances matter?

 

[Khron]

thats a .... shotgun mic *sigh*

Reeeeeeeeally can't help but wonder how you managed to figure THAT one out...

Would you mind terribly, walking us through your thought process on that, or a link to where you found that information?

(Later edit - typo)

 

[k brown]

Reeeeeeeeally can't help but wonder how you managed to figure THAT one out...

Would you mind terribly, walking is through your thought process on that, or a link to where you found that information?

My guess is that he inferred that from the name Line Audio.

The hilarity of his response is twofold:
1. That, as a subcardioid it's about as non-shotgun as you can get, short of an omni.
2. Many of the top VO talents actually do use shotguns!

 

[plautus]

My guess is that he inferred that from the name Line Audio.

The hilarity of his response is twofold:
1. That, as a subcardioid it's about as non-shotgun as you can get, short of an omni.
2. Many of the top VO talents actually do use shotguns!

the sound too boomy and sibilant, and lack detail

 

[ccaudle]

treated - same sound but without the echo...

That is only true if the acoustic treatment absorbs all frequencies equally.
With the picture of your room shown in the video it is clear that the panels on the wall absorb high frequencies, but are not effective at low frequencies. That will create reflections from the walls which are modified from the original sound in having fewer high frequencies, but same amount of low frequencies.
Combined with the directional characteristic of cardioid microphones becoming less directional at lower frequencies and also responding more to low frequencies from close placement (proximity effect) that results in recorded sound which has too much low frequency compared to high frequencies, i.e. unbalanced, boomy, and muddy.

 

[pmfalcman]

I went to OP's YT channel...
To listen to this allegedly horrid mic.
Well.... it's perfectly fine, I guess. Sure, I detected some lack of detail and balance but I'm quite sure it wasn't related to deficiency of the mic. As well as sporadic muddiness.

It seems to me that there's a simple explanation why the mic does not catch this beautiful voice which OP can hear cupping his ears.
The mic is clean....

 

[Khron]

the sound too boomy and sibilant, and lack detail

So because the Line Audio CM4, which you've probably never owned / borrowed / tested in your room, sounds they way you describe (but how would / could you know???), means it's a shotgun mic..?

Yep, makes perfect sense to me... (not)

 

[k brown]

- Poor room

- Poor mic technique

- Empty head

No microphone can address these issues.

 

[micolas]

It seems that no one agreed with even one post by Plautus.
What does this mean?

 

[pmfalcman]

It seems that no one agreed with even one post by Plautus.
What does this mean?

He repeatedly returns to "unbalanced and muddy".
The mic is fine. Other suggested mics are fine.
What that this mean?

 

[micolas]

I went to OP's YT channel...
To listen to this allegedly horrid mic.
Well.... it's perfectly fine, I guess. Sure, I detected some lack of detail and balance but I'm quite sure it wasn't related to deficiency of the mic. As well as sporadic muddiness.

It seems to me that there's a simple explanation why the mic does not catch this beautiful voice which OP can hear cupping his ears.
The mic is clean....

The Rode NT1 Black gen4 sounds great. Not because I'm an idiot who has been making sound for decades, I bought 4 of this model.
Take a look at the prices of the 2 microphones compared at ATK. Note that the vertical axis is exaggerated on the smartphone graphics I'm using. In the sensitive medium-high/high area, the differences are small.

 

[pmfalcman]

The Rode NT1 Black gen4 sounds great.

I do not doubt it.
And you surely are not an idiot!

The mic is perfectly fine....

 

[k brown]

Plautus: Roman playwright known for his comedies.

Coincidence?

 

[JohnRoberts]

lets talk about things (like mics) and not about people who have different sensitivities to insult.

JR

 

[k brown]

lets talk about things (like mics) and not about people who have different sensitivities to insult.

JR

Fair enough, but have you read the whole thread?; I'm actually starting to suspect an AI bot. Is there any way to determine that?

 

[Barry Hufker]

"thats a .... shotgun mic *sigh"

No, it's not. Actually a real shotgun mic could be what you need. A shotgun mic is an "industry standard" tool. My friend who does voice work for studios across the country uses one (in lieu of his other fabulous mics) because it is a "recognized sound" preferred by many producers.

Please quit your sighing bullsh*t. Learn something.

I suggest the moderators lock this thread.

 

[plautus]

No, it's not. Actually a real shotgun mic could be what you need. A shotgun mic is an "industry standard" tool. My friend who does voice work for studios across the country uses one (in lieu of his other fabulous mics) because it is a "recognized sound" preferred by many producers.

Please quit your sighing bullsh*t. Learn something.

they are sibilant, lack detail and have a boomy sound character