I do the exact opposite. I use an EV ND96 for videoconferencing at work because I have a loud cat and live next to the train tracks and thus need something with a tight pattern. I tend to eat the mic so I've always had a bit of the "voice of God" thing going with the proximity effect bit after enough people said they were impressed with my "radio voice" I took it a step further. I now goose the lows a bit, gate enough to reduce breath noise, and apply a moderate amount of compression using my interface's DSP. People seem to love the way it sounds and it nicely complements my midrange-heavy voice.
You gotta give the people what they want and a guy half-whispering into a condenser sideways just ain't it :-) (at least in my case).
I love this. Regardless of the exact tack taken, everybody who videoconferences for work should invest some time in maxxing out their voice and appearance as much as possible.
At the simplest, this could be a $35 external webcam and a lamp or ring light to give yourself the most flattering possible angle. Or even spending $0 and just rearranging your existing setup.
Love it, hate it, or otherwise... I look like a sack of potatoes so it brings me no joy to say this but, it's reality. The way you look and sound has an influence on how you and your ideas will be perceived by others. Might as well spend some time and (perhaps) a few dollars on it because it's ingrained deep in our biology for better or worse.
The good news is remote work has leveled the playing field quite a bit here. It's far less work than looking and sounding great in person.
I hate video conferencing so much I want them to prefer my camera is off. Off is the default state of my camera, and if they ask me to turn it on, all that will be visible is an extreme closeup of a piece of tape.
Expecting me to spruce up beyond what I would ordinarily look like in person is just ludicrous. This isn't instagram, and i'm not trying to gain any followers from a work call. I'll just chalk this one up as another thing I can blame on the unrealistic expectations people have come to think is required because of the influence they've allowed social media to have over them.
Hate to say it, but this isn't a social media thing or even new. How you look and sound greatly affects how people perceive your ideas. The parent comment had some good advice, making yourself look better does have an impact. Human psychology being what it is, it's futile to expect that people will just ignore the presentation and solely focus on the content. Plus, if everyone is stuck in a zoom call then they don't want to have to stare at the most unflattering angle possible.
I'm certainly not the best looking person, but adding an external webcam from a different angle definitely was noticed by coworkers in a positive way. I end up in a ton of marketing calls, and often I have to be the engineering voice that speaks up to say 'we can't do it that way, here is an alternative'. Since paying attention to my camera setup, my warnings get taken more seriously and have more attention paid to them.
Nobody is expecting you to look like a model or do a photo shoot, but spending a little bit of time improving camera angle, lighting, and mic really does pay off. No photographer takes low angle shots of close up faces since it's generally very unflattering, but that's the typical setup for a laptop on a desk. Just buying a cheap desk mic and a external webcam really will level up your presence in meetings. Don't think of it as Instagram bullshit, look at it as a way to use your tech skills to lifehack having a better interpersonal presence than you might have in person. Seriously, for ~$100 you can have a nicer camera and mic than 90% of everyone else, and having those things makes people treat you more seriously.
Strongly agree. I used to be a long-haired, long-bearded, t-shirt wearing nerd, and when I started remote work a decade ago, I used the default laptop camera, which gave a great view of the interior of my nostrils.
At some point, I decided to spruce up my appearance. Shaved the hair and beard, bought collared shirts, switched to an external webcam on a boom arm, with a green screen and software to generate a soothing backdrop instead of my cluttered electronics lab. Added a decent quality directional microphone (also boom-mounted) and installed better lighting.
I also replaced my profile photo, taken with the same up-the-nostril webcam, with a professionally taken photo.
The level of respect and engagement from my colleagues went through the roof. Best tech lifehack I ever did.
Next, I'll be reading having to wear a coat and tie on a zoom call. The old days you had to have your IBM approved suit with your high&tight (or similarly strict) hair style and closely shaved face. Everyone got sick of that, and it went to casual fridays are still too uptight, so flip flops, shorts and tanktops became the norm. Long hair any above the shoulders became fashionable, and bonus points if you pulled it up into a bun.
now, the pendulum has swung back, and people are trying to differentiate themselves by going back to smartly dressed clean cut. round round like a record, and yet it never ceases to amaze how the repeat makes it out like its the brand new thing nobody has ever seen before. just like redoing your entire code base in $newLanguageDijour.
Almost like human psychology hasn't changed that much. And plus, you don't need to get carried away, simply investing in a decent mic and having a camera that isn't pointed straight up your nose is enough to differentiate you in most meetings.
I'm shocked at the pushback on this, it shouldn't be surprising that people like seeing decent looking people. You don't need to loom like an Instagram model, I certainly don't. But spending 15 minutes on Amazon and 20 minutes of setup time to make yourself look better on video calls isn't a huge ask. Hell, BO issues from not showering would be a more major career-limiting move in an office, and on zoom the only way your coworkers can tell you didn't shower is if you actively look greasy. This is way less of an ask, acting like making yourself presentable on camera is a huge burden is crazy to me. It's way easier to be presentable on zoom, because again just spending $30 on a mic is a game changer.
Yeah it is a very low bar to just look presentable for a video call. I actually prefer calls where people have their video turned on.There is a lot of visual cues to know how your idea is coming across from people's facial expressions, and people generally seem more attentive when their video is turned on.
the fact that you're not looking at me while you're looking at my image on the screen means the big social cue of eye contact is lost, so i feel like you are avoiding eye contact and not really tuned in.
so until everyone starts to use teleprompters, it is just so off-putting to me that i just can't do it.
I'm really not sure anybody thinks this is new. I certainly don't; I'm old enough to have worn a tie to work. I hated it.
Reading through the comments I don't get the impression anybody else thinks it's new either. It reads like you're just looking for reasons to insult people. That's a shame.
If you want to seek out jobs where remote conferencing is eschewed and nobody sees each others' faces, I think that's valid. I won't insult you.
For me there is a strong positive mental health component to having at least some brief human contact with my coworkers, even if it's just Zoom. However quite honestly 15 minutes a day is plenty for me usually... I am much closer to feeling like you than the "return to office" advocates, that is certain.
I hope that as individuals and as a society we can get to a point where we accept that some people want to work remotely and anonymously, some want to work in offices, and many prefer someplace in the middle. When we accept this maybe we can stop insulting people who feel differently.
What is culturally seen as looking nice may change over the years, but the fact that looking as nice as possible even if casual helps you in the workplace and life never really changed. We have sort of leaned into looking like you aren't trying in the last decade, but the core principle never really changed.
> I'm certainly not the best looking person, but adding an external webcam from a different angle definitely was noticed by coworkers in a positive way.
Not just the angle. I run my Sony A7S2 as a webcam, usually with the 24-240 allround zoom - and people come and say all the time how good the picture is, simply because they're used to everyone running the potato-quality webcam.
It's a fucking shame that even Apple's multi-thousand-dollar MBP lineup has crap cameras. Yeah, I get it, thin-ness is part of Apple's secret design sauce, but cameras need space so that they can have proper sized sensors and lenses.
(Side note: an external camera has the benefit of being able to point it on your cats. In long-running meetings, showing off your cats tends to be a great mood improver)
> (Side note: an external camera has the benefit of being able to point it on your cats. In long-running meetings, showing off your cats tends to be a great mood improver)
The rule is: if a pet makes it into the shot somehow, you HAVE to bring them up for a close-up
> Expecting me to spruce up beyond what I would ordinarily look like in person is just ludicrous
I don't think the point is mainly about sprucing up beyond what you ordinarily look like. Aside from what others have said, one thing to consider is how the eyes and ears work in person vs via screen + webcam / mic + speakers.
Differences between a human eye and a webcam make it so that when you look at someone in person, even in shitty unflattering light and in a cluttered environment, you'll mostly see that person as they "normally" look. But stick a webcam and a screen in between, and all bets are off. Especially if you're going to use high contrast (think dark skin + white shirt or the reverse, with a strong backlight for bonus points).
Same for listening. You can usually hear people when you're talking to them and there's noise around if you focus a bit. But put a crappy laptop mic and speakers in between, and good luck understanding anything they say.
I don't often use my webcam and tend to turn off incoming video because I don't enjoy teams melting my laptop. But it's an atrocious, infuriating experience trying to talk to someone when I can barely hear their voice and instead am able to follow what their colleagues are saying or counting how many cars go past their window. Taking a little care to be understandable doesn't mean you're expected to be some world-class speaker.
Yeah our company has always been remote, and we've always just done voice calls, which have worked fine, but during COVID someone had the idea to start using video.
In an act of malicious compliance, I went to a second hand shop and picked up an old USB webcam for $3 with complete potato quality. After about an hour or so it also starts glitching out with weird green and purple patterns, a pretty good sign that the meeting has gone on for too long.
There have been some studies on how audio / video quality affects perception, and from what I remember of the studies, audio quality has a bigger impact. It's better to have clear audio with a poor image, and it's worse to have poor audio with a clear image.
Just chiming in based on your comment. Support some developers and buy the pro version of DroidCam. This might sound like a silly suggestion but it works for me: Save an old Android with a decent camera. It doesn't have to have stellar specs, I use a 5 year old Galaxy. DroidCam works flawlessly for me using an old phone with a good camera both wireless as well as with USB connected. All of my software, including my browsers (all on Linux) see my DroidCam as a webcam with no hiccups. I also ended up getting DroidCam OBS and have used multiple phones with OBS to easily create a multi-camera-angle scene for fancy video conferencing/streaming. Add a noise cancelling / directional mic setup for $15 and you have a hacky, albeit, modular and rather quality setup.
Fuck it, buy some cheapy LED panels (Lidl are doing roughly iPad-sized SAD lights for under 20 quid), some gel to tame the colour, and do yourself a proper three-point lighting setup.
Also know your audience and what their concerns are. If it is a customer worried if about you managing to cost and schedule, then wear a suit, use a professional vocal register, and takenthe steps you suggest. If they are worried about your competency, dress and act a bit eccentric, or given you are reading this, here, stop hiding your eccentricity and wear something you normally would. The lighting and sound in that case should only be good enough not to stand out in either direction.
Agree 100%, I'm really surprised by how little so many people care about their camera plus audio setup. From extremely messy backgrounds to having a glaringly bright window right behind them, these are things that could be rectified very easily.
E.g. always a messy house, never any time to clean up? Move the desk half a metre out from the wall and flip the setup around. Now it will be clean 100% of the time as far as what the camera can see.
I got my job in the middle of COVID lockdown and one of the key things the recruiter impressed on me was having a good place to do the interview. Not just the obvious stuff like no kids running around screaming. A separate space that could be quiet and undisturbed, paying attention to the background, tidying up so it didn't look visually cluttered and take away the focus from me, etc.
She did a good job of pointing out how the video surroundings made a substantial impact on how the candidate was perceived when interviewing remotely.
I've spent a lot on my set up and it still sucks video wise. I don't think it's as cheap or easy as you suggest. Video is a lot more challenging than audio to get right. I'd at least need to invest another $200-300 into some good key lights to improve it.
But do you really need great video for video conferencing?
I was looking to replace my logitech web cam and went down a rabbit hole of using fancy DSLR for video conferencing ... then I decided I don't need higher quality than the c920
Honestly, laptop webcam + flattering angle + decent lighting = also absolutely fine, but it's harder to get a nice angle with something built into the laptop.
IMO a DSLR would only be useful if you're going for a filmlike look of softly blurred backgrounds, or maybe low light shooting made possible by the bigger lens and sensor. At that point it's probably bordering on ostentatious.
At my last company the CEO had something like that, but he also used that setup for calls with investors and news outlets and such, so it made a lot of sense.
Fella after my own heart. On all my video calls in 2020, I had a Zoom H1 with a fuzzy pop shield feeding into a simple USB interface on a rickety tripod. Even with this simple setup without bells+whistles, I got so many compliments on how great my voice sounded.
> I have a Røde mounted SE X1 condenser microphone which picks up absolutely everything; couldn't use it without my GPU.
It's a common misconception that certain types of microphones are more sensitive to background noise. Truth is, even if a microphone is more sensitive, it still picks up foreground and background noise equally.
There are some caveats--you can reject background noise with the right polar pattern and mic placement, background noise might be buried in the microphone's self noise, and other minor quirks. But in general, changing microphones is not an effective way to eliminate background noise.
Curious, which interface do you use and how do you apply the effects? I’ve done this with varying degrees of success but always ends up introducing too much latency
I use a MOTU [1] which runs this stuff on its own DSP and is configurable from a desktop app. You could also use a hardware solution in the form of a channel strip but decent ones start approaching a mid-range interface like my MOTU in price so the value proposition is dicey at best IMHO.
At one point I had the wild idea of building a Series 500 chassis with discrete signal processors instead but shelling out $1500 for such only for _videoconferencing_ (and occasional recording) would have been completely irresponsible.
I went with 19" rack gear [1] instead of Series 500.
As mic I use an SM57 which is fed into a DBX 286 compressor/de-esser/gate/enhancer and that signal is going to the videoconferencing application and is looped back into my headphones. The neat thing about the 286 is that it's fully analog so I can still hear myself with zero latency.
For the return signal from the videoconference I have a seperate audio interface that feeds into a Behringer Autocomp to compress practically all the dynamic range out of it and then it's going to a t.c. electric finalizer to do some multiband compression which fixes most midrange heavy gaming headsets.
This gear also has a dual purpose as outboard gear for audio production stuffs though, it's not just for the video conferencing.
Ah ok. I have an interface I really like already, was hoping there might be a software solution that doesn’t add so much latency. Thanks for the link though
I was hoping for software too. Mostly because I don't have the understanding for a hardware tool like that: I have a decent-ish low-end mic (Blue Yeti, a USB mic) and was hoping for a software tool to run to achieve the same result.
Hey, anything is better than just using the built-in Macbook mic, or airpods, which I've seen many people in tech companies do (an yes, it correlates to lack of situational awareness in their work too.)
> The reason NPR came to this standard — and this was decades ago — was because most of our listeners are consuming in an automobile or with something else in the background. Back in the day, and even to some degree now, you roll down those windows and hear those low rumbling frequencies. We wanted our voices to get above that so that they could be clear, open and understandable to improve our storytelling.
This is something that I've never been able to put my finger on but have always appreciated
Actually, it's likely that most conference softwares done it by default if you have 'noise removing' on. If you record your sound without any processing using a condenser microphone next to a computer/fan in a office room. You usually get a lot of low frequency noise.(Way more than you expect, because your ears are already adapted to it but the microphone won't) Even cutting them alone can improve sound quality by a lot.
Absolutely. I turn the radio on many stations as soon as the DJ or reporter come on, because the booming bass in a speaking voice in the car is just auditory torture. If I do want to leave it on a local station during a news report, I often have to switch EQ presets on the car stereo to bear it, then switch back for music and everything else after. I have been long term grateful that NPR is cognizant enough to actively choose not to persecute their listeners in this way.
I took a studio design course and the teacher remarked that it was not uncommon in the 1970s to use a "private" transmitter to play audio they were actively mixing to create optimize the sound for playing in a car. I find it very interesting, how challenging it was working with the music industry and the fact how much of the environment is taken into account.
I listen to a lot NPR, and I’m ok with their signature sound, but sometimes I find it magnifies mouth sounds in a way that triggers a little misophonia in me.
It bugs me sometimes too, but I'd rather listen to a thousand wet tongues and smacking lips than a single sentence from Ayesha Rascoe. I don't have a voice for radio either, but (with rare exception) I've been kind enough to stay off of it.
She doesn't always seem as bad off radio, I don't know if other places EQ her differently or what, but you can get a pretty good idea from this video around 5:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84_fptorOso
On NPR it somehow seems even more nasally, and even screamy at times. I can't last more than a few minutes without muting.
That style of speech is deeply engraved to match that personality type in my mind.
I don't think it's really about their audio engineering. NPR just selects for voices that are quirky to signal that they're outside more mainstream journalism.
I don't think that's fair to Ms Kelly, I don't really have a problem with her conversational style but I think however NPR processes her speech creates that problem. Or, probably more significantly, doesn't process her speech by not removing crackles and breathing. I'm curious how much real-time processing is done by other radio stations.
Another way to put it is that the more mainstream news personalities have developed their speech to be extremely artificial. NPR deliberately aims for more natural voices, and expect that listeners will make certain assumptions about personality from those voices.
Depending on what station you listen to, it may not have much content produced by NPR. This would apply to All Things Considered and Morning Edition mostly.
> It can adversely affect the ability to achieve life goals and enjoy social situations. It was first recognized in 2001 though it is still not in the DSM-5 or any similar manual.
"I haven't heard of this thing before so it sounds made up"
Oof, as someone that suffers from moderate misophonia, I can assure you it is real and how lucky you are to have not heard of it. It can be torturous, and I don't even have it that bad.
If it "sounds made up" to you, then you won't mind if I come and stand behind you when you're trying to work and squeak a block of polystyrene up and down the window.
The reality is that it's just a fancy name for people/things that sound annoying, and if you're forced to hear it for long periods of time, one day you might find it extremely more annoying to the point where you have to say something or walk away, usually coinciding with some other stress.
Remember the Simpsons episode where Homer's nose whistling was what finally made Flanders snap?
Whether it's a serious AND common AND acute disorder is up for debate. In the early/mid-2000's a fire started smoldering on the Internet regarding wanting to find a clinical jargony label for every aspect of life, and Wikipedia turned it into a wildfire.
It is different than just a simple “dislike”. I can’t really explain it, but hearing mouth noises (chewing, swallowing, lip smacking) invokes deep, almost instinctual anger within me. I can’t explain it, but it is certainly different.
I'm getting older and either my hearing isn't what it used to be, or it's because I don't really play music anymore and my brain has gotten lazy.
When I was in my 20's I sometimes couldn't stand that characteristic sound of NPR, because I could hear every tiny movement of saliva in the speaker's mouth. Sometimes, I just couldn't ignore it anymore, and lost track of what they were talking about entirely. No other radio station has that issue, haven't seen youtubers either.
As an audio engineer this was incredibly hard to read. As a dog owner it was also hard to read. Yes yes the bass rolloff switch & having the mic to the side, that could have been 2 bullet points.
Anything that someone complains could have been summed up with just two bullet points shouldn't be a youtube or tiktok video. What visual element would have helped here? Do you really need to see the switch? Leave video for things where eyeballs are required. Instructional videos that could have been communicated clearly over text are obnoxious.
Goodness! Another person out there on the wild wild web and not wearing their ublock origin suit. How do you even get through a day? I saw no ads, just continuous interview text with a short RHS sidebar at the top.
If your browser/platform won't let you do this, well, you know what to do.
It didn't need to be an interview at all. It was more of a waste of time. Many people value clear, succinct communication. To this kind of person, a rambling interview which could be encapsulated in one sentence is a waste of time.
> Back when I worked in Detroit, we were an RE20 station. And a lot of on-air talent — and we get a little bit of this here at NPR — likes to sound a little bit more authoritative, and they hit the microphone into the flat position to get that bassy sound. In Detroit, we used epoxy to hold all of the switches into a position so that couldn’t happen again. And, honestly, we do see that occasionally here. We’ll hear something bassy and we’ll run up to the studio and, sure enough, somebody switched it.
> Over the past 10 years, you see more computer screens throughout every broadcast plant. And often that microphone is real close to the computer screen: Depending on how close, you can actually hear some of the electronic interference off the computer screen. The computer screen is the big issue. If it is just a little too close to that microphone, your voice is reflecting off of it.
These sorts of anecdotes were selected from this engineer's mass of experience because of the natural, free-flowing form of an interview, and the informed interviewer's knowledge of the field.
Demanding everything be reduced down to a sentence or two of instruction – much less calling it a waste of time – completely misses the point of this form of communication.
> These sorts of anecdotes were selected from this engineer's mass of experience because of the natural, free-flowing form of an interview, and the informed interviewer's knowledge of the field.
The saddest thing is, informed interviewers are rare these days :(
I always find it uncomfortable to read an interview rather than listen to it. You must realize that part of what keeps NPR interesting is the story telling aspect. I don't always appreciate NPR host acting but I can understand why they do it. Story telling is not about bullet points.
Came here to say the same thing. He's always been pleasant to listen to. I actually just (within the last 15 minutes) watched him shamefully talk about cereal milk. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XBJfijkY2UA
Yeah, I'd read this before and never noticed. Apparently he had a good bit of time in radio and podcasting before moving on to YouTube. Link for the curious: https://www.youtube.com/@aragusea/videos
> We use a simple Neumann U87 microphone as the house-standard microphone at all of our facilities. They’re expensive, but that’s what we’ve used for years.
Right now I use the mic on the wire that came with my previous Bose QC35 headphones (I use them with my QC45 because I don't like the bluetooth mic). Let's say I want to step-up my microphone game but I also don't want to spend a ton (max around ~$250, flexible if strongly recommended one goes above it). Does anyone have any good mic recommendations? I just want to sound good and clear. I have medium-to-deep voice but can be nasally often because of allergies.
ha! thank you, this is perfect. Being new to Mics I've never even heard of a Yeti. I'll try out that Shure MV7 as it's in the budget range I set, although maybe the cheaper Samsung Q9U would be sufficient enough for my needs (I only need it for work video conferencing)
No harm, though there are cheaper methods (like old tights). A control board can also be useful as you will be forever fiddling with the volume settings.
When they're good they're very good, but the fussiness never ends. e.g. I hope you're happy keeping your head in the exact correct position for an entire 1hr zoom call.
The most -- or, only -- fascinating thing about this article is that NPR doesn't compress their stream when sending it out to local stations.
Everyone compresses. Especially in FM radio. And if you know people downstream of you will compress your content, then generally you do it first, so you have control over how it's done.
Apparently the NPR way, at least in 2015, was to throw up their hands and give complete control over multiband compression to the local stations, which is kind of interesting.
I do recommend that people with some spare cash ($200?) try improving the quality of their audio stream in remote meetings. You'll be easier to understand. People will react more positively.
You can spend days or weeks doing research, if you really want. My advice is to get a USB microphone if your budget is more like $100, and get a USB interface + XLR microphone if your budget is more like $200. For XLR mics, get something ordinary and boring like a Shure SM58 or an Audio-Technica AT2020. Keep your plosive Ps and Ks from blowing into the mic, keep the mic about 10cm / 5" away from your mouth, and bam, you've got wonderful, clear sound.
Known traps: The SM7b has low sensitivity, and there's a good chance you'll need a FetHead or Cloudlifter (or outboard preamp) to get the levels you need. SM7b shouldn't be your first mic.
Known misinformation: "This microphone is so sensitive, it picks up all sorts of background noise." This is almost always wrong! Any microphone which is more sensitive to background noise is also more sensitive to foreground noise. The net effect is close to zero.
When Covid started I had to start teaching courses I normally taught in person online. I invested in a Shure SM58 and a USB interface (Focusrite Scarlet Solo) and needed to add a Fethead for that setup to work as well.
Absolutely great setup for around 200 bucks - if the way you make money depends at all on to getting people to listen to what you have to say (which should mean pretty much everyone reading this) then this is an absolutely no-brainer investment.
1. Pick a dynamic mic (USB: Rode Podcaster, XLR: SM7B or Rode Procaster, USB+XLR: Rode MV7) over a condenser mic (Yeti) if your space isn't treated or quiet.
Dynamic mics generally reject room noise better than condenser mics and have a lower noise floor. Switching to a dynamic mic hugely reduced the physical sound treatment and audio adjustments I needed to get great sound.
2. Consider wired in-ear monitors for meetings. I like Shure's SE215 — they come in a clear colour that's pretty subtle. It completely removes audio feedback that some meeting apps are still not great at masking if you were using speakers before, and obviously prevents Bluetooth issues too.
> Dynamic mics generally reject room noise better than condenser mics …
This is absolutely a misconception, and it’s what I was talking about in the last sentence.
Think about it this way—how would a microphone distinguish between room noise and other types of noise? The answer is simple—it can’t, but microphones do have polar patterns which allow them to reject noise based on the direction of the noise, and you can combine that with good microphone placement to achieve good rejection of unwanted noise.
(I encourage people with both types of microphones to do an experiment. You can set up the mics identically by swapping them out and adjusting the gain so that the signal level is the same for both. You can use something simple like a pink noise file playing on your phone, 10cm away from the mic, as a reference sound source to adjust levels. It turns out that different mics with the same polar pattern mostly record the same background noise, at the same volume! Keep in mind that there are lots of minor variations in polar patterns that will throw this off.)
This misconception is a stubborn myth. Whether your room is treated has no bearing on whether you want to use a condenser or dynamic mic. These days, improvements in mic technology have really narrowed the gap between both mic types.
When we talk about noise floor, we can talk about it in terms of SPL equivalent, and you’re right, dynamic mics typically have a lower noise floor. But the noise floor on a typical microphone is going to be very, very low—something like 5-20 dB SPL equivalent. This means that the noise you get on recordings will be dominated by other factors—mostly, the acoustic noise in the room, and the noise from the microphone preamplifier you use. My (very quiet) room is about 32 dB SPL, which is much higher than mic noise. Microphone preamp noise will be much higher for dynamic microphones, because you typically need more gain to get usable levels, and the noise in the first stage of the preamp is amplified. For this reason, you’ll typically see higher amounts of noise when using a dynamic microphone, even though the microphone itself is producing less noise. This is why people complain about the SM7b—they’re really complaining because they bought an SM7b and found out that their microphone preamp has too much noise and not enough gain to use the SM7b effectively.
If you do have problems with room noise, switching microphones is not an effective way to help out (assuming you already have a decent cardioid microphone). What does help is to place the microphone close to your sound source (but not so close you get exaggerated bass), and if the noise is coming from a specific direction, point the microphone’s null (the opposite end of the mic) towards the noise source to cancel it out. You are equally trying to make the signal louder and the noise quieter when you place a mic.
(If this comment sounds rehearsed, it’s because I feel like I’m on a mission to bust this particular misconception.)
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to correct me so patiently.
Discovering that background noise is largely down to distance from mic plus gain makes me want to explore condenser mics again, paying more attention to polar patterns and learning how to set them up better somehow.
I preferred how I sounded with my condenser mics but struggled to reduce room noise without also reducing voice levels significantly, even when I was basically on top of the mic and hearing the proximity effect. I tried two condensers and both picked up ambient noise and road noise. I was researching noise gates/compressors at work when a colleague said, “just switch to a dynamic mic” and that ended up working, apparently for different reasons than I'd assumed — guessing a different pattern or gain…
Huh. This was written by Adam Ragusea who now runs a successful cooking YouTube channel. I had to double check it was the same person… wonder how that career transition happened
They had a problem a few years ago that seems to be cleared up now, and I’m not sure what caused it. Basically, everyone was complaining about how you could hear excessive lip smacking, leading to acute misophonia in people who otherwise didn’t have it. If memory serves, it happened around 2015-2016. I remember tuning in around that time and thinking, why does it sound like this person is lapping water out of a pet bowl while they are talking? I searched online, and it turns out other people noticed it as well. I wonder if they changed equipment or experimented with different filters around that time. Personally, I don’t have misophonia, and never had a problem before that time, but when I heard the loud lip smacking on the radio in my car I couldn’t concentrate on what the person was talking about. This went on for some time with different guests and hosts, but I haven’t heard it again in a while now, so something must have changed.
I’ve been consistently surprised by the audio quality on NPR’s Tiny Desk Concerts too. Here’s a video of their audio engineer explaining their setup: https://youtu.be/e07bI5rz6FY
I don't want NPR's sound. I want the sound of classic FM radio.
It seems that many current FM stations don't have great sound quality, and I don't know why. Bad EQ and audio processing for the music they are playing? Lossy audio compression? Lower channel bandwidth and/or interference from digital signals or other sources? Weaker power? Distortion and clipping in the music itself? Worse noise pollution?
Good FM radio seems to have enhanced stereo separation, clear highs and midrange, warmer but not overwhelming bass, and some compression on pop/rock stations to make the quieter bits audible in a car.
Bad FM seems more harsh/strident, distorted, noisy, etc..
Most FM these days is digital and it does in fact sound like shit, because it’s a moderate bitrate mp3, with all the dynamic range smashed out of it for good reason.
Classic FM radio uses a lot of compression. This has always been true, it's just that the nature of that compression has changed. And I mean a lot of compression.
From what I hear, people will just dial up the settings on the audio processing chain at a modern FM radio station.
The U87 that NPR uses has very different bass rolloff from that video. The U87 rolloff is more gentle and starts at a much higher frequency than you'd expect... something like 500 Hz or so.
What kind of hardware do I have to plug my USB mic into if I want to EQ it realtime? Is there anything affordable that would make a lick of difference to the audio quality?
My comment will be very untechnical, but NPR often has the perfect level of buzz or hum, just a tiny tiny bit of it in the background. It gives it a relaxed but alert feel.
Clarification: "signature sound" seems to refer to a trademark intro, like the Dolby film intro sound or the Intel chime. But no, it's a discussion of sound quality (microphones etc.) from NPR studios.
It's not because the subject matter has changed, its a courtesy for those of us that go "I remember reading something like this years ago, is this the same thing?"
You gotta give the people what they want and a guy half-whispering into a condenser sideways just ain't it :-) (at least in my case).