Wow I think the concept of this 'ball thingie might be fine- And this is brand new to me, just now poked around a bit... One thing I would say though is that putting a mic in a box will never sound like any more than...a mic in a box. The whole idea of the sE Reflexion filter is that the mic is NOT enclosed. You adjust it so the diaphragm lines up exactly with the front edge of the filter, leaving the mic in the open but killing the worst reflections from behind. As somebody else say, a blanket or something behind the speaker/singer often helps too. The sE is NOT just an arc of foam though. It's multi layers of very carefully designed treatment. (No, I don't work for them but, before moving to Aus, lived just down the road from what was then their UK HQ and knew some of them when they were a small company.)
First of all that demo sucked- as noted, you want it with and w/o- nothing else changing.
This one perhaps; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSK0K-r8L0w
From here; The Kaotica Eyeball Soundbytes review | Soundbytes magazine
Ok... the average RMS noise level was reduced by 1.5 to 3dB in many of the test recordings when the Eyeball was used.
But this interesting..
I'm not endorsing- just interested in the concept.the peak level in the vocal recording was roughly 4.4 dB louder than without the Eyeball. With the omni pattern, the difference in the peaks was roughly 8.0 dB. The figure 8 pattern had peaks roughly 8.3 dB louder. Across all patterns, the Eyeball greatly reduced early reflections, tail and the general room influence on the sound.
Using the Eyeball made a bigger difference in neutralizing the room than switching mic patterns: the figure 8 and omni pattern recordings that used the Eyeball emphasized the sound of the room even less than the cardioid recordings made without the Eyeball.
To the extent a mic can't hear from the sides and back, you gain some noise reduction.
And if the sound is absorbed -rather than a boundary, you don't have the effect of a 'box. You could likely do the same with an open ended box of three or four inches of 703.
Now the fact that they are saying a gain in the source, could be, IDK, a bad sign? That would imply a 'horn effect rather than just absorption wouldn't it?
Last edited: