Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Based on Feedback - Got 2 Mics to Remove Background Noise - feedback Required

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Sign in to disable this ad
    Quote Originally Posted by Steenamaroo View Post
    Hi again, Cat.

    From listening to your clips, if all else was equal, I suspect your 57 is counterfeit. (Take the mesh ball off your 58 and compare weight. If one is noticeably lighter, it's not real.)
    It sounds nothing like the 58 and has very little bass.
    These two microphones should be more or less indistinguishable.

    Strangely enough it sounds OK though and, admittedly, I'd probably have picked it as the favourite in a blind test as it's bright and clear.
    Second to it would have been the 58 on the condition that I can eq it a little.
    It sounded a little dull (as I'd expect from a raw dynamic mic recording) so some sort of bass roll off and subtle treble boost would be my approach.

    My last choice would have been the MXL. It wasn't 'wrong' or 'bad' but it would have been my last choice.

    That said : I'm not your publisher.
    If they picked the MXL then you know what they want and you know how to do it so all is good.

    I'm sorry the forum advice didn't end up being the winner but I wouldn't consider a 58 a waste of money under any circumstances.
    It's a great mic to have and I suspect you'll get plenty of use out of it in the future.

    I managed to weight both of them:
    I removed the mesh ball from 58 then weigh them:

    SM58 is: 280
    SM57 is: 286


    Also checked boxes of both the mics, they do have all the accessories etc... + Shure hologram sticker of shipping, from their one of the main zonal shipping house from where they ship to importer. At least they look like original but I do agree that they sound bit different than all they youtube videos which I watched of Sm57 & 58. SM58 surely no anywhere near that bassy sound. I'm not sure why but these sellers change way more (than $99) from me for each mic.


    >I'm sorry the forum advice didn't end up being the winner but I wouldn't consider a 58 a waste of money under any circumstances.

    2. It's okay, I'm glad you taken responsibility of forum advise, it says something. I myself taken this risk and I did because I'm willing to change and want to become better so thank you so much for everything. I'm glad and grateful to you and all the members who posted here.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TalismanRich View Post
    I just checked your normalize/noise reduce file and while it might not look exactly like mine, I think it should be more than sufficient. It really knocked down the noise, and the voice level is still good. When I crank up the volume in the silent part, I could just make out a bit of the artifacting left behind by the processing, but it is WAY down in volume. Since you probably won't have 30 seconds of "dead air" it should not be an issue.
    I just want to ask this one thing:

    As you mentioned when you analyzed my file you found: "When I crank up the volume in the silent part, I could just make out a bit of the artifacting left behind by the processing, but it is WAY down in volume"

    Earlier when you attempted to normalize the file and used noise reduction using Reaper, did it also leave artifacts?


    Quote Originally Posted by TalismanRich View Post
    I would submit a sample using that method to clean things up and if you get time and want to play with Reaper, it's there for the downloading. There are lots of resources are on the web as well. There are some excellent Youtube videos on Reaper.
    BTW I got Reaper

    Thank you

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Hi. I was reading this thread and listened to all your submissions. All the new examples sounded good enough to work with. Each clip with a different mic were inconsistent, meaning they all needed a bit of cut in certain frequency ranges. Some were mid range problems, others needed a bit of a low-mid cut. If it were me, Iíd probably EQ first then ,compress it 2:1 depending on the mic used. You should be able to dress up any of these files to be presentable to the publisher using just EQ. What you have done to eliminate any noise in the original files, has worked. You have a good clean group of files, so EQ them all to sound the same. That way youíll always have the sound youíre after in your head and in addition, learn how to get the same results each time.

    I personally sing into a SM57 at home & its always my first go to mic because of its good cardioid performance. I can always adjust EQ to flatten out the sound of my voice. I have some nice mics, but for what I believe your doing, an SM57-58 would be a great mic to use. Iím not sure audacity allows real time plug ins, but itís a necessity to really use your ear to fine tune a recording. Of course you need some decent speakers or headphones also. Reducing plosives is also a mic technique as well something that needs physical addressing as you speak through the mic. Subtle movements in the angle your voice hits the mic result in different plosives response.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to ladewd For This Useful Post:


  5. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Derby City
    Posts
    149
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 23 Times in 21 Posts
    Rep Power
    24147
    I didn't notice any artifacts in the sample I posted. I'm travelling, so I don't have all the stuff available to me to check. I remember trying a few different settings in ReaFIR and some had serious issues. As with anything its a balancing act. Get things as clean as you can without affecting the desired audio.

    Still, I don't think the minor noise from Audacity will be an issue as I doubt your lessons will have long stretches of silence like that file.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    47
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    I didn’t hear any plosives in any of those newer clips, but in one of the previous clips Cat posted he was testing the mics for plosives. Originally I listened on my iPad speakers, then put on a set of headphones when he was comparing all the mics. Each clip needed a bit of EQ depending on the mic he was using.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    essex
    Posts
    2,875
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 418 Times in 382 Posts
    Rep Power
    4008612
    If you spend 30 minutes on youtube you hear such a wide range of mic problems on tutorials. Cat's really don't hit the problem area. We're all talking about tiny stuff - laded above mentions 2:1 compression. Lots of people cannot hear compression till it gets above 4 or even 5:1. Really small stuff. I'm convinced he is hearing differences between mics, and then assuming these difference go on a better to worse scale, and they don't. They differ tonally - nothing to do with quality. Everything has a classic 'tone' - American US AM radio has a sound of it's own. BBC Radio 4 is instantly identified by the sound. BBC Radio 3 here plays classical music, but so does the commercial station Classic FM, but you can identify them in an instant.

    I'm lucky enough to have a decent mic collection, but I will reach for a 58 or 57 when I need a mic that will do an OK job on a voice I haven't yet heard. I can EQ them to any purpose. Once I've heard the voice I might swap it for mic that flatters the voice better, but often, a walk down the corridor for the better one is simply too much effort - the 58 is fine.

    Too much thought going into this - and now poor Cat is having a panic in case his mics are counterfeit - they sound fine. some people think they sound one way, other they go the other. A big range of opinion. That's good.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pop-Latin Style Feedback required
    By 500 kHz in forum MP3 Mixing Clinic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-10-2016, 07:53
  2. Brutally Honest Feedback Required
    By Bobby82 in forum Music Video Production
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-06-2016, 08:03
  3. Please advise: Remove background noise on old...
    By lifelyrics in forum Mixing Techniques
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-03-2009, 03:01
  4. remove feedback from recording
    By frank stamm in forum Cool Edit Pro / Adobe Audition Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-2006, 09:53
  5. can u remove background noise?
    By James111 in forum Recording Techniques
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-23-2000, 18:12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •