Need help finding a good microphone for political commentators who do interviews/discussions over Zoom.

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeedMicrophoneHelp
  • Start date Start date
I have never needed to use noise reduction software. Do it right first, don’t do it wrong and have a fix it later mentality. I really don’t get people who learn to record badly, then use technology to fix it. I’m old of course and grew up NOT being able to fix it.
 
I just use a £20 headset with mic* when I Skype my son in France. He comes back to me on a Mackie EM-91c LDC both sound fine to us each. I will post a clip of my waffle later.

Actually exits on two 3.5mm TRS plugs and they go into a "TEKNET" USB dongle because this Lenovo T510 does not have a mic input.

Dave.
 
Attached is a bit O me! The headset is the Sennheiser PC3 CHAT £17.99. If you have two jacks on your laptop you don't need the dongle.

I am actually going to investigate whether I can run the headset mic and a second one through the dongle via a mixer as I need to chat to son but also demonstrate the sounds from a project I am involved with. All in real time.

Dave.
 

Attachments

I am REALLY getting confused. The man is doing these interviews and he doesn't know why one sounds normal and the other is a phasing mess? Is he not in control of his software and setup? Seems to me the answer is to take the settings from an interview that sounds good, and don't change them.

What am I missing here?
 
@TalismanRich, I'm not sure how much the bad audio results from Chomsky's side or from something that the interviewers are doing.

Should I tell Chomsky to tell the interviewers that "noise-reduction software is likely the culprit and should be avoided"?
 
Well, I'm totally confused. Are we working for the person being interviewed, or is he being interviewed by somebody else? Clearly, any situation needs control and care. We have a mumbling difficult subject (and keep in mind, I'm a Brit and have no idea who this guy is - but his real voice seems to be, well, a challenge) and he's seemingly unable to set up his end to make intelligibility the key feature?

We need a suitable mic, put in the right place, connected to the most appropriate gear - or anything is going to make him sound dreadful again. I'm assuming he is some kind of 'name', right? In which case, surely he has a collection of people who should be able to manage his sessions to make him appear at his best? If the interviewers are using noise reduction software - you really have to ask why? His voice is likely to be misinterpreted as noise in many circumstances. This needs human management at source, not repairs afterwards. However - is his horrible voice part of his character - the way that putting a low cut on James Earl Jones would rob it of it's authority, or putting a hi cut on somebody with a very high voice would spoil it? It's perfectly possible his voice is just misheard by the subject who actually might make it worse, but be unable to hear it?
 
Noam gets interviewed by various people. Let me clarify the situation.

1: Various people interview him.

2: Quality ranges. Sometimes just fine, as you can see in this thread. Sometimes awful.

3: I'm wondering what Noam can tell interviewers (if anything). Maybe tell them: "Please avoid noise-reduction software because it's harmed quality badly in the past." Something like that?
 
Note: I assume that the reason the quality ranges is that sometimes the interviewers impose noise-reduction software that screws everything up horribly. That's just an assumption on my part, though.
 
Recordists NEVER take advice from interviewees, especially elderly ones. They nod, and smile and ignore. However - why would they even need to use noise reduction of they did their job properly and professionally!
 
If the "noise reduction" processing is actually echo reduction, it's probably there because it's on by default and/or Chomsky is listening via speakers rather than headphones or earbuds, and perhaps he doesn't have his mic muted in his speakers. The sound of his voice comes out of his speakers, gets picked up by the mic, then goes through the speakers and picked up by the mic again, and so on. So the software tries to suppress the echo and as a side effect degrades the sound of his voice. Solutions include: mute his mic in his speakers, move the mic closer, wear headphones or earbuds. Any of those may allow turning off the echo reduction.
 
1: My idea is that Noam could tell them: "Please look at A/B/C YouTube links here and X/Y/Z YouTube links here. Note that A/B/C sound so bad that you can barely even understand the words or make out the words, so much so that people can barely transcribe the interview and so much so that audio-listeners can't make out a thing. Note that X/Y/Z sound totally fine. My suspicion is that the reason for the difference is that A/B/C used noise-reduction software."

2: I don't know for sure that noise-reduction software is to blame for the crazy-bad audio-quality that you can see upthread, but if so I suppose that maybe the interviewers were indeed incompetent and had no good logic behind using noise-reduction software.
 
What is this noise reduction software they use? Is it his own computer he uses, or do they supply it? If it's his own equipment then it should be easy to experiment and get the cleanest feed? What are the circumstances? The trouble is that they simply will not have time to start faffing with watching and reading links just because a contributor has a difficult voice. In fact, when his name comes up, the difficulty of his voice, and his insistence they watch or read stuff to interview him just pouts him down the contributor list.
 
1: Should I tell Noam to tell future interviewers this? "Please look at A/B/C YouTube links here and X/Y/Z YouTube links here. Note that A/B/C sound so bad that you can barely even understand the words or make out the words, so much so that people can barely transcribe the interview and so much so that audio-listeners can't make out a thing. Note that X/Y/Z sound totally fine. My suspicion is that the reason for the difference is that A/B/C used noise-reduction software."

2: There's no special investment of time or anything, I don't think. they just need to do what was done in all of the good-quality videos upthread, namely avoid noise-reduction software. Assuming that that's why the good-quality ones sound good.
 
I'm just trying to figure out if I should tell Noam to tell future interviewers this: "Please look at A/B/C YouTube links here and X/Y/Z YouTube links here. Note that A/B/C sound so bad that you can barely even understand the words or make out the words, so much so that people can barely transcribe the interview and so much so that audio-listeners can't make out a thing. Note that X/Y/Z sound totally fine. My suspicion is that the reason for the difference is that A/B/C used noise-reduction software."

As long as it can be turned off, then that information should allow future interviewers to turn it off.
 
We're just going in circles here. NOBODY can say to set A/B/C without knowing what software is being used. I asked about 5 pages ago.

WHAT SOFTWARE IS HE USING????

Otherwise, all is speculation.
 
I think that you misread what I wrote. There is no "set A/B/C". There is just "look at A/B/C for proof that my hardware is capable of producing perfectly-fine audio-quality."
 
"A/B/C" refer to the videos upthread that I linked, not to any kind of setting.
 
For goodness sake!!!! What is the software. You're avoiding giving any useful information with the skill of a politician.

You have this guy with a problem. what is your role, why are people using software? My experience of TV and broadcasting is that the people can often be graduates in media with little or no technical skill. engineering support is limited. Is his computer his own, or provided by the broadcasters? If it is his own then why on earth have you just not tried different mics and positions with different monitoring solutions and chatted him to you before you get near the broadcasters? Experiment with the simplest thing possible. There is no point him trying to be technical if the technical comes from you and he doesn't understand it. There's also no point a non technical person trying to speak technical to a reporter or producer who doesn't understand it. Plenty of people can use zoom and google meetings etc with no issues of this kind so maybe a small mixer with EQ, and mics that don't emphasise his lower frequencies will stop it falling apart - but we need the full story, not a half revealed selective mismatch of facts and hyperbole.
 
I don't know what the software is, and it may vary from interview to interview.

I don't think that you're understanding how simple my proposal is here. He can say to them, each time: "Look at this vid. Quality is excellent, right? Now look at this vid. Quality is terrible, right?" And then he can say: "The difference cannot be a matter of hardware, since I use the same hardware every time. The difference might be due to noise-cancellation software or something like that. So let's be wary of that so that the quality won't be wrecked by anything. Thanks guys." That's what I'm proposing he do. Does that make sense for him to do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top