Try downloading carla for windows and try out a chain with the focusrite software compressor, I assume it is in vst format. Set it to use ASIO and chose the focusrite soundcard in the preferences. This software is for real time use and would not require any post. http://kxstudio.linuxaudio.org/Applications:Carla#Download
1 Like
Hey wendell if you would like to reduce less noise just add more light to the scene and have a wide aperture and lower ISO setting. This would cut down on editing since everything is done in the shoot
also I haven't tried it personally but Invisilav looks like a useful tool. Here is a review/somethingoddinthebeginning
Interesting. I need some audio advice myself. I am currently using the Blue Yeti and am faced with a couple of audio issues.
Background noise: I need to have an air conditioner or fan running in the room and that creates a lot of static noise. At the moment I try to remove it with noise reduction software but the results aren't that good. The Blue Yeti seems to pick up a lot of noise, even in cardioid mode.
Echo: Even when there is minimum background noise, the room is a bit echoey. I can't record in a studio all the time. I have tried basic advice like curtains and stuff but the Yeti still picks up a considerable echo.
I am considering a mic upgrade but I am not sure which ones would actually help me resolve the above issues best. @Wendell and everyone else, any advice would be greatly appreciated.
P.S: I don't have a budget similar to the equipment mentioned here, consider 300$ territory.
is a start. For video it's not that practical though.
If that won't work, you'll need to go hypercardioid., or mic the background noise only, and add it to the main mic signal in reversed phase, that also works.
noise reduction without compression is difficult, the ideal is to set the noise gate to kill the ambient alone, so while making no sound except the noisefloor (noise gates are not made to kill background noise, only constant noise), then afterwards set the compression/limiting on the mic to tune your signal into a dynamic range of the highest 10-15 dB your equipment will go without clipping.
Unfortunately, I need to make videos, not just voiceovers. I am looking for a better mic, cause I can't always change the setup. Also I am often on the go.
Very directional shotgun mic? But to find a decent within your budget, means that you have to get lucky on a used one. What often happens, is that gear is not rented for location productions, but bought, and then sold. There are used instrument and audiovisual gear stores that specialize in supplying new equipment specially ordered for a set, and then taking it back for a decent price, whereby they then sell it in their store as nearly new used. I have tons of stuff bought that way, and have also used that system on projects to cut on transportation and rental costs. You might want to see what those stores have available.
The choice of mic depends a lot on the way you work and the kind of work you do. Sometimes, it's better to make do with a very basic setup than to shoot for the stars in every discipline and end up with specialized gear that is used too little to make the money back. A Video mic from Rode, standard hotshoe mic, is not expensive but is like a swiss army knife with the right cabling to make it work in all kinds of situations. It takes a bit of creativity and a few low cost custom cables, but it will cover most videographer's needs. If you're a one camera operation, that is the only mic I would get if I were you to be honest. Less gear is almost always better.
1 Like
A used sennheiser me66 or me67 + k6 runs about 200-250. Another comparable shotgun would be the rode ntg-2, though I much prefer the senny.
In any case, either will get you more directionality. Just make sure you cut the lows as shotguns don't handle bass freqs (particularly indoors) well.
Since people are still posting in this thread...
I was careless with the words. With digital, I did not mean digital-analog, but software. Like, in a DAW or other digital production environment.
They can spend their $3k+ starting on an SSL console, or 1/10th of that, and still have an environment suitable for their production needs. Especially since they already seem to have a high quality video production environment (which I'm sure has alot of audio processing options too).
In the long run they may all become audio technicians and blow Youtube away, but like @e1mmai is onto, accessibility and usability is also important. Do you want them to spend their time making content, or learning how to make and setup a professional soundstage, when their sound is pretty much good enough already? Edit: professional as in they could charge other people to come to their studio and record content, further stealing time away from them...
I like to draw the parallel to digital guitar/bass effects, where there are some incredible plugins and effects pedals out there, but the most expensive does not mean the most creative.
If you buy a Kemper profiler or Axe FX (or even the Line 6 Helix) and expect it to give you the sound you heard in the demo right away, you risk ending up feeling you've wasted your money on something that doesn't work as well as you think, especially compared with similarly priced two channel analog equipment.
Contrast that with a good entry-level pedal or plugin like Native Instruments' Guitar Rig, and you get alot more bang for your buck out of the box, even if you can't quite reach the same fidelity when you've achieved some level of mastery with each (which can take months if you're unlucky - yes, unlucky).
What I'm trying to get at, is that these people have alot of power available for digital (software) post processing of sound and they don't have to go the relatively more expensive (both time and money) analog route to achieve a professional sound.
Thoughts on something like this? I have heard that dynamic mics are much better when it comes to noise reduction.
Technically, yes, they are more bulletproof when it comes to noise, but they don't sound as smooth as a condenser.
USB mics are bad. You get what you pay for with those. Even the most expensive ones have shit converters.
Get a cheap USB interface and run it into that.
By the way, how'd we do with the condenser settings and such for the last news video? (the monitor video I did with the lav which seemed to work pretty well).
I could hear the attack/release just a bit in the news video but overall I thought it was pretty good. I dont think I want to change anything for the next stream unless anyone has any input for what to change and why
99% of the time, I listen on my phone or in cheap earbuds while I drive. From there, it sounded fine. I can get it into the studio later if you want a detailed critique, but overall, no complaints.
Generally, you should avoid lavs unless you need them, as they never sound as good as a mic that doesn't explicitly need to be either mobile or hidden.
Quick tip if you're not already doing it:
Spend a few minutes tweaking a multiband compressor for an almost instant and easy improvement.
Heck of a lot better but Ryan always seems noticeably quieter. A little balancing there should sort the remainder.
One more thing I'll add is that the "pro" way to do it would be to boom two supercardioids above the frame line, but I don't think anyone here cares that the mic is in the shot, so no need to waste money on a fancy supercard just to keep the shot clean. So... well done. Carry on.
You might listen to the lav on the monitor review, it turned out pretty good, I was taking the lav into the panel and back out into the camera. No idea if the compressor is really working in that scenario though.
Yeah. the audio sounds just right. I am also glad you decided to just get the mics in the shot for better audio for the news show. I would always prefer better audio over video elements.
1 Like
I listened with headphones last night, and the lav sounds good! Your voices also aren't booming when you speak into the condensers, which is great.
Your reasoning in the tascam repair video is also spot on! Focus on the content : )
Ok. Finally got around to checking this out on a proper setup.
News video for that week:
Sounds good. Could use some tweaks, but it's really fine, and good for a one-shot recording.
Monitor review:
Noise is at a noticeable, but acceptable level.
Here's the thing: The lav sounds... like a lav.
A good upgrade is to get a better lav element, and continue to use whatever wired or wireless solution you're already using to connect it. It won't get rid of preamp/converter noise in the downstream hardware, but it'll very much improve the overall tonal quality. What you can get depends on your budget, but if you can find it, I'd recommend searching for a used dpa 4060, sanken cos11d, countryman b6, or tram tr-50. all kinda pricey, all things considered, but worth looking into. I listed them in order of how good I think they'd sound for yall's voices. Rode has a few options that are more cost-effective.
Again, the best option would be to get a supercardioid or shotgun mic and aim it down from above the frame- that way, it looks clean and sounds as best it can (natural, gets the resonance of the chest cavity, not too transient, and has a touch of air; i.e., it doesn't sound like the voice is speaking directly into your ear from an inch away like broadcast (radio) style or lav mics do).
All that being said, if the lav is easier to use when you're maneuvering around during a review or whatever, then use that.
But please... whatever you do, just run the mics directly to the recorder and record on that. send a line out to the camera for REFERENCE ONLY and auto sync them in post. Premiere has its own waveform-based autosync, and pluraleyes is a third party tool that can do it, too. It's much cleaner. It's typical for camera converters to be only 16-bit, and that tascam you have should do 24. 48khz/24-bit and you're set.
Once you sync it, do some quick subtractive EQ* and drop a multi-band compressor on it, so that each freq range gets compressed separately. Another shortcut is to use instead a multiband maximizer so that everything gets crunched to the same peak level. That shouldn't add too much to the workflow, since you aren't doing any editing, and the mixing is minimal. You could, of course, use hardware compression on the way in (I think you said you were doing that in a video?), at the cost of some flexibility and noise.
Overall, your output level is fine for youtube. Loud and proud.
Let me note once again that it's really just fine for youtube content. All of it, I mean. You aren't having any critical audio problems. I just wanted to provide some input to help you bump it up to a higher production value. Also, I hate lavs.
That said,
If you do anything then let the tl;dr be this:
1. mic directly into the recorder (with or without hardware compression) and autosync it
2. subtractive EQ*, especially if you use a lav
*subtractive EQ is grabbing a bell curved eq node and bumping the gain and Q waaay up, then sweeping the frequency spectrum until you find some nasty sounding freqs (not just loud, but displeasing- loud just means you found the fundamental or a harmonic), then leave the freq on the nasty sound and drop the gain to a negative level (just a few db at most). Repeat a few more times. Some often offending vocal freqs are 250hz, ~850hz, and 1-1.15khz.
Alright... that's it for now.
maybe a demo video incoming from me, if I ever get around to making one. we'll see.
edit: ok, ONE more thing. newest monitor review sounds great. that is all.