Folks:
I want to publish some narrated slide shows (previous posting). I’ve recorded myself reading from an unpublished novel that I have written. The first MP3 below is using a regular microphone. The second is made with a headset noise-cancelling mic that presumably gets rid of more of the room sound. I would be very interested in readers’ opinions as to which sounds better for a slide show.
Note that both were recorded in Audacity, processed with the “Compressor Effect,” and output to MP3.
The first sounds smoother, slightly more mellow, with softer “S” sounds to my ear.
I listened to each of the samples twice. First, regular followed by headset and then the reverse. The regular microphone sounds nicer and more natural to me. The headset version sounded less natural but was clearer. It seemed, as best I can tell from a 30 second sample and after consuming one glass of wine, like the headset recording was easier for my mind to process. Good luck with your project!
The second, sounds a little ‘cleaner’, less muffled. Would prefer to listen to it.
I prefer the sound of the first condenser mic. It makes the voice come across as bassier, manlier, and more engaging. The headset is drier and nerdier. I guess that means headset is the better choice — isn’t the express purpose of slide shows to bore the viewer to death? 😉
Not even close: the first one is way, way better than the crappy sounding headset mic.
On my iPad 2, with its crummy little speaker, mic number one was vastly better.
The first one sounds richer, but you are popping your p’s.
The second might be cleaner but has no low end. I like the first one better.
Listened on some Denon D5000 headphones and some Polk Rti A1 bookshelf speakers.
You may want to buy something like the Microphone Isolation Shield from monoprice and a pop filter.
Interesting. The first one is more like you are in a room listening to a speaker and the second feels more like you are listening through headphones. Not actually sure which I prefer but the first sounds more natural at first blush.
The headset noise-cancelling mic version sounds clearer. The regular microphone version seems to have a bassiness that muddles the clarity.
The first mic sounds much better, more natural harmonics… But be sure to use a pop screen.
Top = 7, Bottom = 8
Top: sounds slightly more natural, but a little harsh, spiky esses.
Bottom: less noise, sounds a tad more digital and processed, but cleaner
I want to have you speak through a T-shirt or something to take the harsh esses out. Soften the sound. Maybe more distance to the mike.
fyi.. I know next to nothing about quality sound. Not an audiophile.
While intelligible, #2 seems bandwidth limited on the high and low ends and seems overly compressed. #1 is much more pleasant and realistic in my opinion.
Criminy! You listen to wax rather than debased digital files.
Can’t you just hear the difference?
The first sounds much clearer. The second is muffled/muted.
Anybody with ears would prefer number 1. Number 2 sounds like you were phoning it in over a 1990’s satphone.
The first recording sounds warmer and possibly more pleasant to listen too. The second recording may be slightly clearer for the purpose of communicating, but the sound is flatter, perhaps more monotone and therefore less engaging. I would go with the first one.
By saying which microphones were used you have removed any value from the test; it is not blinded.
The second one seems to have less background noise, but overall the sound seems more muffled. The voice is clearer on the first one – I’d go with that one.
In the first one, the voice is more alive and I like it much better.
The regular mic sounds better to me.
I prefer #1. I blinded myself by not reading the descriptions of each. 🙂
If my ears and iPad speakers don’t have a serious impedance mismatch, you should find that the spectrals for #1 are at least a bit wider, and definitely smoother at the edges.
Agree that a pop filter would help.
#2 sounds as if it is missing the low frequencies.
The first is smoother. The second sounds compressed and tinny.
Ask Phil.
The easiest thing to do is to just go ahead and purchase a decent microphone for voice over and audio interface and use those. Here’s a suggestion:
Heil PR-40 microphone (mount it on a Heil boom arm)
Cloudlifter CL-1
Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 audio interface
A decent dynamic microphone makes for a much better recording if you don’t have a recording studio.
Trekker
The first is inarguably better, but the low-end presence will fatigue listeners. You just need to remove some of the lower frequencies with some equalization. Look to start cutting around 400-800 Hz and lower. It’s been awhile since I fooled with Audacity, but this should be trivial with that program.
#1 because it’s clearer. I love Wharton’s House of Mirth.
Thanks, EasyE. I am flattered that you compare my novel to Edith Wharton’s 🙂
Mic #1
Hi Philip!
The clear winner right now is the first microphone, it sounds “better” mostly because it has a clear low frequency boost around 100Hz and below, and the high mids around 2K are lower. Noise canceling is done a few different ways, but usually it makes a noise print from a part of the file when you weren’t talking, makes a copy of it, and flips the phase to cancel it out. You usually have settings of how much you want to cancel out, and the more you cancel, the more noticeable it is.
You could think of it this way, the second file is missing some important information. I could make something that sounds like the 2nd file from the first file by cutting frequencies with an equalizer. But I would have a hard time trying to restore the missing information to make the 2nd file sound like the first.
You’ll end up with much better sounding audio if you record at a sample rate above 40kKz, at least 16bit, and then mix down to mp3s as your last step. And it is much easier to get a great sounding recording if you record in a quiet place to start, than to use noise cancelation hardware or try to remove background noise in post production.
Cheers!
The second is FAR superior. However, if you recorded in a carpeted/insulated room with a pop filter, I would say go with the first.
I would rather listen to the second. To me it sounds much more like the typical Audible product, but Tae’s comment may be correct as well.
The large diaphragm sounds better, but this is only on an old fashioned home theater. Most modern audio is heard on phones, which muddy the low frequencies of large diaphragm microphones instead of properly highpass filtering them.
I have a slight hearing lost (can’t hear well the sound of “S” and in a large room, I have to focus on the person to “hear” the conversation — other conversation around me are just noise).
I listened to both recordings and the second one sounded much cleaner to me (with my situation). The first sounded as if you are talking in a large room such as a library or a courthouse.
i agree that the first one sounds more natural. But I am amazed at how you are channeling Wharton and James! This is a side of you that I don’t recognize! Will it be suitable for my book club?
The first sounds better, overall. But it’s picking up a extraneous mouth noises, which I find distracting. I think that with a bit of time adjusting the levels it would be the winner. However as the two samples were recorded I’d rather listen to the second one (not as rich sounding, but less distracting).
laptop speakers. no question. #1