RØDE HS1 Headset Mic

[Chad Johnson]

RØDE HS1 Headset Mic Review on Vimeo

So rounding out my series on the various RØDE lapel-ish mics here with a look at the new HS1 Headset mic. It may not be what you need for typical video production, but I'm just throwing it out there. It's use is for presenters, stage actors, house of worship scenarios. I used this mic to capture my backup vocals in my PinMic song (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-thin...nmic-song.html) and it sounded pretty good. It uses the same capsule as the Rode Lavalier, and PinMic. How would you use a headset mic like this? Please share your thoughts and opinions!

Guy is selling these at DVeStore if it looks lke something you need: http://www.dvestore.com/products/Rod...adset-Mic.html

[Matthew Capowski]

Thank you for doing these videos. I find them informative.

I'm curious if anyone has any audio samples of the HS1, Pin Mic, or the Rode Lav direct into the H1 without any hardware mixer or post-processing?

[Chad Johnson]

Hey Matt

I think Guy was using the H1 with a Rode lav in the video on this page.

RODE Lavalier Microphone

[Bill Davis]

Oops - double post killed. Sorry.

[Bill Davis]

Here's the problem with mic reviews - ANY mic reviews.

All reviews are "by definition" conditional. The conditions are not just the choice of mics - but whether the SIGNAL you're putting into them reveals or obscures their qualities. AND whether the circumstances of their use support or suppress those qualities.

Let me explain. I've been a professional voice talent for more than 30 years. I've worked in literally dozens of pro studios and I've probably stood before more than fifty different types and models of mics in order to record my voice in those PROFESSIONAL settings as have a few others who regularly post here.

ALL of those mics worked just fine, even tho there were BOATLOADS of differences between the actual performance of those mics. They all did fine, because I'm an experienced VO talent. I was blessed with a genetically OK voice, which by happenstance and professional interest I've learned to improve over the years. I've learned early how to modulate my voice properly. How to place emphasis properly on the words in order to make context clear to the audience, and I know how to "work" the mic to avoid any issues I hear in my cans AS I read. That's just basic VO stuff.

Now, the BIG surprise to those of you who haven't made a career of this stuff.
Half the time, the DIFFERENCES in the mics I've used don't matter a jot.
BUT, sometimes a mics characteristics matter a great deal. And you seldom know that in advance.

True story. I did a series of about 30 lectures one year in halls around my state. I brought my own wireless rigs and my own lavs. Good ones. But in one venue, the house sound guy offered the use of their system and I accepted. It was a big venue with probably 200 people in the audience. He handed me a Countryman B3 micro headset mic (the first time I'd ever personally used one) direct wired into the house system. I started giving my talk and almost stopped DEAD in my tracks. To my astonishment, my voice sounded (pardon the profane hyperbole) like GOD's own in that setting. I've NEVER heard my voice sound so rich, and full and clear and compelling. Where the VAST majority of very tiny capsule mics have problems handling bass frequencies, this MIC kicked BUTT. So naturally, after that gig, I rushed out and bought my OWN. Know what? I've NEVER sounded that good to my ears again over the many times I've used it.

Here's what I know about why.

It was not JUST about the mic. It was PARTLY about the mic. AND the acoustic treatment in the room. AND the proper amplification. AND that system's well set EQ - AND the STATE of my voice THAT DAY (this was stop 7 or 8 on the tour, so my voice was "tuned up" with direct practice and I'd had a full weekend off so it was was rested.

If ANY of those things hadn't been in place. That day would NOT have sounded like it did.

Recording a human voice adequately is not particularly difficult. But (and here's the rub) that does NOT mean the differences in a mic aren't hiding under the common jobs we use them for.

Given all the "system positives" in that room - IF some designer at Countryman had decided that the B3 needed a steeper bass rolloff for better clarity - the MAGIC would NOT have happened. Same with the tech doing the room EQ. And the Acoustic treatment of the room. (I've worked dozens that make ANYONE sound like crap!)

This is why I'm so hard on "mic reviews." Unless the testing is particularly scientific and rigorous, mic reviews ONLY give you the opinion of a person who's credentials in critical listening - signal chain quality assessment and breadth of SIGNAL CHOICES is always in question. Perhaps that mic on that day does a nice job on BOB's voice, but on MARY it will be screechy and thin. Or too sensitive for the executive with a nasal wind issue - or a bit too muddy for the whispering child. How can you TELL from a review that simply puts the mic into "common use" and never goes farther than "It sounds darn good on ME!

Another note before I get WAY too long-winded about this is that real quality equipment sometimes sits around doing work that's just OK waiting for circumstances that could be exceptional - only then does it really shine. (I suppose like a really fine violin that requires a really talented player to make the finest sounds!).

The trick is to keep yourself from thinking that IF your sound is simply clear and clean it's therefore the BEST you can do.

Sometimes sound CAN be great. And so pros equip themselves - over time - to recognize and respond where and when that moment arrives.

My wired B3 is still part of my kit. I don't always use it, because sometimes the situation does not require what it provides. But you can bet that the next time I find myself in a situation where the house system and engineering appears to be of a very HIGH Standard. I'm running to that particular compartment in my sound bag to see if I can catch that magic again. And if the B3 isn't well suited for the moment, I'll try the TRAM, the Sony's and even the breath-sensitive Lectro lavs that came with my wireless originally. Taking the time to try and see what works BEST is part of doing a job that's better than just OK.

And if ALL I have in my bag that day are "compromise" mics that while pretty good, shaved quality in search of a "popular" price point - well, the moment will soon be gone, the recordist will have missed it and such is life.

Thats my take on some of how sound works in the REAL world.

FWIW.

[Chad Johnson]

I plugged the HS1 directly into my EX1, using no preamp/mixer, and added no EQ or processing of any kind.

This mic is designed for presenters and "house of worship" type uses. Those people are public speakers, used to using their voices. I suppose this mic may not sound so hot if a thin voiced mumbler tried to do an on-cam in a bathroom. But would that be the mics fault? Wouldn't all the generalized reasons you seem to be using to discredit the HS1, apply to all mics? The mic sounds like what you put into it, and that's all you can ask really. And when using the HS1 through a PA, the sound engineer has the power to make it sound bad or good depending on their skill.

I say this mic's capsule, the same one in the Rode Lavalier and PinMic is a nice sounding capsule. I should know. I put it (the capsule by way of PinMic, Lav & HS1) through it's paces with examples at various locations with various speakers, not to mention a whole song's worth of instrument tracks. I'm not saying it's the best sounding capsule out there because I haven't heard them all. I'm just saying it sounds pretty dang good. Are you saying you don't agree Bill? It's not really clear what you're saying.

Not the HSI here, but the PinMic with the same capsule:

RØDE PinMic Test 1 on Vimeo

What you hear is what you get. If you have a voice that does not project or resonate well, those qualities will be passed along through the mic, as the mic is balanced and accurate in my opinion. If you have a nice voice, the mic will pass that on without molesting it too much. Of course a large diaphragm condenser will sound better, but as far as lavs go these new Rodes are good. Not "good for the price" but simply "good" as far as lavs go. I personally have chosen them over my COS11D because I find the COS11D is a bit bright. Not that I will choose them every time. I also have a Tram that I like sometimes. I have an ME-2 that I simply do not like though. I will never choose that mic unless I am doing a panel of people and I am running out of lavs.

[Bill Davis]

I am not trying to "discredit" ANYTHING.

I'm making observations on the use of ALL microphones based on nearly 40 years of experience in the trenches and a career that includes hundreds and hundreds of paid voiceovers for radio, TV and advertising clients.

If you like that particular mic for your work. Excellent. Nobody's arguing with you. Use it in good health. And if you wish to put in the time and effort to set yourself up as a personal "testing service" and post your results and opinions here in a public forum for everyone to see - that's absolutely OK as well.

It's ALSO ok, in the same public forum, for others like me to point out what "might" be flaws in your analysis and testing methodology.

My post concerned MY personal experiences in audio, particularly one I once had with lav mics that surprised me. I thought the experience worth sharing. Readers are absolutely free to draw their own conclusions.

That is all.

[Chad Johnson]

I was just trying to discern what your thoughts actually were Bill. You didn't say anything directly about the mic or the test. I got from your original post that one can't tell how a mic is going to sound until you use it yourself in a given situation. But I'm only guessing. I like clear opinions. I have no problem with someone having a different opinion than my own. My goal is to show the mics being used with no post tricks, and let you decide if you like the sound you hear, because it's not practical to buy a bunch of mics and test them all out then return the rejects. If I had any other headset mics I would shoot them out and let the listener decide what they like more. I tried to get some... So if you or anyone think it sounds good or bad just say so. My demo shows what the mic sounds like on me, a dude with a baritone voice, sitting in a slightly reflective room.

These videos are not scientific by any means, because that's not my focus. My focus is to show how good a given mic can sound on me, going straight into the camera (noted if it's going through wireless), and posted on Vimeo (the cleanest sounding IMO of the video sites). That's how most people will use these mics. Nobody goes around with measuring tools to decide if they like the sound of something. They use their ears. I think any adverse variable like wind, or bad placement will affect any mic, and the methods employed to correct those will be the same for all mics, so I don't bother with that angle. My stuff is just a simple look at whatever I have to show. I leave the microscopic pouring over of left brained data to the left brained.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Bill makes a good point.

Mic reviews are helpful, but you never know exactly what you get until you mic the particular voice in a particular place - especially live. I worked with a CEO who's voice was fine face-to-face, but was impossible to mic. It was all gravel, no body. Turn him up loud enough to hear him and you get feedback - even with a Countryman E3.

Still, I like mic reviews - especially head to head. You can learn if a mic has a problem, or if it's fuller, thinner, deeper, or shallower than its head-to-head competition.

I went with the COS-11D. I love the sound and have yet to hear anybody who it sounds really bad on - even our past CEO (on video, so I could gain it up without feedback.)

For directional mics, off-axis tests are quite informative. That doesn't tell you about how the source will sound, but it tells you how the echo and unwanted elements will sound.

Some people sweat the exact sound of a mic a bit too much. As long as the response doesn't have holes or resonance, you can always add EQ to shore it up for a given speaker. Reviews don't tell you if the EQ is perfect for your voice, but they can illuminate problems. That's what I really want to know about a mic.

If you really want to know how a mic sounds though, nothing beats hands on use over multiple jobs. But that costs money! :)

[Chad Johnson]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

If you really want to know how a mic sounds though, nothing beats hands on use over multiple jobs. But that costs money! :)

I totally agree.

[Bill Davis]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Bill makes a good point.

Mic reviews are helpful, but you never know exactly what you get until you mic the particular voice in a particular place - especially live. I worked with a CEO who's voice was fine face-to-face, but was impossible to mic. It was all gravel, no body. Turn him up loud enough to hear him and you get feedback - even with a Countryman E3.

Still, I like mic reviews - especially head to head. You can learn if a mic has a problem, or if it's fuller, thinner, deeper, or shallower than its head-to-head competition.

I went with the COS-11D. I love the sound and have yet to hear anybody who it sounds really bad on - even our past CEO (on video, so I could gain it up without feedback.)

For directional mics, off-axis tests are quite informative. That doesn't tell you about how the source will sound, but it tells you how the echo and unwanted elements will sound.

Some people sweat the exact sound of a mic a bit too much. As long as the response doesn't have holes or resonance, you can always add EQ to shore it up for a given speaker. Reviews don't tell you if the EQ is perfect for your voice, but they can illuminate problems. That's what I really want to know about a mic.

If you really want to know how a mic sounds though, nothing beats hands on use over multiple jobs. But that costs money! :)

Jon brings up some EXCELLENT points, as always.

How does one even assess "off axis" performance? For a lav, it's extremely useful to understand how it will perform if, for example, you put it on someone's left lapel and they turn their head to the right. Even if the mic patter is omni- rather than a cardioid, the inherent sensitivity might make a BIG difference in even that simple case. A well-crafted review will point that kind of thing out. But seldom, do we see reviews where someone does more more then put three different mics in about the SAME place - pointed in about the SAME fashion and then make comparisons on how they sound one against another.

One could argue that it might be important to see how it sounds in the hair. How it sounds under a polyester tie. Whether it's especially sensitive to the rustle of a woman's silk blouse - heck, lavs are also useful as plant mics. What about it's characteristics at DISTANCE. NONE of this is even considered in one of the standard non-professional reviews.

Finally, theres a BIG issue with objective file standards in this kind of comparison.
We assume the mic feeds some digital recording chain. What's the NATURE of that recording chain? Compressed verses uncompressed is just scratching the surface. What were the digitization and quantization settings - and what about whatever decompression and processing that the eventual SERVER might apply to all it's files in order to preserve or limit the bandwidth or it's own I/O? How do we know that when we click on a file to listen, or even download the supposedly "raw" file from a server, that there's nothing that happened upstream that might have an audible effect on the results?

I'm NOT implying here that anyone is attempting to do something improper. Not at all.

I'm just saying that when any dependable, scientific or even just simple comparative REAL "test" is set up - the VERY first thing that's established is some CONTROL over the testing process. And setup procedures and conditions are noted up front in any good review. Without that - the test MUST always remain suspect. (not necessarily invalid, but simply suspect)

All I'm really asking is that anyone who wishes to set up shop as a "TESTER of RECORD" and publish results in a public forum - spend some time and effort to go beyond just slapping a test together and making judgements on the results unless you're pretty sure that you have a reliable test method and are generating DEPENDABLE results.

And "I like the way mic Y sounds more than mic W" doesn't meet any non-arbitrary standards - where "mic Y on a scope showed a 3db presence peak at around 6.5khz" is something that can be tested, verified and reproduced.

What's posted here will be read by potentially hundreds of thousands of people LONG after we post it. The more accuracy and care we take to make the info truly useful, the better the board will be.

In the final analysis, that's what I'm really saying.

Don't stop posting opinions. There's NOTHING wrong with that. And opinions SHOULD be based on personal tastes, work styles and preferences. But when it comes to TESTS, COMPARISONS or "SHOOT-OUTS" facts trump impressions, data trump opinions. My own included.

FWIW.

[Chad Johnson]

Luckily with a headset mic there is no off axis for the users voice, as the mic stays in the same place. I eagerly await any scientific tests to be posted by anyone not satisfied with my suspect methods.