Re: How does this sound?
 

Better or worse XLR cables? Not really, although cheap cables can get unreliable sooner because of wear and tear with use. I look for Belden, Canare, or Mogami cable and Neutrik connectors from a reliable vendor like Trew Audio or Location Sound. Mainstream cables from vendors like the Guitar Center are usually just fine. The really expensive "professional" cables like Monster Cable work just fine as well but are a waste of money IMHO as once you get out of the bargain basement, wire is wire. Then there are super-expensive "premium" cables that cost hundreds of dollars that are totally a farce, hyped up nonsense aimed at the 'audiophool' market, making claims of being made from magical copper mined by an ancient order of warlocks in the dark of the night, spun into strands on looms made from starlight and woven into cable by enchanted fairies.... Expect to pay anywhere from $25 to $50 for a 25 foot cable and you'll be good to go for years to come. Or learn to solder and make your own for half that amount.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Thanks again Steve. What about adapters. Can an adapter be better or worse?

Re: How does this sound?
 

One of the funniest pieces of advice I've seen on this forum. Thanks for the laugh. I've rolled my own for years and only regret not doing it sooner: always Canare cable and Neutrik connectors for me.

Kathy, not sure if you meant "connector" rather than "adapter." Neutrik is highly regarded for a number of reasons, not the least of which their connectors are field-serviceable with no tools, whilst others require more effort: just unscrew two pieces and you're off to the races. Also, no fantasy character pedigree is required to make your cables, learn to solder, and field repair your stuff.

Re: How does this sound?
 

I did mean adapter rather than connector. Steve recommended one if you read earlier posts and I found another one and I was curious if it was worth getting the more expensive one (the German one, which by that fact I am assuming might be better quality). But I don't know if it matters. I don't know if an adapter is just an adapter or there are some adapters that are better than others.

Thanks

Re: How does this sound?
 

Wow, what a variety of quality!

At first glance, tracks #3 and #5 sound best to me. Good HF content, and least amount of background noise and room reflections.

But then I notice that #3 has many tiny flaws. First of all, there is some "thumping" sound at the beginning and end of "two," the end of "four," the end of "five." Also some plosive breath sounds at the end of "eight" and the beginning of "ten." The "thumping" I described might also be caused by plosive problems, but I'm not entirely sure about that. (If the mic is down on the second shirt button, how is any plosive energy getting to it, unless the talent has his chin on his chest?) I wonder whether the "thumping" is a compander or AGC somewhere in the chain being driven very hard. Also, there is some sort of raspy distortion during the vowel sound in "five"... I would say harmonic distortion somewhere (I don't see a clipped waveform, although it might have clipped somewhere in the middle of the audio chain).

Track #1 seems to have a boosted midrange... the voice sounds "honky." I really dislike this sound. I wish I were familiar with this talent's voice. If he has a really unpleasant nasal voice, then perhaps this is an accurate reproduction. Either that, or the mic has a really unpleasant nasal quality.

Track #2 sounds muffled... rolled off high frequencies. In addition, the reflections are much louder. Also, there is some sort of abrupt change in audio quality in the middle of "four," and seemingly some distortion in "five."

Track #4 is the hottest... both the voice level and background noise. Maybe just the result of a hotter mic, or maybe the gain was turned up higher. This sounds similar to the mic in test 1.

I probably like #5 the best. The voice sounds most pleasing, and the HF content sounds well balanced with the rest of the voice. (But as I said above, if the talent has a very nasal voice, then perhaps this track is not the most accurate reproduction of it.)

Test #5 does not have the obvious distortion that I heard in test #3. But I still hear a bit of "thumping," similar to test #3, at the end of the words, "two," "four," and "five"... and I don't like that. I suspect it's a sign of a compander or something similar that isn't tracking right. Maybe some sort of problem with DC offset somewhere in the chain. Maybe DC offset at some point, being acted upon by a compander at a later stage, causing the beginning of the "thump." It seems to have a characteristic frequency around 100 Hz, and I'm wondering what in the chain could be ringing at that frequency??? Very strange.

In conclusion: assuming that the talent does not have a harsh, nasal voice, and assuming test #3 and test #5 are the same mic, than that is my favorite mic. But there's some problem with the electronics causing that thumping noise, and that is a detriment to the the #3 and #5 tests.

Re: How does this sound?
 

OK here is what all these recordings are:

1. Sanken COS-11D mic connected via Shure wireless bodypack transmitter and portable receiver recording to Canon C100

2. Sanken COS-11D mic connected via Shure wireless bodypack transmitter and diversity receiver recording to Canon C100

3. Some XLR mic recording directly to C100 via XLR cable

4. Sanken COS-11D mic connected via Shure wireless bodypack transmitter and portable receiver recording to Zoom H4n

5. Some XLR mic recording directly to Zoom H4n via XLR cable

For the recordings done on the XLR mic, I think the person was actually holding the mic closer to their mouth as it was a handheld mic.

So, I got 2 people outside of this forum liking #2 and #5 best, 2 people on this forum liking #3 and #5 best and 1 person liking #1. So the winner is #5.

So, my conclusion is that my first biggest issue is the wireless Shure receiver/transmitter.
The next test will be connecting the Sanken COS-11D mic via XLR. I will order the adapter for the mic tomorrow.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Kathy,

Your description tallys with what I heard, namely:

• There is a significant difference between the Sanken / Shure combination and the "XLR mic / wire" combination.

• There is little difference between recording to the Zoom and recording to the C100.

• The diversity receiver has less HF content, compared to the portable receiver.

Probably! But that isn't really proved by this test. You always used the Sanken with the Shure, and the Shure with the Sanken. Based on reputation, I'd tend to agree that the problem is the Shure... but you haven't really demonstrated that.

I agree with your plan: get an adapter and try the Sanken directly, without the wireless system.


Question: Did you ever compare your two Sanken mics against each other, to be sure they're consistent?

Question: Are the two Shure receivers you used both supposed to be compatible with the transmitter you used? (Given that I hear a difference in HF content with the different receivers, I'm wondering whether they're from two different design parameters... e.g. different pre-emphasis/de-emphasis curves, or different companding curves.)

Question: Can you tell us specifically what "XLR mic" you used? I'm curious because of that 100-Hz resonance that seems to be excited by plosives etc. It's rather interesting.

Thanks. And I applaud your persistence!

P.S.: Is there any chance you recorded "Jon" using the diversity receiver, and "Michael" and "Gary2" using the portable receiver?

Re: How does this sound?
 

Greg,

You are of course correct that the test did not really prove that my wireless combo is the issue. I jumped to that conclusion based on the fact that almost everyone agrees that Shure SLX wireless system is inadequate for video work and that the Sanken COS-11d is a great mic.

I have not compared my two Sankens yet. I will do so as soon as I have some time to do that.

The diversity receiver is (Shure Americas | SLX4 Diversity Receiver) and the portable receiver is also compatible according to Shure's website (Shure Americas | FP5 Portable Receiver).

I will check what XLR mic I used tomorrow.


Actually, I think you got the two receivers confused the portable one has less HF content (recording #1 in my opinion has less HF content than recording #2)
Jon, Michael and Gary were all recorded using the portable receiver. I think the difference is that Jon naturally has this kind of voice frequency that sounds like that (I don't know how to describe his voice, I don't know the proper term)

Thanks for your help!

Re: How does this sound?
 

Sorry, but I certainly can't agree with you there. Test #1 (counting backwards) is much brighter, with more highs. Test #2 is more mellow, although not what I'd call "muddy," but it definitely has less HF content.

Attached is a frequency scan of the two files to illustrate what I hear. The green trace is Test #1, the red trace is Test #2.

Note that Test #1 has less LF content, up to about 800 Hz, where the two traces more or less cross. Once you get above 1,000 Hz, Test #1 clearly has much more HF content than Test #2. Test #2 is definitely muffled.

Re: How does this sound?
 

That's very interesting! To my ears #1 sounds muffled, whereas #2 sounds "broader". But your graph clearly proves otherwise. Let me run the test with the XLR cable and I will post it here.

Thanks

Re: How does this sound?
 

I don't recall ever hearing the term "broader" applied to audio... not sure what you mean by that.

If you mean "wider frequency range" then it's a tossup: "Test 1" has more high frequency information, "test 2" has more low frequency information. The range is roughly the same, but the frequency balance is different. Visually, the slope of the line is different.

"Muffled" relates to attenuated high frequencies = "High frequency rolloff." Less "bright." Less "crisp." Think "treble control turned down" in simplistic terms. Are you agreeing with that definition of "muffled"?

If you can, play one given clip through a typical stereo system with the tone controls set "flat." Then turn down the treble control and hear the difference... that is what I would call "muffled." Or listen to someone speaking to you in person. Then have them speak through a few layers of terrycloth towel... that is "muffled."

Are you sure the numbering didn't get confused at some point? The "test 1" file I downloaded has the talent counting backwards, and definitely has more high frequencies.

Re: How does this sound?
 

OK, just double checked. The numbering is correct. I am just describing what I hear incorrectly. #1 is just missing something, like some frequency is missing (again, i am probably describing it incorrectly). I see what you are saying #2 being more muffled I guess. #2 does not show the same characteristic as #1. Overall #2 sounds better than #1 to my ears (but still not that good)

Re: How does this sound?
 

If we're going to discuss audio, using words, it will help if we use accepted terminology.

Test #1 is not missing "some frequency." A given frequency describes a particular tone or musical note. For example, the frequency 440 Hz describes the pitch of the musical note "A" above middle C. The frequency 261.6 (roughly) describes the pitch of middle C. Lower frequency > lower note on the scale. The bottom notes of the piano are below 50 Hz. Low frequencies = very low notes.

Test #1 is not missing anything... everything seems to be there. But Test #1 has less content -- lower amplitude; less level, or volume if you will -- in the lower frequency range (in this case, below about 800 Hz) when compared to Test #2.

Test #1 also has more content -- more amplitude; more level -- in the higher frequencies (in this case above about 1,000 Hz) when compared to Test #2.

Beyond that, it becomes less straightforward. Test #2 has more content in the lower end of the spectrum... it sounds "warmer." It also seems to be lacking somewhat in high frequency content... it sounds "muffled." Test #1 has more content in the upper end of the spectrum... it sounds "brighter" and has better intelligibility; but it also somewhat lacking in the lower end of the spectrum... to my ear it has an unpleasant "harsh" and rather nasal sound (that can be a combination of the speaker's voice, the characteristic sound of the mic, and the overall frequency response).

It's unfortunate that you are trying to learn sound "in a vacuum"... not a physical vacuum, but learn it without the presence of a person who can discuss this with you and play audio examples for you so that you learn what to listen for and learn the accepted terminology. Looking back, I feel extremely fortunate that I had mentors with good ears, good production chops, and one of whom had a very good EE background who could explain all the theory to me as well. I hope you can find a good mentor who can help you there in person.

Meanwhile, you say Test #2 sounds better to your ears. What system and components are you using for playback, and in what kind of room?

Re: How does this sound?
 

Regarding wiring the Sanken for XLR and wireless use, check out my post here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/all-thin...ml#post1806609

BTW, I've read that TrewAudio will do the assembly and soldering to build this system, if you don't have a way to accomplish it yourself.

Re: How does this sound?
 

OK, I tested both of my Sanken mics against each other. I am at loss here. Listen to these 2 samples. This is not really about the quality recording as I am still using my crappy wireless system but I was expecting both mics to sound the same since everything is the same on these 2 recordings. Let me know what you think.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Mic 1 has more depth and a bit of reverb, sounds like your previous post's Test5. Mic 2 sounds 'strained' and there's a lot more noise, similar to your previous post's Test4.

Re: How does this sound?
 

So what do I do? My two mics sound different. Basically I could tell that the levels on the second mic were way lower.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Turns out I've got some sort of interesting (to me anyway) cold-ish thing going on so I'm less sure what I'm hearing than I'd like. My *ears* have got some low frequency roll off going on, which I find perplexing.

But... those two samples sound quite different to me. From mics that expensive and with that reputation, I'd expect them to sound almost identical. You might want to discuss that with your dealer, IDK.

Re: How does this sound?
 

I am going to order the XLR adapter to test both mic recordings bypassing the wireless crap.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Greg, thank you for your detailed explanation. I was trying to wrap my head around it. I know it's frustrating to talk to me about this because I don't even know how to properly express myself.

I am basically listening to the recordings in my bedroom, haha, using Sony MDR-V700 headphones.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Kathy,

In my experience and opinion, Sony headphones typically sound overly bright, that is they have a somewhat boosted level through the midrange (let's say roughly 1,000 - 5,000 Hz) and high frequency (let's say roughly 5,000 upward) region. Especially the midrange is "hot."

That's fine if you're using them to monitor your audio while you're doing some field recording. They will accentuate little noises and unwanted sounds, alert you to their presence, and perhaps lead you to re-record the track making it better.

But that is NOT fine if you're using them to evaluate the overall audio quality of a track. They will take a track that is rather "muffled" or "muddy" like your Test #2, and boost the midrange and highs (exactly the part that is attenuated in the track) and make everything sound fine. Meanwhile, they will take a track like your Test #1, which is already a bit boosted in the mid/high frequency range, and boost that range even further, making that track sound overly bright, strident, call it what you will... and since that track is already a little weak in the lower frequency range, the Sonys will accentuate that problem. All in all, they will make Test #1 sound worse than it is, and make Test #2 sound better than it is.

By all means you need to get some other opinions. I suspect other folks will concur with my opinion about Sony phones. And I think a lot of folks will agree with my preference of Sennheiser "HD 280 pro" phones as having a much better balanced frequency response.

Also, I urge you to get to a reputable dealer and compare the two sets of phones, using some material you're familiar with (preferably something that was commercially recorded, so you can somewhat trust the quality). If you can hear the difference, that's a good start.

Re: How does this sound?
 

I do have Sennheiser HD 280 pro which I use at work and for in field recordings. For this test I just happened to evaluate the recordings at home.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Listen to those five tests again, using the HD 280s, and see if it changes your opinion. (It may; then again it may not.)

Re: How does this sound?
 

I will do so tomorrow. In the mean time I need to figure out what to do with my 2 Sankens that sound totally different.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Agreed. That surely must be very disconcerting. When and where did you obtain them? Both at once from the same vendor, or otherwise?

Re: How does this sound?
 

I got them both from B&H. Separate orders. I waited for them over a month because they were being sent from another vendor and one got lost.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Kathy is getting plenty of advice most very accurate and considered, but other information could be misinterpreted. Shure SLX is NOT crappy or the other words used in a derogatory manner. Video people who are sound centred often get very hung up and polarised on individual features. Other sound professionals have a broader acceptance and understanding that products perform and sound differently, but very often 'bad' in one context can be 'good' in others. I don't like Shure SLX myself, because I prefer Sennheiser, but I have hired in Shure, Trantec, Audio Ltd and Sony kit and would not object to using any of it. The differences are really split into two areas. Tonality and compression. Both are very subtle, and easily sorted afterwards. What causes the biggest problem is the misunderstanding of gain structure. The Shures have a very wide range of input level adjustment, and on the receivers, a wide adjustment to cope with the typical users. This means it's so easy to under-deviate the transmitter, and then need more gain from the receiver. The result is quite noisy audio. The SLX has good performance when the input gain is set too high, the audio limits quite gently without the brittle sound you get on other brands. Wireless gets treated like magic by many people, when it's not. When correctly set up, SLX along with the others, is quite capable of letting you hear very subtle differences between mics. It's a fallacy that X brand is always better than Y brand. There will always be differences, the same way as expensive preamps sound nicer (note, not better) than cheap ones. Expensive wireless systems are built more strongly, have less plastic, perform better in congested or interference prone areas, and last longer. They all use different companding systems, that either help or hinder the sound source if the receiver doesn't track 100% accurately. I have even heard real budget Chinese wireless systems that are horrible and plastic sound really good - I suspect no companding at all - and with a strong RF signal the audio was almost cable quality. Of course, it suffered badly as the s/n went down - but audio wise, it was good.

Very rarely can we say any audio product sounds bad. They just sound different, and the difference can be critical. Kathy needs to train her ears, and there's a danger here that words used to express our opinions can be misinterpreted. Sound terminology is always flawed. X sounds more 'airy' than Y. We all know what that means, BUT is my 'airy' the same as yours? Is kathy listening on full range studio monitors, near fields, headphones or what? If our comments are made based on what we can hear, can Kathy hear the same things? This is more important than labelling products as good or bad. Some of us can squeeze excellent results out of the 'wrong' equipment, and other repeatedly produce rubbish with amazingly expensive kit.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Paul, are you sure that you were using the SLX product, rather than some other Shure wireless product?

We bought a couple of transmitter/receivers and two wireless monitors here at work. We used them for live audio that went over an internet video link and as a backchannel to the remote person. We were using the stock lavs with the transmitter/receiver. We were quite disappointed with the lack of high frequency carriage. The speech was a bit difficult to comprehend using the system (before going through the web link.)

The marketing of the SLX seemed to be for a mid-priced solution for live rock bands. That makes sense. The quality isn't pristine, but the SLX seemed to be reliable and usable in a loud, live context.

I was later asked to update our audio system for company meetings. People had problems comprehending the speakers in the cafeteria room with ceiling speakers. I didn't even consider using the SLX. It would have been functional, but wouldn't have improved comprehensibility. We went with a Sennheiser EW100, which exceeded our needs for a live speaking event.

Personally, I wouldn't consider using the SLX for recorded video, except for low-quality, functional stuff. I found the Sennheiser EW100 to be a big step up from the SLX and would be happy to use the Sennheiser in pro settings, unless really pristine audio is required.

Is the SLX crap? Not at all. It's reliable and hits a price point. It would be usable for a local rock band. It's marginal for live speaking events. I'd consider it to have amateur/consumer quality for recorded video. It's certainly not a match for the quality of a COS-11D, which I use with a wire and find to sound beautiful.

In Kathy's example, I'm confident that it's the weak link in the chain.

Our two SLX systems are sitting here collecting dust. I keep them available as "mobile intercoms", but that's about it. We should have gone straight for the Sennheiser.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Hey Kathy,
Variants between mics do happen and the chances you have a deficient one is possible. Also not sure but are they the exact same model? I have several Voice Technology mics and even though they look the same they are actually different models. Sanken seems to have the same kind of differences.

SANKEN MICROPHONE CO .,LTD. | Product [ COS-11D R-RM-*1-*2 ]

Maybe you have two different models. I have two Sanken Heads which have subtle differences as well. I am in NY City so we could probably test a few things locally if that helps.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Daniel,

The mics are exactly the same. I e-mailed Sanken and they are taking the mic back. Thanks for the offer to test the mic. I will just ship it back to them and see what happens. I am also waiting for the TA4 to XLR adapter to arrive so I can see if I can improve the overall quality.

Re: How does this sound?
 

Sounds like you have arrived at a good solution. Nothing wrong with returning the equipment to the source if you have issues. Let's see what happens with the new stuff. Offer still stands if you need more problem solving