How does this sound?

[Kathy Smith]

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.

[Greg Miller]

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.

Originally Posted by Kathy Smith

So, my conclusion is that my first biggest issue is the wireless Shure receiver/transmitter.

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?

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Greg Miller

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!

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!

[Greg Miller]

Originally Posted by Kathy Smith

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)

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.

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Greg Miller

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.

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

[Greg Miller]

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.

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Greg Miller

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.

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)

[Greg Miller]

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?

[Jon Fairhurst]

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.

[Kathy Smith]

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.

[Steve House]

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.

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve House

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.

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

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Kathy Smith

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.

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.

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

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.

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

[Kathy Smith]

Originally Posted by Greg Miller

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?

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.