This is what I would consider my good or best audio recording. Can someone tell me if there is anything wrong with this. For example, does it seem flat, muffled, not clean, noise? I want to get the best audio recording I can but my ear is not trained to hear as well as others so I would appreciate any help. This audio is raw straight from my camera.

Thanks

This is what I would consider my good or best audio recording. Can someone tell me if there is anything wrong with this. For example, does it seem flat, muffled, not clean, noise?

Sounds like the mic is too far away from the speaker. There's a lot of low frequency roll off, which may be intentional, IDK. But there's a fair amount of high frequency roll off too, which effects the speaker's sibilants and makes it somewhat more difficult to discriminate (understand the words). OTOH, not much in the way of quick reflections, suggesting a fairly large room. Levels are fairly low which also may be intentional, or may just be lost in translation in all the squeezing and moving that has to be done to move the audio over the 'net.

Not a bad first effort, but you can do better. And you will. The more you do, the better you get. I wish my first efforts had been as good.

Wait until you get more opinions before you tell us anything about how you did it. See if any of us guess correctly.

From that sample it sounds Ok Kathy, a tad sibilant (ssss) but that sounds like your talent. When you become much more experienced, with the same voice try repositioning your COS-11D lav.

With your current experience you should leave it, but for practise, you could try notching it down with equalisation, narrow band at about 5Kh. but very slightly.

Be careful you don't get caught in the syndrome of trying to 'improve' audio, that's already satisfactory for your video.

Cheers.

Thank you both.
Question. So it seems like you both think the mic wasn't placed in the right spot. It was right on the second button of his shirt. Is that too low?
What does it mean "high frequency roll off" Roll off, specifically? The room was fairly large. It was recorded too low? Well it was peaking sometimes so I didn't want to record it any hotter. I was told it's better to record lower than clip it. Looking at the levels on the camera it seemed right to me, how else should i be judging audio levels?

What brand of mic was it...... cheapy or a better quality mic?

What brand of mic was it...... cheapy or a better quality mic?
Sanken COS-11D. I think it is regarded as a better quality mic.

I am trying to figure out what else could be causing my low quality audio recordings. I am recording directly to Canon C100. I just checked audio input settings and I don't have anything anything turned on such as Mic Att. or Limiter or Mic trimming. Is there anything else I could possibly have turned on on the camera that would cause the audio to sound like that?
For comparison's sake you can hear Matt Davis' recording to the same camera, using the same mic. Third recording down
https://soundcloud.com/mdmatv

Thanks

The levels in the 'Jon.wav ' clip are OK, but it certainly does sound muffled, noisy and distant. Without actually seeing the setup it's difficult to say with the problem is. I'm not familiar with the Canon C100, but generally, digital cine cameras have very poor audio quality. Even the REDs suck, despite their 48k/24bit capability.
I would test using a high quality external preamp/ recorder to start.

The levels in the 'Jon.wav ' clip are OK, but it certainly does sound muffled, noisy and distant. Without actually seeing the setup it's difficult to say with the problem is. I'm not familiar with the Canon C100, but generally, digital cine cameras have very poor audio quality. Even the REDs suck, despite their 48k/24bit capability.
I would test using a high quality external preamp/ recorder to start.
Rick,
Did you listen to Matt's recording I posted? How does that sound to you?

Could it be my wireless receiver? I've noticed that there is audio output gain control on a side. Could it be causing the audio to sound distant?

The Soundcloud clip sounds.. 'OK'. Assuming I'm listening to the right one; "One hen, one C100 - Sanken COS-11 into C100 and PIX220" .. BTW, the PIX220 is a Sound Devices product with (naturally) premium audio components so I suspect that audio was not recorded on the C100.

A wireless receiver would not normally make something 'sound distant' per se, but a wireless system COULD affect the quality. (audio frequency bandwidth, ect). As could an improperly wired mic, for a specific transmitter.
BTW, what wireless system are you using?

The Soundcloud clip sounds.. 'OK'. Assuming I'm listening to the right one; "One hen, one C100 - Sanken COS-11 into C100 and PIX220" .. BTW, the PIX220 is a Sound Devices product with (naturally) premium audio components so I suspect that audio was not recorded on the C100.

A wireless receiver would not normally make something 'sound distant' per se, but a wireless system COULD affect the quality. (audio frequency bandwidth, ect). As could an improperly wired mic, for a specific transmitter.
BTW, what wireless system are you using?
I am using Shure SLX series.

I would try recording to a known good sounding recorder. If that exhibits the same sound characteristics, the mic, mic placement and/or wireless, wireless interface is the issue.
I have no hands-on experience with the Shure SLX series.. it's not top-shelf, but assume it should work OK. A few years ago I worked with a client's Shure PGX wireless, that sucked big time.\

As I previously stated, confirm the TA4 connector is wired correctly for the COS-11/ Shure combo.
Wiring schematics for the mic/transmitter are here. (assuming your using the SLX-1 bodypack transmitter)
SANKEN MICROPHONE CO .,LTD. | Q & A [ For SHURE ] (http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/qanda/index.cfm/11.26)

I would try recording to a known good sounding recorder. If that exhibits the same sound characteristics, the mic, mic placement and/or wireless, wireless interface is the issue.
I have no hands-on experience with the Shure SLX series.. it's not top-shelf, but assume it should work OK. A few years ago I worked with a client's Shure PGX wireless, that sucked big time.\

As I previously stated, confirm the TA4 connector is wired correctly for the COS-11/ Shure combo.
Wiring schematics for the mic/transmitter are here. (assuming your using the SLX-1 bodypack transmitter)
SANKEN MICROPHONE CO .,LTD. | Q & A [ For SHURE ] (http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/qanda/index.cfm/11.26)
I bought the mic already wired for Shure SLX. I didn't wire it myself.
I just ran a bunch of tests and I am going to evaluate them soon. I did test my mic with my wireless setup to an external recorder (but I don't have a good one, I just have a little Zoom H2N). I will report back when I listen to my test recordings.

The Shure SLX is the weak link in the chain. I have an SLX kit here at work. It's so-so for live applications and inadequate for video applications, IMO.

It's been some time since I've used it. As I recall, the noise was high and it has a very poor high frequency response.

I also have the COS-11D mic, which sounds excellent. I've never put it through the SLX though.

Other than very slight artifacts from what is probably the camera's noise gate, I thought this was a workable clip. I added some eq, light compression and a music track and it sits pretty well.

While I appreciate Duane's effort, still no articulation in the dialog. Though I've heard worse in b'cast news and such.
I've never encountered or even heard of a 'noise gate' on a camera. Possibly Duane means AGC, but I don't hear that either.
Kathy, How are you getting from the receiver to the cam's audio input.. and at what op level.. XLR, 1/4" TRS; balanced; unbal?
"I bought the mic already wired for Shure SLX. I didn't wire it myself"
- That doesn't mean it's wired correctly.. sh-- happens.

The Shure SLX is the weak link in the chain. I have an SLX kit here at work. It's so-so for live applications and inadequate for video applications, IMO.

It's been some time since I've used it. As I recall, the noise was high and it has a very poor high frequency response.

I also have the COS-11D mic, which sounds excellent. I've never put it through the SLX though.
Perhaps I should just forget all wireless system and get myself Sanken COS-11D with XLR connection

While I appreciate Duane's effort, still no articulation in the dialog. Though I've heard worse in b'cast news and such.
I've never encountered or even heard of a 'noise gate' on a camera. Possibly Duane means AGC, but I don't hear that either.
Kathy, How are you getting from the receiver to the cam's audio input.. and at what op level.. XLR, 1/4" TRS; balanced; unbal?
"I bought the mic already wired for Shure SLX. I didn't wire it myself"
- That doesn't mean it's wired correctly.. sh-- happens.
XLR from wireless receiver to the camera audio input. What's an op level?

That doesn't mean it's wired correctly.. sh-- happens.
Well, I wouldn't know how to check it. I have another one of these mics I can double check to see if it sounds the same.

Kathy,

I agree with most of what has already been said. Compared to Matt Davis' "one hen" test with the same mic and camera, your recording seems to be deficient in high frequency information (high frequency rolloff... think of having a treble control turned down somewhat) so the intelligibility suffers. Also your recording seems to be noisier; some of that may be room noise but some is probably from electronics.

And yes, I hear some reflections from the room. They are not objectionable, and IMHO they are not the biggest problem here. They could be reduced either by using some sound blankets to try to deaden the room, or else by micing a little closer to the speaker's mouth (which allows you to turn down the gain, thereby reducing the level of the reflections).

I think you're on the right track. If you have a second identical mic, try that, and see whether both mics sound the same.

If you then conclude that the problem is not the mic (although of course both could be bad), then try recording directly into the camera without the wireless gear, and see whether that eliminates the problem.

NO wireless system will improve the sound. The best wireless system will degrade the sound so slightly that it won't be audible; the worst wireless system will be awful. When possible, skip the wireless link.

Good luck with it!

I am using Shure SLX series.

That's probably the problem. Your mic is way better than your wireless. That mic is probably overkill for a Sennheiser ew-112p g3 wireless system, which many people consider the minimum quality level for wireless.

Not that it ever hurts to have a first class mic. That just means that the weakest link in the chain is downstream from the mic. In this case, I'm guessing it's your wireless that's preventing you from getting the sound you want.

Kathy,

I agree with most of what has already been said. Compared to Matt Davis' "one hen" test with the same mic and camera, your recording seems to be deficient in high frequency information (high frequency rolloff... think of having a treble control turned down somewhat) so the intelligibility suffers. Also your recording seems to be noisier; some of that may be room noise but some is probably from electronics.

And yes, I hear some reflections from the room. They are not objectionable, and IMHO they are not the biggest problem here. They could be reduced either by using some sound blankets to try to deaden the room, or else by micing a little closer to the speaker's mouth (which allows you to turn down the gain, thereby reducing the level of the reflections).

I think you're on the right track. If you have a second identical mic, try that, and see whether both mics sound the same.

If you then conclude that the problem is not the mic (although of course both could be bad), then try recording directly into the camera without the wireless gear, and see whether that eliminates the problem.

NO wireless system will improve the sound. The best wireless system will degrade the sound so slightly that it won't be audible; the worst wireless system will be awful. When possible, skip the wireless link.

Good luck with it!
I did run some tests with wired mic but not my Sanken because I don't have the XLR version. I will post my tests shortly. Thanks

Kathy,

I agree with most of what has already been said. Compared to Matt Davis' "one hen" test with the same mic and camera, your recording seems to be deficient in high frequency information (high frequency rolloff... think of having a treble control turned down somewhat) so the intelligibility suffers. Also your recording seems to be noisier; some of that may be room noise but some is probably from electronics.

And yes, I hear some reflections from the room. They are not objectionable, and IMHO they are not the biggest problem here. They could be reduced either by using some sound blankets to try to deaden the room, or else by micing a little closer to the speaker's mouth (which allows you to turn down the gain, thereby reducing the level of the reflections).

I think you're on the right track. If you have a second identical mic, try that, and see whether both mics sound the same.

If you then conclude that the problem is not the mic (although of course both could be bad), then try recording directly into the camera without the wireless gear, and see whether that eliminates the problem.

NO wireless system will improve the sound. The best wireless system will degrade the sound so slightly that it won't be audible; the worst wireless system will be awful. When possible, skip the wireless link.

Good luck with it!

That's probably the problem. Your mic is way better than your wireless. That mic is probably overkill for a Sennheiser ew-112p g3 wireless system, which many people consider the minimum quality level for wireless.

Not that it ever hurts to have a first class mic. That just means that the weakest link in the chain is downstream from the mic. In this case, I'm guessing it's your wireless that's preventing you from getting the sound you want.
OK. Would it be worth altering my Sanken mic so it's strictly XLR? Or what is considered THE BEST wireless system?

The hard-wired version of the mic has a Phantom Pwr. adapter and/or battery module.

The 'best' made (in the USA) film sound wireless systems are IMO Lectrosonics and Zaxcom.
digital systems... but many use the Sennheiser G2/3 budget systems which can sound extremely good when properly set up... but that applies to the Lectrosonics and Zaxcoms as well. (due diligence)
But a $20 mic cable will out-perform the most expensive wireless system. (all other factors being equal)

Would it be worth altering my Sanken mic so it's strictly XLR? Or what is considered THE BEST wireless system?
- Until you or someone diagnoses the issue, I would be hesitant of spending money.

It maybe worthwhile to make an appointment and take your gear down to Gotham Audio (in midtown) and have someone there look at it. They are honest and not out to sell you something you don't need. Same goes for Professional Sound Services. (also in midtown)

I would gladly help you out personalty, but I'm currently working a (six day week/ 12hr day) feature in the Hudson Valley region till Sept.

The hard-wired version of the mic has a Phantom Pwr. adapter and/or battery module.

The 'best' made (in the USA) film sound wireless systems are IMO Lectrosonics and Zaxcom.
digital systems... but many use the Sennheiser G2/3 budget systems which can sound extremely good when properly set up... but that applies to the Lectrosonics and Zaxcoms as well. (due diligence)
But a $20 mic cable will out-perform the most expensive wireless system. (all other factors being equal)

Would it be worth altering my Sanken mic so it's strictly XLR? Or what is considered THE BEST wireless system?
- Until you or someone diagnoses the issue, I would be hesitant of spending money.

It maybe worthwhile to make an appointment and take your gear down to Gotham Audio (in midtown) and have someone there look at it. They are honest and not out to sell you something you don't need. Same goes for Professional Sound Services. (also in midtown)

I would gladly help you out personalty, but I'm currently working a (six day week/ 12hr day) feature in the Hudson Valley region till Sept.

Thanks Rick. I will continue investigating until I get to the bottom of this.

OK. Here is another sample. Different room, different person, everything else the same.
What do you guys think?

And one more

Thanks Rick. I will continue investigating until I get to the bottom of this.
You might pick up one of these - EMP4S: Ambient Recording GmbH (http://www.ambient.de/en/products/ambient-recording/mic-power-supply/emp/emp4s.html) - so you can try the mic hardwired.

While I appreciate Duane's effort, still no articulation in the dialog. Though I've heard worse in b'cast news and such.
I've never encountered or even heard of a 'noise gate' on a camera. Possibly Duane means AGC, but I don't hear that either.
Kathy, How are you getting from the receiver to the cam's audio input.. and at what op level.. XLR, 1/4" TRS; balanced; unbal?
"I bought the mic already wired for Shure SLX. I didn't wire it myself"
- That doesn't mean it's wired correctly.. sh-- happens.

You might pick up one of these - EMP4S: Ambient Recording GmbH (http://www.ambient.de/en/products/ambient-recording/mic-power-supply/emp/emp4s.html) - so you can try the mic hardwired.
Thanks, would this work too?
Point Source Audio CON-XLR Adapter for Wireless Mics with TA4 Connectors (http://www.zzounds.com/item--POICONXLR)

And one more

Both of those sound just fine to me. Whatever you're doing, it's working.

Thanks Rick. I will continue investigating until I get to the bottom of this.

Thanks, would this work too?
Point Source Audio CON-XLR Adapter for Wireless Mics with TA4 Connectors (http://www.zzounds.com/item--POICONXLR)
Not familiar with that brand but it looks like it would work.

OK, so I ran some tests on Friday, trying different mics, different recorders and different connections. I think I know what my problem is now but I will let you guys listen to the samples and let me know which one sounds the best to you.
Just so you know I shoot in field and not in a studio but all of these samples were done in the same location, the same person and the same mic position.

You might pick up one of these - EMP4S: Ambient Recording GmbH (http://www.ambient.de/en/products/ambient-recording/mic-power-supply/emp/emp4s.html) - so you can try the mic hardwired.
OK this is TA4 I need TA3 :(

OK this is TA4 I need TA3 :(
The Sanken website shows TA4 as the connector for Shure transmitters. Yours has only 3 pins?

Just listening on a pair of crappy laptop speakers, my serious system is down for the moment, but of the five files posted I'd say it's a toss-up between 3 and 5 for best sound.

The Sanken website shows TA4 as the connector for Shure transmitters. Yours has only 3 pins?

Just listening on a pair of crappy laptop speakers, my serious system is down for the moment, but of the five files posted I'd say it's a toss-up between 3 and 5 for best sound.
I don't have the mic with me right now but reading the description for the wireless receiver it says it uses TA3 connection. I will confirm tomorrow.

OK, so I ran some tests on Friday, trying different mics, different recorders and different connections. I think I know what my problem is now but I will let you guys listen to the samples and let me know which one sounds the best to you.
Just so you know I shoot in field and not in a studio but all of these samples were done in the same location, the same person and the same mic position.

I like number 1 myself. Seems nice and flat through the main vocal range, doesn't roll off the highs too much so it's got some "air". Not noisy. No low freq. rumble that I can hear. No objectionable (or for that matter, audible) reflections.

So... what's changing between these?

Kathy,

Sorry, I'm a bit behind the curve in terms of getting around to listening.

"Gary2" seems to have more high frequency content than the original "Jon" clip; the intelligibility seems better to me. At around 25 seconds, the peak noise level reads about -50 dBFS, compared to the loudest voice peak which is about -2.5 dBFS. The predominant noise I hear there (~25 seconds) sounds like some sort of motor or machine running in the background.

"Michael" also has more high frequency content than "Jon," perhaps even a bit more than "Gary2." The biggest difference is that "Michael" has much more room reflections than either of the other two clips. It's intelligible, but the room bounce is quite obvious, and it would especially stick out if you're inter-cutting that track with other, cleaner tracks. (As far as noise level: there is very little useful real silence in the clip; the gaps between words are filled either with breath intake, or with room reflections... it's hard to get a meaningful background noise measurement in the segment that you provided.)

I'm still wondering about exact mic placement when you recorded "Jon." I don't recall seeing an answer to my previous question, i.e. was the mic covered by any clothing, etc., or was it entirely exposed? If it was under even one layer, that might account for the HF rolloff.

"Gary2," especially, sounds reasonably usable IMHO (depending, of course, on the nature of the final project).

(P.S.: I'm listening for detail and clarity with Sennheiser HD280s, although I wouldn't want to mix on phones.)

The Sanken website shows TA4 as the connector for Shure transmitters. Yours has only 3 pins?

Just listening on a pair of crappy laptop speakers, my serious system is down for the moment, but of the five files posted I'd say it's a toss-up between 3 and 5 for best sound.
OK, I think you are correct. I can't double check but looking at the transmitter picture it does look it's TA4.
Are there better and worse adapters? Also, are there better and worse XLR cables? I think I will have to get XLR cable because the mic cable alone won't be long enough.

I like number 1 myself. Seems nice and flat through the main vocal range, doesn't roll off the highs too much so it's got some "air". Not noisy. No low freq. rumble that I can hear. No objectionable (or for that matter, audible) reflections.

So... what's changing between these?
Before I say what is changing in these recordings I want to see if anyone else can comment on them.

Kathy,

Sorry, I'm a bit behind the curve in terms of getting around to listening.

"Gary2" seems to have more high frequency content than the original "Jon" clip; the intelligibility seems better to me. At around 25 seconds, the peak noise level reads about -50 dBFS, compared to the loudest voice peak which is about -2.5 dBFS. The predominant noise I hear there (~25 seconds) sounds like some sort of motor or machine running in the background.

"Michael" also has more high frequency content than "Jon," perhaps even a bit more than "Gary2." The biggest difference is that "Michael" has much more room reflections than either of the other two clips. It's intelligible, but the room bounce is quite obvious, and it would especially stick out if you're inter-cutting that track with other, cleaner tracks. (As far as noise level: there is very little useful real silence in the clip; the gaps between words are filled either with breath intake, or with room reflections... it's hard to get a meaningful background noise measurement in the segment that you provided.)

I'm still wondering about exact mic placement when you recorded "Jon." I don't recall seeing an answer to my previous question, i.e. was the mic covered by any clothing, etc., or was it entirely exposed? If it was under even one layer, that might account for the HF rolloff.

"Gary2," especially, sounds reasonably usable IMHO (depending, of course, on the nature of the final project).

(P.S.: I'm listening for detail and clarity with Sennheiser HD280s, although I wouldn't want to mix on phones.)
Thanks Greg. I wonder if the motor sound you are hearing is the sound my 5D makes as it records and the mic is picking it up. I am shooting with 2 cameras and the 5D is usually pretty close to the talent. Other than that I am not recalling any machine running but I am shooting in an office located in a big building.
Unfortunately, this is all in field recording. Not in a studio and I have to be realistic about room sounds etc. They will always be there, I can't start sound proofing people's offices.

The mic on Jon was placed at the hight of the second button of his shirt. Same as on Gary and Michael. It was not covered by any clothing. I have not done anything different on Jon. All of these recordings were pretty much done the same way, but in different rooms.

OK, I think you are correct. I can't double check but looking at the transmitter picture it does look it's TA4.
Are there better and worse adapters? Also, are there better and worse XLR cables? I think I will have to get XLR cable because the mic cable alone won't be long enough.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.

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

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.

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.

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.
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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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 (http://www.shure.com/americas/products/wireless-systems/slx-systems/slx4-diversity-receiver)) and the portable receiver is also compatible according to Shure's website (Shure Americas | FP5 Portable Receiver (http://www.shure.com/americas/products/wireless-systems/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!

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.

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