overcoming dull, boxy, harsh sound of cheap dynamic mics

[dfira]

So I'm only recording dialogue, and I previously owned a Rode M3 (condenser), it had that classic airy/open high end, with really good bass extension and clarity (without being boomy). I sold it and bought the Rode M1 (dynamic) because a little too much room leaked in, and it wasn't punchy enough on the transients. I have had this M1 for a while now, and what I notice is that it sounds like absolute crap at a distance, but too close and the proximity effect takes over. It is boomy as all hell. Sure, I can EQ it out, and I have spent a while getting a good setting, but it still has that typical muffled dynamic sound, and the high end is either non-existent or just harsh/brittle.

What should I do? Consider going back to a condenser, or are there some tricks to to polish this turd?

edit: uploaded sample, in case you're curious: https://soundcloud.com/arifd/rode-m1-pr ... 7c57a99c11

[Hugh Robjohns]

I would have kept the M3 and addressed the room sound, myself...

[dfira]

Yes. Sometimes we have to make mistakes in order to learn.

I'm considering buying it again. Second hand for around €50 I'm not sure what can beat it.

I'm also considering the Sennheiser E845, which is a super or hyper cardioid, with a reasonably flat response, from what I can tell, a less harsh upper end. So still get the characteristics of a dynamic that I like.

[Bob Bickerton]

Yes, room treatment, microphone choice and correct usage are the biggest contributors to a good sound and it’s always better to get it right at source rather than fix after the fact.

I haven’t tried the M3 myself, but it has a good reputation around here. Lots of good alternatives too, but not many in that price range.

Bob

[Mixedup]

There are some lovely dynamic mics out there; I don't know the M1. But if you want to be further away, the room will always come into it, whether dynamic or capacitor. You could try a fig 8 mic with a gobo/absorber behind. Or maybe an EV RE320 or RE20, which have no proximity effect. Or you could just treat the room and choose the €50 mic you already know does the job!

[Sam Spoons]

At the risk of being shot down in flames by those more knowledgable than me, I think you've fallen for the misconception that capacitor mics magically capture more room sound than dynamics. They will capture more at the extreme high end but they also capture more of the wanted audio up there too but that aside, and given similar polar patterns a capacitor should not capture a higher ratio of ambience to wanted sound than a dynamic.

[Bob Bickerton]

Interesting point. I think the misconception arises from the fact that many dynamic vocal microphones are voiced to be used close up - typically stage vocal microphones - whereas capacitor microphones are generally worked further away. When using an M201 or SM7 I’ll generally ‘eat’ the mic, well at least more so than say a U87! And so it’s the proximity to the microphone that can potentially attenuate room sound relative to source, if that makes sense.

At the end of the day though nothing beats decent room treatment.

Bob

[Sam Spoons]

Good point, and that could certainly explain it.

[dfira]

But since condensers are more sensitive, they end up picking up more of the tail-end room reflections than a dynamic would.

You know what though guys... I just took off the windshield and it has made a sizable difference to the upper end. (more than I expected)

[Wonks]

But since condensers are more sensitive, they end up picking up more of the tail-end room reflections than a dynamic would.

Faulty logic there. More sensitive = less preamp gain required, less sensitive = more preamp gain required. So as long as the levels were matched, a dynamic would pick up just as much of the reverb tail (within its reduced frequency range) as a capacitor mic.

The difference is almost all in the relative placement to the mouth, and so the relative amount of room to ambient noise level going into the mic.

[Tim Gillett]

Working the M3 or similar mic close would probably require a more substantial pop filter and probably EQ to roll off proximity effect bass. Proximity effect applies to both the M1 and M3.

To my ears the EQed M1 voice track sounds fine. It may not be a really wide range sound but it's clean, balanced and listenable speech. I've heard a lot worse.

[dfira]

To my ears the EQed M3 voice track sounds fine. It may not be a really wide range sound but it's clean, balanced and listenable speech. I've heard a lot worse.

The recording I uploaded in this thread is the M1.

Since you're listening, out of interest, here is with windshield:
https://soundcloud.com/arifd/m1-process ... f615526c97

and without:
https://soundcloud.com/arifd/rode-m1-pr ... 6b4a14c3d1

(Along with the processing that was also present in the recording in my first post, I've also added a gentle boost of 0.8dB at 100hz and 7000hz)

[Drew Stephenson]

Maybe I have low standards but I have no problem with either of those recordings. Yes there's more high end in the windshield-free version but neither are sounding dull or boxy to me.

[ef37a]

Don't laugh but I have just bought 2 sets of Behringer C2 SDCs. I find them fine on speech and I sent a set to son in France and he really likes them on classical guitar.

35 quid post free from 'Zon. Worth a punt? (yes, 'do' the room but that's a given, duvets and such ****.)

Dave.

[ef37a]

But since condensers are more sensitive, they end up picking up more of the tail-end room reflections than a dynamic would.

Faulty logic there. More sensitive = less preamp gain required, less sensitive = more preamp gain required. So as long as the levels were matched, a dynamic would pick up just as much of the reverb tail (within its reduced frequency range) as a capacitor mic.

The difference is almost all in the relative placement to the mouth, and so the relative amount of room to ambient noise level going into the mic.

Thanks Wonks...The number of times I have had to say that in forums!

Dave.

[MOF]

You can use a condenser microphone really close to the mouth, either above or to the sides, the plosives go forwards and downwards, check it out by putting your hand next to your mouth to feel where the plosives are.

[Sam Spoons]

But since condensers are more sensitive, they end up picking up more of the tail-end room reflections than a dynamic would.

Faulty logic there. More sensitive = less preamp gain required, less sensitive = more preamp gain required. So as long as the levels were matched, a dynamic would pick up just as much of the reverb tail (within its reduced frequency range) as a capacitor mic.

The difference is almost all in the relative placement to the mouth, and so the relative amount of room to ambient noise level going into the mic.

Thanks Wonks...The number of times I have had to say that in forums!

Dave.

Me too [facepalm]

[MOF]

it wasn't punchy enough on the transients.

Condensers are very capable when it comes to capturing transients.
I presume you mean the more damped response of the dynamic diaphragm is what you wanted; I’d use a tape plugin or fast compressor to reduce the transient levels.

[dfira]

it wasn't punchy enough on the transients.

Condensers are very capable when it comes to capturing transients.
I presume you mean the more damped response of the dynamic diaphragm is what you wanted; I’d use a tape plugin or fast compressor to reduce the transient levels.

Oh, maybe I mean this, can you explain a little?

[MOF]

Certainly. The dynamic microphone diaphragm is attached to the output coil which is moving relative to the permanent magnet. This added weight makes it less responsive than a condenser microphone’s diaphragm (which is unencumbered in its movement) and so transients are, for want of a better word, compressed i.e. lower in level than the ‘sustain’ part of the audio.
This is partly why dynamic microphones still tend to get used on bass drum, toms and snare since they help fatten up the sound and they were less expensive at a time when condensers were very expensive and likely to be damaged by high SPLs. Condensers are used on hi hats, snare wires and cymbals since they have less dynamic range and higher frequency range that the faster moving diaphragms can cope with.

[RionZ]

Just to say... I was using a Rode NT1a for audiobook narration for about a couple of years, before switching to a Beyerdynamic M99.

I also had the same debate (with myself!) about whether or not it would/should pick up less extraneous noise, however there was another factor in my decision to go dynamic - the much less pronounced high end. I know... isn't that what you want, lots of lovely high end "sheen"? Well, no... not for audiobooks especially ones that end up on Audible where nobody's going to hear those frequencies. And, more importantly for me, I got fed up of having to micro-edit little mouth clicks and odd swishing noises that probably emanated from a slight movement of my hand on my knee or whatever.

So... on the latter basis alone I thought it worth giving a dynamic a try.

As it turns out, not only is it far more controlled in the high end, I do honestly find it picks up less extraneous noise, whether that be torrential rain, howling wind or my other half padding about in the next room - all of which still managed to find their way onto my NT1a recordings despite serious efforts at sound isolation.

Now, exactly why this is the case I'm not sure. I've definitely increased my gain to compensate for the dynamic, but maybe it's still actually lower overall than with the condenser, taking into account the difference in signal level from each mic... and perhaps I'm managing to be closer to the mic without picking up microscopic mouth sounds all the time. As for proximity effect - in general I'm happy with the way it sounds in the cans as I'm recording (which I have very low anyway), but I do use quite a bit of HPF in post production... and actually I like the fact that I can go in really close to the mic if I want to take advantage of added bass frequencies, for example when imitating the voice of a dragon... or God.. etc

Admittedly the noise floor is a little higher with the dynamic, but nothing that can't be very effectively and cleanly removed with noise reduction post processing.

I can't comment on any other large diaphragm dynamics but I have to say I'm really very happy with the Beyer M99.

Now, if I had a perfectly isolated (and perfectly treated) booth, I'd probably go for a figure-8 condenser a good foot or two away for the most open, natural sound possible and no chance of picking up mouth noise. But in my real-world scenario I find the dynamic works for me.

[ef37a]

I am glad you have found a solution RionZ but would like to point out that the M99 is hardly a 'typical' dynamic microphone? It is actually designed to mimic to some degree the characteristics of capacitor mics it is also a hypercardiod whereas most dynamics are just cardiod. I cannot find a price for a new one but a second hand sample was £328 so hardly on a par with SM58s etc!

Dave.

[RionZ]

I am glad you have found a solution RionZ but would like to point out that the M99 is hardly a 'typical' dynamic microphone? It is actually designed to mimic to some degree the characteristics of capacitor mics it is also a hypercardiod whereas most dynamics are just cardiod. I cannot find a price for a new one but a second hand sample was £328 so hardly on a par with SM58s etc!

Dave.

True indeed, got mine second hand, don't think it cost me quite that much but something near it, certainly more than a Rode M1 or Sm58.
Just making the point really that a large diaphragm dynamic such as the Beyer M99, EV RE range or Sure SM7 can, under the right circumstances, give excellent results on a par with if not better (for my aforementioned reasons) than a condenser for spoken word or narration work - which I presume is along the same lines as what the OP called "dialogue".

Certainly a budget dynamic is always going to sound a bit "dull" by comparison to higher end mics. As for "boxy" or "harsh, I think the former has more to do with room treatment and the latter possibly mic placement. To a large extent, neither of these should cost much to improve, but the mic itself is always going to be a case of needing a certain level of investment to get really excellent results. That said, if one is willing to buy good used examples, it needn't cost the earth. I once saw a post on a forum from a person saying they were new to voice-over work and asking whether they should consider investing £3500 in a Neumann U87 to start out with. You can imagine the replies!

[Mike Stranks]

My wallet bears the scars of me searching for the 'perfect' spoken-word mic for my personal use.

It's not really to do with whether a mic is 'good' or bad' - it's that blend of the interaction of your voice with the mic's characteristics, the mic and the voice in the room, where you choose to sit and how you want to sound.

I have a friend who has a good voice and does lots of YouTubes and livestreams. he is very conscious of his 'sound' and is particularly exercised about sibilance. He's now settled on a mic with which he's very happy, but IMO ttakes too much top away.... but that's just my take.

For spoken word it's most important to have a mic with which one feels relaxed and comfortable - irrespective of what the pundits think. Without that there's that back-of-the-mind niggle about 'how do I sound?' that takes away needed concentration from voice delivery.

All that said, The NT1A is noted for it's bright (overly bright?) sound and I find that generally it's not a good mic for spoken word. But in a specific case...

I do a lot of spoken word and my voice is light with a tendency towards sibilance and mouth noises. Even though I'm using a mic with which I'm generally happy, I still reach for iZotope's RX de-esser and mouth declick as a matter of course. But is it needed or me being overly voice-conscious?

(And, yes, I do have the mic positioned for spoken word: Forehead height, pointing down to the corner of the mouth, about 8-10 inches away... I have an excellent, very quiet room)