36 ms·

As someone who knows nothing about audio: wouldn't it make more sense to get a top quality microphone and apply post-processing, rather than deliberately gettin

As someone who knows nothing about audio: wouldn't it make more sense to get a top quality microphone and apply post-processing, rather than deliberately getting inferior hardware?

bberenberg 6y ago
Made for purpose is not the same thing as inferior. You can dig with a shovel or a spade. Each was made for a purpose. Buying a mic with the right pickup pattern is buying a tool that is there for your specific purpose.
dr_zoidberg 6y ago
You have to run that postprocessing somehow, and sometimes videoconferencing software doesn't give you that flexibility. So then you have to set a up a virtual microphone, which might be a hassle in your platform. At that point, and as you said, considering that you may not know enough about audio on how to set that up, you're much better with an easy-to-use, dynamic microphone that does much of what you need on its own.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Well, given that most people still use Windows, VB-Audio software mixer and virtual soundcard plus Cantabile as effect host together work exceedingly well. And cost nothing or very little. (But do support the authors.) Hardware has ease of setup and excellent knobs going for it, but if you're going for cheap, you should spend money on a condenser microphone, some mounting hardware (e.g. gooseneck, spider mount, maybe pop filter) and audio interface first. $200 put there makes for professional quality audio. t.bone SC 400 and an interface that does phantom power, like one of the cheaper Focusrite or Presonus ones. (If you feel extra cheap, you can go lower price on interfaces but it's not worth it.)
  - glacials 6y ago
    Your setup is great for enthusiasts like you and me, but everyday folks don't want to deal with mounting hardware or audio interfaces or learning what a condenser mic is or spending more than $50.
    - dr_zoidberg 6y ago
      For that case, a couple of years ago I bought a small Blue microphone (their cheapest model I think), and got amazing audio quality from it. My main requirement though was getting a USB mic, since my laptop at the time had the nasty habit of getting noise into the audio-in line.
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      It's a supercardioid (partly directional) microphone. The only difference for user is that it is XLR and needs the 48V button set to on, and a shock mount because this specific one is sensitive to hits. It comes with an ok spider mount, but you need at least a tiny extra tripod. $50 is about the price of the microphone. It so happens that there's the $70 USB version of it too, but the interface in it is just acceptable, as opposed to being superb. (This microphone sounds as good as $400 RODE products, using it with bad interface is a disservice when $80 gets you a great one.)
closeparen 6y ago
No. There is no substitute for capturing the signal you want in the first place. And “inferior” is not the right word. Even at the high end of pro audio where budget is not really a concern, there are lots of different microphones, because there are lots of different situations you might want to capture and lots of different ways you might want them to sound. It’s a “right tool for the job” thing.
yarcob 6y ago
Dynamic mics are usually directional and less sensitive to background noise. If you talk into them from the right side they'll mostly pick up your voice. A lot of echo will be rejected because it comes from a different direction. Condenser mics are a lot more sensitive and omnidirectional. They are great in a studio to pick up every detail, but if you use them in a normal room you'll end up with lots of echo/reverb which is really hard to get rid in post.
- asimpletune 6y ago
  You’re right in the sense that condenser are more sensitive than dynamic (ie better signal to noise ratio) but one isn’t like more directional than the other due to it being condenser vs dynamic. On the other hand, one that that does matter a lot is that dynamic mics can handle a lot more sound pressure. So, yeah, you often see them recording things like drums and the likes. This on the other hand is actually intrinsic with the mic itself.
- sahaskatta 6y ago
  It's unfortunate that this article recommends a condenser mic at the end. In my opinion, most people who need better audio for video calls are better served with a dynamic mic. Very few people have a bedroom or office room with proper acoustic treatment. A dynamic mic will be better for most consumers trying to get better audio for Zoom, Meet, Teams, etc.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Sure...if you know what you're doing. Dynamic microphones are not inferior hardware, they are the best tool for a particular sort of job. In film production I would use condenser microphones most of the time, but still made frequent use of dynamic microphones for work in noisy situations and so on. Live music performance typically uses dynamic microphones because if you brought a condenser microphone on stage you'd have a lot of trouble getting a clear signal out of it, plus they're much more likely to distort when a performer lets rip.

As someone who knows nothing about audio: wouldn't it make more sense to get a top quality microphone and apply post-processing, rather than deliberately getting inferior hardware?

bberenberg 6y ago

Made for purpose is not the same thing as inferior. You can dig with a shovel or a spade. Each was made for a purpose. Buying a mic with the right pickup pattern is buying a tool that is there for your specific purpose.

dr_zoidberg 6y ago

You have to run that postprocessing somehow, and sometimes videoconferencing software doesn't give you that flexibility. So then you have to set a up a virtual microphone, which might be a hassle in your platform. At that point, and as you said, considering that you may not know enough about audio on how to set that up, you're much better with an easy-to-use, dynamic microphone that does much of what you need on its own.

AstralStorm 6y ago
Well, given that most people still use Windows, VB-Audio software mixer and virtual soundcard plus Cantabile as effect host together work exceedingly well. And cost nothing or very little. (But do support the authors.) Hardware has ease of setup and excellent knobs going for it, but if you're going for cheap, you should spend money on a condenser microphone, some mounting hardware (e.g. gooseneck, spider mount, maybe pop filter) and audio interface first. $200 put there makes for professional quality audio. t.bone SC 400 and an interface that does phantom power, like one of the cheaper Focusrite or Presonus ones. (If you feel extra cheap, you can go lower price on interfaces but it's not worth it.)
- glacials 6y ago
  Your setup is great for enthusiasts like you and me, but everyday folks don't want to deal with mounting hardware or audio interfaces or learning what a condenser mic is or spending more than $50.
  - dr_zoidberg 6y ago
    For that case, a couple of years ago I bought a small Blue microphone (their cheapest model I think), and got amazing audio quality from it. My main requirement though was getting a USB mic, since my laptop at the time had the nasty habit of getting noise into the audio-in line.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    It's a supercardioid (partly directional) microphone. The only difference for user is that it is XLR and needs the 48V button set to on, and a shock mount because this specific one is sensitive to hits. It comes with an ok spider mount, but you need at least a tiny extra tripod. $50 is about the price of the microphone. It so happens that there's the $70 USB version of it too, but the interface in it is just acceptable, as opposed to being superb. (This microphone sounds as good as $400 RODE products, using it with bad interface is a disservice when $80 gets you a great one.)

closeparen 6y ago

No. There is no substitute for capturing the signal you want in the first place. And “inferior” is not the right word. Even at the high end of pro audio where budget is not really a concern, there are lots of different microphones, because there are lots of different situations you might want to capture and lots of different ways you might want them to sound. It’s a “right tool for the job” thing.

yarcob 6y ago

Dynamic mics are usually directional and less sensitive to background noise. If you talk into them from the right side they'll mostly pick up your voice. A lot of echo will be rejected because it comes from a different direction. Condenser mics are a lot more sensitive and omnidirectional. They are great in a studio to pick up every detail, but if you use them in a normal room you'll end up with lots of echo/reverb which is really hard to get rid in post.

asimpletune 6y ago
You’re right in the sense that condenser are more sensitive than dynamic (ie better signal to noise ratio) but one isn’t like more directional than the other due to it being condenser vs dynamic. On the other hand, one that that does matter a lot is that dynamic mics can handle a lot more sound pressure. So, yeah, you often see them recording things like drums and the likes. This on the other hand is actually intrinsic with the mic itself.
sahaskatta 6y ago
It's unfortunate that this article recommends a condenser mic at the end. In my opinion, most people who need better audio for video calls are better served with a dynamic mic. Very few people have a bedroom or office room with proper acoustic treatment. A dynamic mic will be better for most consumers trying to get better audio for Zoom, Meet, Teams, etc.

anigbrowl 6y ago

Sure...if you know what you're doing. Dynamic microphones are not inferior hardware, they are the best tool for a particular sort of job. In film production I would use condenser microphones most of the time, but still made frequent use of dynamic microphones for work in noisy situations and so on. Live music performance typically uses dynamic microphones because if you brought a condenser microphone on stage you'd have a lot of trouble getting a clear signal out of it, plus they're much more likely to distort when a performer lets rip.