Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jmd509 1888 days ago
My notes (tl;dr) from the article below.

For anyone even vaguely familiar with audio engineering and recording, these tactics are not profound. Not a bad thing because in the end, less is more.

Worth mentioning that a good mic is arguably the 20% input that contributes to 80%+ of the output/audio quality, as supported by the article.

#6 is really the only non-obvious point. Apparently this is a major subject of debate.

1.) If you can afford it, use the Neumann U87 mic (~$3.5k)

2.) High pass filter (~250hz) on the vocal chain

3.) To avoid plosives, don't speak head-on into the mic. Speak off the side, on a diagonal. Use a pop filter.

4.) Design your studio to minimize reverberation. Make sure the recording space is isolated and there "aren't a lot of solid walls." Absorb sound with baffles, sound panels, etc. Counterintuitively, a larger room with more diffusion is better than the opposite.

5.) Minimize ambient sound. Your mic will pick up everything from fans to CPUs to electronic interference off computer screens. This noise will muddy up the recording.

6.) Minimize processing or compression of the signal before streaming, or in the case of radio, sending to the satellite.

Edit: for clarity

4 comments

For reference, most/all BBC radio stations use AKG C414s (https://www.akg.com/Microphones/Condenser%20Microphones/C414...) of various vintages. They sound fantastic and cost ~$700, rather than $3.5k.

BBC Radio 3 uses no dynamic range compression, so might be most comparable to NPR (although it's likely that each local station applies a ton of compression before the signal hits the air).

Most (other) radio stations apply copious amounts of multiband dynamic range compression on their output - with the nickname of "sausage-making", since the process turns waveforms that look like music into waveforms that look like sausages. In the FM days, louder sounding stations were associated with better signals, so got bigger market share...

250Hz high pass seems too high for male voices in the baritone or bass range. And depending on whether the female in question is more of an alto vs soprano 250Hz might still be too high.
The cheap Behringer mixer I use for voice chat, karaoke and so on has a selectable 80Hz high-pass filter, I can't remember ever switching it off on the vocal channels, except to parody that Howard Stern-esque huge bottom end with heavy compression radio host thing.

Using a decent microphone (AKG D5 in my case) and a little bit of tweaking (just a low cut and some compression is a good start) instantly puts your sound quality in voice chats so far above everyone else using cheap headsets or their laptops' built-in mics.

Anecdotally I've found that sounding more authoritative makes people listen a lot more to what you say, instead of zoning out.

It's not a hard cut off, it's an attenuation. If you set the room up right, it should basically undo the proximity effect so you getting something closer to how you would actually hear that persons voice.

Of course if you had it on and were further away from the mic, you'd thin out lower voices. Just goes to show micing people (or instruments) isn't entirely straightforward.

It depends on how close the speaker is. Getting that close creates a large proximity effect. The rolloff filter starts at 1k actually but is around -10db at 150hz [0]. I wouldn't use it unless one is close to eating the microphone.

[0]: (Page 4) https://media.sweetwater.com/store/media/u87ai_u87.pdf

> Worth mentioning that a good mic is arguably the 20% factor that contributes to 80%+ of the audio quality, as supported by the article.

I'm suspicious when percentages that don't have to add up to 100% add up to 100%.

That'd be a high pass filter, right?
Thank you for pointing that out - have edited. Wrote a bit too hastily there!