Videos of Acoustically-Coupled Audio Recordings
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Scott, I like the way you put that.
I am on vacation and only able to listen via my phone so the distinction is not that big, but I do prefer the second video.
I can not advocate for a standard mic based on these two videos of music that I would not choose. If I compared mics in my system with my music, then I might arrive at a preferred mic, but even then I might not support a different standard.
Unless I missed it, Ron has not declared one over the other as being more representative of what he hears at the listening seat.
Then the Shure is the one where I got the listening distance. The first is the one I said was sonically better, this is probably because as you said on the other thread iPhone had better tonal balance.
Thing is...on these two, I wouldn't care much other differences, as videos, both are fine, the distance perspective is the one that matters to me which I think will help more in evaluation as things change because it would give more in room feel. I could be wrong, but more videos will clarify that part.
With what settings?
Whatever is the group consensus. I did the recordings on "flat" and "90 degrees" spread and 36dB (maximum) gain.
Your aim should be to adjust the eq, compression and stereo width settings to make your videos sound similar to what you hear in-room. Whether your preferred settings align with others remains to be seen.
Why should we reject standardization? Why should we add more variables to the equation?
This does not make any sense to me. This just piles subjectivity on top of subjectivity.
EQ should be flat, there should be no compression, and stereo width should be standardized.
Last edited:
I'm not saying reject standardization, your preferred settings for MV88 may match others. The aim of recording should be to give others a decent representation of what was heard in-room, if that means tweaking the settings, so be it. I notice that the Zoom IQ7 mic used by @morricab is less thin sounding and may not need tweaking:
I would be happy to standardize. I think WBF should buy video contributors the MV88+ kit. Posted video recordings add value and bring in revenue producing eyeballs for the owners. Providers expend time and money to give this away to you and obgyn while risking criticism about their systems from the peanut gallery. A small compensatory 'thank you' seems in order.
I have never heard these Wilson Audio speakers in person, but judging from this video and others of the same speaker (including Fermer's) I would say the sound is balanced, with a linear frequency response, detailed, with very good instrument separation, but a little dull? Hard to explain, but it seems there is a little something lacking. Would be curious to know if my impressions would be the same if I heard them live ...
The Aries Cerat recordings on the same YouTube channel, with the same mic, tell me those speakers are in a different league (more to my tastes), with a more refined, natural, sound. There again, to be confirmed (if I ever get to hear them).
Last edited:
Based on Ron’s vids and mine, I get the impression that the zoom IQ7 is the more accurate microphone. I will post many more vids in coming days so there will be plenty of systems and tracks to evaluate.
Yes, the sound was good but lacking something…hard to say what but that was the feeling.
I ordered a Zoom IQ7, and I will compare it to the MV88. I also ordered a second MV88 because I'm puzzled why I need to put the first MV88 on maximum gain to equalize volume level with the iPhone mic.
The right way to do that comparison is to record the same track with both microphones, and then play them off the iPhone into the big stereo. (Playing the iPhone into the big stereo is how Kedar convinced me there is some merit to a subset of these video recordings for comparison purposes.)
Hypothetical I know, however were we to be seeking a more rigorous standardisation in these recordings, then I would put forward the following mic which would bypass, ergo circumvent, the various mic’s and chipset variables between disparate mobile devices.
iTestMic2 USB-C | iOS Sound Meter UK Microphone Accessories
www.ios-sound-meter.uk
On-board Analog Electronics
A high-resolution analog preamp, regulated low-noise power supply, Analog-Digital Converter (ADC), and Digital-Analog Converter (DAC) are used for precision measurements and audio quality.Technical Information
The dual-gain range mic preamp, A/D converters, D/A converters and USB digital audio interface are all contained within the mic itself, so no Apple analog electronics are used. This lets us bypass the heavy filtering and compression that are normally in use, and also to store calibration values that are read by software.iTestMic2 is equivalent to having a pro Type 2-class test & measurement mic, low-noise matched preamp with two fixed gain ranges, A/D converter, DAC, and USB digital audio interface, all combined in one portable device.
iTestMic2 meets ANSI / ISO Type 2 specifications for frequency response, linearity, and directional characteristics. S6D do not guarantee that this microphone can meet the strict environmental requirements of Type 2 or Type 1.
I couldn't agree more. Of course there will be room-related differences, BUT we can refer to those in the post, and take them into account when listening.
Please note that when you play back a recording on speakers you get the room reverb "twice". I vastly prefer listening on headphones. I use in-ear Etymotic headphones which offer a fairly neutral sound with very good detail.
I look forward to your mic comparisons.
Please, consider MV88+: they added headphone monitoring and improved audio. They even used the dreaded ‘natural’ word
To quote: “By and large, we’d describe the new mic’s sound as a bit more open and natural.”https://www.shure.com/en-US/perform...v88-versus-mv88-video-kit-pro-audio-on-the-go
I will wait for a direct compare between the two microphones -- same system, same music, etc. For me the issue with the IQ7 is that it is Apple only. There is a zoom AM7 for Android, however the compare here claims it is for speech and voice over.
Compare Zoom iQ7 vs Zoom AM7 | B&H Photo
Compare Zoom iQ7 vs Zoom AM7 | B&H Photo
www.bhphotovideo.com
I have a different take: what is the purpose of making phone videos?
First off, I believe a 'decent representation' of in-room sound can obtain with a decent phone alone -- no microphone needed. I know this is true for me and others using only a phone.
Do we post videos to achieve not just a decent representation but an optimal or best possible phone video? If that is true then no standards are needed -- a person can use whatever equipment and settings that he wants for recording because he is thebest judge of how his in-room listening sounds on a recording. Granted for evaluating changes to a single system only internal consistency is needed.
Or do we post videos to compare systems, gear and rooms with each other via video? This is where standardization comes into play. By using the same recording ancillaries we control at least one set of variables over which we have control. Doing so does not forfeit gauging changes within a single system.
Are videos vanity projects, ends in themselves, or are they shared tools, means to an end?
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |