R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown  (Read 9966 times)

Eddie Eagle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • SAG AFTRA Voice Actor
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #30 on: June 15, 2020, 10:23:02 am »

As a daily user of a pop filter, I made sure I followed Klaus advice on the color Black. I've been using the VAC 6 inch PopScreen for many years. Quite adjustable to accommodate your acoustic environment it works well. This pic shows ways to configure it.
A quik tip technique for singing or narrating is to smile and purse your lips on plosives. It's a part of a vocal talents arsenal of training for performance
http://www.popfilter.com/photos/adjust-comparison.jpg
Logged
Death is Certain. Fishing is Not!

Derek Samuel Reese

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 69
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2020, 01:40:53 am »

Initially the home made pop filter i made was great but after tracking vocals this evening i realized that the stocking didn't help my plosives ? tonight i was singing a little closer than i usually would and that could be the reason. But the s's and p words were very much over bearing.
Logged

klaus

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2020, 02:49:52 am »

Try the filter as the distancing device.
Rather than putting the popper stopper close to the mic (which inevitably makes you want to lean in, because the bass proximity effect is so enticing!), put it 6" from the front of the mic, and get close to that. A double layer of pantyhose at that distance from the mic should in most cases do the job.
Logged
Klaus Heyne
German Masterworks®
www.GermanMasterworks.com

Eddie Eagle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • SAG AFTRA Voice Actor
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2020, 10:44:37 am »

+1 on the 6" distance. I typically am 6-12" or 1-2 fists away when working.
Logged
Death is Certain. Fishing is Not!

DanDan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Real Full Name: Dan FitzGerald
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2020, 05:28:08 pm »

A bit of distance is good for clarity and it makes the level changes less dramatic if the singer is moving, i.e. alive.

Ideally one would have the mic a bit overhead and 2-3 feet from the singer, old school. No need for a pop shield.  But that requires a large neutral vocal room.

Here's something from my Book of Opposites: Increased distance shifts the spectrum of the pop downwards.
A foot or so away you get earthquakes, while at an inch or two it is only a pffft. 
Logged
Dan FitzGerald  MIOA MAES
www.irishacoustics.com
www.soundsound.ie

gtoledo3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
  • Real Full Name: George Toledo
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2020, 12:11:45 am »

Maybe that just lets the bass wavelength develop more?

This suggestion can be delicate even if you are producing because you don’t want to lead an artist to a place that undermines confidence or gets them in their head... but if a singer makes a smile with their mouth on plosives, it can tend to bring them down quite a bit.
Logged

DanDan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Real Full Name: Dan FitzGerald
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2020, 12:37:00 pm »

I can guess from the sound of it what happens when a singer is right in the pop shield. There is no chance to develop a serious LF wavefront. Instead we get the sound of compressed air hissing through foam, or mesh, or fibre. Pfffft. Some singers have included it into their trademark singing style. e.g. Glen Hansard, SM58.

I guess once the air flow gets to the other side of a pop shield it gradually regroups and with more and more distance reunites as an actual high pressure front.
The effect is quite dramatic, even with a 58.

I often demonstrate this to young singers at gigs. Eating the mic or almost so, is fairly harmless. But pull back and gradually extraordinary low subs kick in.  I have heard of the smile thing before, nice one, although none of my singers is happy........

I read somewhere that the Beatles were taught to 'flash' an open palm between mouth and mic if troublesome P's or Ss occurred. Karate singing!
Also a pencil taped to the front of the mic is supposed to break up the pop, perhaps like the bulb shaped bow of a large ship.

In old pics of U47s we see clip-on small metal mesh pop shields. I susect these were engineered to work well. If so, it seems a shame they have been abandoned.
Logged
Dan FitzGerald  MIOA MAES
www.irishacoustics.com
www.soundsound.ie

Derek Samuel Reese

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 69
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2020, 03:36:48 pm »

Try the filter as the distancing device.
Rather than putting the popper stopper close to the mic (which inevitably makes you want to lean in, because the bass proximity effect is so enticing!), put it 6" from the front of the mic, and get close to that. A double layer of pantyhose at that distance from the mic should in most cases do the job.

You said the right word Klaus, enticing lol.

I’ve been wondering when it’s ok to sing really close to the mic ?
Yes you get that beautiful warm proximity effect, but it almost becomes too much to sing an entire song that close.
But the moment I back up I lose that warmth, but it’s certainly easier to eq, I almost don’t even use eq on my vocal when singing 6 inches away :-)
Logged

Kai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 340
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2020, 03:24:40 pm »

In my experience 3 inches is the most critical distance for generating the pop effect.
This even means the filter should not be at that distance in front of the microphone.

Interestingly a second filter at a distance does not double the pop damping.

With headphones on, in front of the mic, it's easy to interactively test what works best.

My most effective shield is a modified, circular holes perforated, metal sheet from SE, with gooseneck and clamp to mount on the stand.
The mod doubles the metal sheets with an angle inbetween, to reduce comb filtering, using a slightly different kind of metal sheet for the 2nd.

The most neutral is thin nylon pantyhose, stretched over a 6mm wire ring.
Cheap enough to use new ones, the foot part is best to use, if you buy those without enforcement at the toe part.
Logged

klaus

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2020, 03:35:15 pm »

Quote
My most effective shield is a modified, circular holes perforated, metal sheet from SE

Make sure the metal does not resonate when pinged.
Logged
Klaus Heyne
German Masterworks®
www.GermanMasterworks.com

Kai

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 340
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #40 on: July 01, 2020, 04:14:04 pm »

Make sure the metal does not resonate when pinged.
It doesn't, the acrylic paint seems to damp enough, and I clamped a little rubber piece inbetween the two sheets.

The double metal sheet filter isn't totally neutral.
There is a little coloration in the treble, but no comb filtering.
I only use it for long speech recordings (hi gain) when there is no time to remove all pops that made their way through.

Removing some singular pops in song productions isn't complicated with my soft (Magix Sequoia), the object-based processing makes high-passing little cuts very easy.
Therefore I use the nylon for those.
Logged

DanDan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Real Full Name: Dan FitzGerald
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2020, 01:46:46 pm »

I had a Stedman for a while. Metal perforated with angled holes to divert the blast. Not bad but it did ring until I added a rubber damping hoop.
I am pretty sure there is nothing as good as the Rycote.
Logged
Dan FitzGerald  MIOA MAES
www.irishacoustics.com
www.soundsound.ie

klaus

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2020, 01:56:54 pm »

Quote
I am pretty sure there is nothing as good as the Rycote.
As you personally used the Rycote (the only scenario that would justify posting about it here), can you tell us what you like?
Logged
Klaus Heyne
German Masterworks®
www.GermanMasterworks.com

DanDan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Real Full Name: Dan FitzGerald
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2020, 03:26:24 pm »

The 'scenario' is that I have lived with many many different types of screens over the years. If there were one aspect to my work which sticks out it would be Vocals.
To the extent of being widely used as Reference. Generally I was always disappointed when pops appeared. I like to be free to add LF. But susceptibility to pops is typically accompanied by disturbance from fricatives and dentals also. I made many, including a 4 layer of popsocks on embroidery hoops. etc. etc.
My preference ended up being the Neumann Foam plus a Ticket PopperStopper, small hoop/mesh thing, surround not perforated.  All individual types I tried performed poorly enough that I have always had to use two, sometimes three.
To now:- Since I started the Rycote I cannot remember any Pop.
It is super convenient in use. It attaches to their shock mount, which itself works well and is gentle on the mics. No stand, no gooseneck, nothing blocking view of the lyrics.
I am not sure if Foam would describe the actual screen, more of a tortuous plastic mesh IMO.
It presents a rounded surface to the wavefront, perhaps like the bulbous bow of a tanker. I reckon much better than a flat in any case.
This and the  surround prevent it from bending with the blast. Flat meshes visibly move and pass the Pop onward.
Also, they are washable.

BUT....  I just ran a quick few tests and the HF disturbance from all the  different designs which I still have is a tad disturbing.
(Back to the standby that seems to still work best...KH): The least disturbing is a large diameter wooden hoop with two layers of mesh, by Neumann.
I will try some Popping later.

I use small foam screens on SDC to stop the earthquake when an acoustic instrument player breathes into one.  Also in live work in case someone blows into them to check if they are working!  I use Canford UK ones.  This thread reminded me to check them all for ageing.
Yes, with some rubbing, small amounts of dust appeared on a paper sheet, so all gone.
I intend buying some B&K foams to replace them.
Logged
Dan FitzGerald  MIOA MAES
www.irishacoustics.com
www.soundsound.ie

klaus

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1829
Re: Pop Filters: Which Work? Which Suck? The Lowdown
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2020, 02:09:26 am »

Those damn fricatives and dentals!
Logged
Klaus Heyne
German Masterworks®
www.GermanMasterworks.com
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All   Go Up