Post by: J.J. Blair on March 04, 2009, 11:53:24 PM
The filters used were the Pauly, the Pete's Place, the Steadman (round one) and the Popper Stopper.
Filter Test
edit: The answers are posted below. Some of you who have used numbers to indicate which filter you preferred might want to clarify, as #2 could mean the second one, or the second of the filtered samples.
#1) no filter
#2) Steadman
#3) Popper Stopper
#4) Pete's Place
#5) The Pauly
#6) foam cover
Post by: rankus on March 05, 2009, 02:28:45 PM
Number two is my favorite for sure.
PS: JJ You have a great voice.
PPS: Thanks for doing this! Can't wait to hear the results.
Post by: Nizzle on March 05, 2009, 02:32:06 PM
Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Very interesting.
#1 - Sounds the best MINUS the low end "air" bursts. Go figure.
I think I prefer #6 of the "filtered" examples(even though this was clearly the least, best performance)
My second choice would be #4
Pete would be proud of you.
-t
Post by: Nizzle on March 05, 2009, 02:34:23 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 05, 2009, 03:59:09 PM
Post by: rankus on March 05, 2009, 05:38:36 PM
I kind of like #5 as well. I'm listening for the best plosive reduction without too much other stuff. Although there is a touch of esss on #2 it seems to fit the singer/part imo.
Crappy listening environment at home here tho
Post by: tom eaton on March 05, 2009, 08:28:03 PM
| Nizzle wrote on Thu, 05 March 2009 14:34 |
For the record: the term, "Terry's Foam Method" sounds filthy. |
True, but it's a great band name.
Post by: pan60 on March 05, 2009, 10:28:07 PM
Post by: PookyNMR on March 06, 2009, 03:31:30 PM
Post by: JGauthier on March 07, 2009, 01:59:10 AM
| PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 06 March 2009 12:31 |
Of the filtered samples, I prefer the second and third, with an edge to the third (I guess that would make it phrases #3 and #4 on your audio file). |
I 100% agree. Exactly how I felt about it too.
Thanks JJ, Im really curious to know which ones 2 and 3 are... And Im PRAYING one of them is the steadman or popper stopper, not both the new breed of wallet sucking filters... I don't want to want one...
Post by: Kris on March 12, 2009, 10:44:11 AM
I think I liked (filtered) 3 the best. In fact they all seemed pretty useable to me. Was 2 a touch more sibilant?
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 12, 2009, 11:56:22 AM
Post by: Electric Warrior on March 12, 2009, 06:54:44 PM
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 13, 2009, 02:34:39 AM
I've personally been using the Steadman for a while, but I am really going to change that for now. On certain mics, I'm going to see if I can get away with not using any filter. Some mics , I will have to, just to protect the capsule. But for now, my days of defaulting to using a filter might be over.
Post by: rankus on March 13, 2009, 01:59:39 PM
Hmm. Seems I like the Steadman
It does add a bit to the top, but in the example I thought it suited. I had a suspicion it was the Steadman when I chose it as well... what do I win?Post by: J.J. Blair on March 13, 2009, 02:41:44 PM
| rankus wrote on Fri, 13 March 2009 10:59 |
Hmm. Seems I like the Steadman It does add a bit to the top, but in the example I thought it suited. I had a suspicion it was the Steadman when I chose it as well... what do I win? |
a foam filter.
Post by: Nizzle on March 13, 2009, 03:05:35 PM
| J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 13 March 2009 11:41 | ||
a foam filter. |
If he doesn't take it - I will
-t
Post by: PookyNMR on March 13, 2009, 11:30:01 PM
Thanks for doing this, JJ. It was fun and helpful. I've enjoyed your listening tests over the years.
Post by: maarvold on March 14, 2009, 02:26:04 AM
Post by: JGauthier on March 16, 2009, 09:46:27 PM
I do wonder if I like the popper stopper because thats what I use here... I always hear about the steadmans but never wanted to change. But I wonder if anyone else gravitated towards what they already use?
The Petes Place sounded great to me... Really good. And funny I didn't like number 5 cause it was too bright which actually may be the biggest compliment I could give it. I thought all the others had audible rolloff, which I actually prefer if done right.
I will say the results are the best I could have hoped for... This shootout will for once cost me NOTHING! BWAAAAAhahhahhhaha!
Nope. Damn, now I want to try a Petes too...
Post by: jetbase on March 16, 2009, 10:51:55 PM
I have no idea if there actually would be a difference, but my experiences in the past made me wonder.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 16, 2009, 11:35:03 PM
| jetbase wrote on Mon, 16 March 2009 20:51 |
Has anyone experimented with different distance or angle between a mic capsule & a pop filter? I have no idea if there actually would be a difference, but my experiences in the past made me wonder. |
I have. I came to the conclusion that some pop filters (like the Steadman or Shure) need at least 4 inches to be truly effective. At least, that is where my ears thought they sounded best. I found if they were too close, they weren't catching plosives as well and sounded a little funny one the sibilant tones in the high end.
Post by: maarvold on March 16, 2009, 11:41:59 PM
2. Too skinny, but good mid & top
3. Sounds 'big' but sounds unnatural in a hard-to-describe way; recessed 300-700 Hz maybe?
4. Removes the foundation of the voice; adds (or emphasizes) a part of the mids that gives voice a mild 'sandy' texture
5. Let's too much popping through--more than any other--and sounds unnatural in a new and different way; emphasizes sibilance
6. Unacceptably colored compared to no filter, loses presence, emphasizes 550 or 600 Hz resonance a bit (yuk)
What a wake-up call.
Post by: rankus on March 18, 2009, 06:04:36 PM
Thanks for doing these shootouts for us JJ. They really are most helpful. You are a gentleman and a scholar!
Post by: pan60 on March 31, 2009, 11:00:36 PM
and thanks again for checking the filter out!
Post by: seedyunderbelly.com on April 01, 2009, 11:19:21 PM
Those filters REALLY hose up the sound more than I had suspected..
I thought 4 and 5 were the best.
The message I am taking is - do not use any filter if you can avoid it.
j
Post by: maarvold on January 30, 2010, 01:32:56 PM
Post by: Jitters on February 15, 2010, 07:15:44 AM
Still, it would have been nice to have included pantyhose over a clothes hanger, you know, just as a scientific control for the experiment.
Post by: JGauthier on February 17, 2010, 12:23:39 PM
Thanks again to JJ for the shootout!
Seeing this thread again today shows how much I thought of JJ's shootout- Since I picked the popper stopper (and thats what I already have and its cheap) I haven't thought about popper stoppers at ALL!
Completey forgot about Petes place which was my #2, again which is great. I like shootouts that SAVE me money for once!
And the shootout also confirms that the best... is without.
But damn if the cheap popper stopper didn't do just fine! Wow, seeing this thread just really stoked me on how well I could walk away from caring after that shootout. Money didn't necessarily help sonics!
Post by: bob ebeling on July 30, 2010, 10:39:03 AM
Compared to the unfiltered sample, I would say the Pauly lives up to the hype. Very little difference to the origional, except it stops the pops.
To me they all stop the pop but the bigger issue is what they do to the esses, and overall microcurves. Pauly wins.
Listening on grados in the living room.
Post by: Silvertone on July 31, 2010, 01:45:55 PM
As for the Leslie... I know what you mean ... as you know so many people mic them incorrectly and cause phase issues and cancellations to occur...
Thanks again for reviving this thread, I missed it first time around.
Post by: eightyeightkeys on August 04, 2010, 03:59:33 PM
I thought number 3 was both the most effective at reducing the plosives and preserved the natural sound the best. All the hard consonants came out naturally without any tilt.
Number 5, a close second.