[Richard Crowley]

As you can see from the absence of any responses, you are asking an almost impossible question. Seeking “audio that minimizes any echo/hollowness of the space” using distant (hanging or floor) microphones essentially violates the natural laws of acoustic physics. By rejecting the concept of close-micing (wireless on the actors) the director has painted him/herself into a corner from which there is no escape.

And to make matters worse you seem to be describing “theatre in the round” where the actors are facing in random directions, so you can’t even depend on traditional projection to an audience through the proscenium. maybe floor mics would work, but I wouldn’t expect any better than “transcription-grade” audio quality (if even that).

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

I suspect that there are two distinct markets for 5.1 and 7.1 decoders.
1) Professionals who mix those formats and can afford pro-quality gear (and prices)
2) Consumers who just want a bunch of speakers to hear the whizzy effects in their home theater.

IMHO, that is why there are few if any mid-price decoder products.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

It sounds like there is still a low-frequency “hump” in the frequency response.
Your “distance test” wasn’t really valid as it was both “farther away” and “way off-axis”.
Is it not possible to simply move the mic away from your mouth straight out?
It is possible that the SM7 is simply not a very good choice for your voice.

Remember also that you need a good quality monitoring system that you have confidence in. Else you don’t really know what your audio “really” sounds like. You did not mention how you are listening to your audio?

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

Your “before” example sounds more “tonally balanced”. I don’t hear the proximity low-frequency “hump”. But there are audible room reflections from bouncing off the hard walls. You almost “over-compensated” by creating a completely pristine an-echoic sound which starts sounding artificial or un-natural.

Note also that you appear to be using your SM7 much closer than the example which I believe is the major source of the distracting low-frequency hump. Notice this next example. Thy guy appears to be using the same microphone (Shure SM7) at a much greater distance than you seem be doing. It looks like it is almost at arm’s length (probably not quite).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBMVMce3LEM

I really think that simply moving the microphone farther away (and maybe off-axis) has the possibility of killing both problems (unnaturally an-echoic ambiance, and mic proximity effect) with a single solution.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Richard Crowley]

tl;dr Back off, use a different mic.

The typical problem with amateur YouTube video production quality is that the sound is terrible. People rely on a distant microphone in a camcorder, web cam or laptop and they record in a space with lots of reflections and reverberation. OTOH, there are people who almost go overboard in the other direction. There must be a dozen YT videos out there recommending high-end broadcast microphones and processors, etc. You are not the first to come to this (or a similar forum) after having watched one of those YT videos.

Note that there are YT producers with hundreds of thousands of subscribers and millions of views who use nothing for their audio except the little 89 cent mic built into the camcorder 4 feet away.

When I listened to your example video, my only “complaint” was that you sound almost uncomfortably close to the microphone. The two most popular large-diaphragm dynamic microphones for voice pickup are probably the Shure SM7 and the Electrovoice RE-20 (and variations). One major difference between them is that the Shure SM7 has a proximity effect while the EV RE-20 was designed deliberately to NOT have proximity effect. Proximity effect can be heard as a notable increase in bass frequencies when you get closer to the microphone.

There is a place for both of those styles of microphone. News/talk radio stations, and especially those who have guests into the studio typically favor the EV RE-20 because it doesn’t change quality depending on the distance between the mouth and the microphone. OTOH, entertainment, “DJ” operations with “Joe Radio” disk-jockey announcers often use precedence effect to enhance the low-end of their voice and to vary the distance to produce special effects, etc.

Your “presenting symptom” (as they say in the medical biz) is that it “sounds synthetic”. That is a pretty subjective thing as we don’t know what YOU think is “synthetic”? Can you cite examples of YT videos that have an audio quality closer to what you seek?

You say that you are recording in “a recording booth with pretty much zero background noise” but then you also have the kind of processing the people use when they are operating in less than ideal places trying to get rid of background noise. You also appear to be using the microphone rather close which enhances the proximity effect.

My first observation was that your audio was nice and quiet, perhaps almost “too quiet”. And that there was a significant low-frequency “hump”, a combination of your baritone voice and the proximity effect of the SM7B. Note that the combination of the particular microphone and your voice, and the acoustic conditions of your recording environment will have likely a more noticeable effect on the audio than all that processing power.

The sampling rate, the software and the computer are unlikely to have any effect on this, as you have demonstrated. And the fact that it sounds the same with the DBX processing switched off means that the proximity effect of the microphone is a prime suspect here. What happens if you “back-off” from the microphone and use it at a more comfortable distance? If your recording space is really quiet, then you don’t really need the relative insensitivity of dynamic mics to reduce pickup of ambient noise. And you don’t need to work the mic so close to increase the signal-to-noise ratio because it is probably fine already. Perhaps a little “room tone” would make the sound more “natural” so that it doesn’t sound like you are speaking from an an-echoic chamber.

If possible, you could also try using a different mic (like an RE-20) which may be more suitable for your voice. Many voice talent have come to know which microphones fit better with their voice. One problem with many of those YT videos is that they demonstrate what the guy making the video has found works well for him, but that doesn’t mean that it works well for everyone. People have different situations. You have an ideal, noise-free environment, so all that processing to eliminate noise is something you don’t really need. Everyone has a different voice, so it should not be surprising that one microphone will not be ideal for everyone. You didn’t mention whether you have tried any other microphone?

Feel free to experiment with things. Especially mic placement (to the side vs. “head-on”) and distance could make a very significant difference in what you are hearing.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

Note first that there is a big difference between where we RECORD things vs. where we end up MIXING them.
Boiled down to its essence:

[Richard Crowley]

It is not clear whether you are asking about a mechanical/acoustical sound (the actuation of the physical button) or an electronic/digital sound (some kind of disturbance to the signal).

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

“Plug-in power” is typically a low voltage (3-5V) which is applied to an unbalanced connection directly to a typical electret capacitor microphone capsule. This is the kind of microphone used in lav mics, headset mics, computer mics, cell phones, etc. etc. etc.

“Phantom power” is typically a high voltage (48V) applied to both internal wires of a balanced pair. It is converted for use internally in (typically) a condenser microphone.

Because of the balanced vs. unbalanced nature of typical 3.5mm connections vs. typical XLR connections, and particularly because of the very significant difference between the 5V vs. 48V power they are in no manner compatible or interconnectable. That is why various adapters are necessary such as mentioned by Mr. Watson.

Suggest testing your microphone to confirm that it still works with your wireless transmitter. You may have actually destroyed the microphone depending on exactly how your (unidentified) adapter was wired.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_power#Other_microphone_powering_techniques

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

You said “interviewees” plural? And you are using a single shotgun mic for two or more people?
Do you have a boom operator swinging the mic toward whomever is speaking?
At what distance are you trying to use the microphone?

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.

[Richard Crowley]

Unless you use a stable test tone, you are only estimating what the audio levels are. And you are seeing the difference between the peak-reading meters during recording vs the average-reading waveform in the editing software. If you zoom in to the waveform, you will see the occasional peaks that were showing up on the recorder meter, but are averaged out by the editing software level envelope display.

Now, if you use a stable test tone and record it at -10dBFS, then you should see -10dBFS in the editing software.

———————————————————————————
Recording audio without metering and monitoring is exactly like framing and focusing without looking at the viewfinder.