Specific metal pop filters

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:45 am

I want to try to some new, cheaper-end metal pop filters. Any input on these models (or others) is appreciated:

* Airr Support's The Hook
* Any of the Stedman varieties
* Grease-splatter screens (as endorsed by Moonbaby and Remy)
* Any affordable takes on the clipped-to-the-mic, U47-style types (Blue's The Pop, Violet's VPF, etc.)

Moving in a different direction, do many pros still use filters? I remember immediately after Shrek came out, when everyone thought that raising mics to eye-level and tilting them down was a technique that would replace filters, but I also distinctly remember this forum's own Davedog saying angling a mic in such a way would darken the sound.

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:32 pm

Quote:

Moving in a different direction, do many pros still use filters?

I recently saw a documentary on the Dixie Chicks that included some footage done in the studio. I don't recall seeing a pop filter being used on Natalie's mic.

I guess it depends on the singer's ability to control their p's and b's.

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:27 pm

The grease splatter screens work really well for controlling grease splatters in the kitchen (though not perfectly, say an 80% reduction). I have a gas stove and work with really hot cast iron pans. The splatter screens are great for things like burgers with a good moisture content that take a while to develop a good crust. (I hope this is the type of technical detail people have come to expect at RO.) So if you don't like them as a pop filter, move them into the kitchen and enjoy.

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:29 pm

Mmmmmm, yummy! I especially like using mine when grilling up BubbaBurgers... I find that if I don't clean the filter after the party, it retains a good portion of the grease, and this adds to the sibilance control.
SSSSSSsssssssssssssssssssssssss. Hey, is that the burgers sizzling or the chickie singin'?

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:57 am

Serious question (not befitting of me, the local idiot):
Could you use a grease screen as a pop filter or would it be too tinny, or create some reverb if it wasn't totally secure?

And if I stretch a thick stinking sock over a mic, would the material act as a pop filter (beyond the person standing back to avoid the smell...)?

Could you then use a pop filter as a grease absorber on your pans?

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:52 am

BobRogers wrote:

The grease splatter screens work really well for controlling grease splatters in the kitchen (though not perfectly, say an 80% reduction). I have a gas stove and work with really hot cast iron pans. The splatter screens are great for things like burgers with a good moisture content that take a while to develop a good crust. (I hope this is the type of technical detail people have come to expect at RO.) So if you don't like them as a pop filter, move them into the kitchen and enjoy.

Nice...hot cast iron. Nothing, I mean NOTHING beats it. Not only is it the ideal cooking surface, it doubles as a GREAT weapon in a pinch. (If you have the Popeye like forearms to swing the stuff!) On a side note - my wife dropped one of my expensive pans (name to remain out of it, but it's *all* covered in *clad* aluminum) to my stone floor denting the pan and essentially rendering it dangerously useless (try deglazing a cracked/dented metal pan...but stand back). Had she done that with my cast iron...we'd be looking for new flooring today.

Anyway - onto the grease screens - they work in the kitchen. They don't work well in the studio. Air passes right through them without changing direction. I wouldn't put one up in front of a ribbon and use it by any means.

Metal pop filters (the good ones anyway) have surface to them which is angled. When moving air hits it, it redirects the air to a different direction. That being said, if used improperly, these offer no more protection than the grease screens.

A great alternative is the pantyhose over the hanger trick. It's cheap and it works. A sock will definitely alter the HF content too significantly. The reason the pantyhose works is you have 2 very thin layers of fabric. Neither of these layers put together has enough of an impact on the compression and rarifaction of the air molecules (since, in fact, they pass this energy with ease); however, with the air molecules in forward motion, there is enough resistance provided by both the first and second layers to significantly slow it down to a minimal.

If you really don't want to look TOO ghetto -
Go to the fabric store and buy a cross-stitch hoop (wood or plastic would be fine) and then buy the pantyhose (for both of these, you'll probably want to bring your girlfriend, sister, wife, mom along....you'll look a tad odd buying cross stitch supplies and pantyhose...) Stretch the pantyhose over the hoops and then tighten and trim the excess.

You can then get some kind of add-on boom with a clamp to grip this and you're in business.

It's a bit less expensive than the "premium" pop filters and every bit or more effective.

Cheers-
Jeremy

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:45 am

Thanks, guys. I've made several of the nylon-cum-plastic embroidery hoop variety. They work well, too, but I've wanted to try metal for experimental purposes.

Any anecdotal experience (for studio applications) with the models I've listed above?

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:42 pm

How do the expensive metal pop filters differ from the cheaper ones? They all appear to be basically the same thing to me, yet there is a vast price range.

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:49 pm

The angles of the deflected air. Most cheap metal ones don't have the louvres on them - they're basically screen-door material.

Again, this doesn't change the direction of the air - it may minimize it to an extent, but enough still gets through that it could cause damage (ribbons) or could cause plosives.

This topic sponsored by: