I bought one of these recently. Then undergraduate recruitment season washed over me and the days got a lot longer in my day job. I'm really interested in testing it, but have not been able to get to it. I'll report back when I do.

Ah, right on. You and I seem to be following more of the same things these days. Nice to see!

Looking forward to your opinions !

I tried the Reflexion with a C414XLS at the local GC and I wasn't really impressed. IMHO, it was not all that effective in a fairly quiet setting. Also, it didn't seem to be all that robust.
In comparison, I have used ( and have on order) the Real Traps PVB (Portable Vocal Booth). It mounts onto a mic stand, too, and although it seems a little unwieldy, it is really pretty stable, and it has a LOT more surface area. And it is the same price - $299.00 - as the "senior" Reflexion filter. I say "senior" because there is the "Project" model ($199) that I also tried, but I was not impressed at all with that one. For $300, my money's on the RealTrap.

I have 13 RealTraps and the quality of them is just excellent. I know what you are saying. What kind of stand are you using?

I will use an Atlas MS25. They have a large and heavy triangular base and are built like a tank, with the "shock absorber" design in the stand's tube. PBX211 Boom arm. That, and I have a Keith Monk boom arm on an MS12 stand, and that will hold the pop filter. I may need to open up the sun room to have enough floor space for this thing!

I've had a Relexion Filter for around 4 years. Totally usable and easy to throw up in a hurry. Does the job. However, I now mainly use a pair of GIK 242s due to them already being set up most of the time.

The Relexion Filter's mounting design is a little clunky and cheaper mic stands don't fair too well when using just one stand for the filter 'and' the mic. The weight of the mic section can sometimes make a cheap stand tip inwards towards the singer. Additionally, this unfortunate angle can potentially lead to stresses which may perhaps cause the screen part to become loose within the bottom housing bracket leading to the screen tipping inward within the bracket too. This equals double trouble relative to inward leanings. Or, perhaps I just have a slightly busted one?

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.soundons…"]Here's[/]="http://www.soundons…"]Here's[/] a great work around to make them more secure in general.

Cheap Mic Stand Option
If you already have numerous cheap mic stands and can't afford to part with the cash to buy one high quality stand, simply use one stand for the Reflexion Filter and another for your mic. Simply thread your Reflexion Filter screen directly onto a standard straight (non-boom) stand using, if necessary, a 3/8" male to 5/8" female thread adapter. However, ditch the Reflexion Filter's long rod for this and just use the screen part. Works like a charm.

Stewart

I've been using the SE Project Reflection Filter for about 6 months. I think it's worth every penny. I use it in an acoustically horrible space and it gives me a dead sound. I do also have acoustic foam behind the singers head and section off part of the room with portable walls.

Sound on Sound October 2014 has just done some testing on these portable booths; the report makes for interesting reading and whilst, based upon their results I am glad that I bought the SE over any of the other brands tested, had I read the article before convincing myself that such a unit would be worthwhile, I would have spent my money on another piece of equipment that would have given me a greater over-all improvement in my recorded sound. (For example an outboard strip channel).

Grant Harris, post: 420101, member: 48518 wrote: Sound on Sound October 2014 has just done some testing on these portable booths; the report makes for interesting reading and whilst, based upon their results I am glad that I bought the SE over any of the other brands tested, had I read the article before convincing myself that such a unit would be worthwhile, I would have spent my money on another piece of equipment that would have given me a greater over-all improvement in my recorded sound. (For example an outboard strip channel).

I don't subscribe to SoS, so can't read this article. I do believe, however, that money spent wisely on acoustic treatment is rarely misspent. I haven't used this or any other commercial brands of this type of portable booth, but think acoustic space has way more potential to change your recorded sound than a channel strip would.

The Reflexion Filters look nice, and probably do a nice job for highs to mids. I'm skeptical of their 'multi-layer technology' in anything that approaches bass frequencies. My dad used to refer to fishing lures as being either designed either to catch fishermen, or to catch fish. I suspect 'multi-layer technology' is in the latter camp. Their marketing literature makes some dubious claims. A layer of aluminum foil can't effectively control bass. Then again, this probably isn't that problematic if you're recording only vocals.

Reverend Lucas, post: 420119, member: 48050 wrote: A layer of aluminum foil can't effectively control bass.

that says it all

Perhaps I didn't word that all too well. My point better explained is that when you are on a budget you have to make choices about what you buy and when you buy it and hopefully you make choices that maximise the benefit to cost ratio. If I had my time again I would have bought a channel strip instead of the sound booth because it would have done more for my overall sound than than the little that the booth has done. I think my words suggested that a channel strip would do more to improve the sound of the recording but this is not the case; it was just a sloppy expression of my chain of thought. I am lucky in that I can record in a pretty decent basement that has a low noise floor and some reasonable acoustics.

In summary the test results found that:

The booths increase outside noise at low frequencies and reduce noise by a couple of dB at mid and higher frequencies.

They remove some late reflections but actually add their own colour by way of early reflections.

Thanks for the clarification, Grant. I think what I'm saying is that 'booths' that actually decrease coloration would provide a better a cost to benefit ratio. Simple 703 or similar rigid fiberglass might not look as pretty, but it provides isolation without coloration. If you're willing to do it yourself, then it's very cost effective. Otherwise, commercial versions can be had for reasonable markups.

No problems. Yes I agree. In the basement to which I have access there is an above-average level of acoustic treatment owing to the fact that it is used as a live venue every Friday night for a trad jazz band. It has low ceilings and seats about 100 people so as far as home recording spaces go it is reasonably large. There is acoustic treatment on the walls and the ceiling and when the doors are closed the noise floor is very low and being underground and away from the road it is very still and quiet. On any occasion that I want to mic an amp or record vocals I take some equipment down there and spend a lazy Sunday afternoon getting a good sound. If I had to use my music studio at home I think that I would opt for some real sound treatment before buying a mobile booth now that I know what I do from the SoS article that I read.

Cheers

Grant

I have something like this, made high quality, with a good stand. Bought it from Editor Keys in the UK. I find it eerie how it sounds near the mic. I also have learnt, if you place say an Auralex pad or other acoustic panel behind you, it works amazingly well. Just my .02.

I recently bought an SE Reflexion Filter. I tried both the $300 metal one and the $100 plastic one. I bought the plastic one. There was 'something' I heard in the metal encased one I didn't like and the plastic version seemed to damp things easier. I have three spots i my room purpose-built for a live mic situation. I don't have a booth unless you include the "drum room" down the hall from the control room/studio. But there's a reason I needed something like this. As you get better and better mics and gear to plug them into, the room becomes very apparent. Since I'm a really lazy engineer, I would just throw up a vocal mic and not really adhere to the spots I had built to have such a device. The SE screen will help in these cases as a quick remedy for my shortcutting something I know damn well will haunt me at a mix.......Now I can use the filter for the back of the mic and put the singers in the area designed for them to be in and the world will cheer and love will flow throughout humanity........or something

Interesting, I am hearing the comb filtering alot more than the first time I listened to this. I can hear the absorption along with the reflections of that boxy room. Kind of a yin yang thing happening.
It looks really cool though.

How are you liking these, Dave?

Those would be better if you'd put on in front and one in the back, so yeah, your head in a sanwich. The back reflection is not where a cardiod mic pics up the most of the room sound.
Behind you is where most rooms sound comes from ;)

pcrecord, post: 424566, member: 46460 wrote: Those would be better if you'd put on in front and one in the back, so yeah, your head in a sanwich. The back reflection is not where a cardiod mic pics up the most of the room sound.
Behind you is where most rooms sound comes from ;)

You might have a point there. I'm now wondering how the sides would react. Might be better off having good gobo's or just better treatment under a cloud. I suppose these are more a quick solution to grab one and make the best of it.

Mixing vocals after these would be a challenge though. That guys voice has a definite sonic footprint from them.

I've worked with this device several times at client's home studios, with varying levels of effectiveness, ranging from moderately helpful to slightly harmful.

In short, I'm not convinced that this would be the best tool to use for every singer, (or on every mic for that matter, either) and I don't believe that it will ever be a viable substitute for a well-balanced recording environment.

I first brought this device up to the forum last year... the responses I received were fairly negative and dubious at that time - I hadn't yet tried it myself at that point - but since then, having had several occasions to work with it, I would categorize it as a cheap, quick fix-it at best. It might be helpful for someone who is trying to track vocals in a very bad sounding or skewed room, but I don't believe that it will automatically provide the user with professional sounding tracks, nor will it "magically fix" a poor acoustic scenario such as this.

And, I'm still not sure that it also isn't potentially capable of doing harmful things to the sonics as well, in terms of possible phasing or overlapping short reflections in the areas below that which it is rated. Dave mentioned something about this, when he said :

Davedog, post: 423868, member: 4495 wrote: There was 'something' I heard in the metal encased one I didn't like

I know what he's talking about. I've heard similar "things" myself when working with them. To my ears, they often result in a vocal sound that I would characterize as being "unnatural".

At the price it commands - I've seen various models priced anywhere between $200- $400 - you'd be amazed at how much actual and effective acoustic treatment you can do to a room for that money.
Clouds and absorbers can be made for a lot cheaper, ( a bail of 12 roll - 3" Roxul is only around $40 or so) as long as you don't mind putting in the time to build them, and, these absorbers and clouds also have the added benefit of providing you with a better sounding room to mix in, as well.

For a LOT less than that, you could hang a couple of packing blankets. ;)

IMHO of course.

Ya, thats what I'm thinking but I'm doing baby steps here not to offend. In this video, the vocals sound pretty awful to me. I can hear exactly what these sound like now, which is a very (well defined)" unnatural footprint. Personally, I would go nuts trying to suck out, balance to comb filtering between the absorption I'm hearing. These are whacked.

This is what happens when we try and aggressively change the natural environment in a capture. Nothing will even match the beat of the room. Everything is fighting each other. You are better off, imho, staying real over whacking out the vox with such a weird front to back capture.

Today I am using the plastic version for the first real test. I do, however, have a rear environment that will do the job effectively damping rear flutter echoes and comb filtering. I am just looking to tighten up the BACK of the mic. We will see. I'm using the U47 clone thru the GT ViPre and an LA2A hardware version. Very high-end wire. I may switch out the mic for the U67. The 251/ C12 has developed a hiss...probably from the N.O.S. sylvania tube....(hopefully) so it isn't going to be on a stand today. Too bad...Its the mic that sounds best on this singer.

I've just used mine with my mic yesterday to record my vocals, Jury is still out on it. It definitely stops the mic using anything behind itself, is that good or bad, well... :)

So my initial tests before the session have revealed that having the mic TOO DEEP into the filter greatly influences its sound. So I've moved the mic to parallel with the front of the side curves. I also have the U67 up and will have a better idea after today. Like I said, I have very good material behind the singer position. Its what I had built but was too lazy to utilize it on some tracks. Bad Dogg

Davedog, post: 424653, member: 4495 wrote: So my initial tests before the session have revealed that having the mic TOO DEEP into the filter greatly influences its sound. So I've moved the mic to parallel with the front of the side curves. I also have the U67 up and will have a better idea after today. Like I said, I have very good material behind the singer position. Its what I had built but was too lazy to utilize it on some tracks. Bad Dogg

I bet this is the trick Dave, good tip. I'm thinking its like anything acoustic, or like " Don't over do a good thing". You have to "tune" it to your room. Its not that you want to notice it. You just want to help control things a bit better. When you here it, eh?

I'm thinking it more like using a HPF. Keep sliding the hpf curve over until you hear the bass thinning. Back off a bit and its usually just right. :)

Yep. Thats what I'm finding. And the plastic one doesn't have that little hint of a "ping" sound I heard when I tried it out. Its really a pretty good product and could be very handy in a typical 'bedroom' set-up with little to no sound control installed. For me it killed some EQ things I was getting at mix. Like I said somewhere elese, the better your gear the clearer you "hear the room" and its problems.