when it comes to recording, you get what you put into it. it's going to take a considerable investment to alleviate your issues in the room itself. if you look at many of the threads here about acoustics, you will notice a lot of folks put a lot of money and effort into quieting A/C noise. it's not a cheap thing to do.

seeing you are recording on a free software program and therefore assuming you are trying to get by on the cheap, i also assume you are using your computer sound card and not an external converter and not are willing to spend a lot on the room, i will go as far as to say you probably will have to find a work around like just turning the AC and fans off while you cut your vocals or something like using a nearby closet for a vocal booth. it will be easier to isolate the mic from the offending noise rather than trying to cure the overall noise in the room.

btw i would never use any noise removal plug in. as you described, they affect the quality of the recorded sound. no processing ever improves audio, it only changes it. all processing, analog or digital, degrades audio to some extent. best shot is to record it correctly in the first case.

In addition to kurts good advice, ill add a couple things. You can use a dynamic mic and get close to it, to help avoid ac noise. You can pur the ac on a wifi plug so you can control it with your phone or computer. You can also build a little cave out of blankets and mic stands.

CatMalone, post: 461655, member: 51605 wrote: May I ask you how to record in summers? Do you follow the same route as I'm having to...

I suffer through the heat and use a computer that can run at ambient summer temperatures without relying on any noisy internal fan(s) or room A/C unit.

I agree with Kurt and what your ears are telling you - noise removal software is too destructive, unless perhaps you're into the insanely expensive spectral variety. You'll be much happier with the results if you can find a way to use Kurt and kmetal's suggests to minimize how much of the noise you capture in the first place.

dvdhawk, post: 461658, member: 36047 wrote: I suffer through the heat and use a computer that can run at ambient summer temperatures without relying on any noisy internal fan(s) or room A/C unit.

This is a good point. I think 110-140 degrees is standard for a running computer before thermal throttling takes place. I dont think theres a need to be concerned with ac for the computer unless its in an area with limited air flow.

Sing louder.

Kidding of course. You could try turning the thermostat way down then switch it off while you track.

Is it possible your computer PCBs are blanketed in dust? I nice dust-bunny blanket will keep all those semi-conductors toasty warm. Vaccuuming and compressed air will clear that right up.

Or do you have the thing overclocked to the brink of meltdown for a little extra speed?

Kurt Foster, post: 461656, member: 7836 wrote: when it comes to recording, you get what you put into it. it's going to take a considerable investment to alleviate your issues in the room itself. if you look at many of the threads here about acoustics, you will notice a lot of folks put a lot of money and effort into quieting A/C noise. it's not a cheap thing to do.

seeing you are recording on a free software program and therefore assuming you are trying to get by on the cheap, i also assume you are using your computer sound card and not an external converter and not are willing to spend a lot on the room, i will go as far as to say you probably will have to find a work around like just turning the AC and fans off while you cut your vocals or something like using a nearby closet for a vocal booth. it will be easier to isolate the mic from the offending noise rather than trying to cure the overall noise in the room.

btw i would never use any noise removal plug in. as you described, they affect the quality of the recorded sound. no processing ever improves audio, it only changes it. all processing, analog or digital, degrades audio to some extent. best shot is to record it correctly in the first case.

Thanks for the advise :)
BTW I already invested a few grands on my home studio setup so for a while I have to adjust whatever I got :)

FYI: here Acoustic panels are super expensive (a lot more price than it's actual price) still I used them but they didn't work at this place so I got rid of them. Also my room is big enough to use Acoustic panels it isn't wise to use them at this place.

>seeing you are recording on a free software program and therefore assuming you are trying to get by on the cheap
I definitely use Audacity because it's great piece of software and does the job but I did invest in Adobe Audition CC 2019

>i also assume you are using your computer sound card and not an external converter
I don't make music :) I actually create education video program and for that I do recording so I guess external converter isn't required but if you think it can eliminate the noise (as it has Gate feature) then please let me know.

>btw i would never use any noise removal plug
I also don't prefer to use noise removal plugins for the same reason which you mentioned but a pro user asked me to use that so I did that.

Thanks I'd keep your advise in mind.

kmetal, post: 461657, member: 37533 wrote: In addition to kurts good advice, ill add a couple things. You can use a dynamic mic and get close to it, to help avoid ac noise. You can pur the ac on a wifi plug so you can control it with your phone or computer. You can also build a little cave out of blankets and mic stands.

Would you suggest a good dynamic mic which eliminates most of the background noise?

dvdhawk, post: 461666, member: 36047 wrote: Is it possible your computer PCBs are blanketed in dust? I nice dust-bunny blanket will keep all those semi-conductors toasty warm. Vaccuuming and compressed air will clear that right up.

Or do you have the thing overclocked to the brink of meltdown for a little extra speed?

No, the PC is clean enough as it's still look new because I protect it from dust.
It's not overclocked but it's high-end processor with expensive graphic card so I was bit concerned about it, as its normal temperature remains approx. between 39 and 41 degree

CatMalone, post: 461680, member: 51605 wrote: FYI: here Acoustic panels are super expensive (a lot more price than it's actual price) still I used them but they didn't work at this place so I got rid of them. Also my room is big enough to use Acoustic panels it isn't wise to use them at this place.

I would advise using the panels if you still have them, or making some DIY panels. Even the most high dollar studios require some absorbsion (acoustic panels) to balance the response.

In your case you can mount them on the walls, or ideally mount them on mic stands or similar and create a little booth for yourself. This wont eliminate the noise but will help mitigate it. Ive used panels between drums and guitar amps for live recordings, it is remarkable how much rejection can be acieved with close mics and baffles. Moving blankets can be used on a budget.

Its important to be as far away from the ac unit as possible. Its also important to aim the rear of the mic at the noisey ac. Most mics pick up significantly less from the rear than the front.

CatMalone, post: 461681, member: 51605 wrote: Would you suggest a good dynamic mic which eliminates most

The shure sm57 is my favorite. The beta 57 and 58/beta 58 are also excellent. Those are world class mics for 100-150$ USD, brand new.

The relatively expensive but great sennheisser md 441 is a wonderful dynamic mic, which sounds great, and also rejects the most background noise out of any mic ive ever used. This would be the #1 choice for your case if the budget allowed.

The best 'cheap' mic iv had good results with is the peavy pv1. Just a basic dynamic mic that sounds good. For budget mics this is my choice since it doesn't sound harsh or muddy.

All of these mics require a mic pre-amp. Best way to start is use the built in preamp on an audio interface. A focusrite scarlett solo, or 2i2, is a good entry level interface. Right now the 3rd gen models just came out, so its a good time to buy a 2nd gen one at a discount. 3rd gen is only an incremental improvement over the 2nd gen.

kmetal, post: 461685, member: 37533 wrote: I would advise using the panels if you still have them, or making some DIY panels. Even the most high dollar studios require some absorbsion (acoustic panels) to balance the response.

In your case you can mount them on the walls, or ideally mount them on mic stands................................
.

I'd do that :)

kmetal, post: 461685, member: 37533 wrote:

The shure sm57 is my favorite. The beta 57 and 58/beta 58 are also excellent. Those are world class mics for 100-150$ USD, brand new.

All of these mics require a mic pre-amp. Best way to start is use the built in preamp on an audio interface. A focusrite scarlett solo, or 2i2, is a good entry level interface. Right now the 3rd gen models just came out, so its a good time to buy a 2nd gen one at a discount. 3rd gen is only an incremental improvement over the 2nd gen.

FYI: Currently I'm using MXL 770 with scarlett solo 2nd gen, it's good mic imo. Gives me warm rich bassy sound as I've a thin voice.

I record educational video course.

I can go for any of your recommended dynamic mics, may I know

1. Is there any basic difference between "shure sm57, beta 57 and shure sm58 and beta 58 " ?

Thank you for all suggestions.

the Beta SHUREs use neodymium magnets where the SM 57 /58's don't.. they sound and behave differently. while it's a matter of taste, it's relevant to consider that for many years now since the Beta series SHUREs were introduced the regular 57/58 has remained a standard. it's hard to improve on near perfection.

most who inhabit RO are from a music recording and mixing background. therefore they will tend to advise people to treat their rooms to get an as accurate frequency response as possible .

it's reasonable imo to say since all you do is V/O work where you aren't making critical multiple EQ and balance decisions you don't need to worry that much about room treatments other than to tame unruly reflections. some simple 2" foam or even as mentioned moving blankets will do imo. there's no need to concern yourself over nulls and peaks in the low end. one of the best tricks i have seen V/O artists use is to stick the mic in a closet full of clothes.

Kurt Foster, post: 461693, member: 7836 wrote: the Beta SHUREs use neodymium magnets where the SM 57 /58's don't.. they sound and behave differently. while it's a matter of taste, it's relevant to consider that for many years now since the Beta series SHUREs were introduced the regular 57/58 has remained a standard. it's hard to improve on near perfection.
.

Thank you for everything :)

CatMalone, post: 461692, member: 51605 wrote: Is there any basic difference between "shure sm57, beta 57 and shure sm58 and beta 58 " ?

Yes as kurt described. Sonically the beta versions are perhaps a little brighter, more mid/top. It really depends on your voice which one would be optimal. They each sound similar, and i would err towards the non beta if i had a blanket reccomendation. I like the 57 better than 58 for vocals, and in general. Ive owned 3 57s, an sm48, and got a beta 57 recently for my new rig. I used the beta 58 alot for live work, and loved it on the female vocals thru a mackie mixer, didnt like it at all thru the presonus digital mixer.

Id say 57, beta 57, and 58, in that order for a general reccomendation.

Heres a youtube demo. The reveiwer does 57 vs beta 57 on voice around the 2:50 mark. He also uses the scarlett pre amp.

I will add if your budget allows, the sm-7 is a classic, ubiquitous, broadcasting mic. It sounds like a beefed up sm 57. Should your budget allow the sm7 and a cloudlifter (gain booster) are a broadcast standard.

kmetal, post: 461696, member: 37533 wrote: i would err towards the non beta if i had a blanket reccomendation.

May I request you, what do you mean (meaning) by saying this?

kmetal, post: 461698, member: 37533 wrote: I will add if your budget allows, the sm-7 is a classic, ubiquitous, broadcasting mic. It sounds like a beefed up sm 57. Should your budget allow the sm7 and a cloudlifter (gain booster) are a broadcast standard.

>> 57, beta 57, beta 57A, and 58, beta 58

As you already used many of them which one is better among these to reject most of the background noise?

actually, the SM7 has a metal cage around the element that prevents the source from getting any closer than an inch or so to it. this is one of the reasons more gain is required to get an SM7 to comparable level with a SM 57 /SM 58. this make the SM 7 a bit more susceptible to interference from background noise. in your situation (Cat) i would recommend an EV RE20. the RE20 is another broadcast standard mic that you can get right up on without proximity effect (bass boost) due to what they call a "variable D" design. it's priced in the same range as an SM 7 and is a fine mic as well.

CatMalone, post: 461727, member: 51605 wrote: May I request you, what do you mean (meaning) by saying this?

As you already used many of them which one is better among these to reject most of the background noise?

I meant i would reccomend the non-beta shure mics in situations where i haven't heard the vocalist. So the sm 57 is my first choice. I dont love the presence peak on the sm58 generally. Beta 57 would be my second choice, regular sm 57 third choice.

The shure mics come with a little foam windscreen, to help mitigate wind noise.

+1 on kurts reccomendation for the EV re20. Ive never used one in person, but it is a classic mic.

I dont know which sure mics reject the most noise for sure, but i would say the 57 or 58 since they have a cardiod pickup pattern, meaning they pick up the least sound from the rear. The beta versions have a hyper cardiod pattern which i *think* has a sliver of pickup from the rear. Ive only used the sm7 in the studio in booths where pickup pattern and noise was not a consideration.

Kurt Foster, post: 461728, member: 7836 wrote: actually, the SM7 has a metal cage around the element that prevents the source from getting any closer than an inch or so to it. this is one of the reasons more gain is required to get an SM7 to comparable level with a SM 57 /SM 58. this make the SM 7 a bit more susceptible to interference from background noise. in your situation (Cat) i would recommend an EV RE20. the RE20 is another broadcast standard mic that you can get right up on without proximity effect (bass boost) due to what they call a "variable D" design. it's priced in the same range as an SM 7 and is a fine mic as well.

I'm considering these mics and also
I came across a video which says: Dynamic Mics are Noiser than Condenser Mics? (ft. Shure SM7B)

He actually gave examples by calculating noise dynamic mic to condenser mic by using 3 different mics. Would you please have look at it :)
Is it true that dynamic mic has more noise?

He is reffering to 'self noise'. The noise the mic makes on its own.

We are referring to 'pickup patterns' and 'sensitivity'. Which is what direction a mic picks up sound from, and how much sound it picks up.

In your case the issue is the condenser is sensitive and is picking up the AC. A dynamic mic is less sensitive so would pickup less background noise as a result. This doesnt mean it wont sound great, just that it rejects sounds that arent close to it.

Btw- that person in the video is using audition.

we have to ask someone like Boswell about this. i'm thinking that input impedance's would have a lot to do with this. i suspect a pre amp with a very low input impedance below 600 ohms would bring that "self noise" figure on the SM7b down quite a bit with the added benefit of requiring less gain on the mic to achieve a given level.

There are two main sources of random noise in audio equipment.

Firstly, thermal (Johnson) noise. This is generated by random movement of electrons in any component that has resistance. The noise has a power proportional to the product of the resistance, the absolute temperature and the measurement bandwidth. The noise voltage is the square root of this. The constant of proportionality involves Boltzman's constant. As a rough guide, a 1K Ohm resistor develops about a microvolt r.m.s. of noise in the audio bandwidth at room temperature (about 300 deg K). The lower the impedance of the source, the lower the Johnson noise.

Secondly, electronic (flicker) noise. This is a 1/f noise power characteristic of active devices, resulting in the voltage noise floor rising at 3dB per octave as you go down in frequency. The point at which the flicker noise becomes equal to the Johnson noise is called the noise turnover frequency.

Pre-amp designers spend large amounts of time trying to reduce the noise of their input stages, and each usually has his or her own way of tackling the problem. Once you have a first-stage gain of about 30dB, the noise in subsequent stages does not contribute significantly to the noise at the output.

Note that the actual input impedance of the pre-amp as seen from the outside looking in does not feature significantly in the calculations. However, if you were to sit at the input of the pre-amp and look out of the microphone input, you would see things like protection resistors, a transformer, a cable and then a microphone. Each of these has an equivalent resistance which contributes to the Johnson noise at the source.

It's a myth that a step-up transformer at the input improves the S/N ratio of the source. In fact, it reduces it, because the transformer windings have resistance that generate their own Johnson noise. However, what a transformer does do is increase the signal level (audio + noise) delivered to the first stage, so the inherent noise of that first stage appears reduced relative to the input signal.

Reducing the amplifier's input resistance reduces the effective source resistance and hence the noise, but it reduces the signal in the same proportion, so there is no net effect on the noise. More gain (not less) is required, resulting in the noise of the amplifier being increased.

To control the noise generated by an audio microphone, the only real options you have any control of are the effective internal resistance and its temperature. When you look at videos of some high-end studio recording sessions (e.g. those from The Tracking Room), you can sometimes see microphones that have a large protuberance at the rear and thick cabling down to a control box. These are cryogenically-cooled microphones, and have the property of reducing their self-noise by lowering significantly the absolute temperature of the active and resistive elements inside.

This is somewhat simplified, but I hope it gives a perspective on what counts when looking at noise in audio systems.

I’d approach this as such, mic dynamic facing away ( if possible) from main source of noise. Use a gate to cut it out before the recording source which one would hope is then loud enough over the AC noise. Should be, but otherwise... noise is always best not there in the first place lol.

kmetal, post: 461741, member: 37533 wrote: He is reffering to 'self noise'. The noise the mic makes on its own.

We are referring to 'pickup patterns' and 'sensitivity'. Which is what direction a mic picks up sound from, and how much sound it picks up.

In your case the issue is the condenser is sensitive and is picking up the AC. A dynamic mic is less sensitive so would pickup less background noise as a result. This doesnt mean it wont sound great, just that it rejects sounds that arent close to it.

Btw- that person in the video is using audition.

Thank you for explaining, its completely makes sense :)

kmetal, post: 461741, member: 37533 wrote:
Btw- that person in the video is using audition.

:) you got eagle's eye, outstanding. BTW I already started learning Audition.

x

Boswell, post: 461761, member: 29034 wrote: There are two main sources of random noise in audio equipment.

Firstly, thermal (Johnson) noise. This is generated by random movement of electrons in any component that has resistance. The noise has a power proportional to the product of the resistance, the absolute temperature and the measurement bandwidth. The noise voltage is the square root of this. The constant of proportionality involves Boltzman's constant. As a rough guide, a 1K Ohm resistor develops about a microvolt r.m.s. of noise in the audio bandwidth at room temperature (about 300 deg K). The lower the impedance of the source, the lower the Johnson noise.

Secondly, electronic (flicker) noise. This is a 1/f noise power characteristic of active devices, resulting in the voltage noise floor rising at 3dB per octave as you go down in frequency. The point at which the flicker noise becomes equal to the Johnson noise is called the noise turnover frequency.

Pre-amp designers spend large amounts of time trying to reduce the noise of their input stages, and each usually has his or her own way of tackling the problem. Once you have a first-stage gain of about 30dB, the noise in subsequent stages does not contribute significantly to the noise at the output.

Note that the actual input impedance of the pre-amp as seen from the outside looking in does not feature significantly in the calculations. However, if you were to sit at the input of the pre-amp and look out of the microphone input, you would see things like protection resistors, a transformer, a cable and then a microphone. Each of these has an equivalent resistance which contributes to the Johnson noise at the source.

It's a myth that a step-up transformer at the input improves the S/N ratio of the source. In fact, it reduces it, because the transformer windings have resistance that generate their own Johnson noise. However, what a transformer does do is increase the signal level (audio + noise) delivered to the first stage, so the inherent noise of that first stage appears reduced relative to the input signal.

Reducing the amplifier's input resistance reduces the effective source resistance and hence the noise, but it reduces the signal in the same proportion, so there is no net effect on the noise. More gain (not less) is required, resulting in the noise of the amplifier being increased.

To control the noise generated by an audio microphone, the only real options you have any control of are the effective internal resistance and its temperature. When you look at videos of some high-end studio recording sessions (e.g. those from The Tracking Room), you can sometimes see microphones that have a large protuberance at the rear and thick cabling down to a control box. These are cryogenically-cooled microphones, and have the property of reducing their self-noise by lowering significantly the absolute temperature of the active and resistive elements inside.

This is somewhat simplified, but I hope it gives a perspective on what counts when looking at noise in audio systems.

Thank you so much. It all sounds like foreign language :) to me but still I tried to understand and got the essence what you tried to mention.

As a beginner to this it's a blessing that all of the fellow members try to help a lot.