Radio's past professional mic standard now fading

[Brian Bowers]

Ever since Covid began, the sound of some radio stations has been changing. As we all are aware, because of Covid, many radio stations were forced to close down broadcast studios and provide remote broadcasting for on-air talent from their homes, apartments and condos. This introduced many new types of microphones and acoustics to radio station's on air sound, that normally in the past had high quality microphones, microphone processing, and typical radio station acoustics. Even though the US is no longer in lockdown (as of 7/6/2022), I continue to hear a good percentage of radio station on-air talent broadcasting (or voice-tracking) from out of the studio. To my ears, the cheapness of some of these microphones and acoustics lessens the professional sound of many radio stations, to the point of some of them sounding like cheap internet only radio stations. I know most average listeners won't notice this, but I'm wondering if this trend bothers any of the engineers or programmers out there besides me?

 

[FRCC Inc]

To my ears, the cheapness of some of these microphones and acoustics lessens the professional sound of many radio stations, to the point of some of them sounding like cheap internet only radio stations. I know most average listeners won't notice this, but I'm wondering if this trend bothers any of the engineers or programmers out there besides me?

It's not just the microphones, it's acoustics as well, nothing is more irritating then someone sounding like they are in a fully tiled bathroom.

 

[Kelly A]

Ever since Covid began, the sound of some radio stations has been changing. As we all are aware, because of Covid, many radio stations were forced to close down broadcast studios and provide remote broadcasting for on-air talent from their homes, apartments and condos. This introduced many new types of microphones and acoustics to radio station's on air sound, that normally in the past had high quality microphones, microphone processing, and typical radio station acoustics. Even though the US is no longer in lockdown (as of 7/6/2022), I continue to hear a good percentage of radio station on-air talent broadcasting (or voice-tracking) from out of the studio. To my ears, the cheapness of some of these microphones and acoustics lessens the professional sound of many radio stations, to the point of some of them sounding like cheap internet only radio stations. I know most average listeners won't notice this, but I'm wondering if this trend bothers any of the engineers or programmers out there besides me?

But you're a radio nerd. You notice those kind of things. Run of the mill radio listener's or TV viewers simply don't. Especially in the age of Zoom, Skype, Teams, whatever calls, listener's and viewers are a lot more used to that sort of look/sound. It's not like some mom in her minivan is going to say; 'WOW, that's some great microphone processing!' Or: 'Gee, I sure miss the days of great studio acoustics around open mic's.'

 

[RadioFan2J3]

A bit of a diversion on this issue of audio quality - years ago, you could always tell that a report was from the "field" because of the limited audio response, higher distortion, whatever, was involved in either a telephone or radio communications link and in some ways that lack of studio quality was a sign of an actual location report.

As remote equipment improved, audio quality from remote locations improved, almost to the point where it became difficult to tell the audio was from a remote location. At that point, the immediacy quality of remote broadcast audio went away.

 

[Kelly A]

A bit of a diversion on this issue of audio quality - years ago, you could always tell that a report was from the "field" because of the limited audio response, higher distortion, whatever, was involved in either a telephone or radio communications link and in some ways that lack of studio quality was a sign of an actual location report.

As remote equipment improved, audio quality from remote locations improved, almost to the point where it became difficult to tell the audio was from a remote location. At that point, the immediacy quality of remote broadcast audio went away.

Back when I was at KJR, we heavily modified a 36ft motorhome with a full control room/studio in the back. There was full studio furniture with a Auditronics 24 channel console, and two interview positions plus talent/board op. Connection back to the station was via 450mHz RPU/double-stacked yagi's mounted atop a 24' pneumatic mast. We had three mountain top RPU repeaters which gave us over 250 miles of studio quality audio back to the studios. It was a rolling billboard and full boat radio station. We affectionately called it the "Road Hog". Needless to say, it wasn't your average remote.

 

[Brian Bowers]

"But you're a radio nerd. You notice those kind of things. Run of the mill radio listener's or TV viewers simply don't."

I already acknowledged that - "I know most average listeners won't notice this"

 

[Deleted User]

well to be fair, the quality of talent has gone down too, the days of having to have great pipes are long gone.

Crap in, crap out.... a good mic and processing is not going to overcome a weak voice sitting down in a home studio with no provision for sound attenuation from walls, etc.

 

[Brian Bowers]

"the days of having to have great pipes are long gone."

I would agree. That ship sailed long ago. Still, even with that in mind, prior to Covid, almost all on-air talent was visiting the main (professional) broadcast studios to either voice-track, or be live in on-air studios. At that time there was a more consistent on-air mic sound. There used to be a standard. That is no longer the norm, and will probably never be again. IMO, this contributes to the continued dumbing down (and cheapening) of radio. Everyday radio continues to be more and more passe. So glad I'm out of the biz.

 

[Negin]

I did notice that too. One of my cousins worked in a radio station until recently. A few years ago when they moved the station's studios, they had some stuff that was going to end up at the dumps. Most of it ended up in my barn. Since my house was big enough he asked me if he could set up one of the extra rooms like a radio studio to do some custom voice work. When Covid hit, he asked me if he could remote from our "studio."

He is a total radio and electronics nerd and made the studio sound just as good as in a radio station. I remember the program director saying he had the best sound and he said "remember that move?"

My cousin set the board up to feed Zoom when I did a few meetings and the sound was better then 90% of the Zooms out there.

 

[OLDRFGUY]

I have seen some pretty questionable choices of mics in radio stations over the years, but as an above commenter correctly stated, a big part of the problem with local and often network radio sound is the environment of the "studio" (I put that in quotes because the majority of radio studios I've seen don't rise to that standard of description: too much glass, little or no real soundproofing or reflection control.)

But on this topic: (dare I propose this) WHAT DO YOU yes you ALL THINK IS A GOOD RADIO STUDIO MICROPHONE?

I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative; I'm curious as to what folx think.

And to get the ball rolling, here are a few of my choices, along with comments and caveats:

SHURE SM5 - not made anymore but a lovely smooth presentation for both male and female voices; good especially with little or no mic processing.

SENNHEISER 441 - again, nice round sound. a bit pricey.

BEYER M 160 - A small format ribbon with (again) a very flattering and silky sound for both male and female voice. A bit delicate as are all ribbons.

AKG C 1000 - a 1/2 inch condenser (can be phantom powered.) Inexpensive (under 300 bux street) very honest and neutral, takes processing well. comes with inserts to go to a hypercarioid pattern. VERY hot output, not a good choice in a bad acoustic environment.

SHURE SM61 - an oldie - OMNI dynamic. GREAT vocal mic but poor choice in bad acoustic or loud environment

EV RE 15 - Don't know if it is still made but a good honest all around studio or handheld vocal mike - not expensive.

CASCADE FATHEAD - Great sounding relatively inexpensive medium format ribbon - with all of the upsides {and downsides} of ribbons

Audio Technica 4033 - one of the less expensive 4000 series condensers. Fantastic high end. Very hot output. Not great in many radio stations due to Size/Weight/Sensitivity but if you have good acoustics and smart announcers its a GREAT mic

and (get this)

RCA BK 5B A quite old small ribbon that RCA developed largely as a TV and Film boom mic. B version has multiple curve rolloff filters. Again, a ribbon with all that entails, but a splendid sounding mic when used close up. Johnny Carson used one for years when that was the hottest show on NBC/RCA.

Whaddya think?

 

[Kelly A]

Whaddya think?

My top 5 for overall quality, depending on room size and assuming capturing human voice:

#1 Neuman U87 Amazing mic considered the gold standard. Not for the old days of screaming, spitting, smoking, radio jocks. Best in class sensitivity, accurate frequency response, and class-leading pattern truth.
#2 Shure SM7B Probably one of the best announce mics short of the SM5. Works best when covered close, but windscreen is a germ farm if shared.
#3 Heil PR40 Great budget conscience mic available today. Warmer than RE20's and less expensive. Very smooth response and a tight cardioid pattern. Comes with a pop screen. Use it.
#4 Audio Technica AT4050 Excellent mic for music vocal recording or studio interviews. Great sensitivity and several patterns are selected.
#5 Shure SM58. Compared with 1-4 seems out of place, but an economical, excellent choice for a multitude of uses including: stage vocals, general PA, studio guest mics, podcasting.

 

[xmtrland]

These are the mics I see being used in various broadcast stations.

Electrovoice RE27ND, and the RE320

Shure SM7B

Sennheiser MD421

Audio Technica BP40

Also like the SM58/Beta58 from Sure for the reasons Kelly listed.

 

[Brian Bowers]

Here are some of my favorite microphones (preference is all related to vocal on-air or production duty, not band or instrument performance):
1) Shure SM5B (top notch on vocals, but IMO, just too valuable to put in studios these days, and look a bit dated)
2) Neumann U87 Ai (can break the bank of most radio stations these days, so I tried to find mics that came closest to it's sound)
3) sE Electronics X1S (used with a WindTech popgard, and one extra layer of 1/8" foam inserted in popgard, and bass rolled off)
4) audio-technica AT-3035 (used with a WindTech popgard, and one extra layer of 1/8" foam inserted in popgard)
5) EV RE20 with BSW REPOP (Default mic when too many jocks couldn't figure out how to talk into the X1S and AT-3035 correctly)

I've also auditioned all of the Shure KSM series, the Shure SM7B (with both the thinner and thicker pop filters), the AKG C414 series, many of the audio-technica AT 4000 series, RODE's, and so many other names and brands too numerous to mention. I have in the past been obsessed with broadcast studio microphones, and spent thousands of personal dollars auditioning many. Never auditioned any Heils, and sorry, but hated the audio-technica BP40. Found the EV RE27ND too pronounced in the mids. Found I initially liked the sound of the EV RE320, but haven't spent enough time with it, to list it as a favorite.

I've found studio's sound different when changing microphones, so acoustics were always tweaked to attain a comfortable balance between studio acoustics and studio microphones.

Mic Processors (highly critical of the Downward Expansion circuits in them):
1) Symetrix Airtools 6200 (amazing sound and design. #1 choice)
2) Symetrix 528E (excellent sound, but kind of a pain to keep all switches and pots cleaned and working these days)
Thought for sure I'd like the sound of the Wheatstone M1, but never did.
Like the sound of the DBX internal mic preamps, but *not* the Downward Expansion circuits in them.

Special mention goes to the Event EMP-1 mic preamp. I will typically use that in place of the internal Symetrix 528E mic preamp, thus using the 528E's line input with it instead. I will admit, I have never played with any of the new AoIP console's internal mic processors, or mic processing.

I'm not sure any of this matters anymore, since except for audiophiles, many don't pay any attention to audio quality. For years, top notch audio quality was forced upon listeners by radio station engineers, when radio stations held to a higher broadcast standard, when it came to audio quality.

 

[bigdonho]

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that everyone likes the mic they think they sound best on. I have pretty "ballsy" set of pipes and think the RE-20 is abouot as good as they come. Neumans are great but hugely expensive and you have to know how to work them plus they are pretty unfogiving if you have poor studio accoustics. Some people like the Senheisers for the upper midrange presence boost. they always sounded thin on my voice.

 

[AudioRadiance]

I always thought the RE20 was the standard, and it's what I use. I run a preamp and also just picked up a Cloudlifter (which I've connected but not really used yet) so it needs a push but the end result is very satisfactory.

 

[Kelly A]

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that everyone likes the mic they think they sound best on. I have pretty "ballsy" set of pipes and think the RE-20 is abouot as good as they come.

The RE20 is just the one that people recognize the most. In my view, the Shure SM7 is much more rounded in the lower vocal range.
RE20's are best at 110-250Hz.

 

[frankberry]

The SM7 has very similar performance as the SM5B.

 

[Greg Strickland]

Part of this is the sound of microphones themselves, compared to how they sound from the audience perspective.
That is, after a pre-amp, or after the entire broadcast to audience signal path. And yes, consider the acoustical environment.

I think the enhanced ratings watermark is most evident on voices...

Watermark radio markets can become obsessive about the presence band. As I recall, the sound of radio in watermark markets changed dramatically when market participants started looking for an audio edge in order to overcome what they believed was an error in the watermark measurement system.

Thus, any conversation about microphone sound should consider the market context. Actually, everything about the audio sound of radio is determined from the baseline of whether or not a watermark is broadcast, and the subsequent audio processing choices associated with it.

 

[semoochie]

That was a Neuman mike that we had, probably circa 1954. It was still in use when I left in 1998.

 

[Kelly A]

"But you're a radio nerd. You notice those kind of things. Run of the mill radio listener's or TV viewers simply don't."

I already acknowledged that - "I know most average listeners won't notice this"

But, if listeners won't notice, did it ever really matter then? Or was it just a radio to radio thing all along?
In other words, a radio person might say it sounded great. A listener probably thinks: what sounds great?