Sorry, not DIY, but help appreciated...

Can anyone suggest why my new (and excellent on the video side) Logitech
webcam should give me horribly boxy and bass-heavy sound, and why the
separate microphone I obtained to get round the problem should sound exactly
the same, but my old, lower-then-bargain basement i.t.works webcam (hopeless
visually) produces beautiful clear, clean, crisp sound?

This is on a Windows 7 desktop PC. Thanks.

"Bert Coules" wrote in message
o.uk...
Sorry, not DIY, but help appreciated...

Can anyone suggest why my new (and excellent on the video side) Logitech
webcam should give me horribly boxy and bass-heavy sound, and why the
separate microphone I obtained to get round the problem should sound
exactly the same, but my old, lower-then-bargain basement i.t.works webcam
(hopeless visually) produces beautiful clear, clean, crisp sound?

The old one has a decent mic and the new ones don't.

This is on a Windows 7 desktop PC.

There is a decent mixer included with that.

Bert Coules wrote:

Can anyone suggest why my new (and excellent on the video side) Logitech
webcam should give me horribly boxy and bass-heavy sound

Doesn't really help you, but I purchased an external Behringer USB audio
device with mic pre-amp and XLR connectors and a largish condenser mic
(supplied with phantom power from the audio interface) and everyone told
me I was very quiet using that on conference calls, I felt like I was
having to "eat" the mic to be heard, or talk much louder than I am
generally comfortable with.

Later I bought a Logitech USB webcam HDPro C920 (perhaps the same as
yours?) which I was expecting to use for camera only, but I did try the
audio from the webcam and that seems great, I no longer have any
complaints from people when I use it, so it's now my preferred audio device.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 02:20:54 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

02:20 in Australia??? ROTFLOL So it WILL be another LONG LONG NIGHT of
INSIPID TROLLING for you again, you subnormal perverted senile sociopath!
LOL

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
his particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
No help either, but I bought an excellent HD webcam last year, and the
audio is atrocious. I have to use my headset as well as the camera.

Bearing in mind there presumably has to be some sort of de-echoing
facility to prevent the microphone from picking up the speakers, I wonder
if it's just not meant to be ?

Cant be that because his old one does the audio fine.

Rod Speed wrote:

[Windows 7] There is a decent mixer included with that.

I'm familiar with the the basic mixer which controls the volume settings on
individual devices (input or output as required) but I don't know of
anything more sophisticated that that.

....since 01:06 am in Australia exactly!

Poor sleepless trolling sociopath! LOL

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:00:19 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

No help either, but I bought an excellent HD webcam last year, and the
audio is atrocious. I have to use my headset as well as the camera.

Bearing in mind there presumably has to be some sort of de-echoing
facility to prevent the microphone from picking up the speakers, I
wonder if it's just not meant to be ?


That will depend on what application you are using for video chat, Wechat
uses noise cancelling of simultaneous sounds within a very small time
window.

"Bert Coules" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:

[Windows 7] There is a decent mixer included with that.

I'm familiar with the the basic mixer which controls the volume settings
on individual devices (input or output as required) but I don't know of
anything more sophisticated that that.

I have one on my Win7 that has full control over different bits
of the audio frequency spectrum. I have installed a few audio
devices like headsets so maybe it came with one of those.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Bert Coules wrote:

Can anyone suggest why my new (and excellent on the video side) Logitech
webcam should give me horribly boxy and bass-heavy sound

Doesn't really help you, but I purchased an external Behringer USB audio
device with mic pre-amp and XLR connectors and a largish condenser mic
(supplied with phantom power from the audio interface) and everyone told
me I was very quiet using that on conference calls, I felt like I was
having to "eat" the mic to be heard, or talk much louder than I am
generally comfortable with.

If you download the Zoom app, in settings there is a test page for both
audio and mic. It can record your mic and play it back to you - so should
give an idea what it sounds like to others.

Later I bought a Logitech USB webcam HDPro C920 (perhaps the same as
yours?) which I was expecting to use for camera only, but I did try the
audio from the webcam and that seems great, I no longer have any
complaints from people when I use it, so it's now my preferred audio device.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Rod Speed wrote:

I have one on my Win7 that has full control over different bits
of the audio frequency spectrum. I have installed a few audio
devices like headsets so maybe it came with one of those.

Possibly, thanks. I'll have a search around and see if I can find something
similar.

"jon" wrote:

That will depend on what application you are using for video chat, Wechat
uses noise cancelling of simultaneous sounds within a very small time
window.

Mainly Zoom with occasional Skype.

In article ,
Bert Coules wrote:
Sorry, not DIY, but help appreciated...

Can anyone suggest why my new (and excellent on the video side) Logitech
webcam should give me horribly boxy and bass-heavy sound, and why the
separate microphone I obtained to get round the problem should sound
exactly the same, but my old, lower-then-bargain basement i.t.works
webcam (hopeless visually) produces beautiful clear, clean, crisp sound?

This is on a Windows 7 desktop PC. Thanks.

Wish I knew the answer. Use Zoom quite a bit, and there seems no common
factor in who sounds OK and who doesn't. Although those using a decent
headset seem to sound best.

Dunno Win7 now, but on Win10 you could select the video from your new
camera, and the audio from your old.

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman wrote:

Dunno Win7 now, but on Win10 you could select the video from your new
camera, and the audio from your old.

Both Zoom and Skype allow that when running under Win7, but I don't know of
an actual Windows setting which permits it. I've been looking around for a
mixer program which could be put across the mic input but had no luck so
far.

Mic output I meant, of course. Apologies.

Jethro_uk wrote:

Bearing in mind there presumably has to be some sort of de-echoing
facility to prevent the microphone from picking up the speakers, I wonder
if it's just not meant to be ?

I'm always wearing headphones when using the webcam for audio, so no
feedback or echo cancellation necessary.

Bert Coules wrote:
Sorry, not DIY, but help appreciated...

Can anyone suggest why my new (and excellent on the video side) Logitech
webcam should give me horribly boxy and bass-heavy sound, and why the
separate microphone I obtained to get round the problem should sound exactly
the same, but my old, lower-then-bargain basement i.t.works webcam (hopeless
visually) produces beautiful clear, clean, crisp sound?

This is on a Windows 7 desktop PC. Thanks.

Because it's expecting to drive tiny little loudspeakers which produce
hardly any bass? Maybe? :-)

--
Chris Green
·

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:57:39 -0000, "Bert Coules"
wrote:


Mic output I meant, of course. Apologies.


Zoom has a checkbox for 'disable Windows ducking', which might be
relevant.
--
Dave W

Dave W wrote:

Zoom has a checkbox for 'disable Windows ducking', which might be
relevant.

Where is this? I have the latest version of Zoom but can't find any such
option. Thanks.

Chris Green wrote:

Because it's expecting to drive tiny little loudspeakers which produce
hardly any bass? Maybe? :-)

There's a difference between introducing a bit of bass boost and the
dreadful sound I'm hearing.

I just found this YouTube review of the Logitech C920 and the reviewer
reports an audio problem ("as usual with Logitech webcams"). Watch and
listen from 3 mins 30 secs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnSV_w0rxJQ

Bert Coules wrote:

I just found this YouTube review of the Logitech C920 and the reviewer
reports an audio problem ("as usual with Logitech webcams").Â* Watch and
listen from 3 mins 30 secs.

There are four qualities of audio in that video

start to 03:41
from an unknown mic while the logitech is unplugged and in shot,
(clipping, with large amounts of treble and sibilance) like I'd expect a
cheapo headset to sound?

03:42 to 04:18
From the logitech USB, which makes the room sound hollow, wouldn't say
it was bass boomy though.

04:19 to 04:57
still from the logitech USB? but using different software package? bass
sounds better, but he's closer to the camera/mic (though he does say he
zoomed in so maybe not) is there actually less background noise, or is
the extra software removing it somehow?

04:59 to end
usingthe USB condenser mic, sounds best, personally I don't particularly
want a condenser mic in front of my face when I'm on a conference call,
I'm not some US talk show host, I'm not giving a presentation, I want
the mic to do the work and pick my voice up, I don't want to have to
obviously "project" into the mic like a performer, I'm only talking to
colleagues.


I do agree with what he says about the lens being extremely wide and
having good HD video quality.

If you want a physical privacy shutter for the logitech, I found this
one is good.

Andy Burns wrote:

If you want a physical privacy shutter for the logitech, I found this
one is good.

That'll be this link ...

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001265973716.html

On 12/03/2021 16:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Bert Coules wrote:

Can anyone suggest why my new (and excellent on the video side) Logitech
webcam should give me horribly boxy and bass-heavy sound

Doesn't really help you, but I purchased an external Behringer USB audio
device with mic pre-amp and XLR connectors and a largish condenser mic
(supplied with phantom power from the audio interface) and everyone told
me I was very quiet using that on conference calls, I felt like I was
having to "eat" the mic to be heard, or talk much louder than I am
generally comfortable with.

If you download the Zoom app, in settings there is a test page for both
audio and mic. It can record your mic and play it back to you - so should
give an idea what it sounds like to others.

A likely cause of trouble is mismatched microphone impedance to the PC.

I think the PC is expecting a relatively high impedance fairly high
output output cheap xtal mike. If you give it something else then the
mismatch can show as much reduced amplitude and or distortion.

I ran into it with a high end transmitting mike and a cheap and nasty
karaoke set. The two units were utterly incompatible. I had to put an
appropriate preamp in between them to make the pro audio gear work with
the nasty consumer electronics. It only really worked right with Maplins
cheapest ever xtal mike. But I got it close enough to be OK.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:

A likely cause of trouble is mismatched microphone impedance to the PC.

I don't think that describes my setup or Bert's, neither of which are
using a PC's mic input.

either this
https://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_u_phoria_umc204hd.htm
plus this
https://www.thomann.de/gb/marantz_mpm_1000.htm

or this
https://amazon.co.uk/Logitech-C920/dp/B006A2Q81M

In my case the webcam audio good, in Bert's it's bad ...

On 13/03/2021 09:38, Andy Burns wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

A likely cause of trouble is mismatched microphone impedance to the PC.

I don't think that describes my setup or Bert's, neither of which are
using a PC's mic input.

either this
https://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_u_phoria_umc204hd.htm
plus this
https://www.thomann.de/gb/marantz_mpm_1000.htm

or this
https://amazon.co.uk/Logitech-C920/dp/B006A2Q81M

In my case the webcam audio good, in Bert's it's bad ...
Start off by installing something like 'audacity' and make a sound
recording from that to eliminate the code you are currently using.

IME even a cheap microphone on a USB web cam is streets ahead of old
fashioned mics from the dark ages..



--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

It would be instructive to try them on another machine and see what happens.
It could be hardware related, ie mismatch of impedences if its analogue
input for the audio. If its digital many drivers do have equalises these
days, but first make sure the system equaliser and the one for the hard
ware oar not attempting to do the job twice.
I have to say, I've had best luck by using analogue mikes.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Bert Coules" wrote in message
o.uk...
Sorry, not DIY, but help appreciated...

Can anyone suggest why my new (and excellent on the video side) Logitech
webcam should give me horribly boxy and bass-heavy sound, and why the
separate microphone I obtained to get round the problem should sound
exactly the same, but my old, lower-then-bargain basement i.t.works
webcam (hopeless visually) produces beautiful clear, clean, crisp sound?

The old one has a decent mic and the new ones don't.

This is on a Windows 7 desktop PC.

There is a decent mixer included with that.

Often its with the computer sound card software. they do tend to assume
tinny naff microphones on headsets.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Bert Coules" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:

[Windows 7] There is a decent mixer included with that.

I'm familiar with the the basic mixer which controls the volume settings
on individual devices (input or output as required) but I don't know of
anything more sophisticated that that.

I have one on my Win7 that has full control over different bits
of the audio frequency spectrum. I have installed a few audio
devices like headsets so maybe it came with one of those.

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
If you download the Zoom app, in settings there is a test page for both
audio and mic. It can record your mic and play it back to you - so should
give an idea what it sounds like to others.

A likely cause of trouble is mismatched microphone impedance to the PC.

On a USB mic?

I think the PC is expecting a relatively high impedance fairly high
output output cheap xtal mike. If you give it something else then the
mismatch can show as much reduced amplitude and or distortion.

A crystal mic? Not seen one of those for ages. Most low priced ones are
electret these days. And most PC mic inputs provide power for those.

I ran into it with a high end transmitting mike and a cheap and nasty
karaoke set. The two units were utterly incompatible. I had to put an
appropriate preamp in between them to make the pro audio gear work with
the nasty consumer electronics. It only really worked right with Maplins
cheapest ever xtal mike. But I got it close enough to be OK.

Think that is going back to the days before computers. ;-)

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/03/2021 09:38, Andy Burns wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

A likely cause of trouble is mismatched microphone impedance to the PC.

I don't think that describes my setup or Bert's, neither of which are
using a PC's mic input.

either this
https://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_u_phoria_umc204hd.htm
plus this
https://www.thomann.de/gb/marantz_mpm_1000.htm

or this
https://amazon.co.uk/Logitech-C920/dp/B006A2Q81M

In my case the webcam audio good, in Bert's it's bad ...
Start off by installing something like 'audacity' and make a sound
recording from that to eliminate the code you are currently using.

IME even a cheap microphone on a USB web cam is streets ahead of old
fashioned mics from the dark ages..

That depends on the model of 'dark ages' mic

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
usingthe USB condenser mic, sounds best, personally I don't particularly
want a condenser mic in front of my face when I'm on a conference call,
I'm not some US talk show host, I'm not giving a presentation, I want
the mic to do the work and pick my voice up, I don't want to have to
obviously "project" into the mic like a performer, I'm only talking to
colleagues.

Quite.

The most unobtrusive mic that is going to be close to the voice and cut
down room acoustics and background noises to a minimum is a personal
(lapel, etc) mic. As used near everywhere in TV. But for best results
needs the frequency response tweaked due to being off axis. Usually some
LF cut to get rid of chest resonances, and HF lift to get back the
sibilants. Or even better a variable 'peak' at around 3 kHz.

--
*Venison for dinner again? Oh deer!*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman wrote:

The most unobtrusive mic that is going to be close to the voice and cut
down room acoustics and background noises to a minimum is a personal
(lapel, etc) mic. As used near everywhere in TV. But for best results
needs the frequency response tweaked due to being off axis. Usually some
LF cut to get rid of chest resonances, and HF lift to get back the
sibilants. Or even better a variable 'peak' at around 3 kHz.

I did also buy a "lav" mic, maybe I opted for the wrong pickup pattern?
It didn't sound any better through the external USB interface (or so I
was told by colleagues).

In article ,
charles wrote:
IME even a cheap microphone on a USB web cam is streets ahead of old
fashioned mics from the dark ages..

That depends on the model of 'dark ages' mic

Be interesting to know what Turnip thinks these web cam mics are - and how
they differ from 'the dark ages'?

They may well have software to help them work better under this specialist
use - but this has nothing to do with the mic itself. Which will normally
be an electret. Which first became common in broadcast use some 50 years
ago.

I'd also guess Turnip never watches TV where interviews with the
interviewee being at home via a webcam are common. And therefore doesn't
know how much the sound quality varies on these. Even before the link or
whatever does its worst to it.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
usingthe USB condenser mic, sounds best, personally I don't particularly
want a condenser mic in front of my face when I'm on a conference call,
I'm not some US talk show host, I'm not giving a presentation, I want
the mic to do the work and pick my voice up, I don't want to have to
obviously "project" into the mic like a performer, I'm only talking to
colleagues.

Quite.

The most unobtrusive mic that is going to be close to the voice and cut
down room acoustics and background noises to a minimum is a personal
(lapel, etc) mic. As used near everywhere in TV. But for best results
needs the frequency response tweaked due to being off axis. Usually some
LF cut to get rid of chest resonances, and HF lift to get back the
sibilants. Or even better a variable 'peak' at around 3 kHz.

A couple of weekends ago, I made a recording as an introduction to soemeone
else's recording. I spent a long time experimenting with microphones since
I was expected to appear in vision standing up. That was far too far away
for the mic on the camera and I ended up with a headset radio mic. Yes, I
could have used a mic ona standm but that would have been intrusive. The
recipient was very happy with the result. It will be another 4 weeks before
I get to see the resultant product. See www.harpfestival.co.uk

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

The most unobtrusive mic that is going to be close to the voice and cut
down room acoustics and background noises to a minimum is a personal
(lapel, etc) mic. As used near everywhere in TV. But for best results
needs the frequency response tweaked due to being off axis. Usually some
LF cut to get rid of chest resonances, and HF lift to get back the
sibilants. Or even better a variable 'peak' at around 3 kHz.

I did also buy a "lav" mic, maybe I opted for the wrong pickup pattern?
It didn't sound any better through the external USB interface (or so I
was told by colleagues).

They're usually omni.

Best results I've had was using a Micron radio mic with a Tram TR50 (from
my working days). The receiver having a balance line output. Fed that into
a graphic equaliser and then into the sound card line input. Recording a
Zoom meeting showed my audio to be as good as any - and far better than
most.

But too much faff. ;-)

There are some cheap and small mixers around that accept a USB mic. And
have EQ. But likely need to be fed to an analogue input on the PC. But not
tried one.

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 13/03/2021 11:30, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/03/2021 09:38, Andy Burns wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

A likely cause of trouble is mismatched microphone impedance to the PC.

I don't think that describes my setup or Bert's, neither of which are
using a PC's mic input.

either this
https://www.thomann.de/gb/behringer_u_phoria_umc204hd.htm
plus this
https://www.thomann.de/gb/marantz_mpm_1000.htm

or this
https://amazon.co.uk/Logitech-C920/dp/B006A2Q81M

In my case the webcam audio good, in Bert's it's bad ...
Start off by installing something like 'audacity' and make a sound
recording from that to eliminate the code you are currently using.

IME even a cheap microphone on a USB web cam is streets ahead of old
fashioned mics from the dark ages..

That depends on the model of 'dark ages' mic

I was thinking dark ages computer mics, not a ribbon mic!


--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

The most unobtrusive mic that is going to be close to the voice and
cut down room acoustics and background noises to a minimum is a
personal (lapel, etc) mic. As used near everywhere in TV. But for
best results needs the frequency response tweaked due to being off
axis. Usually some LF cut to get rid of chest resonances, and HF lift
to get back the sibilants. Or even better a variable 'peak' at around
3 kHz.

I did also buy a "lav" mic, maybe I opted for the wrong pickup pattern?
It didn't sound any better through the external USB interface (or so I
was told by colleagues).

They're usually omni.

Best results I've had was using a Micron radio mic with a Tram TR50 (from
my working days). The receiver having a balance line output. Fed that into
a graphic equaliser and then into the sound card line input. Recording a
Zoom meeting showed my audio to be as good as any - and far better than
most.

But too much faff. ;-)

There are some cheap and small mixers around that accept a USB mic. And
have EQ. But likely need to be fed to an analogue input on the PC. But not
tried one.

There are some with a USB output, but I decided too much bother (and
expense).

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
charles wrote:
A couple of weekends ago, I made a recording as an introduction to
soemeone else's recording. I spent a long time experimenting with
microphones since I was expected to appear in vision standing up. That
was far too far away for the mic on the camera and I ended up with a
headset radio mic.

Not really ideal if appearing in vision. Although very likely to sound
better 'out of the box'.

If going for the very best sound quality, lapel mics are anything but
ideal. But in this instance where it is only about 'legible' sound, I
reckon them the least obtrusive compromise. There's also no reason why the
response tweeks (approximate) shouldn't be built in, given every electret
has at least impedance converting electronics - and a great deal more with
a USB one.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman wrote:

Best results I've had was using a Micron radio mic with a Tram TR50 (from
my working days). The receiver having a balance line output. Fed that into
a graphic equaliser and then into the sound card line input. Recording a
Zoom meeting showed my audio to be as good as any - and far better than
most.

But too much faff. ;-)

I ought to try making some recordings from the various mics I have
available, to compare them myself, instead of relying on what other
people have commented.

Maybe look at virtual mixer/eq software, e.g.

https://vb-audio.com/Voicemeeter/banana.htm

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
A couple of weekends ago, I made a recording as an introduction to
soemeone else's recording. I spent a long time experimenting with
microphones since I was expected to appear in vision standing up. That
was far too far away for the mic on the camera and I ended up with a
headset radio mic.

Not really ideal if appearing in vision. Although very likely to sound
better 'out of the box'.

it was a lightweight flesh coloured one (pinkish), so pretty invisible.

If going for the very best sound quality, lapel mics are anything but
ideal. But in this instance where it is only about 'legible' sound, I
reckon them the least obtrusive compromise. There's also no reason why the
response tweeks (approximate) shouldn't be built in, given every electret
has at least impedance converting electronics - and a great deal more with
a USB one.

The problem witn lapel mics is that the volume varies as the 'performer'
turns their head. That's why I hate them.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle