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.

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:

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ,
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.

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.

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
·

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

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 ,
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.

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 ,
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.

I've uploaded a 28 second WAV file with a sample recording from all three
microphones currently available to me: the Logitech webcam, the separate
cheapo desktop mic, and the mic in my old (low grade video) webcam.

In each instance I was speaking at the same level and at roughly the same
distance. Recording made in Audacity with the mic input control at maximum
(and the recorded level startlingly low). I've done nothing to clean up or
alter the recordings, since what I'm after is a decent sound quality for
live Zoom chatting.

If anyone would be kind enough to listen I'd be grateful for any thoughts.

http://bertcoules.co.uk/non%20websit...rch%202021.wav

"Bert Coules" wrote in message
o.uk...
I've uploaded a 28 second WAV file with a sample recording from all three
microphones currently available to me: the Logitech webcam, the separate
cheapo desktop mic, and the mic in my old (low grade video) webcam.

In each instance I was speaking at the same level and at roughly the same
distance. Recording made in Audacity with the mic input control at
maximum (and the recorded level startlingly low). I've done nothing to
clean up or alter the recordings, since what I'm after is a decent sound
quality for live Zoom chatting.

If anyone would be kind enough to listen I'd be grateful for any thoughts.

http://bertcoules.co.uk/non%20websit...rch%202021.wav

The last one, the old web cam, is certainly better with more high frequencys
but the other 2 are quite acceptable and I don't hear the grossly excessive
bass and booming you complained about initially.

Rod Speed wrote:

The last one, the old web cam, is certainly better with more high
frequencys
but the other 2 are quite acceptable and I don't hear the grossly
excessive
bass and booming you complained about initially.

That is fascinating and reassuring; many thanks. I'm wondering if the
unacceptable sound is a product of my PC's playback chain rather than the
sound itself.

I'll try playing the same file back through my main sound system and see (or
rather hear) what happens.

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

The last one, the old web cam, is certainly better with more high
frequencys
but the other 2 are quite acceptable and I don't hear the grossly
excessive
bass and booming you complained about initially.

That is fascinating and reassuring; many thanks. I'm wondering if the
unacceptable sound is a product of my PC's playback chain rather than the
sound itself.

Yeah, very likely.

I'll try playing the same file back through my main sound system and see
(or rather hear) what happens.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 06:19:48 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


The last one, the old web cam, is certainly better with more high frequencys
but the other 2 are quite acceptable and I don't hear the grossly excessive
bass and booming you complained about initially.

Good grief, Rodent! Is there NO link that you will NOT click on, you
sleepless lonely senile trolling asshole?

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 18:39:51 -0000, "Bert Coules"
wrote:


I've uploaded a 28 second WAV file with a sample recording from all three
microphones currently available to me: the Logitech webcam, the separate
cheapo desktop mic, and the mic in my old (low grade video) webcam.

In each instance I was speaking at the same level and at roughly the same
distance. Recording made in Audacity with the mic input control at maximum
(and the recorded level startlingly low). I've done nothing to clean up or
alter the recordings, since what I'm after is a decent sound quality for
live Zoom chatting.

If anyone would be kind enough to listen I'd be grateful for any thoughts.

http://bertcoules.co.uk/non%20websit...rch%202021.wav


I've just listened to this on my laptop without using headphones. The
two webcam mics sound far away as you might expect. The desktop mic
sounds nearer as you might expect and has more high frequency
response, but also has some strange repeating buzzing interference.

The second webcam shows more background noise - maybe it's less
directional than the first.

I favour a lapel mic for Zooming, as there is no background noise plus
being nearer my mouth and further from the laptop speakers there's
less chance of feedback. Also room acoustics don't detract. I don't
use headphones now as my laptop speakers are a bit quiet and I don't
get any feedback.

However, one person in my Zoom crowd had to be asked to wear
headphones, because without them, when anybody else spoke, we all got
a delayed version back from his setup making it difficult to
understand. Maybe he had loud speakers.
--
Dave W

Dave W wrote:

I've just listened to this on my laptop...

Thanks.

The two webcam mics sound far away
as you might expect. The desktop mic
sounds nearer as you might expect...

That's interesting. The actual distances from my mouth to the mics we

Logitech webcam: 20"
Old webcam: 14"
Desktop: 15"

I was surprised that the level of recorded sound from all three mics was
low, reported by Audacity as having a peak level of only -6.26dB. This was
with the recording level set at the software's maximum.

I favour a lapel mic for Zooming...

I might look into that. I haven't used lapel mics since my BBC days when
the standard model was the Sony ECM50 (which gave excellent results). Do
you have any more up to date recommendations?

In article ,
Bert Coules wrote:
I might look into that. I haven't used lapel mics since my BBC days when
the standard model was the Sony ECM50 (which gave excellent results). Do
you have any more up to date recommendations?


Pro lapel mics like later versions of the ECM 50 cost rather a lot.
Perhaps £200 used, for a good one. And old ones may need the electret
replaced, as they don't last for ever.

There may well be a mass produced alternative that is good enough at a
reasonable price - I simply don't know the current market. But all lapel
mics need EQ for each individual voice to sound best.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

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

On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:58:12 -0000, "Bert Coules"
wrote:


Dave W wrote:


I've just listened to this on my laptop...


Thanks.


The two webcam mics sound far away
as you might expect. The desktop mic
sounds nearer as you might expect...


That's interesting. The actual distances from my mouth to the mics we

Logitech webcam: 20"
Old webcam: 14"
Desktop: 15"

I was surprised that the level of recorded sound from all three mics was
low, reported by Audacity as having a peak level of only -6.26dB. This was
with the recording level set at the software's maximum.


I favour a lapel mic for Zooming...


I might look into that. I haven't used lapel mics since my BBC days when
the standard model was the Sony ECM50 (which gave excellent results). Do
you have any more up to date recommendations?


No - any old rubbish will do. I am using a 'stereo' mic from a
Freecycle lot. It consists of two microphones an inch apart facing
opposite directions - completely useless as stereo.

Omnidirectional is best. One I tried was a bit directional, so when
you turned your head the volume varied.

A head-mounted mic would give the most consistent sound, but looks
distracting on screen. Perhaps you could get one of those tiny pink
ones sometimes seen on TV.
--
Dave W

In article ,
Dave W wrote:
A head-mounted mic would give the most consistent sound, but looks
distracting on screen. Perhaps you could get one of those tiny pink
ones sometimes seen on TV.

Any idea how much broadcast mics cost? ;-)

--
*HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CIVIL WAR?

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

In article ,
Bert Coules wrote:
I've uploaded a 28 second WAV file with a sample recording from all three
microphones currently available to me: the Logitech webcam, the separate
cheapo desktop mic, and the mic in my old (low grade video) webcam.

In each instance I was speaking at the same level and at roughly the same
distance. Recording made in Audacity with the mic input control at maximum
(and the recorded level startlingly low). I've done nothing to clean up or
alter the recordings, since what I'm after is a decent sound quality for
live Zoom chatting.

If anyone would be kind enough to listen I'd be grateful for any thoughts.

http://bertcoules.co.uk/non%20websit...rch%202021.wav

Main difference on a very quick listen on the computer speakers is the
bass end. Very common to roll off some bass for clearer speech. And very
easy do do - at least in analogue.

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

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