[HN Gopher] Why don't more people use throat mics?
___________________________________________________________________
Why don't more people use throat mics?
Author : hardwaresofton
Score : 232 points
Date : 2022-06-30 13:08 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vadosware.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (vadosware.io)
| vehemenz wrote:
| Why not use a clip-on (lapel) mic? A standalone battery pack is
| somewhat portable and seems less annoying than wearing a choker
| would be.
| turnsout wrote:
| Professional sound engineers prefer to place small mics
| (lavaliers) on the speaker's chest. The reason is that sound
| comes not just from your vocal chords, but also from your chest
| and diaphragm. There's a reason lavs are sometimes called "lapel
| mics," as they sound significantly better there, as opposed to
| clipped to the top of a sweater or shirt collar.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rk79-Y6Nag
|
| Found this video which demonstrates the usage of a throat mic in
| an operating room. It's not perfect but it works quite well. I
| had never heard of this thing before but it's rather cool!
| robga wrote:
| Here is a positive 4.6/5 review of it being used on a motorbike
|
| https://www.webbikeworld.com/iasus-stealth-throat-microphone...
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Awesome thanks for finding this -- One of the pictures on the
| ASUS site was of people in an operating room... but none of
| them were wearing the throat mic so I was wondering...
|
| Another use case that's almost the polar opposite of the other
| use case.
| closewith wrote:
| I suspect the OP's throat mics weren't actual laryngophones
| like the one in use by the surgeon.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| But the sound quality is really really bad! Every phone/laptop
| built-in mic or headset boom mic sounds better.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >Why don't more people use throat mics?
|
| Speaking for myself, because that looks uncomfortable as f....
|
| Why would I use that if the one on my desktop works really well
| and I don't have to do anything but sit on my desk and start
| talking naturally?
| clint wrote:
| Best headphones/mic combo I've used for running AND video
| meetings are the AfterShokz (now "Shokz") AeroPex/OpenRun. I've
| not tried the `OpenComm` but its probably also good too.
|
| Bone conduction so there's nothing touching your ears, long ~8hr
| battery life, super duper light (26g).
| nomel wrote:
| > Bone conduction so there's nothing touching your ears
|
| I have a, possibly irrational, fear of bone conduction. I don't
| like the concept of the outer layer of my brain being subjected
| to the significant vibrations.
| beanjuice wrote:
| One of the most Hacker News articles ever written. A bad solution
| (wearing a choker) to a self-generated problem (using Arch) that
| costs a lot of money.
|
| In summary: this generates more problems than it solves (unless
| you're a navy seal).
| rob_c wrote:
| btw, it's an arch problem :P
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Eh, I've actually been thinking of getting some for my wife and
| I for cycling, would make hearing each other over the wind and
| road noise a lot easier.
| ratww wrote:
| That's actually a great idea. Coupled with a Bone Conducting
| headphone it sounds like great gear for biking.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Hey so one thing that my SO mentioned was never wanting to
| wear one despite being an avid cycling because of the danger
| of them being caught on something!
|
| If you can find some that are wireless and are crescent (so
| not fully closed) maybe that would be safer!
| [deleted]
| nend wrote:
| One of the most Hacker News comments every written. A
| dismissive comment about a diy home project because you'd
| rather be critical of someone else than build something
| yourself.
| badrabbit wrote:
| You don't post on HN for just a pat on the back. Nothing
| wrong with people responding with respectful criticism even
| if they are wrong so long as they put some thought into it.
| People can feel a certain way and keep it to themselves or
| they can express their opinion and someone else can correct
| them or if they are correct others are corrected by them.
| copperx wrote:
| I can guarantee you wouldn't be making that comment if the
| post title was "Why don't more people code in machine
| language"?
|
| But because it's a diy project, it somehow makes it laudable,
| even though it's a terrible idea and a waste of time and
| money when there are much better alternatives.
|
| To be clear, I think "wasting time" in useless projects is
| not really a waste of time. But the title of the post implies
| that more people should waste resources in something awful.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| I think this is a reaction to the tone set by the headline,
| which seems to ask "why don't people use this far more
| cumbersome alternative?"
|
| That said, the assessment of pros and cons in the article is
| less stereotypically oblivious and more nuanced than the
| above would suggest.
| conductr wrote:
| The headline is meant to be a joke or /s and of course "the
| internet" reads everything as literal, this happens more
| broadly than HN
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| The tl;dr right at the beginning of the article states that
| these mics don't make a lot of sense.
|
| People only read the headline and get triggered, not even
| the tl;dr can reach these humans anymore.
| throw10920 wrote:
| Hacker News is _not_ a place for "reactions" - it's a
| place to have _thoughtful_ discussions about interesting
| and weird things (and startups). Toplevel comment added
| _negative_ value to Hacker News (as I now have to put up
| with it being the top comment thread in what was otherwise
| a mildly interesting comment section) and was an emotional
| knee-jerk reaction that broke this section of the
| guidelines:
|
| > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation;
| don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't
| sneer, including at the rest of the community.
|
| It would be nice if we could keep this kind of low-effort,
| Facebook-esque fluff out of Hacker News.
| beezle wrote:
| It seems that just having a headline that asks a question
| is not good enough any more, at least on HN, as most
| "readers" appear to assume the headline is a tacit
| endorsement of the subject of the question.
| beanjuice wrote:
| In hindsight, i didn't write into that comment as much
| merriment and cheer as I originally intended. This article
| contains many staples about this community which i find
| incredibly endearing, including focusing on a strange problem
| and trying to solve it with the most roundabout method.
|
| I would disagree with you though on the 'DIY' nature of the
| article, it is certainly a creative solution but the author
| hasn't necessarily built anything.
| baisq wrote:
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| OP here, I hundred percent agree -- it was definitely
| stupid and pointless.
|
| Would do again :)
|
| If I'm a real HNer I'll post an update in 3-6 months after
| I've wired bluetooth to this. (don't hold me to this)
|
| [EDIT] - I'm not a real HNer, please don't expect that this
| will ever happen. No way I'll find time to hack up and wire
| bluetooth to this thing.
| Clubber wrote:
| Looking forward to the post when you get Doom to run on
| it. :)
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| So, just the audio then.
| Clubber wrote:
| I'm sure there's a way to get a display on it.
|
| https://www.fatherly.com/news/doom-pregnancy-test-hacked
| throwaway413 wrote:
| This is how you know this is a real hacker - says 3-6
| months, feins sarcasm, then will show up next week with
| the modifications and a lack of sleep.
| [deleted]
| ramraj07 wrote:
| This isn't a Lego ad, no brownie points for just building
| random things. I mean build them if you want but don't judge
| others because they don't want to?
| Timpy wrote:
| >no brownie points for just building random things
|
| That's kind of what hackers do though isn't it?
| ramraj07 wrote:
| Hackers hack things up. That's not always about building,
| unless you have an extremely loose definition of
| building. Anyways even hackers need critics.
| swader999 wrote:
| I'd disagree a bit. There's merit in building something as
| a way to learn. Kind of a core tenant of hacking. Take it
| apart, put it back together etc. Going farther with your
| curiosity than typical.
|
| This idea might be useful for skiing. I do course control
| for kids ski races and you want to hold the skier in the
| gate when another crashes further down the course. Radio
| coms have to be very tight and clear. Wind and dealing with
| the elements and trying to push the mic button with gloves
| on is a pita. Maybe there's ideas here that could help.
| Makes me think at the very least.
| [deleted]
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Fair comment, but
|
| > _a self-generated problem (using Arch)_
|
| I would argue this is a good solution to the problem of using
| Windows or Mac. ;)
| beanjuice wrote:
| That part of my comment was just having some fun along with
| the author who was also tongue-in-cheek about mentioning
| Arch. Having spent too much of my life troubleshooting
| Windows bluetooth issues, I suspect most are in agreement
| with the author here.
| e-dt wrote:
| baisq wrote:
| jgrahamc wrote:
| See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31932399
| jgrahamc wrote:
| I have no idea what you are talking about but you should take
| this type of comment to some other forum.
| antiterra wrote:
| It definitely reads as a personal project and not one claiming
| a superior solution ("People can hear me gulp")
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > People can hear me gulp
|
| Some people are into that <_<
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| Throat mic ASMR is an untapped market.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| OP here -- yes this was definitely not a serious
| recommendation for anyone! I just thought some others might
| have possibly thought of this before (and now they don't have
| to do it!)
|
| I thought the tl;dr would cover it:
|
| > tl;dr - Don't chuck the Sony 1000XMs/AirPods just yet.
| Throat mics are an improvement over a standalone wired
| microphone (if that's what you are using), and have better
| background noise reduction but in a quiet room your usual
| bluetooth headset is still way more convenient.
| rob_c wrote:
| just buy a proper mic or a roaming mic unless the choker
| look is more your choice, but then I doubt arch supports
| your webcam so nobody gets to see it...
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| > just buy a proper mic or a roaming mic unless the
| choker look is more your choice,
|
| Yeah I have/had a Sony 1000MX2, AirPods, a Corsair VOID
| (from a gamier time in my life), and a regular plug in
| headset+mic -- lots of redundancy in my audio setup.
|
| Have to admit that the convenience of a bluetooth headset
| I can wear and walk around is still the most convenient
| right now. The throat mic only being wired (for now) is a
| real bummer.
|
| > I doubt arch supports your webcam so nobody gets to see
| it...
|
| Arch actually is not at fault 99% of the time! Arch Wiki
| is quite possibly the greatest distro wiki to ever exist
| -- I happily run pacman every day and mana falls from the
| gods and everything works great usually.
|
| Webcam funnily enough has never been a problem :)
| [deleted]
| dom96 wrote:
| > People can hear me gulp
|
| it's already bad enough hearing people slurping/gulping with
| normal mics, this mic sounds horrible.
| priprifoo wrote:
| lvncelot wrote:
| On the other hand, it's further away from the lips so maybe
| there's less mouth sounds.
| falcolas wrote:
| Mouth noises can be (largely, not completely) trained
| out:
|
| - Don't rest your tongue on the roof of your mouth
|
| - Don't close your lips between words/sentences
| priprifoo wrote:
| remram wrote:
| The TLDR says:
|
| > Throat mics are an improvement over a standalone wired
| microphone
|
| Seems like a claim to me!
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Yep, lemme weaken that real quick -- I was thinking a
| really old kinda shitty one, technically musician grade
| gear is standalone and wired...
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Yeah I was looking over at my SM7b on my desk and
| considering writing something up, but decided against it.
| I was pretty sure you weren't being that literal!
| soared wrote:
| You pulled out a sentence fragment to completely change the
| meaning, not really a cool thing to do.
|
| > > tl;dr - Don't chuck the Sony 1000XMs/AirPods just yet.
| Throat mics are an improvement over a standalone wired
| microphone (if that's what you are using), and have better
| background noise reduction but in a quiet room your usual
| bluetooth headset is still way more convenient
| IshKebab wrote:
| That seems like the same meaning to me?
|
| Throat mics are absolutely not an improvement over a
| standalone wired microphone.
| [deleted]
| dangus wrote:
| I disagree, the article is proclaiming them to be a good
| solution:
|
| > Throat mics are an improvement over a standalone wired
| microphone (if that's what you are using)
|
| I'll go as far to say that the author is making a completely
| false claim here and does the reader a disservice by not even
| attempting to back up this claim with a recording.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5_eI9ungGE&t=228s
|
| I'll just go ahead and say it: throat mics sound like shit.
|
| Compare that to a popular dynamic microphone:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9bniJsyb1E&t=57s
|
| The author doesn't seem to know that dynamic microphones only
| capture sounds directly in front of them, which makes them
| ideal for environments where there is background noise,
| especially if the background noise comes from further away.
|
| The other thing about AirPods is that they sound better
| connected to Apple equipment where they aren't limited by
| A2DP, and most AirPods owners own other Apple products.
|
| Also, any recent laptop is likely to have multiple built-in
| microphones with noise cancelling, and if it's a recent Mac
| the quality is actually incredible.
|
| The product I recommend that has been very flexible for my
| usage has been the Antlion ModMic Wireless. It has really
| amazing wireless quality without the need to mess with
| Bluetooth, as it uses a USB dongle. For PC gaming, I like to
| pair this with my over-ear Sony headphones, which are
| wireless headphones, but for my gaming purposes I plug in the
| wire and use the ModMic for input. Then, on the go, I can
| remove the microphone (mounted magnetically) and use my
| headphones as standard Bluetooth headsets.
|
| For my Mac, the solution I like is to use AirPods for the
| output, but use the Mac built-in microphone as an input (only
| a good solution if you're typing on an external keyboard, or
| else people will hear you typing). It sounds a lot better
| than the AirPods microphone. It's so good that the only
| practical step up is a dedicated dynamic or condenser
| microphone.
| JackMcMack wrote:
| Your throat mic example is when listening through a radio
| link, versus a direct connection with the dynamic
| microphone example.
|
| I'm sure the dynamic mic sounds better than the troat mic,
| but this is not a fair comparison. Every mic sounds
| terrible through such a radio link.
|
| Antlion ModMic Wireless looks nice. I'm using the usb
| version with my wired headset. I'd really like a proper
| bluetooth dongle to combine wired microphone with wired
| headset. But that's almost impossible, because transmitting
| voice over bluetooth means the receiving audio switches to
| a very crappy codec. A dongle could theoretically present 2
| bluetooth devices, one for audio and one for voice, but I'm
| not sure a phone or computer would play nice with that.
| Clubber wrote:
| >> Throat mics are an improvement over a standalone wired
| microphone (if that's what you are using)
|
| >I'll go as far to say that the author is making a
| completely false claim
|
| It's an opinion, they are neither true nor false. It's fair
| to disagree with it though.
|
| Tomatoes are the best vegetable. Opinion. I'm sure I'll get
| plenty of disagreements and even some reminding me that a
| tomato is actually a fruit.
| dangus wrote:
| At the time of original publishing, the article didn't
| have any sound clips, so opinion is all we have to go on.
|
| The addition of the sound clip definitely doesn't make me
| a believer.
|
| I think a cheap Amazon microphone would beat this setup
| with far less complexity.
| [deleted]
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| > I'll go as far to say that the author is making a
| completely false claim here and does the reader a
| disservice by not even attempting to back up this claim
| with a recording.
|
| Hey you're right that was a pretty wild claim so I softened
| it -- I had a very specific (shitty, old) microphone in
| mind when I wrote that, but the article now has an audio
| sample, and a reworked tl;dr (it will be live in like... <2
| mins).
|
| > The author doesn't seem to know that dynamic microphones
| only capture sounds directly in front of them, which makes
| them ideal for environments where there is background
| noise, especially if the background noise comes from
| further away.
|
| I certainly didn't know that, TIL!
|
| Thanks for that link too, those are some very good mics,
| and definitely not what I meant to even suggest that a
| _throat mic_ was better than!
|
| > Antlion ModMic Wireless
|
| https://antlionaudio.com/blogs/news/introducing-modmic-
| wirel...
|
| Interesting, neve rheard of this before! I used to have a
| Corsair VOID that worked well, but this going _anywhere_ is
| pretty nice -- could be used on helmets or other things.
|
| I don't run a mac so can't do the other stuff, but thanks
| for the suggestions, hopefully someone else can use them.
| Apple sure does get consumer hardware correct a lot, don't
| they.
| dangus wrote:
| Obviously, nothing can overcome strong background noise,
| but I suspect most people's home offices aren't so
| terrifyingly loud that it's a problem.
|
| This video helped me figure out some microphone basics:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sdft3WiLvE
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I tried one before but I had difficulties registering hissing
| sounds like the letter 'S', making the audio hard to understand.
| I understand this is part of how a conduction microphone works,
| as these sounds are not generated in the throat but the mouth.
|
| I'm surprised not to read about this in the article. Perhaps I
| did it wrong or I had a really bad microphone.
| spamuel wrote:
| We had them in the military and we preferred the boom mics.
| Throat mics, the exact ones pictured, did not pick up low-talking
| or whispering, which is a large amount of pre-contact traffic.
|
| The new thing the DOD has spent an UNGODLY amount of time and
| money on is called TCAPS. They were even worse. They're noise-
| canceling earbuds with a bone-conducting microphone that sits
| inside of your ear.
|
| Sounds great - but when you start shooting and moving (and
| pouring sweat) the earbuds slip out slightly, breaking contact
| with your ear. Every. Damn. Time. And you can't feel it happen.
| The way you find out is you key up to speak and no one responds
| to you. All anyone hears is dead air. After a while someone
| figures it out and says "last station, check your mic". They went
| straight into the pile of useless "good idea fairy" nonsense we
| keep in the arms room, only pulling it out for inventories. And
| there is a lot if that. We have monocular eye pieces in there
| that have a heads-up display. Some nerd thought they would be a
| good idea. Put it on an actual fighter and it is of no added
| benefit.
|
| The only headset I have used that consistently works are Peltor
| COMTACs and their recent competitors. Over-the-ear noise
| cancelling ear muffs with a boom mike. Never had a problem with
| wind noise. Biggest issue was the mike being pulled away from
| your mouth when it gets snagged, or people who think they need to
| yell into the mike. They also had a compatibility issue with
| PRC-119Fs/ASIPs/RT-1523s where you need to keep the volume
| setting at 8 or below otherwise you get a high pitched squeal
| when you key up and no traffic goes out.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Just wanted to say Hackernews is such a robust source of
| content and expertise. Perhaps almost as much as that-which-
| shall-not-be-named (reddit)
| rob_c wrote:
| > People can hear me gulp...
|
| here's a clue that's probably not all they get exposed to. please
| don't inflict this on co-workers
| bitcurious wrote:
| Question for the microphone specialists here: what's your
| recommendation for the best pro-sounding microphone which can
| stay off camera? I think I'm looking for something direction with
| a ~2.5 foot sweet spot.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| This is really hard to answer without knowing more about the
| room you want to use it in, how much you intend to move while
| speaking, whether it also has to be able to record other people
| present in the room or just your voice, and, most importantly,
| how much you're willing to pay for it.
|
| You want it to be off camera. This means that a dynamic
| broadcast microphone is not a good choice. However, a condenser
| microphone might still work. They do pick up a lot of room
| noise, though.
|
| For your requirements (which you might want to reconsider), the
| usual choices would be:
|
| - A shotgun mic directed at your mouth from outside the camera.
| For example, the Sennheiser MKH 416 is often used ($800-$1000),
| the Rode NTG5 would be a cheaper but still expensive option.
|
| - A hidden or hard to spot Lavalier microphone. These are the
| little microphones you see on TV that are clipped to the
| clothes. Good ones are rather expensive, too.
|
| That being said, if it is for Skype calls, then I wouldn't
| recommend spending more than about $100-$150 on a mic, and I'd
| recommend either a dynamic microphone or a condenser microphone
| and getting as close to it as possible. I used a Rode M3
| outside the camera angle for a long time and it had quite good
| quality, although spoken voice is certainly not it's primary
| use.
|
| If you want higher quality, then you really need to say more
| about the purpose, your budget, and the room situation. Some
| reporters used to literally speak their voiceovers inside a
| closet full of clothes, which makes for excellent echo
| cancellation. Even a very cheap microphone can sound excellent
| without background noise and without room reverb (or in a room
| with good natural reverb).
|
| Since you ask "best sounding" by the way: At a certain level
| this also depends a lot on your voice. The same mic can flatter
| one speaker's voice and make another speaker's voice sound
| ugly.
|
| Final advice: Microphones are similar to headphones. Below $80
| most of the stuff is crap. There are a few exceptions but be
| careful. Then there is a mid category between $100 to $300 that
| is a sort of sweet spot for non-professional users, and above
| that prices go up indefinitely. Once you know your price range
| and requirements, you can find some more affordable and even
| better alternatives to the well-known brands and choices with a
| bit of research, but you generally get what you pay for.
| robga wrote:
| +1 to the Ask. I had a trawl across HN for this just yesterday
| without great success. There are a couple of podcast-popular
| mics which sound good but not if you are more than a foot away.
| saberience wrote:
| Because they're annoying to wear and unsightly. Simple as that.
| heffer wrote:
| Also:
|
| > People can hear me gulp
|
| Imagine being on a video call with people constantly gulping.
| That and people looking like they are wearing some kinky gear.
| Bayart wrote:
| So the ASMR directory of Twitch.
| nashashmi wrote:
| no one mentioned jawbone mics? they are a real product.
| sometimez wrote:
| I think the bad outweighs the good here. I'd also add aesthetic,
| comfort, price, and availability to his "bad" list.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Do want to note that the price was pretty good on the ones I
| bought! So 1/4 of those legitimate concerns is handled at
| least.
| tristor wrote:
| I have a pretty serious audio setup for WFH. I assessed throat
| mics and bone conduction headphones and IEMs, I then ultimately
| decided against these options and instead went for a front-
| address microphone on a boom and open circumaural headphones.
|
| In my testing, all of these technologies intended for stealth
| (primarily) were uncomfortable for long periods of wear/use, and
| traditional options were massively more comfortable. I wear
| headphones all day, for instance, as I listen to music when I'm
| not in meetings.
| klodolph wrote:
| Yes. I have a fairly serious setup too, and chose something
| similar.
|
| There are tons of different mic options which are designed for
| different applications--lavalier mics, headset mics, shotgun
| mics, omni mics, throat mics, boundary mics, and ordinary
| cardioid mics.
|
| An ordinary cardioid mic is cheap, durable, and gives high-
| quality audio for one person. It's hard to beat. If you're
| trying to hide the microphone so it's less visible on-camera,
| you end up spending more money for worse audio.
|
| The humble headset microphone is also a good option--a bit more
| utilitarian.
| Bayart wrote:
| The headphones thing is very much a matter of morphology and
| personal preference. I know for instance anything other than
| IEMs is intolerable over any significant period of time for
| myself.
| Anderkent wrote:
| And choice of headphone! Open versus closed headphones lie
| much different on your head; clamp strength and weight vary
| hugely as well. I'm on my third set of AKG k702s as the only
| headphones I can wear for hours; finding the right pair for
| anyone takes time.
| larrywright wrote:
| The most comfortable headphones I have are my open ear
| Hifiman He-400i. Minimal clamping pressure, and they're
| more breathable due to being open backed. I can wear them
| for hours without issue. The downside is that they only
| work if you can get away with open backed headphones.
| They're useless if sound leak is an issue or if you're on
| an airplane or something. But for working at home in my
| office by myself they're ideal. And they sound way better
| than anything else I've tried.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Absolutely. I'm a fan of the SteelSeries Arctis 5, but the
| wireless version (Arctis 7) has too much clamp strength to
| be comfortable for me. Sony's WH-1000XM4 is a good wireless
| option on the go, but because it uses bluetooth it murders
| the quality of incoming audio if you use the mic.
|
| It's a series of tradeoffs, and finding a headphone that is
| right for you and your situation is far from trivial.
| juki wrote:
| > Sony's WH-1000XM4 is a good wireless option on the go,
| but because it uses bluetooth it murders the quality of
| incoming audio if you use the mic.
|
| In my experience they work well if you only connect it to
| a single device, but if you use the two device mode then
| the mic is useless.
| tristor wrote:
| This is true. I had a leg up when I chose my setup, because
| I've been active in the headphone hi-fi community for a few
| decades and had a collection of various cans and some
| knowledge of what I was looking for. My WFH setup uses
| Beyerdynamic DT880s, which are generally known for being
| comfortable with low clamping pressure, minimal weight, and
| because they are open tend to not cause ear sweat as bad as
| some other options.
|
| Obviously, YMMV
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I love bone conduction headphone. I am currently using the
| Aftershokz Opencomm. The good thing is that they don't obstruct
| your ears, and you maintain full awareness of the outside
| world. Great when you are on the streets.
|
| If that't not what you want, and when you are working from
| home, it is usually the case, then bone conduction headphones
| are not for you. When working from home, I am using a more
| traditional headset (Sennheiser Game One), which has much
| better sound quality.
|
| For the microphone, I use the built-in headset mic, which is
| acceptable but not great. Best result I have heard on the
| receiving end is with a dynamic microphone, namely the Shure
| SM58, which is by far the most popular microphone for live
| vocals.
|
| Static mics are great in a studio, but most people don't have
| studios. Dynamic mics do a great job at rejecting background
| noise, that's why they are so popular in live performances, and
| that's why they are also great in a noisy room. One logical
| constraint that goes with it is that you need to put it very
| close to your mouth, if you are doing video calls, you can't
| have it out of the frame, you will look like a rock singer ;)
| Terretta wrote:
| I suggest the Aftershokz Opencomm for anyone who wants to
| hear what's going on in the home (parents hearing children,
| adults hearing pets, etc.).
|
| Also for anyone in an office who doesn't want to put
| headphones on/off or in/out to interact with present people
| interspersed with remote people.
|
| The all day "nothing on or in your ears" aspect is
| comfortable and healthy too.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| I use my Sennheiser PC38X for every work and personal
| call/conference I do. They have an excellent mic and great
| sound. I'd use them for music daily if I didn't WFH and have
| excellent speakers and even better headphones for just music.
|
| https://drop.com/buy/drop-epos-pc38x-gaming-headset
|
| A good wired microphone absolutely destroys the sound quality
| from bluetooth headsets.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| I have a prior version of the same headphones. Very pleased
| with them.
|
| I have, however, moved to a Jabra bluetooth. The wireless
| freedom is top-notch.
| eropple wrote:
| I tend to agree with you in the main - I use MDR-7506's and a
| sE Dynacaster as my normal setup - but you absolutely _can_ get
| comfortable IEMs. But they really aren 't cheap. If I need to
| do something that looks "cans free" at my desk I keep a set of
| Shure SE215s, which aren't super comfortable but they're
| tolerable for an hour or two.
|
| To me, reasonably affordable throat mics _sound_ terrible,
| which is a big factor.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I've worn Shure SE215s for 4+ hours at a time countless times
| for professional broadcasts. I found them to be very
| comfortable, and actually do use them at home for
| conferencing. It's definitely a personal preference thing,
| although I'm sure the more expensive ones are even more
| comfortable.
| csee wrote:
| How do these IEMs with their passive seal compare to active
| noise cancelling headphones for the purposes of unwanted
| noise attenuation
| numpad0 wrote:
| Passive IEMs are better, ANC is always weaker and more
| selective. I was once using Etymotic IEM and frantically
| searched for the source of a loud wind noise that hit my
| ears upon removing the earphones, only to realize it's
| just an air conditioner on the ceiling. That don't happen
| with ANC headphones, partly due to technology and partly
| for product safety concerns.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Have you compared passive IEMs to Apple's noise
| cancelling headphones? I compared Apple's products to
| properly inserted earplugs and Apple's ANC was better for
| low to medium frequency sound, so I wonder how you
| arrived at the opposite conclusion when it comes to IEMs
| numpad0 wrote:
| With properly inserted hardcore isolating earphones, and
| with music playing at low volume(important), I just don't
| notice any other sound. Including landline ringing.
| Perhaps fire alarms too. It's an auditory anesthesia.
| Like if I've put on a VR goggle, but for my ears.
|
| And that is natural, after all it's 40dB advertised
| isolation with ~15dB? sound on top. There's no way those
| ANC earphones with small drivers powered from a toothpick
| batteries and thin rubber cap sealing the ear canal can
| beat that.
|
| I also have a SONY WF-1000X, and an SE215 for that
| matter, both with Comply tips. They are nice, but no
| match against proper Etymotic dead silence.
| falcolas wrote:
| Better, in my experience. They can get around 25-30db
| reduction across the spectrum, and they don't let voices
| (i.e. non-repetitive noises) through like ANC can.
| jaywalk wrote:
| They are definitely better. ANC can't beat physically
| blocking the soundwaves from hitting your eardrums.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Is this based on your experience having tried both?
| Because that reasoning is questionable. IEMs don't block
| all sound from hitting your eardrum, some of that sound
| will hit your eardrum via bone conduction. And ANC
| headphones do block some sound passively, the inner ear
| ANCs can often create an airtight seal.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Yes, I have tried both. However the only ANC I have
| experience with is AirPods Pro, so that's all I have to
| go on. But I can definitely say that IEMs do a better job
| than the AirPods.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Which IEM and tip did you get? Do you know why the IEM
| was better given that the Airpods Pro also plugs the
| canal?
| jaywalk wrote:
| Shure SE215 and the default tip it comes with. I can only
| speculate on why the IEM is better, but I suspect it
| comes down to the tip material creating a better, more
| substantial seal. The outer shell is also physically
| larger, and that may also play a role in keeping more
| sound out.
| mjard wrote:
| Pretty good, I use Shure IEMs to block wind noise on
| motorcycle rides and having access to podcasts/audiobooks
| are a nice bonus when slogging down freeways. I can still
| hear car engines and sirens, but it removes the wind
| buffeting in my helmet that really drains you (and
| damages your hearing) on a long ride.
| ajolly wrote:
| Combine them - I often wear earplugs plus a pair of bose
| nc700s. They have better noise canceling for your
| conditioner noise compared to my airpod Max's
| eropple wrote:
| Yeah I'm sure SE215s are comfortable for some people. None
| of the canal plugs are comfortable for me past like an
| hour. The only canalphones I've ever had that I enjoy
| wearing are AirPod Pros, though - every other set of in-ear
| phones I've ever had has been of the "rest in the outer
| ear" variety like the PMX 684i's.
|
| I've thought about getting some Ultimate Ears custom-fits,
| but it's a lot of money for something I probably won't like
| wearing.
| falcolas wrote:
| Comply foam tips make all IEMs all-day wearable in my
| experience. It's surprising how much of a difference in
| comfort they can make.
| eropple wrote:
| I haven't tried that brand, but I agree that foam tips do
| help. Still not comfortable for me though. I'm picky about
| headphones in general--I literally _can 't_ wear closed-
| back headphones for too long before I get uncomfortable.
| Not physically, but it's something about the isolation
| effect that makes my skin crawl.
|
| Ear protection in the wood shop doesn't give me the same
| vibe, but I'm also not listening to anything through it.
| roelschroeven wrote:
| For what it's worth I have bone conduction headphones
| (Aftershokz Aeropex) and I find them very comfortable to wear
| for long periods (a few hours at a time; I have never used them
| for a full day), more so than other types of headphones.
|
| They don't cover my ears at all, so obviously they are only
| good in situations where I don't want to block out sounds from
| the environment. I tend to use them on a low volume, partly
| also because when I use them I don't want to block out other
| sounds, and partly because I don't like loud music most of the
| time. Within those parameters, I'm very happy with them.
|
| YMMV
| falcolas wrote:
| I've used these, and have two comments. High-ish volumes and
| high-ish bass result in bouncing on your head. And the
| microphones absolutely suck.
| teeray wrote:
| > People can hear me gulp
|
| Part of this is video chat applications _insisting_ on VOX
| operation for the most part, leading to the totally unnecessary
| "you're muted" problem. Push-to-talk is an afterthought in many
| of these products, but it's absolutely the correct UX to avoid
| most of these problems.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Everything about that looks horribly uncomfortable and
| inconvenient.
| rr888 wrote:
| I'm open to this. I can't believe after 2 years of work from home
| zoom calls are so bad. Headsets really arent as good as they
| should be. I'm experimenting with regular shotgun mics but they
| aren't ideal either. How come if you sit in a room its easy to
| talk to someone but online people are muffled or too loud or just
| hard to understand.
| falcolas wrote:
| > online people are muffled or too loud or just hard to
| understand
|
| Crappy (i.e. cheap) microphones and wireless connections. I use
| a Sennheiser EPOS headset - wired USB connection and a
| microphone with a passive background noise rejection - and it's
| all but perfect. The quality is high, and it was under $100.
|
| Non-headset mics, even shotgun mics, are going to be sensitive
| to background noise. That's just how they are. They have a lot
| of rejection around them, but it's not 0. Headset mics put the
| mic close enough to your mouth that rejecting other noise
| becomes a lot simpler.
|
| Oh, and Google et.al. try too hard sometimes to "fix" audio
| that they'll screw a decent audio setup up by "fixing" the gain
| dynamically.
| beanjuice wrote:
| The segment of the population which is both interested enough
| in what their colleagues are saying, and are interested enough
| in what their colleagues experience to required change is
| minimal.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| Part of the issue is bandwidth. Most online call software
| limits the bandwidth based on the user with the slowest
| internet. So if one person on the call is on crappy wifi, the
| quality goes down for everyone.
| lstodd wrote:
| Seriously? Voice requires 1-1.5Kb/s to be perfectly legible
| with ancient codecs.
|
| It's when everyone insists on video that it all breaks down.
| netik wrote:
| Because the lips, tongue, and face make up a filter circuit which
| makes sound intelligible. Throat mics sound like garbage.
| krnlpnc wrote:
| Why not? Because it sounds sh*t and requires wearing a collar.
|
| A decent dynamic mic on a boom and a bit of compression will
| approach broadcast quality sound and can be done using affordable
| commodity parts (that will hold their value at resale if selected
| wiesely)
|
| Arguably a good mic setup adds credibility to the speaker. Partly
| because they sound clearer and more professional, and part
| because it looks like a professional pod/broadcast setup.
| rexreed wrote:
| Isn't it obvious? They look and feel very uncomfortable, and they
| don't offer any significant advantages over the alternatives.
| Sometimes being different isn't necessarily better.
| Grustaf wrote:
| We used them in the army in the 90s, I guess one big advantage is
| that you can use them with a gas mask on.
| spamuel wrote:
| We have voice modulators on the newer CBRN masks. Tiny mike
| plugs into the inside, speaker plugs on the outside.
| cube00 wrote:
| I can't wait for the enterprise version that gets tighter when my
| code output drops.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| The idea of wearing a choker to attend meetings in my home office
| makes me smile.
| pinum wrote:
| Honestly, your sample doesn't sound very good. It's a bit better
| than the other samples that have been linked in this thread, and
| you're perfectly audible, but it's very muffled and there are
| noises that sound like the throat-mic equivalent of cable noise.
| If I head this on a call I'd assume you were using a particularly
| bad laptop mic or gaming headset.
|
| Not bad enough that I'd comment on it, but if I knew you'd gone
| to the trouble of a custom setup with elaborate extra adapters
| etc, I'd expect it to sound excellent (like a podcast mic or
| similar).
| [deleted]
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Yeah it's definitely not _very good_ -- there are tons of good
| solutions in this thread now though.
|
| > Not bad enough that I'd comment on it, but if I knew you'd
| gone to the trouble of a custom setup with elaborate extra
| adapters etc, I'd expect it to sound excellent (like a podcast
| mic or similar).
|
| That (used to be) the best part! No one knew how much trouble I
| went through for this subpar setup!
| sails wrote:
| It sounds really bad.
|
| I'd definitely comment that you need to move your mic from your
| clothes or something if I was on a call with you and had to
| suffer that cable noise.
| comradesmith wrote:
| To me it just sounds bad, like he's coming in over a poor
| cellphone connection. If I was in a call I'd find that I'd have
| to put some effort in to listen.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| OP here -- this article isn't a recommendation to ditch whatever
| you use and get at throat mic! I just think they're interesting
| and finally scratched my own itch so figured I'd my experience
| (and leave some hints if anyone wanted to go make a bluetooth
| version).
|
| The tl;dr:
|
| > tl;dr - Don't chuck the Sony 1000XMs/AirPods just yet. Throat
| mics are an improvement over a standalone wired microphone (if
| that's what you are using), and have better background noise
| reduction but in a quiet room your usual bluetooth headset is
| still way more convenient.
| lelo_tp wrote:
| Imagine the reaction of your teammates after you join a Zoom call
| wearing this.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| I've actually done it! People mostly don't care, but it's a
| somewhat small team...
|
| Most people just see a wire protruding from below the chin, as
| my camera is positioned above my face/head and pointing
| downwards at me
| catchclose8919 wrote:
| gulping sounds & chokers... boy that would make for some fun team
| calls...
| reversengineer wrote:
| Did anyone else laugh out loud after scrolling down the page a
| bit and seeing the actual device, which is a literal collar? The
| appearance of the device itself evokes hilarity. Who would
| willingly put that onto themselves? If your job requires you to
| attend meetings on-camera, what might your coworkers think if you
| wore such a device?
| flobosg wrote:
| Speaking of contact microphones: The saxophonist Colin Stetson
| makes extensive use of them, including one on his throat. To see
| (or rather hear) them in action check out this video of one of
| his tracks[1] along with an explanation of his technique[2].
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMkYF2vJjzI
|
| [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UejNbSrJIuA
| coding123 wrote:
| I couldn't understand the sample very well at all. It sounded
| muffled. If I were on a call with someone with that, I would ask
| if they are having audio issues.
|
| edit: Yeah dude - your co-workers are being NICE man. I listened
| to it again. I am seriously telling you - that sounds really
| really bad and muffled. I can barely make out what you're saying.
| I'm spending more time trying to understand you than getting your
| drift.
| jgrahamc wrote:
| I went down this path once. For normal life everything about
| throat mikes is awful: the sound quality, discomfort, difficult
| to get positioned correctly, and get to transmit your swallowing
| sounds to the world.
| spamuel wrote:
| I should have added that to my post - throat mikes are very
| uncomfortable. The band would also grab stubble so sometimes
| when I would turn my head I would get a nice sting as it tugged
| on a hair.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| But what if it had bluetooth though?
|
| There's a kickstarter in here, I know it! I just need someone
| on HN that is crazy about hardware to see this post.
| jgrahamc wrote:
| You want to make it even worse?
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Well it'd be an improvement for me since the other things
| are not such deal breakers.
|
| Forget v1, I'm more excited for v5 though -- would love to
| see people push the boundaries on throat mics.
| spamuel wrote:
| Bluetooth is a good idea, but you need to be wary of the
| emissions you're relying on for critical comms. If you have a
| whole formation using a piece of the spectrum, that piece of
| the spectrum is now a target.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| https://iasus-concepts.com/wireless-headsets/stealth/
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| That link is in the post :)
| devonallie wrote:
| Messing with Bluetooth and Arch? Are you trying to hurt yourself?
|
| I also use Arch btw.
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| One you follow the fourteen step instructions, it's as reliable
| as any non-Android Linux Bluetooth stack. I've been using Arch
| at home for half a decade now, and it's been absolutely boring
| in a good way.
|
| I had a glitch plaguing me for a week on my work laptop. The
| left mouse click would get stuck. It turns out a Bluetooth
| mouse was powered on in my backpack! At least Ubuntu was
| reliably connecting with it...
| omnicognate wrote:
| I have a 7 year old laptop running the same installation of
| Arch I put on it when I first bought it. Bang up to date and
| solid as a rock.
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| About 7 years ago I built an Intel Baytrail based server
| with no moving parts other than two hotswap HDD bays. I
| keep it in my garage and synchronize other computers'
| storage to it. Same deal, I put Arch on it and I just SSH
| in every few months and update it.
|
| The rolling release is great exactly because there's never
| a disruptive distribution update. Of course there's the
| occasional update glitch that requires manual intervention,
| but the community is very quick to document the solution.
|
| I just wish pacman was smart enough to update the keyring
| package before trying to validate signatures on other
| packages.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| They sound bloody awful and they're incredibly uncomfortable,
| mainly.
| mic260 wrote:
| Look, here's two recordings, spur of the moment, just sitting at
| a table.
|
| The first is taken on an iPhone in Voice Memos with the built-in
| mic, as a reference.
|
| The second is taken on the same iPhone in Voice Memos, using a
| Jabra headset w/ boom over bluetooth.
|
| http://sndup.net/f86h
|
| http://sndup.net/qpw9
|
| (The voice quality of the headset is better when the background
| is quiet)
| hnbad wrote:
| > People can hear me gulp
|
| That's one of the biggest reasons you don't see them in business
| settings apart from the tacticool tackiness. The point of a good
| microphone is not just to clearly hear the voice and to cancel
| out outside noise but also not to pick up the meat sounds.
|
| Especially when using headphones, other people don't want to hear
| your meat sounds. They don't want to be constantly reminded that
| you're made of meat because they're trying their best to pretend
| that they aren't either.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| > Especially when using headphones, other people don't want to
| hear your meat sounds. They don't want to be constantly
| reminded that you're made of meat because they're trying their
| best to pretend that they aren't either.
|
| A reference for people who just think this is worded weird:
|
| https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...
| hnbad wrote:
| I was thinking of the amazing short film adaptation but yes:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6JFTmQCFHg
| spockz wrote:
| I'm using a good headset/microphone setup + krisp.Ai and the
| result is amazing. Good clear voice and krisp removes all the
| noise. I can even eat chips without it being transmitted.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Thanks for pointing out krisp.ai -- was wondering how it was
| possible so many youtubers complain about not using A/C while
| streaming to avoid noise... Does everyone simply not know
| about krisp.ai?
| ecmascript wrote:
| The problem is not people using shitty external mics, the problem
| is people using internal laptop mics that is horrible. Any
| external mic would be a huge upgrade, just don't work from a
| noisy environment or at least don't take calls from one.
|
| People appreciate good sound when they have to listen, but rarely
| when other people have to listen to them.
|
| Just buy an dynamic mic if you want a mic that work well even
| when there is people around you.
| almog wrote:
| To that I'll add another common problem: people don't monitor
| their own mic, thus even if they invest in a decent dynamic
| mic, it's easy to fall into bad mic technique, too much gain
| that results in clipping or insufficient gain (+ bad mic
| technique) that either result in low volume or as in many
| conferencing apps triggers some sort of make-up gain compressor
| which end up amplifying background noise as well.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| > _Could Throat mics be the ultimate in high quality audio for
| cheap? (not really)._
|
| Awesome.
|
| I'm glad OP wrote this up, though. I've always wondered how well
| those work.
| mindvirus wrote:
| Love it. Throat mics and subvocalization are a place that I think
| would really change how we use devices. Genuinely surprised
| there's not more investment in this area.
|
| Imagine being able to use an audio interface without speaking,
| just by subvocalizing. It'd be like magic, you could basically
| think something and get the answer.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| > Love it. Throat mics and subvocalization are a place that I
| think would really change how we use devices. Genuinely
| surprised there's not more investment in this area.
|
| I'm more and more seriously hoping someone who is of the right
| bent will see this on HN and go make a better one...
|
| > Imagine being able to use an audio interface without
| speaking, just by subvocalizing. It'd be like magic, you could
| basically think something and get the answer.
|
| Love this.
| noctrine wrote:
| There was a subvocalization mic project out of MIT back in
| 2018.
| tleilaxu wrote:
| > pulseaudio would sometimes stop working, and periodically be
| broken after upgrades
|
| Some things never change!
| prometheus76 wrote:
| It sounds like you either have a head cold, or you have the
| microphone under a pillow.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| On Bluetooth audio issues: try switching from PulseAudio to
| PipeWire; it's better in every way now save _perhaps_ for one or
| two remaining tiny niches, and pipewire-pulse lets it act as a
| drop-in replacement for pulseaudio. The usual installation
| experience is _completely_ uneventful: you install it, restart
| your session, and everything works at least as well as before.
|
| On the throat mic itself: what does it sound like? I need a
| sample. I'm having difficulty finding _any_ not-obviously-bad
| audio samples (e.g. not recording the microphone, but rather the
| output of a speaker after radio transmission!).
|
| > _Good mic sound quality, switch was not detectable to people on
| the other end, and was clear._
|
| From the _impressions_ I'm getting, I'd be surprised if "not
| detectable" was accurate--rather, people are used to lousy audio
| and are not likely to comment on it unless you ask them or it's
| just _too_ bad. But yeah, I'd rather like a sample to judge
| myself.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| > On Bluetooth audio issues: try switching from PulseAudio to
| PipeWire; it's better in every way now save perhaps for one or
| two remaining tiny niches, and pipewire-pulse lets it act as a
| drop-in replacement for pulseaudio. The usual installation
| experience is completely uneventful: you install it, restart
| your session, and everything works at least as well as before.
|
| I did! Pipewire is working awesome -- I'm using pipewire-
| pulseaudio actually, there's a package on arch that IIRC
| bridges the two so I can use pavucontrol etc.
|
| > On the throat mic itself: what does it sound like? I need a
| sample. I'm having difficulty finding any not-obviously-bad
| audio samples (e.g. not recording the microphone, but rather
| the output of a speaker after radio transmission!).
|
| Just put up a I'm going to put one up right now -- just updated
| the blog and it's deploying, should be up within 3 min or so.
|
| > From the impressions I'm getting, I'd be surprised if "not
| detectable" was accurate--rather, people are used to lousy
| audio and are not likely to comment on it unless you ask them
| or it's just too bad. But yeah, I'd rather like a sample to
| judge myself.
|
| This definitely might have been the case, but the friend I was
| talking with I most certainly have run bad audio by before --
| so he's seen worse and better.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Thanks for the sample.
|
| That sounds very bad. Not quite as bad as any samples I had
| found, and still reasonably understandable, which some lousy
| device microphones (especially laptops') aren't--it's bad in
| a somewhat different way. But I would strongly dislike having
| to talk to you with that as your microphone, especially if
| you were in a context where you could have used almost any
| other microphone. If I knew that you had put me through such
| a thing for no good reason (which could be context, physical
| disability, lack of possession of an alternative), I would be
| very likely to resent that fact.
|
| Frankly, even if others don't comment on it, you're making
| talking with you far more stressful (whether consciously or
| subconsciously), because people are having to put a _lot_
| more effort into understanding you.
|
| > _Could Throat mics be the ultimate in high quality audio
| for cheap? (not really)._
|
| No. Absolutely not. Any podcast using such a microphone will
| bomb hard.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Noted, thanks for the honest feedback, looks like the tech
| is just not ready for primetime.
|
| I don't think it's so bad but people definitely have strong
| (mostly negative) feelings towards this experiment!
|
| The reactions after adding the audio sample are also pretty
| negative...
|
| > No. Absolutely not. Any podcast using such a microphone
| will bomb hard.
|
| Well I wouldn't go as far as to say it would tank a podcast
| -- but I agree that they are not the ultimate in high
| quality audio for cheap!
| chrismorgan wrote:
| Also: pipewire-pulse doesn't _bridge_ the two in the most
| likely understanding of the word "bridge"--rather, it
| implements the PulseAudio protocol on top of PipeWire. In
| typical Linux package manager terms, it conflicts with and
| provides pulseaudio and pulseaudio-bluetooth.
| javajosh wrote:
| I should write up my solution using a parabolic dish that focuses
| sound from a relatively small zone where my head (usually) is,
| into a good cheap mic. You get good isolation (even from keyboard
| sounds) requires nothing on your head or throat, and ... physics!
| (You just need to accept a big dish in your field of view, and
| you also can't pace, walk around, as with bluetooth solutions.)
| jhanschoo wrote:
| How does this compare against the more mainstream shotgun mic?
| javajosh wrote:
| Mine is more physics-y.
| falcolas wrote:
| Even mics with passive rejection (basically an
| omnidirectional mic facing outwards that passively cancels
| the input from the cardioid mic facing your mouth) do pretty
| well at these tasks.
|
| Antlion and Sennheiser make good passive rejection mics.
| duped wrote:
| A smaller form factor solution would be an array of mems mics
| and some software for beam forming. It's pretty popular in
| enterprise teleconference equipment these days. You can also
| solve the pacing problem by steering the beams but that's a
| difficult software problem to solve
| falcolas wrote:
| So, to go even more nerdy on this idea, create a microphone
| array and steer the input precisely at your mouth. Bonus, you
| can program the FPGAs to do this yourself!
| andrewaylett wrote:
| This is what some "conference phones" do -- I have an Anker
| powerconf, which has an array of six microphones and is very
| good at beamforming. It sits on my desk for general use, and
| I also use it for meetings with multiple local participants.
| It's better than the much-more-expensive conference room mic
| setups we have in the office.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| This actually sounds sick :)
|
| You know what is crazy, those microphone guns[0] mics might
| actually be amazing.
|
| I know that people (youtubers) actually have problems with
| being able to turn their A/Cs on because of the background
| noise... Rather than trying to remove that noise with AI/post
| processing or turning the A/C off maybe people should be
| looking into microphone guns.
|
| [0] https://www.amazon.com/Sony-ECMGZ1M-Zoom-Microphone-
| Black/dp...
| digitallyfree wrote:
| Marketing has pushed a lot of Youtubers towards LDCs like the
| Blue Yeti, which are great in a studio setting but pick up
| lots of background noise. For some reason everyone considers
| the SM7B as the way around that (despite being overkill and
| overpriced for their applications), which is a broadcast
| dynamic. Dynamics can handle fan noise and busy streets no
| problem.
|
| There are less expensive handheld dynamics which are suitable
| for Youtubers, like the SM58 (very few of them use that, but
| it's ubiquitious in live sound and with processing can sound
| very decent). Sennheiser and AKG also make good stuff. If
| those don't provide enough isolation there are ENG dynamics
| that are designed to handle interviews in the middle of loud
| protests and such.
| fire wrote:
| > If those don't provide enough isolation there are ENG
| dynamics that are designed to handle interviews in the
| middle of loud protests and such.
|
| Do you have a link? "ENG dynamic microphone" doesn't bring
| anything useful up for me
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I think a big part is the looks. The SM58 is not visually
| distinct from a $10 mic for a karaoke machine. The
| integrated pop filter means you don't even get to have the
| "super professional" look of a pop filter a few inches in
| front of your LDC.
|
| I considered making a box that accepts inputs from dynamic
| mics, adds some warmth, and has a USB output, to make it
| easier to get the LDC sound from something like an SM58,
| but I think nobody would buy it.
| digitallyfree wrote:
| There exactly is a product like that - the Behringer UV1.
| I'm guessing that they saw that streamers were buying the
| DBX 286 and an interface and decided to capitalize on
| that. Though to be honest all that processing could be
| done in software, even in OBS itself.
|
| What I find sad is that Youtubers who aren't that popular
| are spending nearly a grand on a SM7B, a 286, a phantom
| preamp, and an interface for that "look". In reality, you
| could get similar sound with less than $200 (interface
| and handheld dynamic) and most viewers would not hear the
| difference.
| krnlpnc wrote:
| An SM57 with foam pop filter (sure a2ws-bk) looks similar
| to an SM7B for about 1/5th the price. Sounds good too
| dawnerd wrote:
| Also known as shotgun mics.
| post_break wrote:
| I used the crappiest $5 mic I had with a large steel salad bowl
| to listen to normal conversations 100 feet away. It's
| incredible what you can pull up. A normal sized bowl mounted on
| a little tripod on your desk would work great. Add some head
| tracking with a webcam and you can go mobile. Or just have
| someone point it at your mouth the whole time like in the NFL:
| https://imgur.com/a/hyN9V
| [deleted]
| test1235 wrote:
| "but I'm going to look into whether"
|
| article unfinished ... ?
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Thanks, I forgot to put in the last couple sentences! Just
| added -- should be deployed in a couple mins.
| plasticchris wrote:
| I once made a throat mic out of a cheap consumer grade
| accelerometer switched at a few kHz in ac mode, that was a fun
| hack.
| alricb wrote:
| The biggest use case of a throat microphone is to do an accurate
| version of "Ich liebst dich nicht du liebst mich nicht" part of
| "Da da da" by Trio (you also need a mini casio for the "tut-tut-
| tut tut-tut-tut-tut" beepy riff)
| c1sc0 wrote:
| I've been wondering about exactly the same thing, but for a
| different reason: wouldn't it be great if I could summon Siri /
| Alexa by subvocalisation? Does anyone know if it's feasible to
| reduce throat mike size, make them convenient, actually wearable
| & just have then listen to subvocalised commands?
| dwighttk wrote:
| >sound quality is good
|
| Sound quality was _possibly_ better than _some_ other options
| [deleted]
| koofdoof wrote:
| Interesting piece, I am curious about how well the throat mic
| picks up whispered speech. I recall a gaming oriented throat
| microphone being sold once under the premise that it would let
| you communicate without disturbing other people late at night.
| mei0nnaise wrote:
| seems uncomfortable idk and constricting?
| beardyw wrote:
| I had one when I was a kid in the 60s from an army surplus store.
| I hooked it up to something somehow. Sound quality was appalling,
| but I guess that wasn't it's main goal. Thanks for the reminder.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| I'm curious as to why the author even thought that a throat mic
| would have good audio quality. Throat mics are designed for loud,
| high intensity situations. For the use case of a throat mic,
| "good audio quality" means the receiver can actually understand
| what you're saying, something that is pretty easy to achieve in a
| home office environment.
|
| And I'm sure that it's possible to make a throat mic that has
| great audio quality. But I think the overlap of "people who want
| throat mics" and "people who want good audio quality" consists
| solely of the author of this article.
| akira2501 wrote:
| I liked his "I don't remember exactly when the thought first
| snuck into my head," comment, because I know exactly when the
| thought snuck into my head.
|
| The very first time I watched the movie "Speed." I've wanted
| one ever since. Keanu Reeves made it look so "tacticool" it
| hurt.
| kodah wrote:
| > Throat mics are designed for loud, high intensity situations.
| For the use case of a throat mic, "good audio quality" means
| the receiver can actually understand what you're saying,
| something that is pretty easy to achieve in a home office
| environment.
|
| I've only configured a handful of throat mics, but they
| actually are designed to be used when you're speaking at a
| whisper. That's one of the main features, you're not grabbing a
| handset and shouting into a directional microphone off your
| shoulder.
| spamuel wrote:
| Ours could not pick up whispering.
| ska wrote:
| Isn't it basically the same situation from a signal
| processing point of view? i.e. the SNR is bad but you can
| localize and pull out signal.
| kodah wrote:
| Well, they're physically adjustable. iirc there's two mics
| and you can move them closer or farther away from your
| throat, which has an affect on what's picked up. The Harris
| radios also support a load of customizations to input, but
| it would be a real drag doing this because no team or squad
| has dedicated radios, and the shop ROs are likely
| defaulting the radio before configuring it.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| > I'm curious as to why the author even thought that a throat
| mic would have good audio quality. Throat mics are designed for
| loud, high intensity situations. For the use case of a throat
| mic, "good audio quality" means the receiver can actually
| understand what you're saying, something that is pretty easy to
| achieve in a home office environment.
|
| The good audio quality I thought would come from it being
| viable in a "loud, high intensity situation". I thought quite
| simplistically that there must be something there if people are
| depending on throat mics in warzones.
|
| To be clear though, the throat mic certainly has "good audio
| quality" -- I use it on most of my calls now, and I don't get
| any complaints -- tested with a friend beforehand and he didn't
| know the difference until I asked.
|
| > And I'm sure that it's possible to make a throat mic that has
| great audio quality. But I think the overlap of "people who
| want throat mics" and "people who want good audio quality"
| consists solely of the author of this article.
|
| Would sure like to find some more people (maybe ones that like
| to do kickstarters or have manufacturing connections) because
| I'd sure like to expand this niche!
| failrate wrote:
| I enjoyed your article. I think it is very in the spirit of
| hacking and science that you asked a question and then
| meticulously chopped away at it until you had a solution-
| shaped object. I have also been fascinated by throat-mics
| from e.g. cyberpunk novels. Have you also thought about bone
| conduction to replace headphones? That would be very
| cyberpunk :)
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| I have not, and now I have a new thing to look into,
| already firing up the browser tabs.
|
| Thanks! :)
| aviditas wrote:
| I have a pair of bone conducting audio 'headphones',
| aftershokz, and while I avoid using them for music
| listening, they handle voice audio really well and you
| still have full access to the sounds around you. I use
| them for calls and podcasts when I need to have
| situational awareness like biking or going for a run. I
| stress they are not for audiophiles for music though, the
| sound loses a lot of depth and richness. Caveat, the pair
| I have are 4+ years old and they likely have made
| improvements since then.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| I got one too and found out that the audio isn't actually
| bad.... If you plug up your ears. Is kinda funny how much
| better it sounds from basically putting your fingers into
| your ears
| aftbit wrote:
| I don't have much to contribute besides to say that I also
| run Arch and I also would love to use a high-quality throat
| mike. My use case is mostly for comms while riding eBikes,
| not office work. I have a Blue Snowball that I use for voice
| chat in my quiet, personal home office.
| rkangel wrote:
| > I thought would come from it being viable in a "loud, high
| intensity situation".
|
| The reason they're used is because they're particularly good
| at rejecting background noise - so that you can hear someone
| over the sound of nearby gunfire. Throat mics are obviously
| right at the source of audio vibrations and aren't picking up
| vibrations from the air (at least not on purpose) so they
| have high ratio between signal (voice) and noise (unwanted
| background).
| drath wrote:
| Could you provide samples? Maybe it works for you in
| particular, but all the throat mic tests I've seen on youtube
| have absolutely abysmal sound quality.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Hey the article has been updated with an example! Direct
| link below
|
| https://vadosware.io/audio/hn-throat-mic-test.ogg
|
| (also .mp3 and .mp4 are there, praise be to ffmpeg)
| wpietri wrote:
| I would not call that good quality. To my ears it sounds
| like you're trapped in a mayonnaise jar with somebody
| eating cheetos.
|
| Which is about what I'd expect from a throat mic given
| how much of the human voice is produced above the throat.
| And for those who want a refresher, play around with Pink
| Trombone a bit: https://dood.al/pinktrombone/
| falcolas wrote:
| The position of the mic on your throat changes how it
| sounds. The further away from your throat, the better (more
| natural) the sound, but the more ambient noise you get
| because the signal is lower. If you're right over the
| throat, the noise issue goes away, but you lose the
| qualities of your voice that the mouth adds.
|
| In general, you'll get better sound from something like an
| Antlion mic with its passive rejection from a built-in
| omnidirectional mic opposite the cardiod mic pointed at
| your mouth.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| > I use it on most of my calls now, and I don't get any
| complaints
|
| It's probably because people you are talking to are nice.
| It's a bit awkward to ask someone to invest a little in a
| better mic.
|
| I did complain however to a colleague that his room is
| somehow generating a low-end feedback or standing wave. I
| measured the peak frequency and asked him to measure his
| room, but I couldn't confirm 100% if that's the reason :)
| Probably nobody else noticed it, it just annoyed me because I
| have studio monitors, I had to unplug them to understand him
| better.
|
| If you are curious if it really has good audio quality,
| render a spectrogram of the throat mic and a professional
| podcasting mic and compare the image. The richer the image,
| the better it is.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| > It's probably because people you are talking to are nice.
| It's a bit awkward to ask someone to invest a little in a
| better mic.
|
| Yeah that's probably a large part of it.
|
| > It's probably because people you are talking to are nice.
| It's a bit awkward to ask someone to invest a little in a
| better mic.
|
| This is a great idea, thanks. I looked at some while I was
| testing (trying to figure out if the mic was working versus
| the built in laptop mic) but this would have been an easy
| way to compare
| winReInstall wrote:
| But have you considered all the possible markets? The adult
| movie industry for example, a spearhead when it comes to new
| technology..
| smiddereens wrote:
| fourneau wrote:
| The answer to the question is "because we also use cameras". That
| said, if this tech was made smaller and didn't give off cat-
| collar vibes, people might consider it.
|
| Technically better is not always sufficient, but it's interesting
| to see what's out there.
| serverlessmom wrote:
| Until saying this article I never even heard about throat mic,
| much less seen one before. Now I'm really curious about trying
| one out
| frillkill wrote:
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I don't even like wearing turtlenecks and you want me to strap on
| something around my neck that is a cross between fetish wear and
| military cosplay? hard pass.
| gorjusborg wrote:
| Think of it this way: cyberpunk choker
| upupandup wrote:
| Peak HN submission here. Fails to realize people are not like the
| author and have an issue with wearing a collar that applies not
| so subtle pressure on the throat to optimize for a problem that
| really isn't a problem that needs to be solved. Oh wait I'm also
| suscepti-
| digitallyfree wrote:
| If you care about aesthetics and sound go with the gear that
| broadcast professionals use - a headset/earset. There are carotid
| models that work pretty well in noisy conditions, though they
| don't isolate as well as a dynamic handheld.
|
| You can get ones with a shorter boom that match your skin tone,
| and those aren't that noticeable on camera. That's what they use
| in musicals and concerts and they certainly sound much better
| than a throat mike.
|
| Lavs are also an option but they do pick up more background noise
| due to the fact that the mic is much farther from the mouth. For
| computer use you may need an external preamp as most soundcards
| I've seen do not have adequate clean gain to drive a lav to
| acceptable levels.
|
| Depending on your situation a shotgun mic above the monitor or a
| gooseneck (podium) mic are options as well. The gooseneck is
| basically a ECM on a flexible boom, and is relatively
| unobstructive. Note that these are starting to go into the more
| pricey territory, and you will need a preamp to drive them.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I agree, if you want to go pro and not have much of a visible
| mic, headworm mics are a great option.
| arnaudsm wrote:
| Avatar (2009) displayed a lot of throat mics, I didn't know the
| tech was real!
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| I thought this was a satire. It looks like this is not. I like
| the fact that the author loves experimentation and tried this
| setup.
|
| I'm someone who still thinks Apple has not even solved the design
| of the AirPods/Pro. So, anything else that makes us like "Batman
| with a utility belt" is something I would find a more aesthetic
| alternative.
|
| For most of the video call needs, I have tried boom/condenser and
| XLR microphones. Right now, an XLR is the best that stays away
| from my desk (mounted on an extended arm) while I continue to
| keep a desk Microphone as a backup. The last resort is the trusty
| Bose Quietcomfort 35-II.
|
| While on the move, a wireless bud such as the AirPods would be
| OK.
|
| I have been working remotely since the early 00s, and have used
| the early Jabra Bluetooth with phones, and now, if I can take
| back that flaunt, I would.
|
| These days, I drive past busy social hangout areas or visit
| diners with the family; I see people wearing AirPods or AirPod-
| like knockoffs as an always-on ornamental addition even while not
| talking (on phone). My brain always cries in silence, "Batman."
|
| I don't see this throat mic fitting in any sensible scenario, and
| from the article, the ROI of audio quality over anything else is
| not worth the roll-eyes that will you will gain from your
| audience. Nonetheless, I would love to try this with a walkie-
| talkie in the jungles when I'm working with the planters for the
| natural decarbonization projects I'm involved with.
| ip26 wrote:
| Who sees a Jabra set as flaunt? Aren't they more blackberry
| than iphone?
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| In 2002-2004-ish, weren't we still in the Nokia phone days.
| This is even before the Motorola Razr!
| happyopossum wrote:
| > These days, I drive past busy social hangout areas or visit
| diners with the family; I see people wearing AirPods or AirPod-
| like knockoffs as an always-on ornamental addition even while
| not talking (on phone).
|
| Uhhh, you are aware that talking on the phone is a very moonier
| use case for most folks these days, right? We listen to music,
| podcasts, audiobooks, YouTube videos, etc - all on our
| headphones?
| closewith wrote:
| > These days, I drive past busy social hangout areas or visit
| diners with the family; I see people wearing AirPods or AirPod-
| like knockoffs as an always-on ornamental addition even while
| not talking (on phone). My brain always cries in silence,
| "Batman."
|
| Could they be listening to something?
| [deleted]
| cpuguy83 wrote:
| Or just dampening the ambient sound?
| nunez wrote:
| because it looks like a BDSM collar?
| vzaliva wrote:
| I wonder if these would be a good choice for motorcycle riders.
| Regular helmet mics are noisy.
| jasonpeacock wrote:
| For WFH, if you have your own space for working, then get a
| desktop conference speaker/mic, like the Plantronics Calisto
| 7200:
|
| https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07DCDKB2C
|
| (Jabra makes something similar).
|
| It has HW buttons for volume, answer, hangup, and mute - no
| hunting for the correct window to click a button.
|
| It has noise filtering, good mic, and decent speaker quality.
| I've had many compliments on the audio quality. My keyboard sits
| 6" from the unit and nobody can hear me typing during calls (I'm
| a heavy-handed typist!).
|
| Being free of a headset is wonderful. It can be BT or USB, I used
| USB so there's never any connection issues.
| blamazon wrote:
| Also, these things are usually battery powered and work great
| in a pinch to turn any space into a conference room. If you've
| ever tried to have 4 people in a room on headphones or laptop
| speakers having a remote-inclusive meeting, you know it's
| challenging - such a device solves this problem.
| deepspace wrote:
| Totally concur. I have been using a generic/cheap "USB
| Conference Boundary Microphone" from Amazon for a few years,
| and the results are excellent.
|
| The thing is chucked away under my monitor, about 2-3 feet
| away, and yet the sound quality is about the same as what I get
| with my semi-pro boom mike. My (clicky mechanical) keyboard is
| also about 6: from the unit, and I have had no issues with
| typing sounds. The only downside is that the mike does not have
| any control buttons.
|
| For use in a group setting in a conference room, I use the
| Anker Powerconf Bluetooth speakerphone, which does a fine job.
| majc2 wrote:
| I agree the desktop conference speaker/mic setups are really
| good - not just for your own space - but also for huddling with
| others. I've been using the Poly Sync line and I'm really happy
| with there performance.
| cpuguy83 wrote:
| If all you are looking for is noise reduction, use a dynamic mic
| instead of a condenser.
|
| Example condenser mic: Blue Yeti
|
| You'll see a lot of streamers use these kinds of mics because you
| don't need to be right up on it.
|
| Example dynamic mic: Shure SM58
|
| Typically you'd see these kind of mics in performances or radio.
| They do require a pre-amp. I got a used ElectroVoice RE-20 (oft
| used in radio). Nobody can hear my kids yelling/playing/watching
| tv right behind me. Sound is phenomenal.
| floor_ wrote:
| A guide on how to spot a Metal Gear fan:
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| Snake? Snake? Snaaaaaaake?!
| izzydata wrote:
| People don't communicate by listening to each others throats so I
| would have to imagine that is not the way people expect voice
| audio to sound.
| daneel_w wrote:
| Because they produce poor low-fidelity sound and they're terrible
| to wear for an extended time.
| stakkur wrote:
| Because they're uncomfortable and I don't want to wear a collar
| (or take one off and on repeatedly throughout the day)?
| mtn_nerd wrote:
| Sounds like crap and looks uncomfortable to use.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I'm sorry, what? What did I just hear? It was noisy, the volume
| kept changing, and I had trouble understanding it. Throat mic?
| Seriously?
|
| _Everyone_ at work sounds better than that. Everyone. Most
| people just use the built in mics in their MacBooks and it sounds
| fine. Worlds better than whatever I just heard.
| fossuser wrote:
| > " Throat mics are an improvement over a standalone wired
| microphone (if that's what you are using), and have better
| background noise reduction"
|
| Do they? The audio sample sounds a lot worse than the high
| quality standalone mics. Does he mean something else?
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| The audio sample sounds absolutely terrible - it's muddy, there
| are constant shuffling noises, gulping. I get 100x cleaner mic
| input out of a pair of wired Apple EarPods, which are cheap and
| Just Work TM.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| Someone on hacker news recommended this mic before and it's much
| better than this sample (and sounds closer to podcast quality).
|
| https://www.amazon.com/V-MODA-BoomPro-Microphone-Gaming-Comm...
|
| I use it with ATH-M50x which can be modded to use it if you add a
| 3.5mm female to 2.5mm male adapter.
| elliekelly wrote:
| I'm really bummed to see so much shade in this thread. I didn't
| even know throat mics were a thing and I learned a lot from the
| linked post.
|
| > People can hear me gulp
|
| Is it weird I'd have liked to hear a clip of this? Does it sound
| like the "gulp" noise from a cartoon? Or just like a regular old
| swallow? I have so many questions...
| Ekaros wrote:
| Because they are pretty annoying. One possibility is tank helmet,
| but in this head inside it is really not that preferable to
| wear... Then again outside in winter it isn't too bad option.
| [deleted]
| some_random wrote:
| Because modern mics are good at cutting out background noise, so
| the only people who make tactical chokers these days are chinese
| companies doing it for larpers. As everyone has already said,
| they sound horrible as a result.
|
| They made sense for people who need to talk over gunfire and
| explosions back in the day, but even they have moved onto normal
| microphones.
|
| Edit: Shockingly 3M makes a thoat mic. That said, I've never
| heard of anyone using it, and the only reason to use it they
| state is for when you physically can't use a boom mic due to PPE.
|
| https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v000083105/
| swiftcoder wrote:
| Are we sure this isn't satire? The sample sounds considerably
| worse than the stock wired earbuds+mic that come with every
| smartphone...
| maep wrote:
| > Could Throat mics be the ultimate in high quality audio for
| cheap?
|
| How can those microphones even capture fricatives or plosives in
| decent quality? Most of the vocal tract lies behind the throat. I
| looked for some examlpes and they all sound terrible.
|
| If you want good and cheap audio, get an off-brand USB large
| diaphragm condenser mic, for example this:
|
| https://www.thomann.de/gb/the_tbone_sc_450_usb_b_stock.htm
| jtth wrote:
| Functional alternative to a choker!
| post_break wrote:
| This would be perfect for zoom calls conducted at the gun range.
| AllegedAlec wrote:
| Holy fuck that looks horrible. I don't want some elastic band
| around my neck constantly very slightly constricting me.
| ALotOfBees wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. When reading the title my first instinct
| was "because it's a THROAT MIC"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-30 23:01 UTC)