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.
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.
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.
> 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!
> 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.
> 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
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 :)
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.
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
> 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).
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.
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.
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/
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.
Mentioned this before but be careful to find one that snaps off easily if you’re using it on a bike just in case it gets caught on something! I guess it would be fine if it wasn’t fully closed
Also as many have noted, the sound quality isn’t the greatest!
> 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.
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.
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).
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!
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.
It's bad compared to normal microphones, but it's much better than I expected (especially if you turn the volume up a bit). If it actually avoids capturing background noise regardless of level, it's great as soon as you can't get a quiet environment.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
ANC earphones are not designed with maximum sealing in mind(sometimes intentionally). Doesn't matter how plug and ear canal is tightly fit together, if what is suspended in the middle was a pipe with open ends.
ER4SR is the most classic/standard Etymotic model currently sold, other models complementing in both direction of prices. Perhaps more important than tip selection is correct insertion, or Practice and patience, which is unbelievably the exact wording used in their instruction manuals at least for my ER-6i. It is definitely not the healthiest earphones in the market.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if we can replace the tip on the Airpods Pro to create and IEM like seal. I suppose that should be the best of both worlds? But the outer shell would still be smaller so maybe not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
They're the mics that news reporters use when interviewing people on the street. Popular models include the EV RE50 (omni) and Senn MD46 (cardioid). They're designed for intelligibility and cut down sound from distant sources well without much processing.
ENG is "Electronic News Gathering" it's designed to only pickup sounds very close to the mic, as for news reporters who need to sound good in very noisy environments. It's probably overkill if you have a quiet interior room in your house, but if you don't, an omnidirectional ENG is a great option and you can get decent ones for under $200.
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> I wouldn’t go as far as to say it would tank a podcast
I would. It seems like you have a rosier impression of how this sounds than anyone else who listens. It's not completely unintelligible, but it's worse than "not good" to me. It just sounds plain bad.
If I started listening to a podcast, and it sounded like this, I would just turn it off. Unless I was keenly interested in the subject material. Subpar audio recording is a peeve of mine, particular in a medium that's all about information via audio.
But thanks for publicizing this. It's good to know that it exists, and what it sounds like.
> Unless I was keenly interested in the subject material.
That's what I was thinking! Most of the time people who stick with podcasts stick with it because of content and/or creators, so that's more the case I was thinking of.
The terrible mics would probably become a shared joke, if anything -- though you'd lose some people like you who really expect at least a good mic out of a podcast (which is a very reasonable expectation!)
> But thanks for publicizing this. It's good to know that it exists, and what it sounds like.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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:
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.
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?
> 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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."
> 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?
Not yet here in India. People love to just call and talk on phone. Sometimes, many of them get angry when I do not pick up phone calls or tell them to use other means instead of voice calls.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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)
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].
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.
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...
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.
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Hackers hack things up. That’s not always about building, unless you have an extremely loose definition of building. Anyways even hackers need critics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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!
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.
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.
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...
> 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.
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!
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
They are if you prioritize mobility, and possibly otherwise, if you are talking about something like the plastic microphone with a wobbly mini plug that popped into my mind’s eye.
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.
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!
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.
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-
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.