While this requires some investment, I've found that having a good broadcast monitoring solution helps a lot during online calls. Whether you're on headphones, in-ears, or using a full wedge, having your own voice echoing back at you allows you to easily know if you're speaking clearly at the correct volume. You can also tell if you're backing away from the mic, whether background noise is audible on the far side, and so on.
Professional public speakers and radio personalities monitor themselves, so why shouldn't you?
A cheap analog mixer or audio interface will let you do this, and obviously the sky's the limit if you want a full digital mixer with DSP and all the bells and whistles. There are software options but the latency can be jarring if you aren't used to it.
This is the conclusion I've come to as well, but I'm still not 100% happy with my setup. First off, many cheaper audio interfaces might have a hardware monitoring toggle but not allow monitor mixing. I found these devices to be totally unusable since many times the monitor level ended up being way too low to be effective.
Even with monitor mixing, however, I'm still annoyed that I have to dial in the mix and adjust the volume every time I connect with someone depending on how loud or soft their microphone is. Are you aware of any audio interfaces that allow for adjusting the absolute monitor level vs. just the relative mix level?
Like, I always want to hear myself at a specific level and I'd love to be able to adjust the output volume so I can hear the other person properly without affecting my monitor level. Currently I'm using an Elgato Wave XLR interface with an Audio-Technica BPHS1 broadcast headset and it works perfectly except for this one issue.
Edit: Forgot to mention that I've also found mic mute buttons to be another often overlooked necessity! The capacitive mute button on the Wave XLR is probably my favorite feature. Totally seamless/silent muting and unmuting.
Most audio interfaces with a single monitor knob (like the popular Scarlett) are like that. I think they do it to save costs/panel space over having a separate PC volume knob and a monitor knob.
With a proper mixer you can have a fixed monitor mix for yourself and another one for your far side listeners. You also get muting, EQ, and so forth. If your focus is on live audio as opposed to recording I would actually recommend a small mixer over an interface and just route the audio to the onboard soundcard if you don't want to get both units.
Thanks for the suggestion. This is super interesting to me. After doing a bit of research though it appears that in order to go with a mixer over an interface I'd need to find one that supports some form of multiple outputs (aux sends, direct outputs, or separate monitor/main mixes) in order to hear my mic and computer audio in my headphones but only send the mic to the computer. Unfortunately I couldn't find any smaller (4-6 input) units with those features.
In my search I came across the Yamaha AG03MK2 hybrid mixer/interface which looks promising. It has a strange combination of inputs and outputs but it looks like the STREAMING OUT switch allows it to be set in a mode that is appropriate for audio/video meetings with an independent level control for the computer audio.
Yes you'll typically use an aux send (pre-fade and preferably monitorable on the control room outs) to provide a separate mix to your computer, and then use the main mixer section for yourself. You've actually wandered into the same problem I had when getting my system set up where I wanted a small analog mixer for calls+multiple computers but none of them had this ability unless I went for a large board. Normally I would spec the XR12/Ui12 digital rack mixers for this but their prices have gone up like crazy since COVID. I also didn't want a used analog mixer as those often have bad faders and pots.
I remember looking at the Yamaha you mentioned during my research and the issue with it is that it sends the first two channels direct to the computer as a stereo feed, thus your mic will only appear on one side. Though the same thing happens with most interfaces unless you use a split. Also it sends the signal without processing. Depending on what you're looking for that product may work for you - you really have to trace the block diagrams carefully and mark out the signal paths you're interested in.
If you don't mind an analog aux the Alto ZMX862 also works, though quality is questionable. Both of these options also don't let you monitor the aux send. I think the cheapest option that allows that is the Soundcraft Notepad-8FX which was on my shortlist.
In the end I went with a commercial audio DSP (got mine for around $50 on ebay) and programmed it myself, see my other post here for more info [1].
Wow, that Biamp Nexia is something else. Very cool setup there.
Both those analog mixers look nice except for the lack of mute buttons for the mic channels. I suppose I could always go for a separate XLR mute device though so that probably shouldn't be a deal-breaker.
> I remember looking at the Yamaha you mentioned during my research and the issue with it is that it sends the first two channels direct to the computer as a stereo feed, thus your mic will only appear on one side.
I saw that too but I was under the impression that it only did so when it was in [DRY CH 1-2G] mode. The manual seems to distinguish that behavior as unique for working with a DAW so it sounds to me like [INPUT MIX] mode sends all input channels (except for computer/USB input) mixed in stereo to the computer but they could certainly be more clear about that. [1]
Ok I traced the block diagram [1] and it looks like that the input mix option does do what you want (send mixed signal EXCEPT for USB to PC, and send USB to the main mix along with everything else). Confusing indeed but it looks like it works!
Note in this cause you won't get a fully separate aux mix, and you'll have to juggle the levels around to get a hot enough signal to your PC as well as the correct volume in your monitors.
Awesome! I'm going to give it a try. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Also thanks for linking to that document. I was sketching out rough diagrams for myself but I was totally unaware that manufacturers provided such schematics. Having access to those makes things much clearer!
That's correct. But I'd strongly recommend some integrated solution instead of an analog mixing board.
I have a Logitech G433 that lets you adjust the feedback. It's analog, so it has no latency.
I used to use an external audio interface, but it was cumbersome and not very portable. And working with a stationary mic was annoying. The flexibility of headphone and mic choice was great though.
I have done some sound engineering in the past hence why I went with the full setup of external mics+digital mixer. Obviously this is not for everyone, and I have multiple devices that require audio routing as well as multiple mics.
I ended up getting a used commercial audio DSP as the mixer/processor to save some money [1]. Since I listen on speaker I also have noise gates set up, mics rung out, etc.
The whole shebang is definitely not portable and tuned to the room, and if I'm on the go I'll just take the interface, handheld dynamic, and IEMs.
I use open-back headphones for this reason - the ability to hear room noise is normally enough for me to speak quietly, and it's a largely unconscious effect which is nice.
I have a USB mic that has a headphones output, which echoes your voice and whatever the mic hears. It's quite nice. But I always do a quick check with the volume meter in zoom or in the sound settings (Mac OS) so I can speak at my normal level. And I usually speak quietly.
Another monitor I would find interesting is how much time one person is dominating the meeting. In several meetings I attend, a few individuals tend to dominate the discussion.
It is always amusing when said people are late to the meeting or do not attend. Everyone else is all "Okay, now what we do talk about? There isn't any point to having these meetings, is there?"
I got many complaints from my wife that I'm speaking too loudly in online meetings, so I built a script in Python to warn me when I do speak too loudly.
I think this is genius and will adapt this to my own needs. I too have to fight a tendency to raise my volume during virtual calls.
Is there a physiological reason why I do this? Is it because of the lack of perceptual feedback from the other party? Bad audio levels incoming (should be higher/lower?)?
If you read the article, it explains that he doesn't want to wake his young daughter when she's napping. (Pre-daughter, his wife was merely annoyed when he was speaking too loudly.)
I actually love this. Unfortunately, I don't have admin access to my work machine.
I wonder if I could hack together a way to have my personal computer that sits on the same desk listen even though it's not the same mic I'm speaking into.
Cheap alternative: BestBuy sells an Insignia brand external microphone that allows you to connect headphones to it so you can hear your own voice included with the audio signal from the meeting.
Best $35 I’ve ever spent and spouse is happier that I’m not too loud anymore.
I don't have one of these but I do own a USB microphone that probably functions very similarly - it appears as a "Speaker" (and obviously, a microphone device), and if you plug headphones into the microphone itself, you'll hear the monitor audio and if you route your PC's audio through the "Speaker" the microphone will mix your audio output with the monitor output.
This is a long way of saying that the monitor latency is practically 0.
If your mic doesn't have a monitor, you can do this on PC itself by using something like Voicemeeter but you'll incur a small amount of latency and many people have a hard time talking when they hear themselves on a delay.
Professional public speakers and radio personalities monitor themselves, so why shouldn't you?
A cheap analog mixer or audio interface will let you do this, and obviously the sky's the limit if you want a full digital mixer with DSP and all the bells and whistles. There are software options but the latency can be jarring if you aren't used to it.