Stedman Proscreen 101 vs. Pauly Superscreen?

[BreakAesthetechs]

Hey guys,

I'm going to buy a pop filter so I can get rid of the plosives in my vocal takes. I'm wondering which one is better. Stedman Proscreen 101 vs. Pauly Superscreen. Can someone help? Also which Pauly would be for the Studio Projects C1. also anyone have tips besides pop filters for recording level takes without overs?

[ToddP]

Originally posted by Sho Geist
Can someone help? Also which Pauly would be for the Studio Projects C1.

Hi Sho Geist,
You would use the Pauly PR120-01 for the SP C1.

You can check out more info here:

http://store.yahoo.com/transaudiodirect/abpaulsup.html

Take Care,

Todd

[BreakAesthetechs]

Thanks for the reply. Anyone have advice as to how the Paulys compare to the Stedmans?

[snapper]

I think the concern with the stedman is that when getting in real close the air dispersment causes some problems with the mic. I havent used one personally so I wont comment further on it. I did buy the Pauly superscreen because of its claims at being transparent. It is indeed transparent but......Do not touch this thing! The material is very very loose. The slightest touch with a finger leaves an impression. I hate to think what would happen after several noses get into it. And there is no way to re-tighten the material, at least none that I'm aware of. So after its been touched a few times it really looks like crap. So I guess it does what it claims but I feel it is incredibely over priced because of its fragility.

[warhead]

I love my Stedman...haven't had any problems working in close on the mic.

War

[denial]

I usually record vocals at least 1 foot off the mic and never require a pop screen. I also find the vocal to sound more natural and consistant.

On the odd occasion I do need a filter I use the Stedman and find that it works well and is durable.

[Brad Lunde]

Originally posted by snapper
So I guess it does what it claims but I feel it is incredibely over priced because of its fragility.

Hi Snapper:
Hilmar Pauly will repair a screen that is ruined for one reason or another, and we can make this happen, so worry not. it IS a high performance item so a little extra care pays off.

The mesh material is chosen for audio, not for looks. "Keep your fingers off, talent!" (practice this every morning, it gets easier) I can tell you it is not overpriced, we make a small margin on this mostly to help Mr Pauly, and because it was the best screen I have found to date. It is hand made in Germany, so this is no mega production thing. Schoeps also sells them to thier customers, I can't imagine their price is lower than ours!

Brad

[faeflora]

The Superscreen really is amazing. It's beyond transparent and it kills sibilance and pops. It deserves awards.

Brad, can Pauly custom manufacture one that I can mount on a standard gooseneck?

[BreakAesthetechs]

Thanks for the replies...what i am getting is that even though the stedman is good the pauly is better although it's not nearly as durable....is this the general consensus? how much would the pauly cost to repair as well? and also would dents in the sensitive material affect the sound at all? oh and is there any other product out there that could compete with these 2 on the same level?

Regards,

Sho

[warhead]

Sho Geist, the thing we like most about the Stedmans is that they are washable also. Just rinse it off and you're done. We sell a ton' o' them.

War

[BreakAesthetechs]

thanks....while i am hearing that the paulys are transparent..i have heard that the stedmans aren't quite as transparent....i would just like to know in what way.

regards...

S

[Curve Dominant]

We use the Stedman Proscreen on each and every vocal track we record, with spectacular results. Clients are pleasantly amazed.

And I like to track vocals VERY close-mic'd.

YMMV.

[Jules]

Hmmmm...

I gots ter get me one o does tings!

[tubedude]

I know of the Stedman and the Studio Projects one. Any others? Anyone tried them out?
I' m trying to pick between the metal ones (cheap) and the Pauly (expensive as hell for a filter) My old panty hose type is ready for replacement.

[BreakAesthetechs]

Wow, this is an old thread! I have the Stedman and I think it's awesome.

Cheers,

D

[Brad Lunde]

Originally Posted by snapper

<SNIP> I did buy the Pauly superscreen because of its claims at being transparent. It is indeed transparent but......<SNIP>So after its been touched a few times it really looks like crap. So I guess it does what it claims but I feel it is incredibely over priced because of its fragility.

Wow, this IS an old thread. Hadn't seen this post above and have to comment. Snapper, I gotta disagree with you big time.

The material is indeed springy (loose you call it), so you don't tear it-not because its delicate! It was built this way specifically to PREVENT damage. Now if you push it hard through the frame and it gets stretched out completely, I suppose it might not come back-but I've never seen one like this, tried to do this myself or had one come back here like that. This material is something Hilmar Pauly worked on for years to get the right combo of acoustic transparency and structural stability. I think he nailed it.

Weird that you call it fragile and I've never had a single one returned (hundreds and hundreds sold). Yes its not for everyone-but nothing is.
Brad

[cdog]

I have the stedman but I really like this guy's:

http://cgi.ebay.com/universal-shockm...QQcmdZViewItem

The shockmount is great and the pop filter is very nice.

[James Lehmann]

Anyone know where can I buy a Pauly in Europe - can I order direct from the maker?

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Brad Lunde

Wow, this IS an old thread. Hadn't seen this post above and have to comment. Snapper, I gotta disagree with you big time.

LOL That is pretty funny Brad. You did see this post before.... because you already responded on this very thread above.

Originally Posted by snapper

o I guess it does what it claims but I feel it is incredibely over priced because of its fragility.

Originally Posted by Brad Lunde

Hi Snapper:
Hilmar Pauly will repair a screen that is ruined for one reason or another, and we can make this happen, so worry not. it IS a high performance item so a little extra care pays off.

The mesh material is chosen for audio, not for looks. "Keep your fingers off, talent!" (practice this every morning, it gets easier) I can tell you it is not overpriced, we make a small margin on this mostly to help Mr Pauly, and because it was the best screen I have found to date. It is hand made in Germany, so this is no mega production thing. Schoeps also sells them to thier customers, I can't imagine their price is lower than ours!

Brad

[gainreduction]

Originally Posted by James Lehmann

Anyone know where can I buy a Pauly in Europe - can I order direct from the maker?

I wanna know too. Where to buy in Europe ?

[axtrak]

Originally Posted by gainreduction

I wanna know too. Where to buy in Europe ?

I think they are available thru schmitronic in germany (http://www.schmitronic.de)

I have both, and think that the pauly works a bit better when you're really close at the mike. The Stedman is washable, which is a big plus, one of my pauly's is ****ed up with make up, and looks really awfull now...

otherwise they're both fine.

[soundawg]

HEY ! - I got the Stedman mostly bcause I do a lot of dialogue and I felt the material on my other screen was dusty and constantly needed cleaning... thought the Stedman would fix this.

It did - however...

I'm sitting there recording one day and I hear what sounds like feedback comming from somewhere?

Just a little high end ringing after each word?

I tried to source this problem for an hour until guess what...

It's the Stedman!

Thatz right! If you listen close with a high gain mic close to this screen, everytime it stops a 'pop' the metal viabrates and... resonates!

dfegad ARRRRRRRRGH

The Stedman is not worthy as a pop screen - I'm gonna try it out as a strainer for my poached eggs.

[fjo]

I have both and like the Pauly better. The upper mids, to my ears, are the place where the Pauly seems to keep the frequencies intact better than the Stedman.

I haven't had a problem yet with any cosmetic damage to he screen although it might be because I treat it very carefully.

[squeegybug]

No doubt about it in my experience --

Stedman creates an obvious distorted "whistle" from air deflecting through the louvers.
Pauly is completely silent.

Stedman will easily pop.
Pauly is *much* more resistent to popping.

Stedman produces edgy midrange and high frequencies.
Pauly is smooth and clear and completely natural.

Stedman gooseneck is weak and flops around, difficult to position.
Pauly is an outstanding precision design, move it a little and it stays right there... and the screen rotates separately from the gooseneck.

It is easy to hear -- just put on some headphones and make some whooshing noises, switching them both back and forth.

I sometimes now use the Stedman as an "effect" by taking advantage of the harsh tone resulting from close placement. But I never use it anymore for regular vocals.

If you need the durability for general commerical use, then sure the Stedman is reasonable for that, and it is still better than cheapie nylon mesh. But if you are after purest sound quality then Pauly by far.

With Stedman I was always struggling with difficult high end frequencies, especially with female singers. What a relief to put that Pauly up and just hear the voice, with no edge and no pops.

Steve

[Dog_Chao_Chao]

Originally Posted by squeegybug

No doubt about it in my experience --

Stedman creates an obvious distorted "whistle" from air deflecting through the louvers.
Pauly is completely silent.

Stedman will easily pop.
Pauly is *much* more resistent to popping.

Stedman produces edgy midrange and high frequencies.
Pauly is smooth and clear and completely natural.

Stedman gooseneck is weak and flops around, difficult to position.
Pauly is an outstanding precision design, move it a little and it stays right there... and the screen rotates separately from the gooseneck.

It is easy to hear -- just put on some headphones and make some whooshing noises, switching them both back and forth.

I sometimes now use the Stedman as an "effect" by taking advantage of the harsh tone resulting from close placement. But I never use it anymore for regular vocals.

If you need the durability for general commerical use, then sure the Stedman is reasonable for that, and it is still better than cheapie nylon mesh. But if you are after purest sound quality then Pauly by far.

With Stedman I was always struggling with difficult high end frequencies, especially with female singers. What a relief to put that Pauly up and just hear the voice, with no edge and no pops.

Steve

I must agree. I too got a pair of stedmans and I can now definitly hear its intrusivity...wow, does this word really exist? Anyway, I can hear it, and I hate that.
Along with the above described I can also hear another problem, and it happens only with our native language: portuguese. We have a lot of "rs", hard ones, that are smeared by the stedman. Even worst, when the "rrr" appear just after a P or some other plosive, it gets completly wiped out. Sometimes its funny because you get to hear another word! But most of the times its just plain stupid and frustrating...

[Chris White]

Originally Posted by squeegybug

No doubt about it in my experience --

Stedman creates an obvious distorted "whistle" from air deflecting through the louvers.
Pauly is completely silent.

Stedman will easily pop.
Pauly is *much* more resistent to popping.

Stedman produces edgy midrange and high frequencies.
Pauly is smooth and clear and completely natural.

Stedman gooseneck is weak and flops around, difficult to position.
Pauly is an outstanding precision design, move it a little and it stays right there... and the screen rotates separately from the gooseneck.

It is easy to hear -- just put on some headphones and make some whooshing noises, switching them both back and forth.

I sometimes now use the Stedman as an "effect" by taking advantage of the harsh tone resulting from close placement. But I never use it anymore for regular vocals.

If you need the durability for general commerical use, then sure the Stedman is reasonable for that, and it is still better than cheapie nylon mesh. But if you are after purest sound quality then Pauly by far.

With Stedman I was always struggling with difficult high end frequencies, especially with female singers. What a relief to put that Pauly up and just hear the voice, with no edge and no pops.

Steve

I agree with every point on this list. All metallic filters have a "ringing" sound as well as wind turbulence, and cheapy pantyhose/nylon filters on the other hand will kill the high frequencies.

Why get a super expensive mic and then stick an awful filter in front of it to ruin the sound? Pauly is one of a kind. It doesn't noticeably affect the sound and therefore sounds completely transparent.

Look at the frequency response graphs:

* Without Filter:


* With Filter:


* Pop without Pauly:


* Pop with Pauly (sounds like the cheesy title of a Breakdancing instruction DVD with the whitest guy on Earth):


It's all the benefits of a Pop filter (protecting capsule, dampening pops) with NONE of the sound coloration.

Afaik the only retailer in the U.S. is Pauly Superscreens, and Europeans can get them at PAULY PR120-T-30 - Thomann UK Cyberstore.

Oh and it's been said before, but the gooseneck version is definitely the one to get. Holy hell, it is extremely high quality and keeps its position no matter what you do to it! It definitely won't droop over time!

Originally Posted by BreakAesthetechs

how much would the pauly cost to repair as well? and also would dents in the sensitive material affect the sound at all?

This is a very old question but I am answering it for any future slutz or Google visitors:

The filter is extremely sturdy. It's not sensitive at all. Unless you put a scissor or knife to it, you don't have to worry! The worst I've seen happen to one of ours was a dent caused by a microphone that had drooped onto the filter and pushed against it for 2 days. This caused a huuuuuge dent in the filter mesh. However, it is made from an EXTREMELY durable material. The restoration process was super simple:

* Step one: Gently massage the filter, giving it some light stretches and rubbing all over the surface. This will even out the tension and start to loosen it all up a little. The big dent will shrink a bit.
* Step two: Wait for 10 minutes. It will naturally start to gravitate towards its proper shape and the dent will shrink even more.
* Step three: The dent should now be reduced to less than half its original size. Once again rub, massage and lightly stretch the mesh so that you further encourage it to loosen up and redistribute the tension.
* Step four: Wait for about 2 hours.
* Step five: Get back to it and it should look nearly restored, with the dent so shallow that it's barely noticeable. Now just give it some light rubbing and stretching again, then wait a few minutes, and voila. It'll be COMPLETELY back to normal. The mesh will have redistributed itself into an even shape and it'll be exactly as good as new. There are NO ill effects to doing this. The mesh is strong and flexible, and to be honest I think it enjoys being rubbed, because when I came back the next morning I saw that I had a little baby Pauly filter; and I think that... I think that I might be the father.

Another tip:
Don't be afraid to wash Pauly if needed. Just use cold water, and optionally some mild soap, and do NOT use heat to dry it. There are no ill effects to washing Pauly; unless you're talking about Pauly Shore, who never bathes and is in fact water repellant. In fact; few historians know this, but it wasn't Moses who split the Red Sea; it was in fact Pauly Shore, who was just popping over to the other side to buy some milk. Few people know this, but the reason for his name - "Pauly Shore" - is that he is perpetually "on the shore", as whenever he moves closer to the Ocean, it moves further away to avoid him... The more you know.

[Chris White]

As an alternative to my massage/stretching method above, you can also restore the Pauly like this (instructions received directly from Hilmar Pauly when talking to him):

* Put the filter in lukewarm water with a drop of soap for a few minutes. Be very careful not to make the water too hot. The temperature should feel neutral to your hands.
* Let it dry in room temperature air.

Either method works, and I think I like mine better (see previous post). Putting the filter in soap for a few minutes sounds like it could affect the glue that attaches the mesh to the frame. Use his official method at your own risk.

I know my method worked absolutely perfectly and did no harm whatsoever.


Chris White

[Brad Lunde]

Originally Posted by Chris White

As an alternative to my massage/stretching method above, you can also restore the Pauly like this (instructions received directly from Hilmar Pauly when talking to him):

* Put the filter in lukewarm water with a drop of soap for a few minutes. Be very careful not to make the water too hot. The temperature should feel neutral to your hands.
* Let it dry in room temperature air.

Either method works, and I think I like mine better (see previous post). Putting the filter in soap for a few minutes sounds like it could affect the glue that attaches the mesh to the frame. Use his official method at your own risk.

I know my method worked absolutely perfectly and did no harm whatsoever.


Chris White

The glue used is not water soluble, so soaking it a minute or two in water is fine. The main thing is not to "scrub" the material.

Brad
Pauly Superscreens available on Las Vegas Pro Audio
US Pauly Importer since 1997

[Chris White]

Originally Posted by Brad Lunde

The glue used is not water soluble, so soaking it a minute or two in water is fine. The main thing is not to "scrub" the material.

Wonderful! Great to know! I contributed these two methods to the thread so that future Google visitors will find their answers, and it is great that you filled in this gap in the information!


Chris White

[at4033]

The feedback on the Pauly had me very interested ... until I saw the price: 270$. Ye gads!