I would think cotton would work pretty good for that.

By the way, anybody ever seen one of these Avantone Pro-Shield's? I think they they look really nice, kinda like the grill off a deuce coup, or a knight's shield. A lot of cool factor there and they only list for $30. Most places sell them for $25. I've never owned one but I have to admit I sure wouldn't mind.

ORIGINAL: Joe Bravo

Boy, does the English language never stop changing? Years ago no one ever referred to a regular old ball shaped foam pop filter as a wind screen. They certainly wouldn't keep out a 30 mph wind blast.

Obviously there wasn't much high end to lose in his test but still, do you really think you can hear a loss of anything with a foam filter? It doesn't sound any different to me really. An actual wool wind screen--yes--you can hear a loss of highs, but I can't imagine anyone hearing any difference between a mic with a foam pop filter and one without except for the loss of pops. And pop filter or no pop filter, I still have to talk/sing off axis a little if I'm close to the mic.

I don't know - I've never referred to those things as pop filters. If you go to the Shure website and look up SM58 accessories, you will find these things clearly listed as foam windscreens. Again, that's not to say that a windscreen doesn't offer some pop protection. I've seen them used in live situations to help cut down some of the breathing/popping noise. Radio DJ's use them a lot - I guess because a commercial pop filter is harder to implement in some cases. The metal mesh grill over the capsule is there to offer some pop/wind protection as well. But I would never rely on a windscreen here in the studio as a form of pop protection (unless I was desperate and had nothing else available). I'd resort to the coat hangar/panty hose solution before I'd cover the capsule with foam.

In fact, sometimes, if you place a pop filter too close to the capsule, it won't work as well. Some singers really move a lot of air and I have to move the pop filter farther away from the mic. You can't do that with a foam windscreen. Irregardless of where the freq dip is, I see no good reason to use a windscreen in a studio environment unless you have a particular problem to address and you think a windscreen might be the answer. But that's just me You should use whatever you feel produces the best results for you!

http://www.shure.com/ProAudio/Products/Accessories/us_pro_A58WS_content

Morining Larry,

Hmm... maybe you're right. I wonder if its a regional thing? Around here everybody I know refers to foam filter as pop filters but maybe they call them wind screens in most places. Who knows. It ain't worth losing sleep I over I reckon.

I've always considered those "condom type" filters to be "windscreens" and not "pop filters".

The pop filter I use is very similar to the one pictured above...essentially 1 or 2 layers of mesh (LOL pantythose)
stretched over or mounted on a ring that then connects to the mic stand via a flexible mount.

I can tell you that the windscreen type filters, even those that come with your upper end studio mics like Neumann, AKG, etc., are not transparent in sound. While they do shield against pops and "B's", they also seriously attenuate higher frequencies and can absolutely detract from pleasing tonal textures like "air" and "rasp".

IMO, the windscreens serve their purpose well under the conditions they were designed for, which is generally outdoor use.

But in a studio environment, (where 25 mph winds are pretty much non existent, LOL) they're a tone killer.

Although, I've been in more than one pro studio in which the windscreen type filters were used...but I don't like them.

Now, as to the difference in quality between pop filters? I don't know. The three I purchased some years back were priced around 10 bucks each, and they work fine.

IMHO

D.