[nickbatz]

Any other shotgun mics that have a similarly huge sound for voiceover without a similarly huge price? Shanghai deluxe?

I'd like to find a 416-alike. And yes, I know some people don't particularly like it. I actually do - a lot - but the point is that it's What They're Using.

TIA

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz wrote:
Any other shotgun mics that have a similarly huge sound for voiceover without a similarly huge price? Shanghai deluxe?

I never found the 416 to sound huge, but the thing about it is that it really
pulls a voice out of the muck very well.

I have used some other shotguns that were a lot more natural sounding than
the 416, including the sort-of-shotgun-but-not-really from Schoeps. But none
of them can pull a voice out of muck outdoors the way a 416 can.

I'd like to find a 416-alike. And yes, I know some people don't particularly like it. I actually do - a lot - but the point is that it's What They're Using.

The thing about the 416 is that it's been around forever, and there are a lot
of older ones out there on the surplus market, and so they can be found for
reasonable prices used. Especially if you're willing to live with a T-power
one. Same goes for the 415, 815, and 816.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 4/4/2014 8:23 PM, nickbatz wrote:
Any other shotgun mics that have a similarly huge sound for voiceover without a similarly huge price? Shanghai deluxe?

I'd like to find a 416-alike. And yes, I know some people don't particularly like it. I actually do - a lot - but the point is that it's What They're Using.

Take a look at the Rode NTG3.

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

mcp6453 wrote:
On 4/4/2014 8:23 PM, nickbatz wrote:
Any other shotgun mics that have a similarly huge sound for voiceover
without a similarly huge price? Shanghai deluxe?

I'd like to find a 416-alike. And yes, I know some people don't
particularly like it. I actually do - a lot - but the point is that
it's What They're Using.

Take a look at the Rode NTG3.

For reasons beyond comprehension, Ernie Anderson ("The Voice of ABC")
imposed the 416 on the voice-over world at the outset of Network Promotions
in the 1970s. The severe EQ needed to make the track useable was amazing!

One time I double-tracked Ernie, using an EV RE55 along side of the 416.
All that was needed on the RE55 track was some LF rolloff to match its
bass-treble balance to the 416 track. In blindfold comparisons, every
mixer-engineer in the Post Production building preferred the RE55 over the
416. The recurring word was "clarity". Ernie refused to listen to the
comparison. I wish I'd kept a copy of those tracks.

I used the RE55 on Bob Saget's V.O.s when I launched America's Funniest
Home Videos. It was very easy to match the V.O.s to Bob's Sennheiser MKE-2
wireless in the studio. The EV DO54/PL9 uses the same element as the RE55
and is equally effective for voice recording.

One more note - The 416 really is just a super-cardioid with typical
proximity effect. For boom and fishpole use, I chose the EV CH15S. It's
only 4" long, casting a much smaller shadow than the 416. Further, the
element of the 416 is several inches back from the front of the
interference tube. This means it never can be as close to a source as a
"regular" super-cardioid.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[nickbatz]

Okay, thanks very much.

Roy, interesting post. You're making me think I should just "let's not and say we did" with a decent, no-opinion LDC (in hypercardioid for my smallish voice) and spend the money I save on some really good drugs.

Scott, I went to a voiceover workshop (for promos, actually) several times over a few weeks, and everyone - male, female, all except me professional - sounded really big and present through the 416. (I was there for a different reason...but never mind.)

One of the engineers compressed the holy living bejesus out of it for monitoring, and that added some extremely nasty distortion, but the rest of the time I heard it au naturel. Much as I hate to be a lemming, it really did do the job.

But my AT 4050 is quite good at almost everything. I just got a CD of myself from the studio and will see about matching it - this time really close up through double pop screens.

[Scott Dorsey]

nickbatz wrote:

Roy, interesting post. You're making me think I should just "let's not and say we did" with a decent, no-opinion LDC (in hypercardioid for my smallish voice) and spend the money I save on some really good drugs.

I think there are probably a bunch of ways to get the sound you want, and
the 441 might be one of thsoe ways.

Scott, I went to a voiceover workshop (for promos, actually) several times over a few weeks, and everyone - male, female, all except me professional - sounded really big and present through the 416. (I was there for a different reason...but never mind.)

One of the engineers compressed the holy living bejesus out of it for monitoring, and that added some extremely nasty distortion, but the rest of the time I heard it au naturel. Much as I hate to be a lemming, it really did do the job.

If you like it, get one! Honestly, older models can be found at reasonable
prices. I can believe that using one way up front makes things very big and
present, if that's what you want. But so will an N/D 468 with a little EQ,
I suspect.

But my AT 4050 is quite good at almost everything. I just got a CD of myself from the studio and will see about matching it - this time really close up through double pop screens.

It's a far more natural sound. Which may or may not be what you want.

Personally if I want a "larger than life" voiceover sound, I tend to grab
for a BK-5, but that's just me. And don't be afraid of EQing the hell out
of the signal either.

But... that said... Gary Owens sounds like that even live in person without
any microphone. And there's no microphone that will ever make me sound like
Gary Owens.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

And don't be afraid of EQing the hell out of the signal either.

--scott

As I mentioned, that is exactly what was needed to make Ernie Anderson
sound ok on a 416. Meanwhile, a more appealing and agreeably equivalent
sound was acquired using an EV RE55 with some LF rolloff. Remember, "EQing
the hell out of the signal" introduces irreversible phase anomalies that
can corrupt the clarity of an otherwise linear signal.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[nickbatz]

Scott wrote:

It's a far more natural sound. Which may or may not be what you want.

For sure it's a more natural sound! The 4050 is essentially a flat mic, not a character mic with an opinion.

I have others, but it makes more sense to me to start with this kind of mic - it'll take more EQ, plus it can put it in hypercardioid and get lot of proximity.

And to be honest, it's not like I have to match the sound of a famous announcer or even any existing sound. My voice is unique, but it's not a big network promo voice. These days it seems they use either young or old voices, and mine is neither. That's not what I'm going for....however I did like the sound of the 416, so maybe that's what I'll end up with. And it's certainly a good hint for what I need to aim for.

Roy, I've never tried doing this ^ before, but I've learned from EQ-ing sampled pianos that linear phase EQs let you get away with a lot of mischief before anyone knows you've been playing with EQs. That may be what I use - or not; I'll have to stop posting here and play.

I am intrigued that a dynamic omni can be EQ-ed to sound like a condenser shotgun! However, I have noticed they use a pretty high rolloff on networks - like 120Hz - so that may be a big part of it.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

nickbatz wrote:

Roy, I've never tried doing this ^ before, but I've learned from
EQ-ing sampled pianos that linear phase EQs let you get away with a
lot of mischief before anyone knows you've been playing with EQs.
That may be what I use - or not; I'll have to stop posting here and
play.

My starting point is "Linear phase EQ for room oddities, minimum phase EQ
for transducer oddities". Microphones by having three dimensional
misdemeanors may however belong in both buckets simultanously.

I am intrigued that a dynamic omni can be EQ-ed to sound like a
condenser shotgun! However, I have noticed they use a pretty high
rolloff on networks - like 120Hz - so that may be a big part of it.

EQ'ing to make a single source "sound" is perhaps simpler than EQ'ing to
make a complex "multilocation" source "sound".

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[S. King]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 11:52:03 -0700, nickbatz wrote:

Scott wrote:

It's a far more natural sound. Which may or may not be what you want.

For sure it's a more natural sound! The 4050 is essentially a flat mic,
not a character mic with an opinion.

I have others, but it makes more sense to me to start with this kind of
mic - it'll take more EQ, plus it can put it in hypercardioid and get
lot of proximity.

And to be honest, it's not like I have to match the sound of a famous
announcer or even any existing sound. My voice is unique, but it's not a
big network promo voice. These days it seems they use either young or
old voices, and mine is neither. That's not what I'm going
for....however I did like the sound of the 416, so maybe that's what
I'll end up with. And it's certainly a good hint for what I need to aim
for.

Roy, I've never tried doing this ^ before, but I've learned from EQ-ing
sampled pianos that linear phase EQs let you get away with a lot of
mischief before anyone knows you've been playing with EQs. That may be
what I use - or not; I'll have to stop posting here and play.

I am intrigued that a dynamic omni can be EQ-ed to sound like a
condenser shotgun! However, I have noticed they use a pretty high
rolloff on networks - like 120Hz - so that may be a big part of it.

I prefer to find a really good microphone choice for a particular voice
and do as little EQ as possible. This doesn't hold for anyone's voice but
mine, but If I walk into a studio and see a 416, or a Shure SM7, or an
RE55 I'll know that my particular voice will cut through the music and FX
and sound better, when broadcast. I had been using an SM7 in my home
studio and had then switched to the 416, when it became such a fad, when a
friend said he "bought me a mic because it really mimics a 416 in many
ways." I put it up and did a few recordings using the 416 and the new mic.
He was right, I could intercut the two mic tracks to a mono track with
pretty much undetectable transitions. I was surprised because the new mic
was a relatively inexpensive Chinese medium diameter Condenser in a "I
sort of look like a U87 don't I" kind of case. But for me that mic
worked. Many people have suggested this before, but if I were in the
original poster's shoes, I'd be looking for a studio with the best mic
locker around and buy an hour of time. I'd travel if I had to, make a
weekend of it. Record 30 seconds of material on every mic they have. Then
buy the mic that lights your fire. And, don't get a 416 unless you are
going to record in a pretty dead space; it has really nasty side-lobe
frequency response. One other thing, I've never heard a voice that
sounded really wonderful in close conversation that didn't sound wonderful
on a Shoeps.

SteveK

[nickbatz]

Steve, which U87-alike was it? I promise I won't tell anyone...

And of course you prefer to find a really good mic for a particular voice to start with! I was just asking whether there's a cheap 416-alike around.

[S. King]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:23:44 -0700, nickbatz wrote:

Steve, which U87-alike was it? I promise I won't tell anyone...

And of course you prefer to find a really good mic for a particular
voice to start with! I was just asking whether there's a cheap 416-alike
around.

I think it was the MXL 909. The reason I can't give you a definitive
answer is that I boxed up a good portion of my studio gear not in daily
use and am storing it for a couple of months, while I put my house on the
market. Currently, I'm using the Harlan Hogan VO:1A Mic. (Caveat...Harlan
and I have been friends for a very long time.) I like it a lot. I know
that there are probably a hundred mics out there that are more "more" in a
variety of ways, and I have owned at one time or another many of them, but
this one works for me. It allows me to keep my Sennheiser 416 in my
location sound kit ready to go for video shoots. Maybe because I have
never used a really crappy mic for my voice I've never had a complaint
from a client about my home studio tracks. One client did say that an
audition track that he put on the air wasn't up to my usual standards. I
had to explain that I did the audition on my iPhone in my car on a
mountain top where I had a single bar of cell strength. And, it was
supposed to be an audition fer crap sake. Look up Harlan's Voice Over
Essentials web site. Try his mike. If you don't like it, send it back.
He is easy to deal with. His aim in working with MXL was to get a 416-
like sound in an affordable mic more suitable for studio use than the 416.

SteveK

[nickbatz]

Thanks Steve.

It couldn't be this one I just took out of my closet, by any chance?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../IMG_4857.jpeg

That mic is pretty good, actually, but it doesn't have quite the high freq clarity the 4050 has.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Any other shotgun mics that have a similarly huge sound for voiceover
without a similarly huge price? Shanghai deluxe?

I never found the 416 to sound huge, but the thing about it is that it
really pulls a voice out of the muck very well.

Quite. I've been doing TV location drama for more years than I care to
admit, and haven't found better yet. Despite trying just about everything
else.

I have used some other shotguns that were a lot more natural sounding
than the 416, including the sort-of-shotgun-but-not-really from Schoeps.
But none of them can pull a voice out of muck outdoors the way a 416
can.

I've use a 416 in dubbing purely to get an easy match to location stuff.
But not as a natural choice for unrelated VO. My choice there is a U87 or
C414.

--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[S. King]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:50:58 -0700, nickbatz wrote:

Thanks Steve.

It couldn't be this one I just took out of my closet, by any chance?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../IMG_4857.jpeg

That mic is pretty good, actually, but it doesn't have quite the high
freq clarity the 4050 has.

Nope. It's the 909. I know it is heresy for many, but I'm not as concerned
as I once was about the pristine clarity, sizzle, guts, ballsyness, etc.
of VO mics. It is one thing to get your jollies on playback in a studio
with a monitor system that cost about half of a new car purchase. It is
quite another to hear the results in broadcast radio and TV, where the
sound has been hammered, bashed, low cut, and otherwise sliced and diced
by several layers of human hands as well as the heinous compressors and
limiters at every stage of the chain from origination to my cable box. I
just want something that will, at the very end, make sure that my voice
cuts through all that. Of course, I realize that the engineer and
producer at the other end of the ISDN line or who receives my Wave file
has certain expectations. They may be listening on a great system that
has little in common with the average TV viewer's experience. Since they
pay the bills, I try to give them what they expect to hear.

SKing

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 4/9/2014 9:50 AM, S. King wrote:

snip
I know it is heresy for many, but I'm not as concerned
as I once was about the pristine clarity, sizzle, guts, ballsyness, etc.
of VO mics. It is one thing to get your jollies on playback in a studio
with a monitor system that cost about half of a new car purchase. It is
quite another to hear the results in broadcast radio and TV, where the
sound has been hammered, bashed, low cut, and otherwise sliced and diced
by several layers of human hands as well as the heinous compressors and
limiters at every stage of the chain from origination to my cable box. I
just want something that will, at the very end, make sure that my voice
cuts through all that.
snip again

Amen to that.