[Charles Adams]

Hello all,

So many recorders to choose from. Zoom, Tascam, Sony, Marantz, etc.

My need is simple: I want to record the occasional broadcast-quality
voiceover (mono track is fine), then upload to my Mac portable for
editing, etc. Of course, I could get a USB mic for the Mac, but I'd
prefer the ability to easily move about with the recorder to find a
better sound. Seems more versatile anyway.

If the on-board microphones are good enough, no need to plug in a
condenser. But if the mics are not that good, I'd need a recorder with
XLRs for my own microphone.


Any suggestions would be appreciated!

C.A.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/31/2011 12:19 PM, Charles Adams wrote:
Hello all,

So many recorders to choose from. Zoom, Tascam, Sony, Marantz, etc.

My need is simple: I want to record the occasional broadcast-quality
voiceover (mono track is fine), then upload to my Mac portable for
editing, etc. Of course, I could get a USB mic for the Mac, but I'd
prefer the ability to easily move about with the recorder to find a
better sound. Seems more versatile anyway.

If the on-board microphones are good enough, no need to plug in a
condenser. But if the mics are not that good, I'd need a recorder with
XLRs for my own microphone.


Any suggestions would be appreciated!

C.A.


The Zoom H4N is a safe choice. I can't imagine using internal mics for
broadcast-quality VO, but the mics are on the H4N are rated pretty highly for
internal mics. The recorder has XLR inputs.

Condenser mics are not always the best choice for every voice. Depending on your
voice and your recording environment, a dynamic, like an RE20 or PR40, might
give you a better result.

[Charles Adams]

In article ,
mcp6453 wrote:

The Zoom H4N is a safe choice. I can't imagine using internal mics for
broadcast-quality VO, but the mics are on the H4N are rated pretty highly for
internal mics. The recorder has XLR inputs.

Condenser mics are not always the best choice for every voice. Depending on
your
voice and your recording environment, a dynamic, like an RE20 or PR40, might
give you a better result.

Thanks for the "input". I use either a U87, 414 or AT 4050, depending on
the job. All are suited to my voice. The RE20 is the only dynamic I ever
used that sounded decent to my ears, but I don't own one.

I agree that broadcast quality is usually difficult to achieve without a
pro setup (which I have), but clients don't care much anymore. They
listen to mixes through their cell phones, and think mp3 is great.
Recording a track that goes directly to a video editor is even worse.
They usually have no idea how to mix it into their project.

For a solo voice track, with prudent compression and eq, I think I can
use one of these gizmos for the occasional radio or TVVO session.

I'll have a look at the H4N. Someone said the Tascam DR100 was good too.

Thanks!

C.A.

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/31/2011 3:28 PM, Charles Adams wrote:


I agree that broadcast quality is usually difficult to achieve without a
pro setup (which I have), but clients don't care much anymore.

I was going to say that, but you beat me to it. "Broadcast
quality" no longer implies high quality audio. I think that
the built-in mics on any of this generation's hand held
recorders, even the $100 ones, would be adequate for
broadcast voice-over work as long as the acoustic
environment was suitable. The built-in mics work remarkably
well for recording a singer-guitarist at about three feet,
but they're really designed (stereo pattern-wise) for
recording a concert from the audience.

I'll have a look at the H4N. Someone said the Tascam DR100 was good too.

They just keep getting better. The H4n has a lot of cool
features but it's probably overkill for what you want.
Still, it's not that expensive. The TASCAM DR-100 (there's a
new MkII model) is one of the more "professional" handheld
recorders out there, having more "heft" than the tiny
Yamahas, and latching XLR connectors with phantom power.
Given that you plan to use this for real work, I think it
would be a good idea to spring for a recorder that allows
you to use alternate mics should you have the need.

It's hard to go wrong, but like all microphones, there will
be differences in how they (the mics - the recorder part is
a slam dunk) sound. It might not be a bad idea, assuming you
don't live in the boondocks, to go to a music store that has
a selection of these recorders, find a quiet corner, and
make a recording of yourself with each one to compare them.
With a little preparation, you could copy the recordings to
a computer, take the files home with you, and play them back
where you normally work.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Charles Adams]

Wonderful thoughts Mike. Thanks to you and mcp for your ideas. I've been
a voiceover artist for 30 years, and so much has changed... for good and
bad. And that pretty much defines life as well, no? Your advice to try
several out is right on. I may just limit myself to the several Zoom
models, the Tascam and maybe one of the Sony models. Do you like them as
well?

I used to enjoy recording concerts... way back when it wasn't cool, and
when the preferred equipment was either a Nagra or a small cassette
recorder. That kind of recording was a lot of fun, and probably still is
given the quality of the equipment. But these days I enjoy trying to
simplify and shrink the VO recording process. Maybe one of these will be
a new direction.

C.A.

In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote:

On 12/31/2011 3:28 PM, Charles Adams wrote:


I agree that broadcast quality is usually difficult to achieve without a
pro setup (which I have), but clients don't care much anymore.

I was going to say that, but you beat me to it. "Broadcast
quality" no longer implies high quality audio. I think that
the built-in mics on any of this generation's hand held
recorders, even the $100 ones, would be adequate for
broadcast voice-over work as long as the acoustic
environment was suitable. The built-in mics work remarkably
well for recording a singer-guitarist at about three feet,
but they're really designed (stereo pattern-wise) for
recording a concert from the audience.

I'll have a look at the H4N. Someone said the Tascam DR100 was good too.

They just keep getting better. The H4n has a lot of cool
features but it's probably overkill for what you want.
Still, it's not that expensive. The TASCAM DR-100 (there's a
new MkII model) is one of the more "professional" handheld
recorders out there, having more "heft" than the tiny
Yamahas, and latching XLR connectors with phantom power.
Given that you plan to use this for real work, I think it
would be a good idea to spring for a recorder that allows
you to use alternate mics should you have the need.

It's hard to go wrong, but like all microphones, there will
be differences in how they (the mics - the recorder part is
a slam dunk) sound. It might not be a bad idea, assuming you
don't live in the boondocks, to go to a music store that has
a selection of these recorders, find a quiet corner, and
make a recording of yourself with each one to compare them.
With a little preparation, you could copy the recordings to
a computer, take the files home with you, and play them back
where you normally work.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arkansan Raider]

Charles Adams wrote:
Wonderful thoughts Mike. Thanks to you and mcp for your ideas. I've been
a voiceover artist for 30 years, and so much has changed... for good and
bad. And that pretty much defines life as well, no? Your advice to try
several out is right on. I may just limit myself to the several Zoom
models, the Tascam and maybe one of the Sony models. Do you like them as
well?

I used to enjoy recording concerts... way back when it wasn't cool, and
when the preferred equipment was either a Nagra or a small cassette
recorder. That kind of recording was a lot of fun, and probably still is
given the quality of the equipment. But these days I enjoy trying to
simplify and shrink the VO recording process. Maybe one of these will be
a new direction.

C.A.


Charles, how do you go about getting that gig? I've been told I need to
be in radio (I've done a li'l bit of that), and that I need to be doing
voiceovers. I sing contrabass and I do some public speaking. I also have
a laptop rig with a decent mic to record with.

Did you start out by getting an agent or something, or did you hand a
portfolio of clips to a radio GM or something?

Thanks,

---Jeff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 1/1/2012 12:23 AM, Arkansan Raider wrote:
Charles Adams wrote:
Wonderful thoughts Mike. Thanks to you and mcp for your ideas. I've been a
voiceover artist for 30 years, and so much has changed... for good and bad.
And that pretty much defines life as well, no? Your advice to try several out
is right on. I may just limit myself to the several Zoom models, the Tascam
and maybe one of the Sony models. Do you like them as well?
I used to enjoy recording concerts... way back when it wasn't cool, and when
the preferred equipment was either a Nagra or a small cassette recorder. That
kind of recording was a lot of fun, and probably still is given the quality of
the equipment. But these days I enjoy trying to simplify and shrink the VO
recording process. Maybe one of these will be a new direction.

C.A.


Charles, how do you go about getting that gig? I've been told I need to be in
radio (I've done a li'l bit of that), and that I need to be doing voiceovers. I
sing contrabass and I do some public speaking. I also have a laptop rig with a
decent mic to record with.

Did you start out by getting an agent or something, or did you hand a portfolio
of clips to a radio GM or something?

Unfortunately, Jeff, there are plenty of highly qualified VO guys doing projects
at http://fiverr.com where they will record 15 to 60 seconds for $5. The artist
only gets $4 of the $5.

There is a radio imaging group on Facebook that has a lot of industry people.
You might be able to get some information there.

It's a tough field to break into, but if you're passionate about it, get to it.

[Arkansan Raider]

mcp6453 wrote:
On 1/1/2012 12:23 AM, Arkansan Raider wrote:
Charles Adams wrote:
Wonderful thoughts Mike. Thanks to you and mcp for your ideas. I've been a
voiceover artist for 30 years, and so much has changed... for good and bad.
And that pretty much defines life as well, no? Your advice to try several out
is right on. I may just limit myself to the several Zoom models, the Tascam
and maybe one of the Sony models. Do you like them as well?
I used to enjoy recording concerts... way back when it wasn't cool, and when
the preferred equipment was either a Nagra or a small cassette recorder. That
kind of recording was a lot of fun, and probably still is given the quality of
the equipment. But these days I enjoy trying to simplify and shrink the VO
recording process. Maybe one of these will be a new direction.

C.A.

Charles, how do you go about getting that gig? I've been told I need to be in
radio (I've done a li'l bit of that), and that I need to be doing voiceovers. I
sing contrabass and I do some public speaking. I also have a laptop rig with a
decent mic to record with.

Did you start out by getting an agent or something, or did you hand a portfolio
of clips to a radio GM or something?

Unfortunately, Jeff, there are plenty of highly qualified VO guys doing projects
at http://fiverr.com where they will record 15 to 60 seconds for $5. The artist
only gets $4 of the $5.

There is a radio imaging group on Facebook that has a lot of industry people.
You might be able to get some information there.

It's a tough field to break into, but if you're passionate about it, get to it.


Roger that. Thanks!

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

mcp6453 wrote:

Unfortunately, Jeff, there are plenty of highly qualified VO guys doing projects
at http://fiverr.com where they will record 15 to 60 seconds for $5. The artist
only gets $4 of the $5.

There is a radio imaging group on Facebook that has a lot of industry people.
You might be able to get some information there.

It's a tough field to break into, but if you're passionate about it, get to it.


Is this the one you're talking about?

http://www.facebook.com/groups/radio.production/

---Jeff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 1/1/2012 12:56 AM, Arkansan Raider wrote:
mcp6453 wrote:

Unfortunately, Jeff, there are plenty of highly qualified VO guys doing projects
at http://fiverr.com where they will record 15 to 60 seconds for $5. The artist
only gets $4 of the $5.

There is a radio imaging group on Facebook that has a lot of industry people.
You might be able to get some information there.

It's a tough field to break into, but if you're passionate about it, get to it.


Is this the one you're talking about?

http://www.facebook.com/groups/radio.production/

That would be it.

[Charles Adams]

It's a tough field to break into, but if you're passionate about it, get to
it.


Roger that. Thanks!

---Jeff

I'm 62, and I've been doing voiceovers for 31+ years. Here are some of
my thoughts...

Guys who do jobs for $5 or $10 dollars are usually worth exactly that.
Like most fields of endeavor, everything has gotten cheaper. While I've
always believed "there's always room for one more" in this business or
any other, the problem is people not knowing their own worth, and
selling themselves too cheaply. A guy who will do a VO narration for $25
or $50 bucks can potentially get a lot of jobs, but he dumbs down the
worth of everyone else. And it's my opinion someone who can knock out a
narration, for example, for so little won't do a very good job. If he or
she could do better, why wouldn't they charge accordingly?

Ironically, a good voice is not the most sought-after quality. A unique
quality helps, as does versatility. But even more than those qualities
is the ability to go into a studio (professional or home), pick up copy
(short or long) and read it is without wasting time, and in a tone
desired by the director or producer. Lacking good direction, which
happens more and more these days, the artist must make his or her own
appropriate choice on the read. It takes a little talent and a lot of
experience.

And yes, in my opinion, an agent is a must. People who try to work
without an agent will usually do the cheap work, and are usually not as
well thought of as those with agents. That's not to say that clients
universally like dealing with agents, but they serve a very important
purpose, quoting the correct rates, managing possible conflicts,
scheduling, collecting, etc. They also get audition requests that
someone without an agent will. I am fully aware of all the sites that
hawk "professional" voice talent. Listen to the demos, and then listen
to demos on professional, licensed agents' sites. Big difference,
usually.

I encourage anyone interested in doing voiceovers for a living to
consider three things:

1. Get ahold of actual copy, be it commercial radio, TV or narration,
and record it in different ways. Play these takes for someone in the
business, and let them give you advice on how to improve your tone and
interpretation.

2. When you feel you have enough examples of these recordings to play
for an agent, that is, when you and your "tutor" feel you have achieved
a modicum of ability in reading, assemble the takes into a rough demo
and respectfully approach agents. Do not be pushy. They hate that, and
will likely not respond. You'll do better to admit you're new in the
field, but are willing to start slow if they'll give you a chance. Most
professional agents are always looking and listening for new talent, as
trends and styles change. The good ones will take a chance on someone
green if they hear something promising.

3. Prepare for rejection. That's what the whole industry is based on,
not intentionally, but simply by design. Only one person will be picked
for a given job, and that leaves a lot of others wondering "what was
wrong with me." Rarely is something wrong with "you". It's not personal,
unless you make it personal. Thin-skinned people do not last long.

I hope this overview helps.

C.A.

[Mike Rivers]

On 12/31/2011 11:26 PM, Charles Adams wrote:

Your advice to try
several out is right on. I may just limit myself to the several Zoom
models, the Tascam and maybe one of the Sony models. Do you like them as
well?

I have a Zoom H2 myself. It sounds just fine for my purposes
- casual recordings that will never be released, and may not
be listened to more than once or twice before deletion. I
can really carry it in a pocket or keep it handy in my
guitar case for recording jam sessions. For concert
recording, I have a Korg MR-1000 which is just a "deck" (no
mics) and looks and feels like a professional recorder.

A couple of years ago, I reviewed the Sony PCM-M10, the
smallest of their handheld recorders. I really liked it,
too, for the same reasons as I like the Zoom H2 - small
size, easy operation, good sound. The mic arrangement on the
Sony is different from the Zoom so naturally they sound
different but it's impossible for me to judge one "better"
than the other. At the time, I probably would have "moved
up" to a PCM-M10 if my H2 got run over by a bus, but
primarily for the extended battery life - that Sony will run
for about 20 hours if you turn a few things off.

I think that the Sony PCM-D50 is a step up in quality, but
it's too big to knock around like I do with my Zoom, and
quite expensive. It has the best limited of any of these
that I've run across. It continuously records a second
stream in a buffer at 10 dB below the primary recording.
When it detects an "over" it replaces the clipped section
with the lower level one and then normalizes it. It's
amazing. They should put that in a box by itself.

But the thing about the Sony recorders is that they haven't
yet made one with XLR mic inputs. To satisfy that request,
they came up with a box that straps on to the recorder,
contains transformers, a phantom power supply, and has a
mini plug pigtail to plug into the external mic input of the
recorder.

I don't think I mentioned the new TASCAM DR-40 because it's
pretty new and I haven't seen one in the flesh yet. It seems
like it's aimed at the Zoom H4n crowd. It can record four
tracks, two from the built-in mics and two from the external
(combo locking XLR/1-4") inputs or it can be set to record
the second pair of tracks 10 dB lower than the main track as
a safety (but unlike the Sony D50 you have to patch up the
overload yourself). If you find one of those, it's probably
worth looking at, too. Just from the features and price,
you'd need to be looking for something special to prefer the
DR-100 MkII over the DR-40.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Arkansan Raider]

Charles Adams wrote:
It's a tough field to break into, but if you're passionate about it, get to
it.

Roger that. Thanks!

---Jeff

I'm 62, and I've been doing voiceovers for 31+ years. Here are some of
my thoughts...

Guys who do jobs for $5 or $10 dollars are usually worth exactly that.
Like most fields of endeavor, everything has gotten cheaper. While I've
always believed "there's always room for one more" in this business or
any other, the problem is people not knowing their own worth, and
selling themselves too cheaply. A guy who will do a VO narration for $25
or $50 bucks can potentially get a lot of jobs, but he dumbs down the
worth of everyone else. And it's my opinion someone who can knock out a
narration, for example, for so little won't do a very good job. If he or
she could do better, why wouldn't they charge accordingly?

Ironically, a good voice is not the most sought-after quality. A unique
quality helps, as does versatility. But even more than those qualities
is the ability to go into a studio (professional or home), pick up copy
(short or long) and read it is without wasting time, and in a tone
desired by the director or producer. Lacking good direction, which
happens more and more these days, the artist must make his or her own
appropriate choice on the read. It takes a little talent and a lot of
experience.

And yes, in my opinion, an agent is a must. People who try to work
without an agent will usually do the cheap work, and are usually not as
well thought of as those with agents. That's not to say that clients
universally like dealing with agents, but they serve a very important
purpose, quoting the correct rates, managing possible conflicts,
scheduling, collecting, etc. They also get audition requests that
someone without an agent will. I am fully aware of all the sites that
hawk "professional" voice talent. Listen to the demos, and then listen
to demos on professional, licensed agents' sites. Big difference,
usually.

I encourage anyone interested in doing voiceovers for a living to
consider three things:

1. Get ahold of actual copy, be it commercial radio, TV or narration,
and record it in different ways. Play these takes for someone in the
business, and let them give you advice on how to improve your tone and
interpretation.

2. When you feel you have enough examples of these recordings to play
for an agent, that is, when you and your "tutor" feel you have achieved
a modicum of ability in reading, assemble the takes into a rough demo
and respectfully approach agents. Do not be pushy. They hate that, and
will likely not respond. You'll do better to admit you're new in the
field, but are willing to start slow if they'll give you a chance. Most
professional agents are always looking and listening for new talent, as
trends and styles change. The good ones will take a chance on someone
green if they hear something promising.

3. Prepare for rejection. That's what the whole industry is based on,
not intentionally, but simply by design. Only one person will be picked
for a given job, and that leaves a lot of others wondering "what was
wrong with me." Rarely is something wrong with "you". It's not personal,
unless you make it personal. Thin-skinned people do not last long.

I hope this overview helps.

C.A.

Thanks so much, Charles. That's some good food for thought, right there.

That's goin' to the saved file folder and the printer.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

mcp6453 wrote:
On 1/1/2012 12:56 AM, Arkansan Raider wrote:
mcp6453 wrote:

Unfortunately, Jeff, there are plenty of highly qualified VO guys doing projects
at http://fiverr.com where they will record 15 to 60 seconds for $5. The artist
only gets $4 of the $5.

There is a radio imaging group on Facebook that has a lot of industry people.
You might be able to get some information there.

It's a tough field to break into, but if you're passionate about it, get to it.

Is this the one you're talking about?

http://www.facebook.com/groups/radio.production/

That would be it.

Good deal. Thanks!

---Jeff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 12/31/2011 11:26 PM, Charles Adams wrote:

Your advice to try
several out is right on. I may just limit myself to the several Zoom
models, the Tascam and maybe one of the Sony models. Do you like
them as well?

I have a Zoom H2 myself. It sounds just fine for my purposes
- casual recordings that will never be released, and may not
be listened to more than once or twice before deletion.

I almost suggested it, but I think it is marginal - with the inbuilt mics -
for this, but it is great documentation recorder for spoken word.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Charles Adams" wrote in message
...
Hello all,

So many recorders to choose from. Zoom, Tascam, Sony, Marantz, etc.

My need is simple: I want to record the occasional broadcast-quality
voiceover (mono track is fine), then upload to my Mac portable for
editing, etc. Of course, I could get a USB mic for the Mac, but I'd
prefer the ability to easily move about with the recorder to find a
better sound. Seems more versatile anyway.

If the on-board microphones are good enough, no need to plug in a
condenser. But if the mics are not that good, I'd need a recorder with
XLRs for my own microphone.

Any suggestions would be appreciated!

I've done a few field V.O. jobs using the little electret mics that came
with my Microtrack. The bad news is that they are omnis, the good news is
that they are smooth and extended and give a natural sound. So, if I can
move the work into a fairly well-padded room (e.g. a bedroom or family room
with lots of overstuffed furniture) I get a nice recording.

[Steve King]

"Charles Adams" wrote in message
...


It's a tough field to break into, but if you're passionate about it,
get to
it.


Roger that. Thanks!

---Jeff

I'm 62, and I've been doing voiceovers for 31+ years. Here are some of
my thoughts...

Guys who do jobs for $5 or $10 dollars are usually worth exactly that.
Like most fields of endeavor, everything has gotten cheaper. While I've
always believed "there's always room for one more" in this business or
any other, the problem is people not knowing their own worth, and
selling themselves too cheaply. A guy who will do a VO narration for $25
or $50 bucks can potentially get a lot of jobs, but he dumbs down the
worth of everyone else. And it's my opinion someone who can knock out a
narration, for example, for so little won't do a very good job. If he or
she could do better, why wouldn't they charge accordingly?

Ironically, a good voice is not the most sought-after quality. A unique
quality helps, as does versatility. But even more than those qualities
is the ability to go into a studio (professional or home), pick up copy
(short or long) and read it is without wasting time, and in a tone
desired by the director or producer. Lacking good direction, which
happens more and more these days, the artist must make his or her own
appropriate choice on the read. It takes a little talent and a lot of
experience.

And yes, in my opinion, an agent is a must. People who try to work
without an agent will usually do the cheap work, and are usually not as
well thought of as those with agents. That's not to say that clients
universally like dealing with agents, but they serve a very important
purpose, quoting the correct rates, managing possible conflicts,
scheduling, collecting, etc. They also get audition requests that
someone without an agent will. I am fully aware of all the sites that
hawk "professional" voice talent. Listen to the demos, and then listen
to demos on professional, licensed agents' sites. Big difference,
usually.

I encourage anyone interested in doing voiceovers for a living to
consider three things:

1. Get ahold of actual copy, be it commercial radio, TV or narration,
and record it in different ways. Play these takes for someone in the
business, and let them give you advice on how to improve your tone and
interpretation.

2. When you feel you have enough examples of these recordings to play
for an agent, that is, when you and your "tutor" feel you have achieved
a modicum of ability in reading, assemble the takes into a rough demo
and respectfully approach agents. Do not be pushy. They hate that, and
will likely not respond. You'll do better to admit you're new in the
field, but are willing to start slow if they'll give you a chance. Most
professional agents are always looking and listening for new talent, as
trends and styles change. The good ones will take a chance on someone
green if they hear something promising.

3. Prepare for rejection. That's what the whole industry is based on,
not intentionally, but simply by design. Only one person will be picked
for a given job, and that leaves a lot of others wondering "what was
wrong with me." Rarely is something wrong with "you". It's not personal,
unless you make it personal. Thin-skinned people do not last long.

I hope this overview helps.

C.A

Well, I've got Charles beat by a few years. I started free-lancing VO and
on-camera in commercials, industrials, movies, and episodic TV in 1969.
Joined AFTRA and SAG in '72. And, haven't had a salaried job since. What
Charles said. He's pretty much said it all. Charles, where are you based?

Steve King, Chicago

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/1/2012 10:19 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
I have a Zoom H2 myself. It sounds just fine for my purposes
- casual recordings that will never be released, and may not
be listened to more than once or twice before deletion.

I almost suggested it, but I think it is marginal - with the inbuilt mics -
for this, but it is great documentation recorder for spoken word.

I put it in the 4-mic mode and set it in the middle of a
circle of musicians in a jam session. The stereo perspective
is pretty random, but you can hear everyone. If the playing
is balanced, the recording is balanced.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/1/2012 1:20 PM, Steve King wrote:

Well, I've got Charles beat by a few years. I started free-lancing VO and
on-camera in commercials, industrials, movies, and episodic TV in 1969.
Joined AFTRA and SAG in '72. And, haven't had a salaried job since.

I'm surprised at how many people, when inquiring about mics,
list "voice over" as one of the applications. Why are so
many people doing voice over work? What kind of projects? Or
is "voice over" a new buzzword for something else?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 1/1/2012 3:29 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/1/2012 1:20 PM, Steve King wrote:

Well, I've got Charles beat by a few years. I started free-lancing VO and
on-camera in commercials, industrials, movies, and episodic TV in 1969.
Joined AFTRA and SAG in '72. And, haven't had a salaried job since.

I'm surprised at how many people, when inquiring about mics, list "voice over"
as one of the applications. Why are so many people doing voice over work? What
kind of projects? Or is "voice over" a new buzzword for something else?

As soon as someone says, "You have a nice voice!", visions of Charlie Van Dyke
dance in your head. Unfortunately, most of us are closer to Peter Pan than to CVD.

Just think about how many people consider themselves to be singers. Ouch.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:29:52 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 1/1/2012 1:20 PM, Steve King wrote:

Well, I've got Charles beat by a few years. I started free-lancing VO and
on-camera in commercials, industrials, movies, and episodic TV in 1969.
Joined AFTRA and SAG in '72. And, haven't had a salaried job since.

I'm surprised at how many people, when inquiring about mics,
list "voice over" as one of the applications. Why are so
many people doing voice over work? What kind of projects? Or
is "voice over" a new buzzword for something else?

And consider also that voiceover is right up there with Foley for a
demanding sonic environment. Ultra quiet and no nasty modes are
absolutely de rigeur for voiceover. This isn't something to be done in
the spare bedroom - not if you want top quality work.

d

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 1/1/2012 1:20 PM, Steve King wrote:

Well, I've got Charles beat by a few years. I started free-lancing VO and
on-camera in commercials, industrials, movies, and episodic TV in 1969.
Joined AFTRA and SAG in '72. And, haven't had a salaried job since.

I'm surprised at how many people, when inquiring about mics,
list "voice over" as one of the applications. Why are so
many people doing voice over work? What kind of projects? Or
is "voice over" a new buzzword for something else?

How far did you want me to cast your pod?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Steve King wrote:

For travel add a Port-a-Booth from HarlanHogan,com and you take care of the
accoustic environment of hotel rooms, conference rooms, etc. Folds flat for
packing in small suitcase along with your clothes, etc. A real problem
solver.

Wow. Thanks, Steve. I had no idea. No I need a reason to want one.
That's a very cool tool.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 15:29:52 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 1/1/2012 1:20 PM, Steve King wrote:

Well, I've got Charles beat by a few years. I started free-lancing VO and
on-camera in commercials, industrials, movies, and episodic TV in 1969.
Joined AFTRA and SAG in '72. And, haven't had a salaried job since.

I'm surprised at how many people, when inquiring about mics,
list "voice over" as one of the applications. Why are so
many people doing voice over work? What kind of projects? Or
is "voice over" a new buzzword for something else?

And consider also that voiceover is right up there with Foley for a
demanding sonic environment. Ultra quiet and no nasty modes are
absolutely de rigeur for voiceover. This isn't something to be done in
the spare bedroom - not if you want top quality work.

Right, You want to rent a flat with a tile bathroom.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Mike Rivers]

On 1/1/2012 3:32 PM, mcp6453 wrote:

Just think about how many people consider themselves to be singers. Ouch.

I'm thinking it might be a know-it-all term for "my speaking
voice, when I'm doing my podcast radio show."


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Steve King]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 1/1/2012 1:20 PM, Steve King wrote:

Well, I've got Charles beat by a few years. I started free-lancing VO
and
on-camera in commercials, industrials, movies, and episodic TV in 1969.
Joined AFTRA and SAG in '72. And, haven't had a salaried job since.

I'm surprised at how many people, when inquiring about mics, list "voice
over" as one of the applications. Why are so many people doing voice over
work? What kind of projects? Or is "voice over" a new buzzword for
something else?



Up until a few years ago the voices you hear on radio and television
commercials and on educational and corporate films and videos were recorded
primarily in the advertising centers of the country. The work was
concentrated in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Of course other work
was done in many other markets, but nothing to compare with the volume of
work in those three towns. Voice actors went to studios and recorded while
being directed by writers or producers on the other side of the glass. You
had to be in one of these markets to play the game at the top level, to
audition for spots for national advertisers that would run sometimes for
years on both local tv outlets and network television. The residuals from
that work paid your rent and fed your family, while you auditioned for the
next money gig. Educational and corporate narrations, basically one
paycheck jobs, also smoothed out the cash flow. Today, the world is
dramatically different. I haven't auditioned for a VO job in the presence
of an ad agency writer or producer in years. I do get several requests a
week from my agents to audition. I could drive 25 miles to their office and
record in the agent's booth, but why. I have a studio;-) Today I'm able to
compete across the country. This ability to be anywhere in the world with a
high-speed Internet connection and still compete for VO work and, more
importantly, do the work for air means that the talent pool has become huge.
For all but a very few VO work has become a non-union, part-time, maybe even
a one-time, endeavor. Thousands, tempted by the business model of the past
and the excellent livings that once many enjoyed, will now do a television
spot for the $5 fee that Charles referred to, just for the right to say they
do 'Voiceovers', I suppose. Of course, there are still performers who get
hot, are heard on multiple national campaigns, and break the new rules by
their success. But, they are fewer by far than once was the case. And,
celebrities, aging Hollywood types, presently carve out about 60% of the
national network ad market the last time I looked. Trying to establish a VO
career has always been a high-risk crap shoot. Today the chances of success
are astronomical, but the allure seems to still be present.... thus, all the
sales of VO mics and home studio equipment.

Steve King

[[email protected]]

On 2012-01-02 said:
snip

Trying to establish a VO career has
always been a high-risk crap shoot. Today the chances of success
are astronomical, but the allure seems to still be present.... thus,
all the sales of VO mics and home studio equipment.

Of course, because it "looks' easy to do. Deaden up a room,
read the piece, get paid, but drive down the prices.

I tried to change up the model a bit a few years ago, by
offering custom announcements and music on hold which didn't
trap the customer with a moh system into the hassles with
ascap bmi etc. as it was all originally composed middle brow
instrumental music. I had a few regular clients for that,
did the usual songwriter demos and the occasional band
recording.

After awhile I quit competing for the vo work, the
competition was too fierce for what a lot of the jobs would
pay.



A friend of mine in eastern Iowa does fair with it, but he
does as much audio restoration work as vo digitizing folks'
old records and the like. That's waht keeps his office
lease and utilities paid is the audio restoration and
transfer stuff.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 10:40:52 -0500, Steve King wrote
(in article ):

Of course, there are still performers who get hot, are heard on multiple
national campaigns, and break the new rules by their success. But, they are
fewer by far than once was the case.

My perspective as someone who used to make 80% of his living doing VO.....

Clear Channel Radio found "voicetracking" and fired over 1000 radio people.
They quickly became a large and hungry non-union, freelance voice supply.

Big Box stores blew out local retail and the ad agencies and local talent who
used to do the work got zip.

Known actors who previously thought doing VO was beneath them reconsidered
the deal when ad agencies realized they had burned out the lexicon of
advertising copy to the degree that it wasn't effective with professional
announcers anymore. And besides, it was more fun to hire an actor you knew
and admired and have him/her do the spot, even if it cost 4-5 times scale.

Reality TV lowered the bar for EVERYTHING.

Clear Channel just blew out another 1000 people last Summer.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Yes I do VO: http://web.mac.com/tyreeford/Site/Ty...ent_Demos.html

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA