good mixerless setup for videogame VO

[breslin]

Hello all! I'm getting further into videogame VO, and it is now time
to think about professionalizing the system.

My current system is a RE20 -> M-Audio Omni I/O -> M-Audio Delta 66
PCI card. And I'm using Audacity on the software side.

The computer is fine, so that's no issue. Audacity may be alright, but
I should look into getting a software effects library that's
particularly useful for voice.

The Omni I/O + Delta-66 is a reasonable consumer equipment, but that's
the main part that I'm thinking of upgrading.

I was window shopping for an Avalon 737 and an RME ADI-2. (I'll
circumvent the Delta-66 digitizer by plugging into the s/pdif jack on
the card.)

The VO work is both narration (deep, warm storyteller voice) and the
range of character-speech recording. Character speech is sometimes
going to be straight dialogue, sometimes with effects (like over the
radio, for example, is a very common effect).

I want to get stuff I'm going to be happy with for a long time. I
don't want to buy something half-decent, and then next year have to
get something that's actually good (and then never use the half-decent
gear ever again).

Thanks in advance for any ideas about equipment!

[Mike Rivers]

breslin wrote:
> Hello all! I'm getting further into videogame VO, and it is now time
> to think about professionalizing the system.

> My current system is a RE20 -> M-Audio Omni I/O -> M-Audio Delta 66
> PCI card. And I'm using Audacity on the software side.

> The Omni I/O + Delta-66 is a reasonable consumer equipment, but that's
> the main part that I'm thinking of upgrading.
>
> I was window shopping for an Avalon 737 and an RME ADI-2. (I'll
> circumvent the Delta-66 digitizer by plugging into the s/pdif jack on
> the card.)

Hey, it's your money, but I think you're going overboard here. The Delta 66
is somewhat better than "reasonable consumer equipment" and is completely
serviceable in your application, given a good input from a microphone. Also,
there's the assumption that what's going into the mic is as good as it needs
to be (not necessarily just the talent, but the acoustic environment).

You could do better than the mic preamp on the Omni I/O but I think that if
you ditch it in favor of an Avalon 737sp, you'll miss the monitoring and
control
features that you have with the Omni I/O. The 737 doesn't even have a
headphone
output so the narrator won't be able to hear himself other than via whatever
post-computer playback route you have set up. A direct analog monitoring
path
is more important for voiceover work even than in music recording, and
you won't
have one.

I don't know what else you have other than money so I can't suggest
other ways
to empty your wallet, but if it was me, I'd go for a small but good
quality mixer
like a Mackie Onyx 1220 and, if you feel you really need it, add an
outboard
compressor such as the FMR Audio Really Nice Compressor, or maybe their
leveling amplifier would be more appropriate for a voiceover application.

This approach will give you a good mic preamp that will get the best out of
your mic, minimal but useful EQ, a direct monitor path with a decent
headphone
output for recording, and control for playback and control room monitoring.
You can add an outboard A/D converter later if you really feel that you need
one, but I don't see any reason not to use the Delta 66 as long as you have
a computer that supports it.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[breslin]

Thanks for the suggestions, Mike!

As for live monitoring, I agree that's important. In fact, the
digitizer (RME ADI-2) provides a monitor.

As far as I understand it, a mixer (like the Mackie Onyx 1220 you
mentioned) wouldn't really help my *recording* application, because
I'm only doing single-channel, and I don't have any additional
hardware to patch in.

I can always keep the Omni around for playback, of course. (Or for
recording in some cases, maybe.)

But yes, my #1 concern is the mic preamp on the Omni.

[Mike Rivers]

breslin wrote:

> As far as I understand it, a mixer (like the Mackie Onyx 1220 you
> mentioned) wouldn't really help my *recording* application, because
> I'm only doing single-channel, and I don't have any additional
> hardware to patch in.

You may not need the mixing capability (or some day it might come in
handy for an isolated project) but it's an excellent way to integrate a
recording system. It provides a mic preamp (in the case of the 1220,
four preamps), some EQ, a direct input monitor path, independent
volume controls for headphones and control room speakers, and
a playback monitoring path. It has meters - not great meters (one of the
best parts of the Avalon, I think( but you can tell what you're doing,
level-wise. It just puts everything you need in one box that can fit
comfortably on a table, and all it does what it does well. Plus, it's
not very expensive, under $600.

You don't need a larger mixer, and you could get away with a smaller
one. The Mackie 402-VLZ3 would do, but as long as you were considering
a $2,000+ preamp, I recommended the Onyx over the VLZ3 because the
preamp is a little better, and the 1220 is the smallest Onyx.

> I can always keep the Omni around for playback, of course. (Or for
> recording in some cases, maybe.)

There are all sorts of kludges you can come up with. There's a class of
device called the "Monitor Controller" that would help you with that.
Dangerous
Music makes a couple of very expensive ones, Samson and PreSonus make
fairly inexpensive ones. But you can do everything you need with a tabletop
sized mixer, plus it'll make your studio look more llike a studio.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Steve King]

"breslin" > wrote in message
...
| Thanks for the suggestions, Mike!
|
| As for live monitoring, I agree that's important. In fact, the
| digitizer (RME ADI-2) provides a monitor.
|
| As far as I understand it, a mixer (like the Mackie Onyx 1220 you
| mentioned) wouldn't really help my *recording* application, because
| I'm only doing single-channel, and I don't have any additional
| hardware to patch in.
|
| I can always keep the Omni around for playback, of course. (Or for
| recording in some cases, maybe.)
|
| But yes, my #1 concern is the mic preamp on the Omni.

I concur with everything Mike said. I love equipment, so I understand your
desire to add a cool pre-amp. However, my opinion is that it will make
essentially zero difference in how your voice sounds in a finished game
product. The RE20 is a great mic. It is never bad on any voice I've tried
it on, which has been hundreds of voices over the years. Often, though, it
is not the best mic for a particular voice. I'd try a few more mics before
I spent money on a pre-amp. That's just me. I'd go to a well equipped
studio with some copy that is typical of your work. I'd ask the engineer to
set up a bunch of microphones including an RE-20, and I'd do some test
recordings. What would that cost? Maybe a hundred bucks. Then I would
listen to those recordings and see if a different microphone might be a
better choice than a pre-amp. Of course, you can also rent your pre-amp of
choice and do a comparison with your current set-up. I just think it makes
more sense to spend a couple hundred in research before spending a couple
thousand on something that may or may not make a difference.

Steve King

[breslin]

Thanks again Mike, and Steve -- you're right, and I'm booking a couple
hours to check out the Avalon 737 in action, and the local studio has
an SM7a which I'll also check out.

Mike, the fact that the Mackie Onyx has 4 preamps is a turn-off. I
need one -- maybe two someday. Definitely not four. Plus it has a lot
of other stuff I won't use. If I buy only what I need, I'll have
better quality equipment. I can splurge a little for better quality,
but I can't afford to buy a lot of stuff I don't need, and sacrifice
quality.

Plus, the Omni I/O serves my needs for playback. For recording, I
don't benefit from having a mixer.

Of course, I have no doubt that I can improve my work with better
techniques. I think the room is fine, but maybe I can improve mic
placement. At the risk of drastically changing the topic of the
discussion, here's a sample of what I'm doing currently:
http://www.buffalo.edu/~breslin/sample.mp3

Somebody on this group recommended the MCA SP1, and that's cheap
enough that I could buy it to check it out, without shooting myself if
it doesn't work out. At any rate, it sounds like the modified version
sounds pretty good: http://www.vocalimpactmedia.com/Audio/VoiceChoices/MP3s/Mod.mp3

A few things I should mention:

Much videogame audio is compressed, and the standard format is OGG.

Even when there's no compression, sometimes there's going to be so
much interference from music and effects that the sound quality
doesn't matter so much.

However, the decision makers will listen to the naked voice, so I want
everything to sound very high quality, even when it's going to be
essentially zero difference for the final product.

Much of the time, videogame VO audio must be over-compressed -- very
even loudness and gain -- because the voice is sometimes competing
with sounds that are mixed in procedurally.

I'm not trying to make my studio *look* like a studio. The actors
don't care whether or not I have a big mixing board in front of me,
and my clients are long-distance. They don't see the process; they
only hear the result.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 13:27:38 -0700 (PDT), breslin
> wrote:

>the fact that the Mackie Onyx has 4 preamps is a turn-off. I
>need one -- maybe two someday. Definitely not four. Plus it has a lot
>of other stuff I won't use. If I buy only what I need, I'll have
>better quality equipment. I can splurge a little for better quality,
>but I can't afford to buy a lot of stuff I don't need, and sacrifice
>quality.

It doesn't necessarily work like that.

[breslin]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> It doesn't necessarily work like that.

True.

[Mike Rivers]

breslin wrote:

> Mike, the fact that the Mackie Onyx has 4 preamps is a turn-off. I
> need one -- maybe two someday. Definitely not four. Plus it has a lot
> of other stuff I won't use. If I buy only what I need, I'll have
> better quality equipment. I can splurge a little for better quality,
> but I can't afford to buy a lot of stuff I don't need, and sacrifice
> quality.

OK, I give up. There's nothing wrong with what you want to buy. Hope
you make enough to pay for it.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[breslin]

Thanks again very much, Mike, for your suggestions and discussion, and
your kind words. You helped me figure out a number of things. I'm
sorry I didn't document all the insights, but certainly the discussion
was very useful.

Before I make the big commitment buying a pro preamp, I'll be taking
Steve's advice, and see if the preamp makes a sufficient difference.
And I'll look at a few others in the same price range.

[James Perrett]

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:27:38 -0000, breslin >
wrote:
I think the room is fine, but maybe I can improve mic
> placement. At the risk of drastically changing the topic of the
> discussion, here's a sample of what I'm doing currently:
> http://www.buffalo.edu/~breslin/sample.mp3

Hmm - I had a listen to that and I felt that I could hear the room
contributing to that recording. A better room will also give you more
versatility by allowing you to move further from the mic when the script
calls for it.

Cheers

James.

--
http://www.jrpmusic.net

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
breslin > wrote:
>Laurence Payne wrote:
>> It doesn't necessarily work like that.
>
>True.

Sadly on the bottom end of the market, it doesn't work like that at ALL.
Economies of scale have made it VERY cheap to make decent multipurpose
equipment and VERY expensive to make special purpose gear that does just
what you want. This is annoying at best, but it's something you live with
unless you want to homebrew your own.
--scott

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

[breslin]

James Perrett wrote
> >http://www.buffalo.edu/~breslin/sample.mp3
>
> Hmm - I had a listen to that and I felt that I could hear the room *
> contributing to that recording. A better room will also give you more *
> versatility by allowing you to move further from the mic when the script *
> calls for it.

I can certainly continue to do more work on the room, but I can't hear
anything, so it's hard for me to know what else to do. Could you
elaborate at all, what you are hearing?

I know an mp3 doesn't give you a complete picture... I would be happy
to send a longer WAV file, and maybe you could identify where the
sound is, and describe it so I know what you're pointing out. Of
course, it is difficult to describe sound.

[Mike Rivers]

breslin wrote:

> I can certainly continue to do more work on the room, but I can't hear
> anything, so it's hard for me to know what else to do.

Perhaps you should put some (or all) of your preamp budget into better
monitoring (which may include some treatment of your listening room). Then
you'll have a better idea of what improvements really will be significant.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Special Agent Melvin Purvis (Northern California zone 17)]

On Aug 10, 3:15�pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> breslin wrote:
> > I can certainly continue to do more work on the room, but I can't hear
> > anything, so it's hard for me to know what else to do.
>
> Perhaps you should put some (or all) of your preamp budget into better
> monitoring (which may include some treatment of your listening room). Then
> you'll have a better idea of what improvements really will be significant..
>
> --
> If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
> me here:
> double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
> )

On the advice of a friend I bought a Sound Devices USB Pre three years
ago. It sounds great, has been in constant use with no problems, and
did not cost an inordinate amount of money. Give it a look. I use it
with an SM7, close miked..

[James Perrett]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:11:30 -0000, breslin >
wrote:

> James Perrett wrote
>> >http://www.buffalo.edu/~breslin/sample.mp3
>>
>> Hmm - I had a listen to that and I felt that I could hear the room *
>> contributing to that recording. A better room will also give you more *
>> versatility by allowing you to move further from the mic when the
>> script *
>> calls for it.
>
> I can certainly continue to do more work on the room, but I can't hear
> anything, so it's hard for me to know what else to do. Could you
> elaborate at all, what you are hearing?
>

I felt that there was a very short decay after each syllable and a general
'tubbiness' to the sound which indicates that the bass and low midrange
could do with taming. It is possible that the decay is down to the mp3
conversion but the sound is typical of an insufficiently treated small
room.

A voiceover room is very different to a music recording room as it is
normally much deader. The BBC have some good technical papers on voice
studios which are on their website (but well hidden).

Cheers

James.


--
http://www.jrpmusic.net

[breslin]

James Perrett wrote:
> I felt that there was a very short decay after each syllable and a general *
> 'tubbiness' to the sound which indicates that the bass and low midrange *
> could do with taming. It is possible that the decay is down to the mp3 *
> conversion but the sound is typical of an insufficiently treated small *
> room.

Excellent, James! -- Thanks very much. As Mike guessed (thanks again
Mike!), I'm using bass-weak headphones and cheap monitor speakers. I
will budget for some proper monitors, after which I can properly
diagnose. Maybe I'm just using the EQ wrong, caused by my poor monitor
setup; or maybe it is as you say, the room needs to be deader. (I
tried to go more towards dispersing the sound, not completely
deadening the room, but maybe the foam-board ceiling also needs to be
covered.)

> A voiceover room is very different to a music recording room as it is *
> normally much deader. The BBC have some good technical papers on voice *
> studios which are on their website (but well hidden).

Understood! Thanks very much. I will investigate! :)

[Mike Rivers]

breslin wrote:

> Maybe I'm just using the EQ wrong, caused by my poor monitor
> setup; or maybe it is as you say, the room needs to be deader.

You have to be careful when making the room deader. A lot of vocal
booths have 2" sculptured foam on the walls, and that absorbs the high
midrange and upper frequencies but does little for the low end. The result
is that anything recorded in there tends to sound kind of tubby, and that's
the way someone described it (though I didn't listen to your example).



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[dwgriffi]

I always hated the compressor on the 737. For voice it's a nice pre
and eq, but you need a compressor or limiter that you really love if
it's your only one, and mine wouldn't be an Avalon for v/o. You might
be better off with a dedicated one, so you could swap it (or the pre)
out if your taste changes. Personally, I'll take the RE20 in a super
dead booth into a Grace single channel with two DBX160's, the first
compressing over easy, the second knocking another 2 db off in hard
limit.

Tubes are over rated for v/o : )

[James Perrett]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:59:34 -0000, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

> You have to be careful when making the room deader. A lot of vocal
> booths have 2" sculptured foam on the walls, and that absorbs the high
> midrange and upper frequencies but does little for the low end. The
> result
> is that anything recorded in there tends to sound kind of tubby, and
> that's
> the way someone described it (though I didn't listen to your example).

That's why I mentioned using a BBC type of treatment. My last studio had a
layer of hessian on the outer with pegboard behind it, four inches of
Rockwool insulation behind that and then a Camden partition at the back.
This produced a slightly livelier room than a purely foam lined room but
the absorbtion seemed more even across the frequency range.

Cheers

James.


--
http://www.jrpmusic.net