voice over recording

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Hi Guys,

recently I ventured into the difficult land of voice-over recording, you
can listen to the outcome here:

http://www.danishvoices.dk/medlemsliste/medlem.aspx?MemberId=2652

Comments appreciated!

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:02:38 +0100, Peter Larsen >
wrote:

>Hi Guys,
>
>recently I ventured into the difficult land of voice-over recording, you
>can listen to the outcome here:
>
>http://www.danishvoices.dk/medlemsliste/medlem.aspx?MemberId=2652
>
>Comments appreciated!
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Immediate impressions is that the silences between the words are
unnatural an exaggerated. Of course it doesn't help that Danish is a
language of glottal stops, in which all words seem to just stop
mid-vowel instead of terminating naturally.

But I think I would back off the noise gate, or whatever is being used
to create the effect.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 22-01-2016 18:22, Don Pearce wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:02:38 +0100, Peter Larsen >
> wrote:

>> http://www.danishvoices.dk/medlemsliste/medlem.aspx?MemberId=2652

> Immediate impressions is that the silences between the words are
> unnatural an exaggerated. Of course it doesn't help that Danish is a
> language of glottal stops, in which all words seem to just stop
> mid-vowel instead of terminating naturally.

> But I think I would back off the noise gate, or whatever is being used
> to create the effect.

A bit of expansion with a quite low threshold was applied because of
traffic noise, the recording was made in the talents apartment and the
room at the rear side of the building could not be used due to building
repair noises. It should then have been less or not at all. I listened
to a fair number of other voice examples on that site, and most have
very low background noise.

Thank you very much!

> d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:11:42 +0100, Peter Larsen >
wrote:

>On 22-01-2016 18:22, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:02:38 +0100, Peter Larsen >
>> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.danishvoices.dk/medlemsliste/medlem.aspx?MemberId=2652
>
>> Immediate impressions is that the silences between the words are
>> unnatural an exaggerated. Of course it doesn't help that Danish is a
>> language of glottal stops, in which all words seem to just stop
>> mid-vowel instead of terminating naturally.
>
>> But I think I would back off the noise gate, or whatever is being used
>> to create the effect.
>
>A bit of expansion with a quite low threshold was applied because of
>traffic noise, the recording was made in the talents apartment and the
>room at the rear side of the building could not be used due to building
>repair noises. It should then have been less or not at all. I listened
>to a fair number of other voice examples on that site, and most have
>very low background noise.
>
>Thank you very much!
>

Thanks, you have confirmed exactly what I heard. Maybe move the
threshold up, but do not dip quite so severely below it. Alternatively
use an omni really close miked and no expansion?

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 22-01-2016 20:15, Don Pearce wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:11:42 +0100, Peter Larsen >
> wrote:

....

>> A bit of expansion with a quite low threshold was applied because of
>> traffic noise, the recording was made in the talents apartment and the
>> room at the rear side of the building could not be used due to building
>> repair noises. It should then have been less or not at all. I listened
>> to a fair number of other voice examples on that site, and most have
>> very low background noise.

> Thanks, you have confirmed exactly what I heard. Maybe move the
> threshold up, but do not dip quite so severely below it.

My first thought is to move the threshold down, but you could be right,
this is new turf for me. And what really is required is perhaps a
multiband expander or just having the talent only 10 centimeters from
the microphone.

My problem when making the recording was - other than the builders noise
on the otherwise more silent rear side of the building - that classical
talent come with an inbuilt microphone repulsifier instead of the
microphone attractifier that is fitted to contemporary talent.

Using an alternative location was discussed, but she also wanted to know
whether her apartment would be usable for a home studio. During the
builders lunch break the room at the rear was ok, albeit smallish, thus
not really letting the voice sound.

> Alternatively use an omni really close miked and no expansion?

A cardioid was chosen to get the proximity effect but didn't give quite
as much as I had hoped due to the repulsifier moving the talent away
from the mic stand. Usually it is worse for the recording - or concert -
to correct too much on the talents doings. For a male voice I had
brought a SM7 and asked for very close use.

Once upon a time - mid 1970-ties - I did record a speaking woman, that
time I used a MD211n with foam windshield 10 centimeters from her mouth.
That recording stands the test of time very well. I did buy a MD211n
when finding one on ebay some years ago, not all that costly and mostly
with kick drum in mind. About time to check whether it actually works,
or how the CK22 capsules do the job, that IS what they are designed for
.... again, thank you Don!

> d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>My first thought is to move the threshold down, but you could be right,
>this is new turf for me. And what really is required is perhaps a
>multiband expander or just having the talent only 10 centimeters from
>the microphone.

What is really required is a silent VO booth.

Gating, even fancy gating, downward expansion (gating with a soft knee)
and multiband gating is going to be audible on a soloed voice track.

So either you need to have a completely silent source, OR you need to
add in something else that will make the artifacts inaudible... something
like a musical backing.

You'll very seldom hear a VO track being used in complete isolation, and
it's much harder to make one that stands up in that situation than one
that stands up with M&E behind it.
--scott

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 24-01-2016 18:24, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:

>> My first thought is to move the threshold down, but you could be right,
>> this is new turf for me. And what really is required is perhaps a
>> multiband expander or just having the talent only 10 centimeters from
>> the microphone.

> What is really required is a silent VO booth.

Noted. However a voice in a booth sounds like that. I find it gravely
distracting to hear a reflex from a glass pane from an actor speaking in
open air!

> Gating, even fancy gating, downward expansion (gating with a soft knee)
> and multiband gating is going to be audible on a soloed voice track.

> So either you need to have a completely silent source, OR you need to
> add in something else that will make the artifacts inaudible... something
> like a musical backing.

> You'll very seldom hear a VO track being used in complete isolation, and
> it's much harder to make one that stands up in that situation than one
> that stands up with M&E behind it.

Thank you Scott, yes, knowing the context the track is to be used in helps.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ty Ford]

Something about the sound of a booth


Hello Peter,

Yes, if the voice is loud enough to excite the space inside the booth to resonance, or if the mic is improperly placed relative to any hard surface - glass or whatever. That's what you get.

In listening to your samples, I hear the room and during her speech, I hear a low frequency element that disappears when she stops talking. Remove all of the man made tools and try this.

If there is glass in the booth, try minimizing it with a cloth drapery. Also position the mic differently. If the back of the mic is aimed at the offending reflective surface, turn it enough so as to be 90 degrees off where you had it.

While listening to it in headphones, try moving the mic closer or farther away from the surface. You may discover a null point where there are no obvious reflections. I once found this in a rectangular booth with a pretty long window. I moved the mic back and forth closer to and farther from the glass. As it turned out, there was a null parallel to the glass for pretty much the length of the glass.

Regards,

Ty

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 25-01-2016 16:34, Ty Ford wrote:

Sorry about the delay ..

> Something about the sound of a booth

> Yes, if the voice is loud enough to excite the space inside
> the booth to resonance,

A booth is a small volume, it does not require a lot of energy.

> or if the mic is improperly placed relative to any hard surface
> - glass or whatever. That's what you get.

Yes, it is very difficult to make it non-reflective at low midrange
which also is where small space resonances will be. To me hearing that
on the voice of a person talking in a garden in a movie is most disturbing.

> In listening to your samples, I hear the room and during her speech,
> I hear a low frequency element that disappears when she stops talking.

The audio samples are recorded with the speakers back to an open closet
and speaking at a 15 degree angle to the room axis straight at an open
glass door to an adjoining reverberant music practice room because that
sounded smoothest. I obviously need to get subwoofers on the editing
boxes (again). We opened the door because the voice did not sound
optimally good with it closed.

> Remove all of the man made tools and try this. If there is glass
> in the booth, try minimizing it with a cloth drapery.

Good advice, but there was no booth. The artist does have a suitable
room at the back side of the apartment house, away from the street
noise, but it could not be used because of builders replacing windows on
the adjacent house.

> Also position the mic differently. If the back of the mic is aimed
> at the offending reflective surface, turn it enough so as to be
> 90 degrees off where you had it.

Most premises contain a wardrobe cupboard, such with open doors are
completely non-reflective, that part of it worked well and has a
checkmark for "also do it like that next time" in my "book of recipes".

> While listening to it in headphones, try moving the mic closer or
> farther away from the surface. You may discover a null point where
> there are no obvious reflections. I once found this in a rectangular
> booth with a pretty long window. I moved the mic back and forth
> closer to and farther from the glass. As it turned out, there was
> a null parallel to the glass for pretty much the length of the glass.

Some day destiny will catch up with me and I will have to use a booth,
so that is cherished advice. I suggested the room at the back, being at
an angle to its axis and the large sE semi-circular baffle in case the
talent should want to diy and to double check that suggestion with the
staff at the radio station where she is speech consultant as they wear
the shoe of using radio spots and voice-overs.

Not using dynamic action filtering also goes into the "how to", thanks
to all that commented!

> Ty

Kind regards

Peter Larsen