Microphones for narration

[Igor (t4a)]

I make narration recordings with my setup. I tend to speak not too
loud and after being a bit reluctant at first I get rather close to
the microphone now.

I now can record 24 Bit via AES->S/PDIF without alteration (Behringer
Ultravoice VX2496) - thanks to Arny. The microphone I use is the Shure
Beta 58A.

One thing is good with the Beta mic, it enhances low frequencies when
one comes closer. At the same time this is a disadvantage: Do I really
want it?

I was wondering about two things.

Since I work "off-line" would it be better to do any sound alteration
("filtering, equalizing") after recording or should I use the
possibilities the VX2496 provides (breath, presence, warmth, tuning,
low cut ...).

For some reason I think it is easier and more convincing to do it with
the VX2496 but then I had much more time to adjust the sound if I did
it afterwards.

Above all, the sound influencing seems to eat up a bit of volume which
after all is still not that high - "thanks to" the dynamic mic.


Question 1:
How do others do it, "on-line" sound processing or postprocessing?


The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on paper"
the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.


Question 2:
Would be one of those advisable (please consider my preamp also) or
would you recommend another type? (The given types hint to a price
region ... :)


Regards,
Igor

[TimPerry]

"Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I make narration recordings with my setup. I tend to speak not too
> loud and after being a bit reluctant at first I get rather close to
> the microphone now.
>
> I now can record 24 Bit via AES->S/PDIF without alteration (Behringer
> Ultravoice VX2496) - thanks to Arny. The microphone I use is the Shure
> Beta 58A.
>
> One thing is good with the Beta mic, it enhances low frequencies when
> one comes closer. At the same time this is a disadvantage: Do I really
> want it?
>
> I was wondering about two things.
>
> Since I work "off-line" would it be better to do any sound alteration
> ("filtering, equalizing") after recording or should I use the
> possibilities the VX2496 provides (breath, presence, warmth, tuning,
> low cut ...).
>
> For some reason I think it is easier and more convincing to do it with
> the VX2496 but then I had much more time to adjust the sound if I did
> it afterwards.
>
> Above all, the sound influencing seems to eat up a bit of volume which
> after all is still not that high - "thanks to" the dynamic mic.
>
>
> Question 1:
> How do others do it, "on-line" sound processing or postprocessing?
>

every way imaginable <g>

>
> The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on paper"
> the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.
>
>
> Question 2:
> Would be one of those advisable (please consider my preamp also) or
> would you recommend another type? (The given types hint to a price
> region ... :)
>
>
> Regards,
> Igor
>

the Behringer B-1 comes with a windscreen and should perform well in this
application.

an electrovoice RE-20 dynamic mic is designed to minimize proximity effect
(the bass boost you notice) making it the most popular voice microphone used
by radio studios.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:36:02 -0500, Igor (t4a) wrote
(in article . com>):

> I was wondering about two things.
>
> Since I work "off-line" would it be better to do any sound alteration
> ("filtering, equalizing") after recording or should I use the
> possibilities the VX2496 provides (breath, presence, warmth, tuning,
> low cut ...).
>
> For some reason I think it is easier and more convincing to do it with
> the VX2496 but then I had much more time to adjust the sound if I did
> it afterwards.
>
> Above all, the sound influencing seems to eat up a bit of volume which
> after all is still not that high - "thanks to" the dynamic mic.
>
>
> Question 1:
> How do others do it, "on-line" sound processing or postprocessing?

I do it in a very quiet room with pretty good gear and I've been doing it
this way for over 20 years. I may process a little on the way in and more
during a mix.

> The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on paper"
> the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.


These are all very entry level mics. I'd NOT use the NT1-a or C1000. The
NT2-a is a step up and I forget what the AT3035 sounds like, but their better
mics are in the 4xxx series.

> Question 2:
> Would be one of those advisable (please consider my preamp also) or
> would you recommend another type? (The given types hint to a price
> region ... :)
>
>
> Regards,
> Igor
>

Haven't heard the Ultravoice, but am not inclined to want to.

Better than average entry level devices are the dbx 286a and Symetrix 528.

The Millennia Media STT-1 I now use is probably overkill for voiceover work,
but comes in handy for my music production.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 1, 2:17 pm, "TimPerry" > wrote:
> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > I make narration recordings with my setup. I tend to speak not too
> > loud and after being a bit reluctant at first I get rather close to
> > the microphone now.
>
> > I now can record 24 Bit via AES->S/PDIF without alteration (Behringer
> > Ultravoice VX2496) - thanks to Arny. The microphone I use is the Shure
> > Beta 58A.
>
> > One thing is good with the Beta mic, it enhances low frequencies when
> > one comes closer. At the same time this is a disadvantage: Do I really
> > want it?
>
> > I was wondering about two things.
>
> > Since I work "off-line" would it be better to do any sound alteration
> > ("filtering, equalizing") after recording or should I use the
> > possibilities the VX2496 provides (breath, presence, warmth, tuning,
> > low cut ...).
>
> > For some reason I think it is easier and more convincing to do it with
> > the VX2496 but then I had much more time to adjust the sound if I did
> > it afterwards.
>
> > Above all, the sound influencing seems to eat up a bit of volume which
> > after all is still not that high - "thanks to" the dynamic mic.
>
> > Question 1:
> > How do others do it, "on-line" sound processing or postprocessing?
>
> every way imaginable <g>

Okay. ;-)

What I found a bit confusing is where to start with postprocessing.

What I "know" is:

- adding/removing brilliance to the voice: at and around 8 kHz (but
how wide should this window be)

- dealing with the telephone character of the voice: at and around
1.7 kHz (but how wide should this window be)

- voice too tin: adding frequencies below 200 ... 300 Hz

But what do I do if the entire sound reminds me rather of a DJ than of
a narrator who reads a story with a relaxed voice in front of a snuggy
fireplace ... ;-)

>
> > The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on paper"
> > the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.
>
> > Question 2:
> > Would be one of those advisable (please consider my preamp also) or
> > would you recommend another type? (The given types hint to a price
> > region ... :)
>
> > Regards,
> > Igor
>
> the Behringer B-1 comes with a windscreen and should perform well in this
> application.

Okay. I'll consider it. Its discription says it is the "little
brother" of the B2. Would the B2 be even more advisable then?

What I forgot to mention, sorry. I record in front of the computer and
I must give credit to the supercardioid pickup pattern of the Beta. It
virtually rejects all noise from the computer (in colloboration with
the RMS expander that is set to -20dB).

> an electrovoice RE-20 dynamic mic is designed to minimize proximity effect
> (the bass boost you notice) making it the most popular voice microphone used
> by radio studios.

Hopefully the RE provides a stronger signal than the Beta. Because
with the Beta; my preamp is at maximum gain (+60dB) or one step below.
And in a way I don't particularly like it ... ;-)


Regards,
Igor

> Haven't heard the Ultravoice, but am not inclined to want to.
>
?????
why woud you not want to know what a great many foks might ask your about?
or is this just a bias that flows through your entire mindset
"its behringer so I turn my nose up at it"?

George

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 1, 2:53 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:36:02 -0500, Igor (t4a) wrote
> (in article . com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > I was wondering about two things.
>
> > Since I work "off-line" would it be better to do any sound alteration
> > ("filtering, equalizing") after recording or should I use the
> > possibilities the VX2496 provides (breath, presence, warmth, tuning,
> > low cut ...).
>
> > For some reason I think it is easier and more convincing to do it with
> > the VX2496 but then I had much more time to adjust the sound if I did
> > it afterwards.
>
> > Above all, the sound influencing seems to eat up a bit of volume which
> > after all is still not that high - "thanks to" the dynamic mic.
>
> > Question 1:
> > How do others do it, "on-line" sound processing or postprocessing?
>
> I do it in a very quiet room with pretty good gear and I've been doing it
> this way for over 20 years. I may process a little on the way in and more
> during a mix.
>
> > The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on paper"
> > the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.
>
> These are all very entry level mics. I'd NOT use the NT1-a or C1000. The
> NT2-a is a step up and I forget what the AT3035 sounds like, but their better
> mics are in the 4xxx series.

Okay. But I have heard the C1000 together with the BOSS BR-600 and I
must admit it sounded good to my ears. Sorry, ;-)

So, at least you would agree to try the NT2-a.

The 4xxx series by audio technica is not clear to me. There is the
4040, the 4033 ASM, the 4050, the 4050C, 4047 /SV/SM ... all very
confusing.

> > Question 2:
> > Would be one of those advisable (please consider my preamp also) or
> > would you recommend another type? (The given types hint to a price
> > region ... :)
>
> > Regards,
> > Igor
>
> Haven't heard the Ultravoice, but am not inclined to want to.
>
> Better than average entry level devices are the dbx 286a and Symetrix 528.

The Symetrix is not within my price range. ;-) The dbx 286a would have
been but currently I am stuck with the VX2496 and so far I cannot
complain - now that I record 24 Bit with the M-Audio card.

> The Millennia Media STT-1 I now use is probably overkill for voiceover work,
> but comes in handy for my music production.

Let's see if it can handle my Beta: What maximum gain does it
have? :-)

> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com

Cool website, you sound great Ty. I like it.

Regards,
Igor

[Anahata]

Igor (t4a) wrote:
> What I found a bit confusing is where to start with postprocessing.
>
> What I "know" is:
>
> - adding/removing brilliance to the voice: at and around 8 kHz (but
> how wide should this window be)
>
> - dealing with the telephone character of the voice: at and around
> 1.7 kHz (but how wide should this window be)

If you can tell what's wrong when you listen to it, you should be able
to tell when you've fixed it. There's a trick I use sometimes (not
invented by me) when you need a mid cut and you're looking for the right
frequency: set eq to boost and adjust frequncy till the problem is most
exaggerated - then change to cut. After that you still have to play with
depth and width and use your ears as a guide.

> But what do I do if the entire sound reminds me rather of a DJ than of
> a narrator who reads a story with a relaxed voice in front of a snuggy
> fireplace ... ;-)

Either the narrator is wrong (or doesn't have the right voice, or isn't
relaxed enough) or possibly your mic is too close for that natural
sound. Not all problems can be fixed with EQ.

Anahata

[Bigguy]

Take a look at (an ear at?) the EV RE20 and the Shure SM7b - both sound
great on most voices...

I've been using an SM7b with a Presonus Eureka pre and it offers lots of
bang for the bucks.

Guy

> Question 2:
> Would be one of those advisable (please consider my preamp also) or
> would you recommend another type? (The given types hint to a price
> region ... :)
>
>
> Regards,
> Igor

[Steve King]

"Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 1, 2:17 pm, "TimPerry" > wrote:
>> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message

SNIP

>> > I make narration recordings with my setup. I tend to speak not too
>> > loud and after being a bit reluctant at first I get rather close to
>> > the microphone now.
>>
>> > I now can record 24 Bit via AES->S/PDIF without alteration (Behringer
>> > Ultravoice VX2496) - thanks to Arny. The microphone I use is the Shure
>> > Beta 58A.
>>
>> > One thing is good with the Beta mic, it enhances low frequencies when
>> > one comes closer. At the same time this is a disadvantage: Do I really
>> > want it?

It depends. People who do narrations and commercial voice work to make
their living learn to use to their advantage the bass enhancing effect that
you have discovered. For that 'warm, snuggly, in-front-of-the-fireplace'
(I'm paraphrasing) sound you are trying to achieve microphone promimity
effect can be a very useful thing. Only your ears will tell you how close
or how far away from the mic you need to be for it to sound the way you want
it to sound.

>> > I was wondering about two things. Since I work "off-line" would it be
>> > better to do any sound alteration
>> > ("filtering, equalizing") after recording or should I use the
>> > possibilities the VX2496 provides (breath, presence, warmth, tuning,
>> > low cut ...).

I prefer to do any frequency equalization and compression/limiting after
recording. However, I'm comfortable with a little low bass roll-off and a
little compression, while recording. If a narrator cannot control wide and
inappropriate level changes, while narrating, I use some compression. If a
narrator cannot maintain an ideal (for the voice and the desired sound)
distance from mouth to microphone, I may use a little bass roll-off.

>> > For some reason I think it is easier and more convincing to do it with
>> > the VX2496 but then I had much more time to adjust the sound if I did
>> > it afterwards. Above all, the sound influencing seems to eat up a bit
>> > of volume which
>> > after all is still not that high - "thanks to" the dynamic mic.

Don't worry about volume. You are recording in 24/96. You have a generous
signal to noise ratio. If the volume peaks are anywhere from -20 dbfs
to -12 dbfs you are fine. Bring up the volume to near 0 dbfs as a final
step in your voice processing.

>>
>> > Question 1:
>> > How do others do it, "on-line" sound processing or postprocessing?
>>
>> every way imaginable <g>
>
> Okay. ;-)
>
> What I found a bit confusing is where to start with postprocessing.
>
> What I "know" is:
>
> - adding/removing brilliance to the voice: at and around 8 kHz (but
> how wide should this window be)
>
> - dealing with the telephone character of the voice: at and around
> 1.7 kHz (but how wide should this window be)
>
> - voice too tin: adding frequencies below 200 ... 300 Hz

I don't know your voice. Each person has a preconception about how his or
her voice sounds. Because of bone conduction, the recorded sound of one's
own voice is usually not what we expect to hear. Therefore, we are usually
not very good judges of the pleasant or irritating qualities of our own
voices. That said, if you feel it necessary to use equalization, just keep
trying things until you like the result. Small corrections are usually
best.

> But what do I do if the entire sound reminds me rather of a DJ than of
> a narrator who reads a story with a relaxed voice in front of a snuggy
> fireplace ... ;-)

This is entirely a performance issue. For most people speaking with that
relaxed voice you admire is learned through coaching and practice. The
natural speaking quality of one's voice is important, too. If you hope to
sound like James Earl Jones and your natural speaking voice is closer to
Daffy Duck, you should prepare yourself for much disappointment. There are
no tools that can successfully make that transformation.

>> > The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on paper"
>> > the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.

Based on your comments and questions, I believe that your Beta 58 is fine
for now. However, if a richer sounding microphone will give you more
confidence, you might like the Audio Technica AT2020. It is about $99 and
IMO is a step up from any of the mics you mention.

SNIP

>> an electrovoice RE-20 dynamic mic is designed to minimize proximity
>> effect
>> (the bass boost you notice) making it the most popular voice microphone
>> used
>> by radio studios.
>
> Hopefully the RE provides a stronger signal than the Beta. Because
> with the Beta; my preamp is at maximum gain (+60dB) or one step below.
> And in a way I don't particularly like it ... ;-)

Although an excellent microphone, the RE20 probably requires more gain that
your Beta 58. (I don't have either mic available to test this opinion.
However, I have extensive experience using an RE20.

In summary, I think your issues are primarily related to your voice and your
perception of it and less to do with recording equipment or technique. Of
course,. I could be wrong. I often am.

Hope this helps.

Steve King

[Paul Stamler]

"Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >
> > These are all very entry level mics. I'd NOT use the NT1-a or C1000. The
> > NT2-a is a step up and I forget what the AT3035 sounds like, but their
better
> > mics are in the 4xxx series.
>
> Okay. But I have heard the C1000 together with the BOSS BR-600 and I
> must admit it sounded good to my ears. Sorry, ;-)

The thing about the C1000: it's initially impressive at the store -- "Wow,
listen to those highs!" But it doesn't wear well; after more extended
listening you realize the highs are harsh and grating. Eventually they
become excruciating, and it goes onto e-bay at a major financial loss.

Peace,
Paul

[James Meckley]

Steve King wrote:

> Although an excellent microphone, the RE20 probably requires more gain that
> your Beta 58. (I don't have either mic available to test this opinion.
> However, I have extensive experience using an RE20.

When recording the male speaking voice with an RE20, do you tend to use
the bass roll-off switch on the mic or not?

James Meckley

[Steve King]

"James Meckley" > wrote in message
. ..
> Steve King wrote:
>
>> Although an excellent microphone, the RE20 probably requires more gain
>> that your Beta 58. (I don't have either mic available to test this
>> opinion. However, I have extensive experience using an RE20.
>
> When recording the male speaking voice with an RE20, do you tend to use
> the bass roll-off switch on the mic or not?
>
> James Meckley

Depends on the voice. Typically no.

Steve King

[Fletch]

On Feb 1, 7:45 am, "Bigguy" >
wrote:
> Take a look at (an ear at?) the EV RE20 and the Shure SM7b - both sound
> great on most voices...
>
> I've been using an SM7b with a Presonus Eureka pre and it offers lots of
> bang for the bucks.
>
> Guy
>
> > Question 2:
> > Would be one of those advisable (please consider my preamp also) or
> > would you recommend another type? (The given types hint to a price
> > region ... :)
>
> > Regards,
> > Igor


Okay, stupid question, but I want to know...

You know that commercial where the 'movie announcer guy' is doing the
voice accompanyment for the lady in the insurance commercial? What mic
is that? I'm stumped, even though it should be really evident. I
thought it was a Brauner, but I'm not sure.

--Fletch

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:34:25 -0500, Igor (t4a) wrote
(in article om>):

>> These are all very entry level mics. I'd NOT use the NT1-a or C1000. The
>> NT2-a is a step up and I forget what the AT3035 sounds like, but their
>> better
>> mics are in the 4xxx series.
>
> Okay. But I have heard the C1000 together with the BOSS BR-600 and I must
> admit it sounded good to my ears. Sorry, ;-)

Don't apologize.
>
> So, at least you would agree to try the NT2-a.
>
> The 4xxx series by audio technica is not clear to me. There is the 4040, the
> 4033 ASM, the 4050, the 4050C, 4047 /SV/SM ... all very confusing.

Many people think all bluegrass sounds alike. It doesn't. AT mics don't sound
alike. Not really confusing. Just 4 mics that sound different.
>
>>> Question 2:
>>> Would be one of those advisable (please consider my preamp also) or
>>> would you recommend another type? (The given types hint to a price
>>> region ... :)
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Igor
>>
>> Haven't heard the Ultravoice, but am not inclined to want to.
>>
>> Better than average entry level devices are the dbx 286a and Symetrix 528.
>
> The Symetrix is not within my price range. ;-) The dbx 286a would have been
> but currently I am stuck with the VX2496 and so far I cannot complain - now
> that I record 24 Bit with the M-Audio card.

If it works, don't fix it.

>> The Millennia Media STT-1 I now use is probably overkill for voiceover work,
>> but comes in handy for my music production.
>
> Let's see if it can handle my Beta: What maximum gain does it have? :-)

I really don't know. It has two inputs, tube and solid state. the way I have
them customized right now, the tube side has more gain. More than enough for
a dynamic mic to be used. If you do need more, you can call them and discuss
what circuit changes they might suggest to provide what you need. That's very
cool.

>
>> Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
>
> Cool website, you sound great Ty. I like it.
>
> Regards, Igor

Thanks Igor. I used to do more VO stuff, but I've been sucked back over to
the music production side of things over the last five years. Fortunately, I
have much better tools than I did the last time I was here and I know why
they sound good.

PS: While I'm thinking about it. The SX202 and SX 302 symetrix pres are cool
as is the RNP. Again, not quite up to my STT-1 or GML, but nice and clean.



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:37:08 -0500, Paul Stamler wrote
(in article >):

> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>>
>>> These are all very entry level mics. I'd NOT use the NT1-a or C1000. The
>>> NT2-a is a step up and I forget what the AT3035 sounds like, but their
> better
>>> mics are in the 4xxx series.
>>
>> Okay. But I have heard the C1000 together with the BOSS BR-600 and I
>> must admit it sounded good to my ears. Sorry, ;-)
>
> The thing about the C1000: it's initially impressive at the store -- "Wow,
> listen to those highs!" But it doesn't wear well; after more extended
> listening you realize the highs are harsh and grating. Eventually they
> become excruciating, and it goes onto e-bay at a major financial loss.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

Good call Paul. That's part of "the five stages of cheap condenser
disillusionment".

They also don't sound too bad through a cheap PA system if it's cheap on the
muddy side.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[[email protected]]

On Feb 1, 5:36 am, "Igor (t4a)" > wrote:
> Since I work "off-line" would it be better to do any sound alteration
> ("filtering, equalizing") after recording or should I use the
> possibilities the VX2496 provides (breath, presence, warmth, tuning,
> low cut ...).
>
> For some reason I think it is easier and more convincing to do it with
> the VX2496 but then I had much more time to adjust the sound if I did
> it afterwards.


Igor,

Another thing to consider is if there is the possibility of having
to match the voice later if there's an edit to the copy. Even though
we have eq I really like on the pre, I've stopped using any on the way
in now that digital eqs have come so far as to not be taking two steps
forward and five back when you use them. It's hard enough to match
voice takes from 6 months later, during different weather, with the
talent being as identical to the mic as they can manage (now that
they've lost 35 lbs), though it's actually several inches different.
Not to mention what happens if the mic was sold : ) It's much
easier to make it work by fiddling with it after it's in to match it
without dealing with how I felt the mic pre eq helped the sound that
previous session, copious notes aside.

Recording flat and eq'ing later has other advantages. For example, I
sometimes have no idea at the time of the session if there will be
music or ambience added, or what kind they might be, etc, because
these decisions haven't been made yet. So it's better for the sound
to be shaped in context than out of it. If I get narrations from
other sources to add in I'm always glad to get it flat, and I assume
that it's how someone mixing a project using v/os I've recorded would
also feel.

When digital eqs were horrible I sang a different tune, but no more.

I do put light compression on it going in. Several stages of good
sounding, light compression ( a little going in, a little on the
track, a little on the master) is usually preferable to one stage of
leveling, if you're trying to control dynamics without it sounding
like you are. At least that's my take on it for voice work. : )


R

[TimPerry]

>I make narration recordings with my setup. I tend to speak not too
>>> loud and after being a bit reluctant at first I get rather close to
>>> the microphone now.
>>
>>> I now can record 24 Bit via AES->S/PDIF without alteration
>>> (Behringer Ultravoice VX2496) - thanks to Arny. The microphone I
>>> use is the Shure Beta 58A.
>>
>>> One thing is good with the Beta mic, it enhances low frequencies
>>> when one comes closer. At the same time this is a disadvantage: Do
>>> I really want it?
>>
>>> I was wondering about two things.
>>
>>> Since I work "off-line" would it be better to do any sound
>>> alteration ("filtering, equalizing") after recording or should I
>>> use the possibilities the VX2496 provides (breath, presence,
>>> warmth, tuning, low cut ...).
>>
>>> For some reason I think it is easier and more convincing to do it
>>> with the VX2496 but then I had much more time to adjust the sound
>>> if I did it afterwards.
>>
>>> Above all, the sound influencing seems to eat up a bit of volume
>>> which after all is still not that high - "thanks to" the dynamic
>>> mic.
>>
>>> Question 1:
>>> How do others do it, "on-line" sound processing or postprocessing?
>>
>> every way imaginable <g>
>
> Okay. ;-)
>
> What I found a bit confusing is where to start with postprocessing.
>
> What I "know" is:
>
> - adding/removing brilliance to the voice: at and around 8 kHz (but
> how wide should this window be)
>
> - dealing with the telephone character of the voice: at and around
> 1.7 kHz (but how wide should this window be)
>
> - voice too tin: adding frequencies below 200 ... 300 Hz
>
> But what do I do if the entire sound reminds me rather of a DJ than of
> a narrator who reads a story with a relaxed voice in front of a snuggy
> fireplace ... ;-)

i have recommended and installed the ultra-voice on a couple of occasions
with satisfactory results. more often i have used dbx, symitrex, valley
people, air tools, aphex, etc.

my suggestion would be to compress no more then about 3db when speaking at
"normal" level and lighten up on the gate. set the gate/expander to just
mute the background noises.

a noise hood can be easily fabricated to help with noisy computer fans.

DJ sound, voice over sound, narrator sound settings would all be so similar
as to be indisguishable provided all were voiced in a booth or studio. its
the delivery that will make the differance.


>>
>>> The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on
>>> paper" the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.
>>
>>> Question 2:
>>> Would be one of those advisable (please consider my preamp also) or
>>> would you recommend another type? (The given types hint to a price
>>> region ... :)
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Igor
>>
>> the Behringer B-1 comes with a windscreen and should perform well in
>> this application.
>
> Okay. I'll consider it. Its discription says it is the "little
> brother" of the B2. Would the B2 be even more advisable then?

no, the B2 is a multi pattern mic. why spend an extra $50 for features you
dont need?

>
> What I forgot to mention, sorry. I record in front of the computer and
> I must give credit to the supercardioid pickup pattern of the Beta. It
> virtually rejects all noise from the computer (in colloboration with
> the RMS expander that is set to -20dB).
>
>> an electrovoice RE-20 dynamic mic is designed to minimize proximity
>> effect (the bass boost you notice) making it the most popular voice
>> microphone used by radio studios.
>
> Hopefully the RE provides a stronger signal than the Beta. Because
> with the Beta; my preamp is at maximum gain (+60dB) or one step below.
> And in a way I don't particularly like it ... ;-)

how close do you work the mic?

if you are reading a book with the mic a foot or more away i change my
recommendation to a short shotgun on an overhead stand plus a shock mount.

are you using headphones as you record? if not, try it.

if you work the mic closely and don't want to spend the $ on an RE-20 but
want a "sound" different from the '58 try the Heil PR-40.

[Igor (t4a)]

First of all, thank you very much to all posters for so much kind
input. I am a bit reconciled with my dynamic microphone. The history
why I chose a dynamic mic is quickly told.

For some time now, I have an irrepressible urge to read English
literature in the original. <g> Since I always was rather quality-
conscious I needed a better microphone for this task.

Good microphones? Shure - sure. What do the recommend? Well, the SM7B
and if that one is too expensive, the Beta. So far, so good.

But what type of preamp do they suggest for voice over? Well, their
recommendation was not funny at all: the MobilePre USB from M-Audio.
That really was a bad idea. After some testing, I couldn't believe
they were serious on this. It has only 40dB gain and with 16 Bit
resolution it all ends up in terrible noise. No way.

Then I looked for a preamp with "at least" 65dB gain and ended up with
60dB and the VX2496.


Now for the proof of the pudding, maybe anyone would like to comment,
especially on the sound but you are free to critizise other points as
well:

http://home.arcor.de/t2c/Test_Beta_VX2496.mp3 (1MB)
running time 1:06

Original wave:
http://home.arcor.de/t2c/Test_Beta_VX2496.wav (8.6MB)
running time 1:06


First part: original uninfluenced sound
Second part: sound processed

The following settings were used with the VX2496
Tuning: 330 Hz
Warmth: -4dB
Presence: -4dB
Breath: +5dB


RMS expander:
Threshold: -25 dB
Tuning: medium

Both sections were normalized separately. No other postprocessing was
done.


In between the sections there is a piece of "silence" from the
original recording.

The peaks of the original recording were at about -12dB.
Gain of the preamp set to one tick below max. (appr. 55 dB).


Thanks again for all the valuable information.

Regards,
Igor

[Boris Lau]

Igor (t4a) wrote:
> First part: original uninfluenced sound
> Second part: sound processed

I definitly like the processed version better, but I find the "s" a bit
harsh. Maybe too much breath? ;-)

Boris

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:04:03 -0500, Steve King wrote
(in article >):

> I don't know your voice. Each person has a preconception about how his or
> her voice sounds. Because of bone conduction, the recorded sound of one's
> own voice is usually not what we expect to hear. Therefore, we are usually
> not very good judges of the pleasant or irritating qualities of our own
> voices. That said, if you feel it necessary to use equalization, just keep
> trying things until you like the result. Small corrections are usually best.

Easy for you, Steve, being a professional narrator. Some voices just don't
cut it.

>> But what do I do if the entire sound reminds me rather of a DJ than of
>> a narrator who reads a story with a relaxed voice in front of a snuggy
>> fireplace ... ;-)
>
> This is entirely a performance issue. For most people speaking with that
> relaxed voice you admire is learned through coaching and practice. The
> natural speaking quality of one's voice is important, too. If you hope to
> sound like James Earl Jones and your natural speaking voice is closer to
> Daffy Duck, you should prepare yourself for much disappointment. There are
> no tools that can successfully make that transformation.

Pointing up what I tell my VO students. No, it's not just like talking.

>>>> The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on paper"
>>>> the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.
>
> Based on your comments and questions, I believe that your Beta 58 is fine for

> now. However, if a richer sounding microphone will give you more confidence,

> you might like the Audio Technica AT2020. It is about $99 and IMO is a step
> up from any of the mics you mention.


Good call. Don't be upset if you find that you aren't a narrator.

The scripts I get to narrate these days have several things in common. The
language is more challenging due to sentence structure, word usage, acronyms
and emotional intent or attitude. Apparently there are lots of people who can
do "put part A into part B" narration. I don't see many of those scripts
anymore. That's OK. I'm busy trying to be more like Steve King.

I get the feeling that the scripts that end up here have been tried on
others, but they can't make them sound good so they find someone who can do
something with it to "make it sing."

Sometimes I get to do some really neat character work:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844485/

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:39:10 -0500, James Meckley wrote
(in article >):

> Steve King wrote:
>
>> Although an excellent microphone, the RE20 probably requires more gain that
>> your Beta 58. (I don't have either mic available to test this opinion.
>> However, I have extensive experience using an RE20.
>
> When recording the male speaking voice with an RE20, do you tend to use
> the bass roll-off switch on the mic or not?
>
> James Meckley

Depends on the voice. For me that switch on the RE20 was never quite right.
Off was too boomy, on was too thin.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0500, wrote
(in article et>):

>
>
>> Haven't heard the Ultravoice, but am not inclined to want to.
>>
> ?????
> why woud you not want to know what a great many foks might ask your about?
> or is this just a bias that flows through your entire mindset
> "its behringer so I turn my nose up at it"?
>
> George
>
>

Haven't seen a great many ANYBODY ask me about it.
I have other options than Behringer. There are already too many players in
that field. If something survives the scrum, I'll know about it.

Don't try to get too far inside my head, George. You'll likely be
disappointed at how empty it really is. :)

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:41:43 -0500, Igor (t4a) wrote
(in article m>):

> http://home.arcor.de/t2c/Test_Beta_VX2496.wav

No worries. You're on your way. Good job.

Don't know if it's head congestion here this AM, but I hear a low frequency
under your voice that goes away in the spaces between your words and
sentences.

Were you using an expander/gate or should I head for the medicine chest. :)

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 2, 12:07 pm, Boris Lau > wrote:
> Igor (t4a) wrote:
> > First part: original uninfluenced sound
> > Second part: sound processed
>
> I definitly like the processed version better, but I find the "s" a bit
> harsh. Maybe too much breath? ;-)

Thanks, Boris.

Yes, maybe. Since I have my new preamp for about two weeks now, there
are so many things still, I have no clue about.

Regards,
Igor

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 2, 1:32 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:41:43 -0500, Igor (t4a) wrote
> (in article m>):
>
> >http://home.arcor.de/t2c/Test_Beta_VX2496.wav
>
> No worries. You're on your way. Good job.

Thank you, Ty. I am working on it. ;-)

> Don't know if it's head congestion here this AM, but I hear a low frequency
> under your voice that goes away in the spaces between your words and
> sentences.
>
> Were you using an expander/gate or should I head for the medicine chest. :)

Yes, I used an expander.

RMS expander:
Threshold: -25 dB
Tuning: medium

It is probably the computer fan. So, I should leave the computer room
for the final recording.

At this time I rather practise. So, there is nothing that I would
submit for competition.

And as you probably have heard, a number of sound questions are still
unaddressed either. And I would like to fix them, if possible.


Regards,
Igor

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 1, 5:04 pm, "Steve King"
> wrote:
> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
>
>
> > But what do I do if the entire sound reminds me rather of a DJ than of
> > a narrator who reads a story with a relaxed voice in front of a snuggy
> > fireplace ... ;-)
>
> This is entirely a performance issue. For most people speaking with that
> relaxed voice you admire is learned through coaching and practice. The
> natural speaking quality of one's voice is important, too. If you hope to
> sound like James Earl Jones and your natural speaking voice is closer to
> Daffy Duck, you should prepare yourself for much disappointment. There are
> no tools that can successfully make that transformation.

Okay. I think the prototype of the standard broadcasting voice is like
Ross Buckingham. I know him only from the scene with the kielbasa in
Howard's movie <g>.

Lower is better most of the time. This is probably more true for the
frequency range my voice is in. But apart from that pacing, tension,
clarity, envolvement, likability should be also of some importance
especially for narration.

Currently, I rather let my voice go and watch, where it settles. As a
native speaker you probably don't know what I am talking about. But
all the pieces of acoustic information must be brought together to
build a complete speech system. If that not happens it'll remain a
disconnected patchwork. (There is nothing wrong with a patchwork. On
the contrary it makes a voice even more interesting, however, if the
pieces have noticable junctions between them, then the style appears
stuttering and insecure. - Okay, no more theory.)

So, no. I am not aiming for James Earl Jones (although I can breathe
like he does under a helmet though <g>).

What I try to do is to become voice-conscious. And reading with
headphones on is a very good method to become it.

[SNIP]
>
> > Hopefully the RE provides a stronger signal than the Beta. Because
> > with the Beta; my preamp is at maximum gain (+60dB) or one step below.
> > And in a way I don't particularly like it ... ;-)
>
> Although an excellent microphone, the RE20 probably requires more gain that
> your Beta 58. (I don't have either mic available to test this opinion.
> However, I have extensive experience using an RE20.

I take from your answer that you wouldn't worry about the high gain
settings.

> In summary, I think your issues are primarily related to your voice and your
> perception of it and less to do with recording equipment or technique. Of
> course,. I could be wrong. I often am.
>
> Hope this helps.

Yes, it does. Thank you Steve.

Regards,
Igor

[Scott Dorsey]

TimPerry > wrote:
>
>if you work the mic closely and don't want to spend the $ on an RE-20 but
>want a "sound" different from the '58 try the Heil PR-40.

The Heil has one hell of a huge presence peak. Even a bigger presence
peak than the SM-58. It's about as different from an RE-20 as it is
possible to be, in the midrange anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steve King]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
. ..

Steve's Stuff SNIPPED

>
> Easy for you, Steve, being a professional narrator. Some voices just don't
> cut it.

Awww. Shucks. Actually, I really disliked my voice, when I was in my first
couple of radio jobs. I couldn't fathom why people hired me.

More of Steve's blather SNIPPED

>
>> you might like the Audio Technica AT2020. It is about $99 and IMO is a
>> step
>> up from any of the mics you mention.
>
>
> Good call. Don't be upset if you find that you aren't a narrator.
>
> The scripts I get to narrate these days have several things in common. The
> language is more challenging due to sentence structure, word usage,
> acronyms
> and emotional intent or attitude. Apparently there are lots of people who
> can
> do "put part A into part B" narration. I don't see many of those scripts
> anymore. That's OK. I'm busy trying to be more like Steve King.
>
Go back. Change your course. Rocks ahead. Think before you act. Think
before you talk.


> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford

Regards yourself,

Steve King

[Steve King]

"Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
oups.com...

SNIP

> Okay. I think the prototype of the standard broadcasting voice is like
> Ross Buckingham. I know him only from the scene with the kielbasa in
> Howard's movie <g>.
>
SNIP
> So, no. I am not aiming for James Earl Jones (although I can breathe
> like he does under a helmet though <g>).

Try this. Think of the microphone as your listener's ear. If you were
speaking to someone whose ear was a couple of inches from your lips you
would speak softly. Yes? Try working the Beta 58 very close to your mouth.
Speak very softly yet with a full voice, that is, do not whisper. Speak as
if to a young child. Feel the delight in your mind and heart that each
sentence of the story inspires. That will come through in your voice. It
is true that we can 'hear' a smile.

Steve King

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 2, 5:05 pm, "Steve King"
> wrote:
> [snip]
> ...
> Try this. Think of the microphone as your listener's ear. If you were
> speaking to someone whose ear was a couple of inches from your lips you
> would speak softly. Yes? Try working the Beta 58 very close to your mouth.
> Speak very softly yet with a full voice, that is, do not whisper. Speak as
> if to a young child. Feel the delight in your mind and heart that each
> sentence of the story inspires. That will come through in your voice. It
> is true that we can 'hear' a smile.


That was great advice, Steve. Thank you.

Now I know in which direction I might go. I still have a little
problem with noises from the mouth that shouldn't be in the recording
though. ;-) Does anyone know how to get rid of those?

So, this is one of my first attempts with a narration in front of a
"fireplace".

http://home.arcor.de/t2c/fireplace.mp3 (0.7MB)
running time 0:45

About the smiling, this is hard. I get so exited the moment the level
indicator starts hopping back and forth. Maybe I should hide the
indicator bar from view.

Regards,
Igor

[Steve King]

"Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 2, 5:05 pm, "Steve King"
> > wrote:
>> [snip]
>> ...
>> Try this. Think of the microphone as your listener's ear. If you were
>> speaking to someone whose ear was a couple of inches from your lips you
>> would speak softly. Yes? Try working the Beta 58 very close to your
>> mouth.
>> Speak very softly yet with a full voice, that is, do not whisper. Speak
>> as
>> if to a young child. Feel the delight in your mind and heart that each
>> sentence of the story inspires. That will come through in your voice.
>> It
>> is true that we can 'hear' a smile.
>
>
> That was great advice, Steve. Thank you.
>
> Now I know in which direction I might go. I still have a little
> problem with noises from the mouth that shouldn't be in the recording
> though. ;-) Does anyone know how to get rid of those?
>
> So, this is one of my first attempts with a narration in front of a
> "fireplace".
>
> http://home.arcor.de/t2c/fireplace.mp3 (0.7MB)
> running time 0:45
>
> About the smiling, this is hard. I get so exited the moment the level
> indicator starts hopping back and forth. Maybe I should hide the
> indicator bar from view.

About hearing the smile ... many narrators forget that a recorded narration
is a performance as if an audience was present. When performing live to an
audience, there is a subtle level of communication occuring between the
performer and audience members. It may be the raising of an eyebrow on the
part of the performer as if to saying to the audience, "isn't this a cool
story," or "guess what is coming next." The very best narrators (story
tellers) are able to convey through voice nuance alone that there IS a
relationship between the themselves and the listening audience even when the
performer is alone in a recording studio and the audience is only in his or
her head. To be the best story teller you have to have part of your mind
reserved to act the part of a listener, to be surprised, to be amazed at
what you are hearing, to urge the performing side of yourself to "tell me
more."

I indulge myself to write about the performing side of audio recording
because of my great respect and gratitude for the many audio engineers who
have been my finest directors over the years. Production engineers
generally have far more experience observing performers at their job than
most any writer or director. For the latter it is a once every few weeks
kind of task in the midst of many other distractions. On the other hand,
the engineer may see three or four narrators in a day. He or she is in a
unique postition to identify the most effective performer techniques and to
pass them on. So my hat's off to the engineers who pop out of the control
room with the mics off and make little "try this" kinds of suggestions for
floundering performers.

Steve King

[Agent 86]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:04:03 -0600, Steve King wrote:

> are no tools that can successfully make that transformation.
>
>>> > The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on paper"
>>> > the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.
>
> Based on your comments and questions, I believe that your Beta 58 is fine
> for now. However, if a richer sounding microphone will give you more
> confidence, you might like the Audio Technica AT2020. It is about $99 and
> IMO is a step up from any of the mics you mention.

Huh? is the AT2020 really a step up from the AT3035?

[Steve King]

"Agent 86" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:04:03 -0600, Steve King wrote:
>
>> are no tools that can successfully make that transformation.
>>
>>>> > The other question would be about a microphone. I reviewed "on paper"
>>>> > the AT3035, the Rode NT1A, Rode NT2A and the AKG C1000.
>>
>> Based on your comments and questions, I believe that your Beta 58 is fine
>> for now. However, if a richer sounding microphone will give you more
>> confidence, you might like the Audio Technica AT2020. It is about $99
>> and
>> IMO is a step up from any of the mics you mention.
>
> Huh? is the AT2020 really a step up from the AT3035?

Probably not;-) Sorry. The reference to the AKG C1000 hurt my brain, and I
lost it.

Steve King

[Agent 86]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:18:30 -0600, Steve King wrote:

>>
>> Huh? is the AT2020 really a step up from the AT3035?
>
> Probably not;-) Sorry. The reference to the AKG C1000 hurt my brain, and
> I lost it.

Understandable.

I've not tried the 2020 yet. I haven't really felt a need for a $99
condenser, and I can get two fifths of Laphroaig for not much more than
that.

I did thing the 3035 was very nice for a low priced condenser. I would
have probably gotten one of those if I didn't already have a closet full
of 40 series.

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 07:57:32 -0500, Igor (t4a) wrote
(in article . com>):

> On Feb 2, 1:32 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:41:43 -0500, Igor (t4a) wrote
>> (in article m>):
>>
>>> http://home.arcor.de/t2c/Test_Beta_VX2496.wav
>>
>> No worries. You're on your way. Good job.
>
> Thank you, Ty. I am working on it. ;-)
>
>> Don't know if it's head congestion here this AM, but I hear a low frequency
>> under your voice that goes away in the spaces between your words and
>> sentences.
>>
>> Were you using an expander/gate or should I head for the medicine chest. :)
>
> Yes, I used an expander.
>
> RMS expander:
> Threshold: -25 dB
> Tuning: medium
>
> It is probably the computer fan. So, I should leave the computer room
> for the final recording.
>
> At this time I rather practise. So, there is nothing that I would
> submit for competition.
>
> And as you probably have heard, a number of sound questions are still
> unaddressed either. And I would like to fix them, if possible.
>
>
> Regards,
> Igor
>


I think you sound just fine. Steve's lessons on interpretation are good ones.
I teach VO here to people much like yourself who want to try it.
I have 14 people due here in a few hours for the first day of a 4 saturday
class.

Many are actors who want to get into VO. You might think that's easy. It's
not. I've been teaching VO to actors for years. The two crafts are not the
same. Many can't get the feeling off the page. You can.

Practice being more emotive. Smile, as Steve suggested, until you can hear
it. Maybe you can hear some of what I'm talking about on my demos. They are
up on my site.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 3, 12:57 am, "Steve King"
> wrote:
> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 5:05 pm, "Steve King"
> > > wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> ...
> >> Try this. Think of the microphone as your listener's ear. If you were
> >> speaking to someone whose ear was a couple of inches from your lips you
> >> would speak softly. Yes? Try working the Beta 58 very close to your
> >> mouth.
> >> Speak very softly yet with a full voice, that is, do not whisper. Speak
> >> as
> >> if to a young child. Feel the delight in your mind and heart that each
> >> sentence of the story inspires. That will come through in your voice.
> >> It
> >> is true that we can 'hear' a smile.
>
> > That was great advice, Steve. Thank you.
>
> > Now I know in which direction I might go. I still have a little
> > problem with noises from the mouth that shouldn't be in the recording
> > though. ;-) Does anyone know how to get rid of those?
>
> > So, this is one of my first attempts with a narration in front of a
> > "fireplace".
>
> >http://home.arcor.de/t2c/fireplace.mp3(0.7MB)
> > running time 0:45
>
> > About the smiling, this is hard. I get so exited the moment the level
> > indicator starts hopping back and forth. Maybe I should hide the
> > indicator bar from view.
>
> About hearing the smile ... many narrators forget that a recorded narration
> is a performance as if an audience was present. When performing live to an
> audience, there is a subtle level of communication occuring between the
> performer and audience members. It may be the raising of an eyebrow on the
> part of the performer as if to saying to the audience, "isn't this a cool
> story," or "guess what is coming next." The very best narrators (story
> tellers) are able to convey through voice nuance alone that there IS a
> relationship between the themselves and the listening audience even when the
> performer is alone in a recording studio and the audience is only in his or
> her head. To be the best story teller you have to have part of your mind
> reserved to act the part of a listener, to be surprised, to be amazed at
> what you are hearing, to urge the performing side of yourself to "tell me
> more."
>
> I indulge myself to write about the performing side of audio recording
> because of my great respect and gratitude for the many audio engineers who
> have been my finest directors over the years. Production engineers
> generally have far more experience observing performers at their job than
> most any writer or director. For the latter it is a once every few weeks
> kind of task in the midst of many other distractions. On the other hand,
> the engineer may see three or four narrators in a day. He or she is in a
> unique postition to identify the most effective performer techniques and to
> pass them on. So my hat's off to the engineers who pop out of the control
> room with the mics off and make little "try this" kinds of suggestions for
> floundering performers.


Thank you, Steve. Again, you have provided so much excellent
information that it will take some time to absorb it all.

BTW, are you from Chicago? <g>

Regards,
Igor

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 3, 3:36 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
[SNIP]
> I think you sound just fine. Steve's lessons on interpretation are good ones.
> I teach VO here to people much like yourself who want to try it.
> I have 14 people due here in a few hours for the first day of a 4 saturday
> class.

That's okay, Ty. Maybe there is a slight misunderstanding here. Just
because I ask about professional equipment I do not mean to use it for
professional purposes. I have listened to so many professional and
amateur audiobooks and most of the time I liked them. What I really
don't like from amateurs is a bad sound quality. The performance is
quite often very good and sometimes even better.

After all, if we critisized every reading so severe, no mother or
father would be allowed to read a bedtime story to their kids
anymore ... <g>

Of course, your point of view is professional sound production
therefore much higher standards must apply. I understand and I accept
that. <g>

> Many are actors who want to get into VO. You might think that's easy. It's
> not. I've been teaching VO to actors for years. The two crafts are not the
> same. Many can't get the feeling off the page. You can.

Thank you. I have heard actors have taken over that field that once
was the domain of radio people. I don't know if this is true but there
is certainly a part of acting in any audio performance.

> Practice being more emotive. Smile, as Steve suggested, until you can hear
> it. Maybe you can hear some of what I'm talking about on my demos. They are
> up on my site.

Yes I listened to them already and I will try to copy them (not only
technically but also performance-wise, if you know what I mean.).
Again, this is a really great website. I will work with it, thank you.

Steve's suggestions are great too. I begin to understand that I can
easily go in biting distance with a professional microphone. This is
something which is unthinkable with a standard consumer mic.

Also your asking about the noise was helpful. I was still under the
illusion that the preamp was creating some noise (the one I had
before, did so. The noise was there even if the mic was disconnected.)
However, after I have changed the recording environment, it suddenly
got quiet even at maximum gain.

So, in order to clear the accused Behringer preamp from the suspicion
of creating (much) noise, here is recording from my sitting room made
without expander usage and another variation of sound processing:

http://home.arcor.de/t2c/Dick.mp3 (1.4 MB )
running time: 1:30

BTW, there are a number of classic books in the public domain now. So
if anyone feels like reading ... there is no risk envolved.

Thanks again, for all the valuable input.

Regards,
Igor

[Steve King]

"Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 3, 12:57 am, "Steve King"
> > wrote:
SNIP
> Thank you, Steve. Again, you have provided so much excellent
> information that it will take some time to absorb it all.
>
> BTW, are you from Chicago? <g>

Yes.

Steve King

[Steve King]

"Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 3, 3:36 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:

SNIP

> So, in order to clear the accused Behringer preamp from the suspicion
> of creating (much) noise, here is recording from my sitting room made
> without expander usage and another variation of sound processing:
>
> http://home.arcor.de/t2c/Dick.mp3 (1.4 MB )
> running time: 1:30
>

With that recording I think you can stop worrying about the recording
quality. It is very good. There's nothing there that gets in the way of
the story-telling. As far as your voice quality, I think you have that
fireside, fatherly thing mastered. Now, here's my final voice-coaching
suggestion: find places in the story to change the pace of your
story-telling, places to change the energy. In the clip referred to above,
try changing the energy on the second line, the one that begins with, "and
queer as the big spotted thing was..." And also a little later, "Once he
stood so near the chair's arm....." For both of those lines, put a little
excitement in your voice. For the latter, treat that text as if you have
just at that moment remembered that incident. Now, it appears that your
concentration is on speaking the words clearly. That is important, but it
is even more important to help the audience become excited by the story's
twists and turns. Each new idea can be a surprise. Help the audience to
feel those surprises. Thus endeth the lesson;-)

Steve King

[[email protected]]

On 2007-02-04 said:
>With that recording I think you can stop worrying about the
>recording quality. It is very good. There's nothing there that
>gets in the way of the story-telling.

Igor, if you can find somebody with access to old talking
books recorded for use by the blind by the LIbrary of
COngress have a listen to some great ones as selected by
readers. Bob ASkey, Alexander Scourby, others I"m
forgetting to be sure.
Btw quite a few ladies in that list too. Sit around with a
group of blind folks, especially those who primarily read
from talking books and sooner orlater a discussion of their
favorite readers will ensue.


sOme of those folkscould even do well with dry nonfiction
material such as textbooks and technical materials.

nOw an extreme example from the nonfiction category. QST
magazine was read for years by Vic Clark from the American
RAdio RElay League. vic had learned from blind technicians
how to describe a schematic diagram adequately, he had an
interest in the topic at hand as well.

these days QST is read by different readers provided by the
Library of COngress program. You can tell that many of the
readers are not engaged by the material they're reading at
all. YEs it's some dry technical reading in places, but the
differences between these readers and oldVic Clark are quite
apparent.
oF the last decade's still working talkinb book reader Roy
AVers does a darned good job. HE took some getting used to
for me at first, but after awhile I realized this man could
read just about anything put in front of him and retain
yourattention.

sOme readers tried too hardwhen reading fiction by trying to
do characters' voices etc. sOme could do it and make it
sound effortless. OThers should ahve just stuck to reading
the story.

I believe it was Burt Blackwell did the reading of the
childrens' classic "the wInd in the wIllows" when I read it
as a youngster. i've been told it's been redone as the old
8 rpm records had been played and circulated too many times
and the master tape probably hadn't been properly stored so
as to fare well with another production run. I'm sure the
newer recorded version didn't have near the flare Burt
Blackwell putinto it.

I know elderly folks who are not braille readers will when
considering which titles to order from the library catalogs
will forego a book within their favorite categories if they
don't like a reader, and maybe try something in a genre they
don't usually read if they enjoy the narrator.

In short, 99% of what happens to make these recordings good
is going to happen at the business end of the microphone,
whether it's a $2 special connected to a cheap cassette
recorderor the best voice audio chain in the business.



Richard webb,
Electric Spider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Braille: support true literacy for the blind.

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 4, 4:24 pm, "Steve King"
> wrote:
> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Feb 3, 3:36 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > So, in order to clear the accused Behringer preamp from the suspicion
> > of creating (much) noise, here is recording from my sitting room made
> > without expander usage and another variation of sound processing:
>
> >http://home.arcor.de/t2c/Dick.mp3(1.4 MB )
> > running time: 1:30
>
> With that recording I think you can stop worrying about the recording
> quality. It is very good. There's nothing there that gets in the way of
> the story-telling. As far as your voice quality, I think you have that
> fireside, fatherly thing mastered. Now, here's my final voice-coaching
> suggestion: find places in the story to change the pace of your
> story-telling, places to change the energy. In the clip referred to above,
> try changing the energy on the second line, the one that begins with, "and
> queer as the big spotted thing was..." And also a little later, "Once he
> stood so near the chair's arm....." For both of those lines, put a little
> excitement in your voice. For the latter, treat that text as if you have
> just at that moment remembered that incident. Now, it appears that your
> concentration is on speaking the words clearly. That is important, but it
> is even more important to help the audience become excited by the story's
> twists and turns. Each new idea can be a surprise. Help the audience to
> feel those surprises. Thus endeth the lesson;-)


Thank you so much for this lesson. This was very kind of you. I have
no idea how long I would have tried if you hadn't told me how it
works.


I have uploaded the file with the speaker that I had in mind when I
spoke about the fireplace reading. Although it is in German, the point
I would like to make should still get through. BTW, these are the
original first lines of Snowwhite (= Schneewittchen) from the brothers
Grimm.

What is particularly worth mentioning is the sound. Although the
speaker has a very deep voice the final mix contains a rather little
amount of bass. Furthermore, the complete contentment of the reader
with the situation should also be noticable.

http://home.arcor.de/t2c/Snowwhite.mp3 (403kB)
running time: 0:51



I have found your poadcasts with your wife Johnnie on the net and must
say that you have a very honest and caring appearance. I have listened
to the diamond trade interview already and will listen to the other
files as well. If there is more that I could listen to (including
commercially available readings), please let me know.

I have only been the US twice so far and I have never stood in front
of the Sears Tower. Hopefully someday, I will.


Regards,
Igor

[Steve King]

"Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 4, 4:24 pm, "Steve King"
> > wrote:
>> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 3, 3:36 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
> I have found your poadcasts with your wife Johnnie on the net and must
> say that you have a very honest and caring appearance. I have listened
> to the diamond trade interview already and will listen to the other
> files as well. If there is more that I could listen to (including
> commercially available readings), please let me know.

The 'Steve King' you found is not me. That Steve is a long-time broadcaster
working for one of the great radio stations of the world, WGN in Chicago. I
started in broadcasting, moved to audio engineering and studio management,
then back to performing as a free-lance announcer and narrator. I continue
to do both on and off-camera television and radio commercials and a movie
now and then, but most of my time is devoted to my video production and
marketing company. See details including voice and on-camera demos (on the
about us page) here: http://www.stevekingproductions.com.

Thanks for trying to check up on me. ;-)

Steve King

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "Steve King"
> wrote:
> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Feb 4, 4:24 pm, "Steve King"
> > > wrote:
> >> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >> > On Feb 3, 3:36 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
> >> SNIP
> > I have found your poadcasts with your wife Johnnie on the net and must
> > say that you have a very honest and caring appearance. I have listened
> > to the diamond trade interview already and will listen to the other
> > files as well. If there is more that I could listen to (including
> > commercially available readings), please let me know.
>
> The 'Steve King' you found is not me. That Steve is a long-time broadcaster
> working for one of the great radio stations of the world, WGN in Chicago. I
> started in broadcasting, moved to audio engineering and studio management,
> then back to performing as a free-lance announcer and narrator. I continue
> to do both on and off-camera television and radio commercials and a movie
> now and then, but most of my time is devoted to my video production and
> marketing company. See details including voice and on-camera demos (on the
> about us page) here:http://www.stevekingproductions.com.
>
> Thanks for trying to check up on me. ;-)


Sorry Steve, I was sure you were not the congressman, then of course
Steve is short for Steven. There you get a lot of hits also, therefore
I asked about Chicago.

But Chicago _is_ big enough for the two of you. ;-)

The link seems to be off-line. So, I'll try it later again. Now I got
really curious. ;-)

Regards,
Igor

[Steve King]

"Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "Steve King"

>>
>> The 'Steve King' you found is not me. That Steve is a long-time
>> broadcaster
>> working for one of the great radio stations of the world, WGN in Chicago.
>> I
>> started in broadcasting, moved to audio engineering and studio
>> management,
>> then back to performing as a free-lance announcer and narrator. I
>> continue
>> to do both on and off-camera television and radio commercials and a movie
>> now and then, but most of my time is devoted to my video production and
>> marketing company. See details including voice and on-camera demos (on
>> the
>> about us page) here:http://www.stevekingproductions.com.
>>
>> Thanks for trying to check up on me. ;-)
>
>
> Sorry Steve, I was sure you were not the congressman, then of course
> Steve is short for Steven. There you get a lot of hits also, therefore
> I asked about Chicago.
>
Sorry. The correct url is: http://www.kinggroupproductions.com.

Steve King

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 5, 5:05 pm, "Steve King"
> wrote:
> "Igor (t4a)" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 4:14 pm, "Steve King"
>
> >> The 'Steve King' you found is not me. That Steve is a long-time
> >> broadcaster
> >> working for one of the great radio stations of the world, WGN in Chicago.
> >> I
> >> started in broadcasting, moved to audio engineering and studio
> >> management,
> >> then back to performing as a free-lance announcer and narrator. I
> >> continue
> >> to do both on and off-camera television and radio commercials and a movie
> >> now and then, but most of my time is devoted to my video production and
> >> marketing company. See details including voice and on-camera demos (on
> >> the
> >> about us page) here:http://www.stevekingproductions.com.
>
> >> Thanks for trying to check up on me. ;-)
>
> > Sorry Steve, I was sure you were not the congressman, then of course
> > Steve is short for Steven. There you get a lot of hits also, therefore
> > I asked about Chicago.
>
> Sorry. The correct url is: http://www.kinggroupproductions.com.


I am impressed. I have listened to your audio clips and there is only
one word to discribe your performance: perfection.

What especially caught my attention is the clarity of your
pronuciation. Interestingly, you can do it without appearing
enunciating. And of course your pacing and your pitch variation* are
simply impeccable.

* I don't know how to call it, it is how the fundamental frequency of
your voice changes over a sentence.

If have read a whole story somehow, please let me know. I would love
to listen to it.


Regards,
Igor

[Igor (t4a)]

On Feb 4, 7:08 pm, wrote:
> [SNIP]
> In short, 99% of what happens to make these recordings good
> is going to happen at the business end of the microphone,
> whether it's a $2 special connected to a cheap cassette
> recorderor the best voice audio chain in the business.


Hm. Now I know, why everyone here seems so concerned. ;-)

Some amateur readings contain plosives which sound as if your car was
struck by a roadside bomb when you happen to listen to them while
driving. I don't have access to your source of audio recordings but I
refer to what is publicly available on the net.


Regards,
Igor

PS. A reply to _your_ post was rejected by Google Groups. I have no
idea why.

[david correia]

In article . com>,
"Igor (t4a)" > wrote:

> Some amateur readings contain plosives which sound as if your car was
> struck by a roadside bomb when you happen to listen to them while
> driving. I don't have access to your source of audio recordings but I
> refer to what is publicly available on the net.
>
>
> Regards,
> Igor



There's waaaay too much of it on local & national TV news reporting from
fast editing room voiceovers. On local talk radio too. Even some
national NFL broadcasters. I hear plosives all the time in supposedly
professional quality audio.

NOT!





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com