Recording and Mastering Audiobooks

[mcp6453]

Does anyone here get involved with recording and mastering audiobooks?
It's a lot harder than it looks. I would LOVE to have a dialog with
someone who is willing to share his or her expertise.

We have created a totally dead voice booth for voice-only recording.
That part works great. The challenge is the noise between sentences. As
I listen to most audiobooks, there is almost no noise in the quiet parts.

Granted, a professional VO guy makes a lot less noise than the amateurs
I record. So, what I find myself doing is grabbing a quiet part of the
session and pasting that part over the space between sentences. The
edits work perfectly and are impossible to hear since they are identical
in character to the parts that would normally be there, but it takes
FOREVER to do so. It's possible that a lot of studios use noise gates,
but I have yet to use one that sounds decent.

Our latest session uses a U87 into a Presonus preamp into ProTools. I
did some compression in Adobe Audition, but I did not apply any EQ. The
result does sound somewhat amateurish. If anyone is willing to listen,
I'm happy to email an MP3, for what that's worth.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:35:48 GMT, mcp6453 >
wrote:

>Does anyone here get involved with recording and mastering audiobooks?
>It's a lot harder than it looks. I would LOVE to have a dialog with
>someone who is willing to share his or her expertise.
>
>We have created a totally dead voice booth for voice-only recording.
>That part works great. The challenge is the noise between sentences. As
>I listen to most audiobooks, there is almost no noise in the quiet parts.
>
>Granted, a professional VO guy makes a lot less noise than the amateurs
>I record. So, what I find myself doing is grabbing a quiet part of the
>session and pasting that part over the space between sentences. The
>edits work perfectly and are impossible to hear since they are identical
>in character to the parts that would normally be there, but it takes
>FOREVER to do so. It's possible that a lot of studios use noise gates,
>but I have yet to use one that sounds decent.
>
>Our latest session uses a U87 into a Presonus preamp into ProTools. I
>did some compression in Adobe Audition, but I did not apply any EQ. The
>result does sound somewhat amateurish. If anyone is willing to listen,
>I'm happy to email an MP3, for what that's worth.

Email isn't how these groups work. Put a minute or two of your work
somewhere we can all find it and post a link.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Richard Crowley]

"mcp6453" wrote...
> Does anyone here get involved with recording and mastering audiobooks?
> It's a lot harder than it looks. I would LOVE to have a dialog with
> someone who is willing to share his or her expertise.

Many people here have likely engineered recording either
themselves and/or others for audio-book or similar dialog/
announce purposes.

> We have created a totally dead voice booth for voice-only recording. That
> part works great. The challenge is the noise between sentences. As I
> listen to most audiobooks, there is almost no noise in the quiet parts.

So having a recording space that is "dead" is one thing. And
having one that is "quiet" is a whole additional dimension.
It doesn't matter how "dead" your space is if it isn't quiet
(and vice-versa).

> Granted, a professional VO guy makes a lot less noise than the amateurs I
> record. So, what I find myself doing is grabbing a quiet part of the
> session and pasting that part over the space between sentences. The edits
> work perfectly and are impossible to hear since they are identical in
> character to the parts that would normally be there, but it takes FOREVER
> to do so. It's possible that a lot of studios use noise gates, but I have
> yet to use one that sounds decent.

So take some time to find the settings for gating or compression
that works for your setup. Or do something to make your space
more quiet.

> Our latest session uses a U87 into a Presonus preamp into ProTools. I did
> some compression in Adobe Audition, but I did not apply any EQ. The result
> does sound somewhat amateurish. If anyone is willing to listen, I'm happy
> to email an MP3, for what that's worth.

Post it on a website somewhere and tell us the URL.

[Adrian Tuddenham]

mcp6453 > wrote:

> Does anyone here get involved with recording and mastering audiobooks?

I do.

>The challenge is the noise between sentences. As
>I listen to most audiobooks, there is almost no noise in the quiet
>parts.

A completely silent background with a mouth floating in space sounds
horrible and is stressful to listen to. If the noises are natural, so
that it sounds as though a real person is there, that's nothing to worry
about.

If you are troubled by 'body noises' (tummy rumbles), you could try
using a ribbon mic with its plane of deadness towards the narrator's
body; or sit them at a well-padded and close-fitting table which helps
to block the sounds. I also ask my readers to remove any jewellery
which might make jangling noises.

....but these sounds are intermittent (I hope) and easily edited out.
What other unwanted sounds are your readers producing continuously that
they cannot control?


>It's possible that a lot of studios use noise gates,
> but I have yet to use one that sounds decent.

So have they.

> ... If anyone is willing to listen,
> I'm happy to email an MP3, for what that's worth.

Try it - but you will probably get as many opinions as you get
listeners.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[mcp6453]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "mcp6453" wrote...
>
>>Does anyone here get involved with recording and mastering audiobooks?
>>It's a lot harder than it looks. I would LOVE to have a dialog with
>>someone who is willing to share his or her expertise.
>
> Many people here have likely engineered recording either
> themselves and/or others for audio-book or similar dialog/
> announce purposes.
>
>>We have created a totally dead voice booth for voice-only recording. That
>>part works great. The challenge is the noise between sentences. As I
>>listen to most audiobooks, there is almost no noise in the quiet parts.
>
> So having a recording space that is "dead" is one thing. And
> having one that is "quiet" is a whole additional dimension.
> It doesn't matter how "dead" your space is if it isn't quiet
> (and vice-versa).
>
>>Granted, a professional VO guy makes a lot less noise than the amateurs I
>>record. So, what I find myself doing is grabbing a quiet part of the
>>session and pasting that part over the space between sentences. The edits
>>work perfectly and are impossible to hear since they are identical in
>>character to the parts that would normally be there, but it takes FOREVER
>>to do so. It's possible that a lot of studios use noise gates, but I have
>>yet to use one that sounds decent.
>
> So take some time to find the settings for gating or compression
> that works for your setup. Or do something to make your space
> more quiet.
>
>>Our latest session uses a U87 into a Presonus preamp into ProTools. I did
>>some compression in Adobe Audition, but I did not apply any EQ. The result
>>does sound somewhat amateurish. If anyone is willing to listen, I'm happy
>>to email an MP3, for what that's worth.
>
> Post it on a website somewhere and tell us the URL.

The room is quiet and dead. In fact, the deadness contributes to the
quietness. <G>

Here's a snippet.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/rn4tab

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:35:48 GMT, mcp6453 >
wrote:

>Does anyone here get involved with recording and mastering audiobooks?
>It's a lot harder than it looks. I would LOVE to have a dialog with
>someone who is willing to share his or her expertise.
>
>We have created a totally dead voice booth for voice-only recording.
>That part works great. The challenge is the noise between sentences. As
>I listen to most audiobooks, there is almost no noise in the quiet parts.
>
>Granted, a professional VO guy makes a lot less noise than the amateurs
>I record. So, what I find myself doing is grabbing a quiet part of the
>session and pasting that part over the space between sentences. The
>edits work perfectly and are impossible to hear since they are identical
>in character to the parts that would normally be there, but it takes
>FOREVER to do so. It's possible that a lot of studios use noise gates,
>but I have yet to use one that sounds decent.
>
>Our latest session uses a U87 into a Presonus preamp into ProTools. I
>did some compression in Adobe Audition, but I did not apply any EQ. The
>result does sound somewhat amateurish. If anyone is willing to listen,
>I'm happy to email an MP3, for what that's worth.

The gaps are more than quiet enough. But the mic does need some eq to
roll away a bit of the chest boom. The biggest problem, though - as I
am sure you know - is the delivery. It is not going to hold an
audience for an entire book. You can't just read an audio book, you
have to perform it, bringing each character to individual life.
Dramatic training is the only thing that can achieve that for you. You
don't want a VO chap for this job, you need an actor.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[mcp6453]

Don Pearce wrote:
>
> The gaps are more than quiet enough. But the mic does need some eq to
> roll away a bit of the chest boom. The biggest problem, though - as I
> am sure you know - is the delivery. It is not going to hold an
> audience for an entire book. You can't just read an audio book, you
> have to perform it, bringing each character to individual life.
> Dramatic training is the only thing that can achieve that for you. You
> don't want a VO chap for this job, you need an actor.

Don, thanks for taking time to listen and for your comments. I'm not
sure what you mean by "chest boom." What kind of EQ are you suggesting?

Regarding the presentation, the speaker is somewhat famous, so the
suggestion to use a different voice is not an option. The good news is
that the presentation is only an hour. In that sense, maybe it's not a
true audiobook. The recording techniques, however, should be the same.

People who hear this CD will have met him personally and will excuse his
lack of performing skills.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:02:21 GMT, mcp6453 >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>> The gaps are more than quiet enough. But the mic does need some eq to
>> roll away a bit of the chest boom. The biggest problem, though - as I
>> am sure you know - is the delivery. It is not going to hold an
>> audience for an entire book. You can't just read an audio book, you
>> have to perform it, bringing each character to individual life.
>> Dramatic training is the only thing that can achieve that for you. You
>> don't want a VO chap for this job, you need an actor.
>
>Don, thanks for taking time to listen and for your comments. I'm not
>sure what you mean by "chest boom." What kind of EQ are you suggesting?
>

Listen on full range speakers, and ask yourself if you believe you are
hearing a live person standing in front of you. As things stand, you
can't. The chest tones of the person are very dominant over the head
tones. This just needs the normal rolloff demanded by the proximity
lift of the microphone.

I notice you have already done the rumble removal - was there an AC
unit operating in the building?

>Regarding the presentation, the speaker is somewhat famous, so the
>suggestion to use a different voice is not an option. The good news is
>that the presentation is only an hour. In that sense, maybe it's not a
>true audiobook. The recording techniques, however, should be the same.
>
>People who hear this CD will have met him personally and will excuse his
>lack of performing skills.

OK, that makes all the difference. If he is well known, then an hour
(but really, no more than that) should be no great problem. But how is
he at taking direction? Could you play back some of this to him, and
explain that he needs to bring some life to it - try and differentiate
the characters a little?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[mcp6453]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:02:21 GMT, mcp6453 >
> wrote:
>
> Listen on full range speakers, and ask yourself if you believe you are
> hearing a live person standing in front of you. As things stand, you
> can't. The chest tones of the person are very dominant over the head
> tones. This just needs the normal rolloff demanded by the proximity
> lift of the microphone.
>
> I notice you have already done the rumble removal - was there an AC
> unit operating in the building?

How did you know I did rumble removal? You have great ears, particularly
considering that the file is MP3. I do remove rumble as a matter of
course as it removes spectrum that is not being used anyway. No, there
was no ambient noise. The primary noise being remove was mic splosives.

> OK, that makes all the difference. If he is well known, then an hour
> (but really, no more than that) should be no great problem. But how is
> he at taking direction? Could you play back some of this to him, and
> explain that he needs to bring some life to it - try and differentiate
> the characters a little?

He's going to listen to the finished presentation many times. He will
probably have some ideas for improvement for the next one, and my guess
is that he will be receptive to suggestion. He does take direction well.
You should have heard it before we got this far!

[Richard Crowley]

"mcp6453" wrote ...
> The room is quiet and dead. In fact, the deadness contributes to the
> quietness. <G>
>
> Here's a snippet.
>
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/rn4tab

The sample sounds dead enough (i.e. free of annoying reverb),
but it is not "quiet" by recording-studio (or radio station, etc.)
standards. I heard "room tone" between many (but not all?)
phrases. Was this where you had done your manual noise
mitigation?

Dunno why you couldn't experiment to find settings for dynamic
processing ("compression") and/or "gating" where you can reliably
distinguish between speech and "quiet" and then reduce the
level of the "quiet" by 10-20dB. Certainly gating to dead quiet
(digital zero) would sound artificial.

Using a U87 is impressive enough, but consider the possibility
that some other mic may be more harmonious with your performer
and situation. I seem to recall that some studios/performers
prefer other microphones even when U87s are available.

If this is a first-person account, I agree that the audience would
cut some slack for "performance" and not expect a professional
reading.

[mcp6453]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "mcp6453" wrote ...
>
>>The room is quiet and dead. In fact, the deadness contributes to the
>>quietness. <G>
>>
>>Here's a snippet.
>>
>>http://www.sendspace.com/file/rn4tab
>
>
> The sample sounds dead enough (i.e. free of annoying reverb),
> but it is not "quiet" by recording-studio (or radio station, etc.)
> standards. I heard "room tone" between many (but not all?)
> phrases. Was this where you had done your manual noise
> mitigation?
>
> Dunno why you couldn't experiment to find settings for dynamic
> processing ("compression") and/or "gating" where you can reliably
> distinguish between speech and "quiet" and then reduce the
> level of the "quiet" by 10-20dB. Certainly gating to dead quiet
> (digital zero) would sound artificial.
>
> Using a U87 is impressive enough, but consider the possibility
> that some other mic may be more harmonious with your performer
> and situation. I seem to recall that some studios/performers
> prefer other microphones even when U87s are available.
>
> If this is a first-person account, I agree that the audience would
> cut some slack for "performance" and not expect a professional
> reading.
>
>

I sure don't understand where any room tone could be coming from. The
booth is almost an anechoic chamber. It has wall-to-wall Auralex foam.
It's in a house out in the country, and nothing was going on around it.
The guy was about a foot from the mic. Everything was recorded flat.

I've decided to try an RE20 on the next session, maybe even an MKH416
(sorry, Scott) in the near distance on a second track.

There have to be some mastering techniques that add sparkle even to
voice-only presentations. Maybe I'll grab some audiobooks and do some
critical listening between the sessions.

In any case, thanks for listening to the cut.

[Richard Crowley]

"mcp6453" wrote ...
> Richard Crowley wrote:

>> The sample sounds dead enough (i.e. free of annoying reverb),
>> but it is not "quiet" by recording-studio (or radio station, etc.)
>> standards. I heard "room tone" between many (but not all?)
>> phrases. Was this where you had done your manual noise
>> mitigation?
>>
> I sure don't understand where any room tone could be coming from. The
> booth is almost an anechoic chamber. It has wall-to-wall Auralex foam.
> It's in a house out in the country, and nothing was going on around it.
> The guy was about a foot from the mic. Everything was recorded flat.

I'm not sure I understand. Your first message said...
"The challenge is the noise between sentences. As
I listen to most audiobooks, there is almost no noise in the quiet parts."

Are you saying that yes, the noise that I heard is there, but you can't
figure out where it is coming from or how to mitigate it? Or are you
saying that the clip you posted has the noise removed?

> There have to be some mastering techniques that add sparkle even to
> voice-only presentations. Maybe I'll grab some audiobooks and do some
> critical listening between the sessions.

I think it is more likely microphone selection and position,
and the performance (both technical and artistic) of the talent
rather than "mastering techniques". There have been several
discussions in this newsgroup about recording narration, etc.
It might be worth your time to use the Google Groups archive
and review previous discussions. There is at least one regular
(and several more occasional) participants in this newsgroup
who are professional voice talent (and engineering, also).

[Adrian Tuddenham]

mcp6453 > wrote:

> Richard Crowley wrote:
> > "mcp6453" wrote...
> >
> >>Does anyone here get involved with recording and mastering audiobooks?
[...]
>
> The room is quiet and dead. In fact, the deadness contributes to the
> quietness. <G>
>
> Here's a snippet.
>
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/rn4tab

There is no problem with the background noise level of the room or the
electronics - I did hear a few noises from the reader making careless
movements, which I presume were the sort of things that were worrying
you.

There is no satisfactory electronic solution to this, so you are left
with two courses of action:

1) Stop the noises at source by arranging the layout of the studio so
that an inexperienced reader isn't able to shuffle the script, rub
against the furniture, scuff his clothing etc. Use a silent swivel
chair and place the script on a script-rack (you will need to stop at
each page turn and edit later).

Keep a ear on him during the recording, so that you can stop immediately
any spurious sounds are heard and trace the source. Get rid of the
cause - and that will be one fewer noise to worry about in future. Try
not to wind him up too much when you do this - you may have to spend
quite a long time making recordings that you know will be useless, in
order to let him settle; as he becomes more settled, he is less likely
to make noises anyway.

By placing the mic high and looking down towards his mouth, you can
obtain a good sound balance whilst keeping it as far away from noise
sources as possible.


2) Edit the remaining sounds away as best you can. This will take a
lot of time - as you have already discovered - but you can control the
results so they don't upset the listener by clipping wanted sound (which
is what would happen with electronic gating).

It is one of the penalties of using inexperienced readers - your skills
will have to be used to make up for their lack of skills and they will
eventually get the credit.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:07:53 -0400, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article >):

> "mcp6453" wrote ...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>
>>> The sample sounds dead enough (i.e. free of annoying reverb),
>>> but it is not "quiet" by recording-studio (or radio station, etc.)
>>> standards. I heard "room tone" between many (but not all?)
>>> phrases. Was this where you had done your manual noise
>>> mitigation?
>>>
>> I sure don't understand where any room tone could be coming from. The
>> booth is almost an anechoic chamber. It has wall-to-wall Auralex foam.
>> It's in a house out in the country, and nothing was going on around it.
>> The guy was about a foot from the mic. Everything was recorded flat.
>
> I'm not sure I understand. Your first message said...
> "The challenge is the noise between sentences. As
> I listen to most audiobooks, there is almost no noise in the quiet parts."
>
> Are you saying that yes, the noise that I heard is there, but you can't
> figure out where it is coming from or how to mitigate it? Or are you
> saying that the clip you posted has the noise removed?
>
>> There have to be some mastering techniques that add sparkle even to
>> voice-only presentations. Maybe I'll grab some audiobooks and do some
>> critical listening between the sessions.
>
> I think it is more likely microphone selection and position,
> and the performance (both technical and artistic) of the talent
> rather than "mastering techniques". There have been several
> discussions in this newsgroup about recording narration, etc.
> It might be worth your time to use the Google Groups archive
> and review previous discussions. There is at least one regular
> (and several more occasional) participants in this newsgroup
> who are professional voice talent (and engineering, also).
>
>

Shhhhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet.

Ty

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

[Richard Crowley]

"Ty Ford" wrote ...
> Richard Crowley wrote
>> ... There is at least one regular
>> (and several more occasional) participants in this newsgroup
>> who are professional voice talent (and engineering, also).
>
> Shhhhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet.

Do you do cartoon characters also?
(Or are videogames the modern equivalent? :-)

IMDB shows that several people have done Elmer
since Mel died.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:56:17 GMT, mcp6453 >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:02:21 GMT, mcp6453 >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Listen on full range speakers, and ask yourself if you believe you are
>> hearing a live person standing in front of you. As things stand, you
>> can't. The chest tones of the person are very dominant over the head
>> tones. This just needs the normal rolloff demanded by the proximity
>> lift of the microphone.
>>
>> I notice you have already done the rumble removal - was there an AC
>> unit operating in the building?
>
>How did you know I did rumble removal? You have great ears, particularly
>considering that the file is MP3. I do remove rumble as a matter of
>course as it removes spectrum that is not being used anyway. No, there
>was no ambient noise. The primary noise being remove was mic splosives.
>
>> OK, that makes all the difference. If he is well known, then an hour
>> (but really, no more than that) should be no great problem. But how is
>> he at taking direction? Could you play back some of this to him, and
>> explain that he needs to bring some life to it - try and differentiate
>> the characters a little?
>
>He's going to listen to the finished presentation many times. He will
>probably have some ideas for improvement for the next one, and my guess
>is that he will be receptive to suggestion. He does take direction well.
>You should have heard it before we got this far!

Well, good luck with it. I would say you have a really good starting
point there, and it really is close to publishable already.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Frank Vuotto]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:33:05 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

>OK, that makes all the difference. If he is well known, then an hour
>(but really, no more than that) should be no great problem. But how is
>he at taking direction? Could you play back some of this to him, and
>explain that he needs to bring some life to it - try and differentiate
>the characters a little?
>
... or at least pause where there's punctuation, not just randomly.

Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:37:22 -0400, Richard Crowley wrote
(in article >):

> "Ty Ford" wrote ...
>> Richard Crowley wrote
>>> ... There is at least one regular
>>> (and several more occasional) participants in this newsgroup
>>> who are professional voice talent (and engineering, also).
>>
>> Shhhhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet.
>
> Do you do cartoon characters also?
> (Or are videogames the modern equivalent? :-)
>
> IMDB shows that several people have done Elmer
> since Mel died.

Not so much, Richard. I did do 3-4 voices on the new StarTrek computer game
(that's also in IMDB) and a cowboy character for a political TV spot themed
"Broke Bank Democrats."

The StarTrek gig paid very well, but was not as much fun creatively.
Basically I sat at a desk with an multi-page Xcel spread sheet and spoke
mostly 3-10 word phrases one after another for about two hours. I felt like
an over exercised Pez dispenser.

Fun to have it on the resume though.

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