VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

[Kelly Brennan]

Since last week's discussion on mics for women, I've been able to get a few mics in to test them out on my voice. There are 4 separate files, two takes each - first take is raw, second take have done noise reduction and if needed amplified to -3db.

I think I've been having some noise floor issues and thus the noise reduction.

I'd love to hear thoughts on which, if any, of these mics fits my voice. I won't say which mic is which yet, so you can hear me and not the mic.

I appreciate any and all reponses! I haven't posted link here before, so I hope I'm doing it right!

http://www.box.com/files#/files/0/f/228219698/Mic%20Test

[Fran McClellan]

I'm getting an error:

"The item you are trying to access has either been deleted or is unavailable to you"


_________________
Back into the murky lurk from whence I came
--
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." - John Lennon

[Kelly Brennan]

THANKS!

I think I got it??? Ugh.

Sorry

This should work, I think.

http://www.box.com/s/ms4km9msp7ise0sr1ig9

[Philip Banks]

3 sounded fine to me especially if you were looking to warm things up.

[Bish]

Sorry Kelly... I was all ready to listen, but your "box" service required that I open an account to access the files. That wouldn't have been a problem as they're just another in a long-line of free 5Gb on-line storage/sharing systems... but, and it's a big but... they wouldn't let me sign-up without giving a phone number. Sorry, but that's a big no-no to me!

OK... so I used a fake phone number

They are all pretty close with none leaping out to say yes or no. I shortlisted 1 & 3 as better, and then chose 3. This was based on the unprocessed read. I didn't judge the processed ones as they sounded a little, well... processed, and I didn't think the originals were in need of it.

So, that's one vote for #3

Cheers
Peter

Edit: It seems as I was typing, Philip came to the same conclusion... my ears feel so validated
_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

[kkuhlken]

3 gets my vote as well
_________________
My full name is Karl Kuhlken (think Macauly Culkin...it rhymes)

Suave, debonair, a ladies man. Sophisticated, urbane, well heeled....no, wait...that's not me

[heyguido]

#3 for warmth, but I, too, liked #1 on your voice....

While it's not as strong in the low registers, it DID highlight the lil girl quality of your voice well, something that seems to be popular these days....

Just sayin'.......
_________________
Don Brookshire
"Wait.... They wanna PAY me for this?"

[Fran McClellan]

They all sounded really, really close to me...if I had to choose, I guess it would be 3...it added a little something extra to your sound.
_________________
Back into the murky lurk from whence I came
--
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." - John Lennon

[Frank F]

I listened to each of the mics including the processed part of the files. I suggest you DO NOT use the processing on any of them. Files should leave your studio as UN-processed as possible (period). Here is a quick review of each microphone (and I could probably tell you which mic you used, but I will wait until "the film at 11:00"):

Comments are only on the unprocessed audio -

Mic four - muddy mids- highs crackle;

Mic three - clear, but somewhat sibilant with strong S's. Best of the mics presented for your voice, but keep looking...;

Mic two - Ugh, muddy, no body, ugly tone;

Mic one - dull, lifeless.

Frank F
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

[Kelly Brennan]

Thanks everyone for the input.

In case you are interested, the mics are:

Test 1 - Rode K2
Test 2 - Neumann 103
Test 3 - AT4050
Test 4 Neumann BCM 104

Looks like the AT4050 is in the lead

Again, thanks, I do appreciate the extra sets of ears!

[Frank F]

Darn, I missed on the BCM 104. Oh well, three out of four ain't bad,

F2
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

[Mark Szabo]

Interesting that Frank and I came to the same conclusion. I listened and wrote down a few words on each mic and LOLed when I read Frank's post.

1: Squeaky, flat, lifeless
2: Boxy & boomy...not a good sound for your voice
3: Even tone, a little sibilant but overall balanced
4: Also balanced and sibilant but not a good match for your tone.

My wife is the actual VO in the family so I feel relatively confident in assessing FVOs.


@Frank: What if part of your vocal chain includes a compressor and EQ? We routinely use a mild compressor and EQ on my wife's voice, and debreath as well.

[Frank F]

To answer your question; I am old school and a purist. The best chain is mic, pre-amp with no EQ or other processing, sound device, computer editing software.

In the old days I would sometimes use a very light limiter on my voice for radio type spots. For FVO's, nada, nothing, zip, zilch. I would prefer to turn down or up the input pot rather than muck up the sound. But, in those days it was "hands-on the pot" (mixer) while recording too.

Remember, it's FIP (Fix-it In Post) when sending files to clients. If the producer needs to add compression or limiting or other processing, he or she can do that when it is NOT previously processed. He or she may not be able to work with the file if it is not flat.

Often when I received processed files for film post, I would have sent them back to the talent and have them re-do - at their expense. Even "name" talent have been requested to re-do if the files are processed. I used to sweeten about four films a year and wanted my work to be the best.

Frank F
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

[Jen Gosnell]

Kelly, do you have a lot more mics you plan to try? Your voice is a lot different from mine, but still I'm going to be really interested to see what you end up with.

Man. Does anybody else sit here and listen to this stuff and then read Frank's comments and try to train your ears by hearing what he's talking about?

I'll admit it. I do. Thanks, Frank.

(And... at least this time, I felt like I could hear it. With CC's thread about bangs and booms? I was not making a lot of inroads with that listening exercise!)

/minor threadjack:
Now all this makes me wonder how well suited my mic is for my voice. When I picked it, I went to Guitar Center and convinced the guy to record me on about 5 different condenser mics, then we played them back and did comparative listening to see which seemed to suit my voice best. We both agreed that while the TLM-103 was best, a close second was the Sterling Audio ST-59, which I'd never heard of but at less than $300 and with me on a budget it was the clear winner. So, while I'm happy I went through some sort of a comparative process, I wish that I'd had better-tuned "voiceover" ears either in my head or available to me at the time. I'd like to think, though, that for a first mic with the main purpose of practicing and auditioning, it's plenty serviceable.

Some idle wondering, I suppose, and I guess I should just focus on working toward the day when I really need to buy a better mic.
/end threadjack

Anyway - good luck, Kelly! Have fun trying more mics. I do think it's fun...
_________________
jen@jengosnell.com
https://www.jengosnell.com
Skype: jen.gosnell
971.258.2448

[Frank F]

Jen, You made me laugh.

I probably should have chosen more techincal words, but what I described was my feelinga as I listened to each sample.

I have been doing this for a loooooooooooong time. Plus I use several different monitors (speakers) to hear things (Yes, I hear voices....). Although I am now down to a very minimal set-up; the training over the years has given me an insight into how things should sound AND more importantly how to fix them -- sometimes.

The Sterling Audio ST-59 is a good mic for an FVO, and adequate for tenor voices although something is lost for the barritone and bass VOist. The company usually releases upgrades or new mics based upon how the DIY crowd mods Sterling microphones. This makes for a very responsive company and some good quality mics (talk about Customer Service!!!!).

Choosing a cardoid mic with a single pattern may be a less expensive way to get the right bang for your buck. In a recording studio designed for music - multi-pattern mics are useful, for a VO the multi-pattern mic is a waste of space and money (I will add this cavaet: "...In my opinion").

How a mic interacts with a preamp is the next step in the equation. Some pre's add color (as do some audio editing programs - but that may be discussed later) or artifacts, while others may not have enough power, or ... Some pre-amps are transparent, such as the Burl or the Maag Audio PreQ4, and what a microphone craves is transparency.

From today on vow to never buy a mic or a preamp until you are able to listen to them in your studio environment with your other components and make a wise informed decision.

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Frank F
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com