VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD!

[MBVOXX]

If you were in my studio I'd set up a 414B-ULS for you. That particular AKG works very well with sibilant female voices. And a good option would be the Neumann TLM 193. I'd limit choices to those two mics....unlike many other popular mics used for VO, that accentuate the 5k-10k frequencies, those two have a gentle roll off built in to the circuitry to diminish the upper frequency response, and will help tame sibilance at the source.
The AKG ( no longer made in that specific model ) will run about half the cost of the Neumann on the used market.

[Kookster]

Thanks all! Some great advice here...

MBVOXX: Thank you, If I am unable to find the AKG B-ULS.. is there an equivalent? I presume the XLS is a different beast entirely. I like the sound of the TLM193 a lot. Sods law that its about the only Neumann they don't stock at the online store I was looking to purchase 3 from to compare!

Good idea Alan, I wondered whether a pre-amp of sorts might help out with the CAD but to be honest I've never had much love for it so I think switching out at this point is probably a good idea. It's a shame because I heard such good reviews and really wanted to love it! (then read lots of rubbish reviews after I'd purchased it haha)

Thanks FinMac for the link...bubblegum eh? I like that idea! (until I spit it out onto the mic)

vkuehn: it just goes to show what a difference a bit of fiddling makes doesn't it!! I've tried this particular mic every which way but loose and it does sound different each time. Still harsh up top though. It's better... its just not that great and going back in the locker also!

Thanks for that Dave: makes more sense now! I think I'm going to have a closer look at it after work and see if I can work it out properly. Looks to be a nice little tool for the time being and I can learn a bit while I'm at it!

Thanks Steve, I'll take a closer look at the Sony - not a brand I'd thought of to be honest but it does have some rather glowing reviews! Over 10Khz..is that unusual? Beginning to think I've got some really weird mouth/teeth thing going on!
_________________
(otherwise known as Cari, if you squint it looks like Carl)

[DenaliDave]

The TLM-193 is what the cast of "Family Guy" uses to record all their cartoon voices. It's a very underrated mic, and I've been looking to pick one up for a while myself actually.

I believe someone on here called it the "tuxedo mic" when I inquired about it's use in VO.
_________________
"The wise ones fashioned speech with their thought, sifting it as grain is sifted through a sieve." - Buddha
www.alaskamic.com

[sdaeley17]

[Kookster]

I must say I hadn't thought about the NT1 at all. I thought they'd quit making it and the more sibilant NT1-A had taken its place - shows what I know! It definately has more oomph to it than the MK4 there. I'll be sure to look into that some more! Thanks!

They use the TLM193 to record Family Guy? I could well be sold on that information alone...

While I think of it... anyone have any thoughts on the TLM107?
_________________
(otherwise known as Cari, if you squint it looks like Carl)

[sdaeley17]

As I mention in the vid, kookster, I blame Rode for the confusion. They went from Rode NT1 -> Nt1-A -> NT1? Despite my explanation, and the fact you can see the damn mic in the vid, people STILL ask me which model it is! With its spec (ridiculous low noise, flat response, CHEAP!) you'd think it'd be a VO's secret weapon, but you still see a lot of resistance from folks who've been dissatisfied with Rode's other mics. It's unfortunate, because I really feel like they took all the critical feedback from the Nt1-A to heart!
_________________
"There's Magic all around us; you just have to see it. And the most wonderful Magic of all, is just bein' alive." -Uncle Montork, He-Man and the Masters of the Universe

[DenaliDave]

I've also seen TLM-193's in short clips from various behind the scenes of South Park. I don't think they use it exclusivity though. Here's what I read about Family Guy:

[Kookster]

Really rather tempted with the TLM193, AKG414 (XLS version purely because I can buy new).. and the U87ai I just can't leave out of the running yet because, well, ya know... it's a U87ai. Now if I can just find somewhere that lets me 'try' a TLM193 before I buy, the other two I can!
_________________
(otherwise known as Cari, if you squint it looks like Carl)

[Quicksilver]

I'd book an hour at a studio with an experienced engineer and see if they can't find the best combination of mic and processing settings.

[John Kissinger]

+1 What Quicksilver said. Even if they don't have mics on the boom or shelf that work for you, a professional ear may be needed to help you find that trouble-making frequency range (presuming you haven't already found it yourself).

From there, you can do your research, as Dave suggests, to look at various mics' frequency response patterns to see which ones boost (unhelpful) or cut (helpful) in the general range that you tend to be sibilant. The ones that don't emphasize your problem area are the ones you ought to try out first, regardless of whether or not they are industry standard.

For what it's worth, I spent last Summer trying to find the perfect mic for me. A mostly fruitless search. But, I learned a lot.

I too was trying to find one that wouldn't emphasize what I felt was too much sibilance. I'm not terribly sibilant. But, I just seem to whistle occasionally somewhere in the spectrum.

So, I began by looking for mics that were known sibilance-cutters. The ones that always come to the top of the Google search pile are TLM-193, U89, TLM-170. All share the same capsule, I believe. But, those mics only cut in a very specific frequency swath that might not match where you're sibilant. 3k-6k, if I recall correctly.

Before buying anything though, I wanted to make sure I was sibilant in the exact same range where those mics cut. So, I analyzed many recordings I'd made on various mics previously (TLM 102, U87ai, 416, TLM 107, etc.) and identified what I thought was the problem range. Sure enough, around 4-5K. That said, I didn't have any fancy analysis tools. Just swept the band for that nails-on-the-chalkboard spot.

So, I plunked down the change on a 170 (basically a 193 with switchable polar patterns and a few other bells and whistles -- I mostly wanted the hypercardioid option), hoping beyond hope that it was the cure-all. Nobody had it in stock, so I had one sent in from across the pond.

Got it after a two-month delay. Put it on the boom, read a bunch of copy matching my earlier reference takes recorded on a 107 - the mic that previously seemed to sound most like me while not adding a lot of unwanted detail or harshness that I was picking up in the more expensive, industry-standard mics -- and then listened very carefully, over and over and over again. Guess what I discovered?

The amazing miraculous sibilance-cutter, custom-built and flown in from Germany wasn't that special. Frankly it just wasn't that much better at all. In fact, in terms of controlling sibilance, I'd say it was only better on 3 out of 5 reads. And, because of the specific range it scoops, it actually cut too much of the "presence" out of my reads, when compared to my earlier takes on the 107.

Believe me, I agonized over this for a long time. Because I spent a lot more for it and waited a lot longer for it, I reeeaaaalllly wanted it to make a noticeable difference. It just didn't. In the end, it just wasn't worth the price difference. The gain was negligible and the trade-off was significant. So, I returned the 170, less a not-so-cheap restocking fee.

The bottom line: Do your homework. Try as many mics as you can that are in the ballpark of what you're looking for. Set up lots of A/B tests to listen back to again and again and again. Then trust the heck out of your ears. Otherwise you'll be on an expensive, wild goose chase for an unproductively long time...like me.

Good luck and happy mic hunting!

John

[Philip Banks]

People paying us are paying for the performance so within reason if all the audio information is there almost anything can be fixed.

Buy the best sound for you in terms of performance skills
Buy the best room for you, dead and silent.
Buy a mic that picks up everything and ensure that you put some distance between you and it.

Recording levels need to be able to record you talking not blinking. Audio processing like cream and sugar in coffee is added once you're finished.

When ISDN became the thing for the people who used to travel around the UK doing local radio commercials a company formed to provide an all in one package. They supplied no pre-amp because phantom power was all that was needed and the mic was a TLM193. Everyone got the same thing. Most of the VO people who set up, in some cases well over 20 years ago, are still using the same package.

People spending $5,000 on a pre-amp do not hear what they are supposed to hear they hear what they want to hear.

[Buff-A]

.

I've owned (and compared side-by-side) most mics suggested for VO, and with that in mind I'd suggest trying/buying the Rode NT-1 (the new black one that came out in 2014 or so). It's super quiet, and to my ear it compares amazingly well to the Neumann TLM 103 and U87ai (each a bit different, but not so much that one would stand out as materially 'better' for VO work). I like it better than my CAD E-100S as well.

Of course, the NT-1 is BY FAR the least expensive mic I've found that can hold up in this league. Try it, you'll like it.

One other mic I REALLY like (though it's rarely talked about), is the Shure KSM42. It's built specifically as a 'vocal' mic, and Shure has really worked hard to pull out all the stops with this specific model. And when all the specs are factored in properly, it's arguably the quietest mic available (hard to explain the math, but you won't be able to find a mic that gives you less concern for self-noise in the final recording).

.

[Philip Banks]

Key to it all.

The secret of everything.

Signals.

A cheap mic may sound the same or not significantly better than a mic costing more than a MASSIVE YACHT! so why bother?

It is not so much your signal chain as the signals you send to the market. For $100 on Skype I'll explain why that along with the little squiggly bits contained therein are so important. Serious offer with no expectations of anyone reaching for the Paypal button to BUY NOW

Now, where was I? Oh yes, Bess, walk on beach time!

[Buff-A]

.
Your prospects might be thrilled to find that you can afford to employ the most expensive chunk of iron that's ever been dangled from a microphone cable, but...in this case we're talking about finding a mic that's going to solve a specific sonic problem.

When the problem is "appearing more authoritative," rather than sounding more so, then any mic above $3,000 will do just fine.

If it were against the law to reveal the microphone you use, then I suspect that 'expensive' mics would become very much harder to sell.

That being said, it's also probably true that you'd be more likely to give your best performance if you knew your mic had cost more than a 100' yacht.

.

[Philip Banks]

Few people have ever asked what mic I use, fewer care and ever fewer than the fewer few would know the significance.

Sonic problems for the most part can be solved by room and DFM (distance from mic). Of course many things that are "there" can be fixed in post by "thingies", not by me as I do not know what I am doing. What we can't do is put there what ain't there in the first place.

As for the "signals to market" that is a huge subject, even huger than "Spirit on the Rocks" my 250ft 20 berth MASSIVE YACHT. Skippered by the lovely Captain Olga Marinova.