| A | B | C | D | E | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Tubes | There is no such thing as a tube that is better for Voice over, there are better tubes for a particular circuit than another. It also depends on the tubes usage, and they are not all interchangeable - some may require circuit modification - do to filament voltage requirements etc... Don't confuse the High Gain less headroom - low gain more headroom information out there as a direct output/performer changer. You can get better performance from lets say a preamp that uses a 12ax7 by simply changing to a higher quality version of the same tube. So the question would be, what tube are you wanting to change, and in what device? and what are you expecting? Tell us the full story. Be sure it's NOS there is a company that is making Mullards with the original equipment. But it's not the equipment that makes the sound of the tube, it's the material in them. | ||||
2 | Tubes | Tubes descriptions are very subjective. But once you work and listen to them regularly, you will understand where these descriptions are coming from. I can say any new-old-stock tube generally sound much better than the modern versions. As I believe you are discovering. | ||||
3 | ||||||
4 | Tubes | Also understand that even the same tube made on the same day in the same factory can have a little different sound. With that beware that all Mullard's are not all the same either. Someone has purchased all the original equipment and is making them again. What they don't have, is the original source material that made up the old tubes- it the material that makes the sound of the tube not the machine. And thusly they are not the same tube, and some folks are selling them as the old tubes - BEWARE. | ||||
5 | ||||||
6 | Tubes | You should also know that all tubes are 'Musical'. | ||||
7 | ||||||
8 | Tubes | Think of musical as a violin player and his individual violin. There are no two player that are alike, and there are now two violins that are alike. The player can play an A note, but depending on how he pulls the bow across the string, dictates how that note sounds- aggressive or soft an mellow etc... And thusly, it is imperfections -the randomness the pull of the bow, the thickness of the string, the resonance of the violin itself, all these things make up the musicality of the player and violin. Now put 30 violinist in a orchestra and the musicality becomes even grater. Even if they are all play the same note, they don't all sound like one big violin, but they all work together and give you a big musical sound. | ||||
9 | ||||||
10 | Tubes | Compare that to a digital violin on a keyboard, were everything is clocked to the same digital beat. It's not quite the same as the real thing, it can be clean and brittle and not always pleasing to the ear. This is why Vince Clark said that would rather work with older keyboards like a MOGE, than with a MIDI keyboards, because they Vibrate differently and play better together. | ||||
11 | ||||||
12 | Tubes | Rolling tubes into preamps is something you must do yourself. Buy a tube or 4 and try them out. That's the only way you will understand what it is doing in your preamp. The voicings will will be a little different, but after you use a it for a while, you will begin to forget about those differences. It just becomes a lot like looking at a the same painting on the wall from different subtle positions. Looking straight at is nice, but stepping a foot or two to the left or right, it's not all that much different. What will be your biggest change, is kicking out those modern tubes and installing a good new old stock tube. | ||||
13 | ||||||
14 | Tubes | RCA Black Plates - nice fat lows with grit. Sylvania black plates (Top of the line) These have a nice sparkle in the highs. Telefunken is are very good for mics, nice and airy at the top end and a nice depth to the sound. Amprex, Siemens, Valvo, Lorenz are very nice- clean and even though out the spectrum ( this might be a good tube for you). This would be my first choice for any mic. Mullard (NOS), Genalex, Brimar -- All great tubes, very accurate with the human voice Look for "D" Getters ($$$). The Genalex are amazing, deep sound stage and very detailed. 12AT7 is the basic tube, 12AT7WA and 6201 are military grade versions and have higher standards and tend to be more constant from tube to tube. If you can find Sylvania Gold Brand versions of the 6201 get it, or any gold version of this tube (many of the above companies made gold versions). Also Look for: E81CC or ECC801S ( these are kind of rare but very good tubes very much like the RCA black plates) | ||||
15 | No, and like I said each tube is going to be a little different. And it depends on the circuit that the tube is in also, so listening to a sample may not tell you much. Besides rolling tubes must be done in person, trying to listen to the subtle differences over the internet is pointless. Taking a step up in Audio Quality requires taking a leap of faith. Either you are willing to do it or you are not. The one thing about a good Tube, you can always sell it and get your money back on ebay. I have most of the tubes that I listed in the High output versions (12AX7A and 12HB7A) and the descriptions that are on the page that Jacob posted are very accurate. If you can get find the a Gold Sylvania GET IT. But I love the Amprex and Siemens and I would recommend these for you as well as the Telefunken. If you want to just dip your toe in, then try the RCA gray plates, they are not as nice as the blacks but they are much better than any of the modern tubes, and a little cheaper. And let me point this out, tubes don't last forever, you'll always want 2 or 3 around anyway. | |||||
16 | Hey Steve, "Stock tubes" are not of the same "quality" as let's say a vintage NOS tube does. It has to do with the materials used to make the tubes. The new tubes work as intended, they just seem to lack that extra something on many levels. There are some Russian tubes that are very nice, but this can be hit and miss too. As for your Cranking of the 710, there should be some difference warmth and tone. | |||||
17 | ||||||
18 | ||||||
19 | ||||||
20 | ||||||
21 | ||||||
22 | ||||||
23 | ||||||
24 | ||||||
25 | Tubes | I love the crap out of tube gear-- BUT it's more of a romantic notion. Yeah, tube gear sounds great. If I'm trying to capture a vintage sound, I'll reach for a tube pre or put a tube pice of gear in the audio chain to get that color, but moistly I can get much of that same tone from a good class-A solid state preamp. Even Tube mics can be a bother, and a lot of engineers that get that kind of audio don't know what they've got or how to take advantage of it. They stomp all over it, and turn it into something completely different. Lance mentioned the M5 damn good pre, but it's a clean preamp, the TLM103 needs some good vintage color to balance it out. | ||||
26 | ||||||
27 | misc | When there has been a problem with the computer's power supply, it has made a difference. Let's consider that the voltage from USB is 5 volts DC. We are powering an interface a preamp, and in most cases a 48v phantom power supply. To get 48 volts from 5 volts means the power needs to be increased 9.6 times. SO if we are not getting exactly 5 volts form the USB port- let's say we are getting 4 volts: 4 x 9.6= 38.4 volts. With 38.4 volts we are getting to the limit at with most mics can operate properly. I also don't know many preamps that run on 5 volts either-- I would guess most would be running on 12 or 15 volts DC. (12÷5= 2.4) So if the USB power is 4 volts, and we need 12 volts: 4x2.4= 9.6 volts. With that kind of voltage drop I can guarantee you're going to have some problems. And we haven't even gotten to the interface yet. So you see you're going to have some performance problems with a weak USB power supply.Relying completely on your computers power supply to energize your Interface Preamp and Microphone is certainly not the way to go. If your all in one interfaces is capable of being powered by a wall wort power supply use it. Doing so will also improve the dynamic range of your recordings. | ||||
28 | ||||||
29 | quote | I'm almost tempted to do a Parkour video. . . almost. | ||||
30 | ||||||
31 | room | Yes installing drywall between the ceiling joist will add mass to the floor above, you can use green glue if you like. The big thing is caulking the joints between the drywall and the joist - if you want the secret sauce for that just PM me. The best thing you can do is record the room and understand how much isolation the room needs, understanding this will get you where you need to be. Once the walls are opened up then you can deal with the surprises. | ||||
32 | ||||||
33 | mics | The Crowley & Tripp "Roswellite" is now the Shure KSM353 and KSM313. It is not a bad mic, but for a little more I would rather have the Samar Audio Design MF65. http://recordinghacks.com/2011/08/16/ribbon-shootout-voiceover/ http://recordinghacks.com/2011/07/13/too-many-ribbon-mics/ | ||||
34 | ||||||
35 | headphones | There is not such thing as Best headphones, as there are no Best microphones, there may only be better. What I have discovered is that you find a set of headphones that are comfortable, something that you can wear for an extended periods of time. (90% of the time I listen through monitors, it's only when I'm doing focused/critical listening do I pop on the cans. Like speakers you need to understand how your headphones translate to other systems. Some like their cans to be very neutral, others like a little color, I just like a little extended upper frequency, with an overall balanced sound. | ||||
36 | ||||||
37 | quote | This was you doing some screwy voices for that demo thingy. | ||||
38 | ||||||
39 | Now work on bringing living breathing people to the microphone that have something to say. | |||||
40 | ||||||
41 | quote | That goes without saying. If the room sound like crud that $3500 mic is going to sound like two tin cans and a pice of string. | ||||
42 | ||||||
43 | Make sure the room is dialed in first. Then you at least have a chance of making a $400 mic sound pretty darn good. | |||||
44 | ||||||
45 | isdn | This is like having an full time employee or an assistant, there needs to be enough work to justify having one. Let's say a Zephyr box cost $4000.00: With 8 ISDN sessions at $500 each, and you are booking 5 session per week, the unit is paid for within the first two weeks. If you're only earning $250 per ISDN session, it will take 16 sessions to pay for the box, and at five gigs a week you can easily pay for the box within four weeks. This is way I have set the usage bar that I have, (actually someone else came up with that bar) because you not only have the cost of the unit, you also have the monthly service cost. The monthly service bill may not be a staggering amount, but if you're paying for something that you're using maybe once a month then why have it? Especially when you can use an outside studio and pay only the session fee- which often times the agency you're working for picks up. Sidebar [I know some talent that do 5 or more ISDN sessions a day. This of course makes this tool indispensable.] There are of course conditions that may justify the cost, such as there are no rental studios in you area that have ISDN. But if have a $4000 box, and you're only booking maybe one ISDN session a month, you need to consider the fact you are working for free on the those gig for the next two years or so. This would now be considered an investment with no immediate or guaranteed return or dividends- in short, a gamble. This is because you are paying yourself back over a period of time. The risk involved are: you will either blossom and grow, or it will become an overhead burden, and this rest on many factors. I think we all know this is a considerable investment, but I think it is better to make a smart investment, rather than one out of want or hope. Lastly, if our captains of telecommunications industry get off their butts and give the US enough digital bandwidth, like Japan, Europe and Scandinavia, we would not be worried about ISDN. Believe it or not-- There are fringe areas of LA that still do not have DSL via coper phone line or cable. The only connection to the internet is Dial up, satellite or G3 network - sometimes. Most disheartening. | ||||
46 | ||||||
47 | ||||||
48 | room | My first bit of advice is that whatever the room you use, make sure that it is fully dedicated to the function of the business, that it is indeed your "office." If the room needs to double as a guest room, what do you do when you need to use it for a last minute audition at 12 AM when guest are in there?? In these hurry up inconsiderate times, when every job counts- these things need to be considered. Also take advantage of the tax benefit of a fully dedicated home office. Doubling as a guest or laundry room, is a quick temporary solution. If this is truly your career you need to make it your career, that means a dedicated work space. Just my 2¢ on that. Once you figure out which room you want to use, you need to set your mic up in that room turn everything on in the house (TV, Hi Fi, dishwasher, AC, washer and dryer- anything that makes noise including flushing the toilets and running the shower) go into the room, close the door and record the room. Then we can listen to what you've got, and what you need to deal with. This is you possible daily reality. Long form narration is time consuming, and considering the pay, the first thing you want to do is make sure your room is as quiet and as efficient as possible to reduce punch ins and retakes because aunt Pauline flushed the toilet during the dysentery scene of King Rat. But you seem to understand this reality Bob. (This is for the benefit of other readers) Total isolation can be easy and reasonably affordable, or it can require a lot of work and money. It all boils down to what the problems are. Mid and high frequencies are somewhat easy to deal with, frequencies below 150Hz or so can be a real problem. Luckily we only need to get you free and clear to about 75 or 80 Hz, the rest can be EQed out. As for the window, changing it out can be a good solution, spendy but a solution. It also needs to be done right, without cutting corners. Often adding a glass storm window and sealing it, is enough cut down on a lot of the noise. And or covering the window hole from the inside with a 1/2 laminated piece of glass and sealing it will helps a lot too. Sometimes you find that after the window is sealed, that just as much of the noise is coming form the walls as the window. Windows that have more isolation STC's than the walls is a little pointless - if you know what I mean. Fireplaces are sound ducts to the outside world. So you may want to reconsider this room just for that reason. I would not bother trying to stick drywall to a hollow core door. Just remove it and the jamb, and replace it with a 20 minute fire door. I can give you more details on that if you contact me. If a lot of noise is being transferred through interior walls you may need to take some big steps to improve their STC performance. I hate to have you pull off the T&G pine. If it's not glued on you maybe able to pull it off and replace it. Some old homes that have wood paneling as finish walls do not have any plaster or drywall behind them, which is a bad thing for isolation. So you'll need to pull it off insulate double drywall and replace the wood (OR work from the other side of the wall). If there is drywall or plaster there, you can drill a few holes, blow some insulation into the cavity patch the holes and add a layer of drywall or quiet rock and refinish. --You won't know until you get there. | ||||
49 | room | When you're in a good smallish room like that and your ears pop when the door closes, usually it's because the room is air tight. Depending on which way the door closes it will either increase pressure or create a small vacuum. Oh, and your ears have always been ringing, the background noise was just masking it. | ||||
50 | ||||||
51 | pop filter | Wouldn't that be the minimum distance from which it stops breaths from popping the mic?? at what ever volume you're speaking. If the stopper was right up against the mic - let's say an inch or less- and I'm speaking softly. This distance should work well. But if I was pushing the words out hard, the stopper would not be as affective. As for the anomalies created by a pop stopper; these are not going to ruin a take like a good blast of air will. And just where is this data about air current frequency anomalies anyway?? Can anyone really hear them? If so why is everyone still using popper stoppers?? Seems like a lot of hype from high end/boutique pop stopper manufacturers to me. This is the stuff I think about late at night folks. | ||||
52 | ||||||
53 | pop filter | In a well treated room, 1 to 2 feet allows the voice to bloom, you'll get the full mix of the head, chest and mouth. The capsule of a condenser mic also does not get that gummy sound that so many (dare I say) less expensive mics can have- when working close. "The less mature capsules" as I call them. Note in the above pictures of Disney Stage B (the ADR stage), Doc Kane has 3 mics for ADR. Doc uses an array at the podium - generally a U87 for closeup, a TLM for medium shots, and a shotgun (possibly a Neumann, or MKH 70?) for distant ones; but thoughtfully adapts choices for each particular production's preferences and to match what was already used for location shots. He doesn't mute any of them, but records all three, favoring the one that best matches the scene as primary track for the particular cue. Re-takes are almost non-existent; he catches everything, from the moment you first step up to the stand. There is simply nobody else who quite comes up to his level of secure confidence and mastery of capturing dialog - the absolute Best in the biz. This could not be done in anything less than a well treated room. Stage B was were all the classic Disney dialog was done from 1940 to 1983 or so when they did the upgrade. | ||||
54 | pop filter | If you're still popping the mic, your mic and vocal technic is not perfected yet. Pop screens are safety nets, for the stray blast of air. | ||||
55 | ||||||
56 | processing | Normalizing only affect the highest peak to of that portion of audio. (everything is normalized to that peak- not that everything is raised to that peak level, but that peak is raised to let's say -3dBFS and the rest of the is raised or lowered in a linear fashion - like turning up the volume on the ration. The main body of the audio should be within 3dB's to make a real comparison. Our ears don't normally hear momentary peak loudness as being louder. This can only be done manually. If peaks distort then hard limiting can be applied. | ||||
57 | ||||||
58 | quote | You can be whoever you want to be. That's why I love the illusion. | ||||
59 | ||||||
60 | room | Just an FYI most professional control rooms are Reflection Free (dead) or have Reflection Free Zones (RFZ). The general goal of a Reflection Free Zone is to eliminate the early reflections. WHY? Because when direct sound from a speaker is accompanied by an echo that arrives within 20 milliseconds or less, our ears and brain are unable to distinguish the echo as a separate sound source. You may think it sounds great in your room, but because of the way our brain is wired, you can't hear how bad it really is. It's not a trick it's not an illusion- it's just how our brain works. This occurs at low volume as well as high volume; sound travels at the same speed no matter how loud it is. So to say the sound coming from your monitors is not effected, is just wrong. Even the sound bouncing off your desk colors and blurs the sound. So instead of sounding like an echo or general room ambience, the sounds coming from different directions combine, which obscures clarity and will blur the audio image. You can tell when your audio is panned all the way to the left or right, but the in-between positions are not as defined. Listening to audio in a Reflection Free Zone it is a lot like listening with headphones - audio sounds clearer, and sound elements placement in a stereo field are better defined or identified. One other reason for working in a RFZ is to control early reflections and to reduce comb filtering. This is a specific type of frequency response error that is caused when a source and its reflections are combine. Depending on the difference in arrival times, some frequencies are boosted and others are reduced. Thus making accurate adjustments with an EQ almost impossible, because you're adjusting to the frequency response error and not to what is actually coming form the speakers. My opinions may not be the end of the story, but what I offer comes for proven acoustical science. Yours is based on personal preference or conjecture. | ||||
61 | ||||||
62 | room | Before the ease and convenience of "at home" digital recording came along, there were professional studios. A great deal of money went into the gear for those studios- the microphones, mixers, preamps, recorders and processors of all types- these were the obvious expenditures. What was not so obvious, is the amount of money and effort that went into the recording space itself. The space you record in is just as important as the gear you use. Some may disagree, but it is true- 90% of your audios sound comes from the room you record in. If the the room sounds bad, you will sound bad. If you can hear the noise of the outside world bleeding into your recording space, you can be sure your microphone can hear it too, and then some. Some microphones like the Sennheiser 416 or Electrovoice RE20 are not cure-alls. Yes, they do have a wonderful side rejection of sound, but if the noise is filling the room, even these mics will pick it up. Though they do help, but are just band-aids. The first thing you need to do is seek out the quietest location in your house. This is usually a room or area farthest away form the street. In LA or any big city for that matter, there never seems to be a quiet place to record in. Though less then ideal, closets tend to be in the center of the house. Theses spaces are isolated by the homes other walls, and thusly helps reduce outside noise. Old leaky and drafty windows let in a lot of noise. If air can enter a room though a crack so can noise. This is the very principal of sound: the vibration or changes in air pressure. Sometimes I am required to seal/ plug windows off or eliminate them all together to stop the noise. And it can go as far as requiring construction, to modify the room with the addition of insulation in the walls or added layers of drywall. Caulking along the bottoms of walls at the floor to seal the cracks with a non harding caulk to stop the flow of air and the sound that comes with it. Yes, you'd be amazed at how much sound this simple step will eliminate. FACTOID: A one inch hole can let as much noise into a room as an open door. (Pull that one out at the next Rotary Club meeting) Yeah it can get expensive, but if you live in a noisy area, and you want to be in VO you need to take whatever means required to get yourself to a professional level, in terms of recording excellence. This means you are a single sound source in a room. But there are steps you can take to help eliminate and mitigate noise that are not so expensive as major construction. First, listen. Listen to your recordings for the buzzes, clicks, and the whirrs of machinery and fans. Sidebar: [It's best to listen with a good set of headphones. And it's sometimes best to listen to the recording in a different room or sound environment, so the sounds wont be masked by the sound itself. Car interiors are good for this- engine off of course.] Once you find those pesky noises, eliminate them, banish them from the room and house. Wood framed homes with wood subfloors can carry noise through the entire structure. Appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers (both the electric and the domestic kinds) will resonate the floor and the noise will travel throughout the entire house. (Wood transfers sound very well, that's why Stradivarius didn't make aluminum violins). Placing 1/2 inch or thicker, medium density neoprene foam pads under the feet of appliances can reduce sound greatly. ( There needs to be a balance of rigidity and compression. Too hard and the vibration will transfer, too soft and the machine is on the floor again.) Noise coming form the outside of the house are the most difficult to mitigate, and often require workarounds, like recording at night, long talks with the neighbors about their kids and dogs that include bribes of 75 year old scotch, exotic beers, prime cuts of beef and or cash payouts to keep them quiet. Some have also resorted to tranquilizer darts, and buying out the ice cream mans entire stock just to keep him off the street. Trash day becomes paperwork day and gardeners are generally in and out so fast, I can't figure out why anyone pays them. I'm of course half kidding about the solutions, but some have taken extreme measures to deal with outside noise. Bottom line if there is a will there is a way. And the right way is the best way, and the most cost affective. Find the problem and eliminated it. If you can't eliminate it bigger steps need to be taken. After all you're efforts, you may get to a point were the addition of noise gates can be most effective. But like a sad clown after the circus has burned down, I frown upon these devices and plugins- their after effects can often be worse than the noise itself. This is a process of recording listening, taking action, recording again to see if that sound is eliminated. Then move onto the next sound, until they are all gone. Once the noise is gone, then you can treat the rooms acoustics. and that is another story for another day. | ||||
63 | ||||||
64 | ||||||
65 | ||||||
66 | monitors | Ok you want to take the plunge and get a set of monitors for your home studio. So you run down to your local "Shiny Stuff Center" or "Audio Boutique" and you walk into a room with a wall full of speakers of all shapes and sizes and prices and you begin to spin. In comes the friendly commission hungry salesperson, who normally works in the drum department, who is going to sell you a set of "speakers" as he calls them. Studio Monitors (Reference Speakers)- When choosing studio monitors for your home studio it's important to know that these monitors are not supposed to provide a rich audio experience, as you would expect from a hi-fi music system. Studio monitors are designed to provide an accurate image of whatever sound source you are listening to, so you can hear exactly what is going on in your production. When you hear the phrases "flat frequency response" or "uncolored sound", this is what they mean. The speakers tell the "cold hard truth" about your mix. Studio monitors are also known as reference speakers, as that is exactly what they should provide. A "reference" sound. And that might be the most important point in choosing studio monitors. How they sound in reference to other sound systems. Most high-end home "speaker systems" are set up for theoretical flat response in anechoic chambers and other details that impress the hi-fi buffs. And in the real world, most people who are listening (rather than mixing) fiddle with their EQ settings to make the music sound the way they want to hear it. And they rarely sit a three to 5 feet away from both speakers at once as we generally do when mixing. Near-field monitors are made to reproduce music in your studio in such a way so that when you hear it sounding good, it will sound good on boom boxes, stereo systems, and truck radios too. This is why an important part of mixing is to test and learn how the sound transfers or translates to other systems- so really get to know your speakers. Believe me, this has great impact on the end result of your mix. When you finish a mix, take it and play it on as many different systems that you can; the car, home theater, boom box and the like . Make notes, and understand how what you do in the studio translates on other systems. Near-field studio monitors- In home recording studios the most common type are Near-field or close-field monitors. They are designed to be listened to from about 3 to 5 feet away at with the tweeters, level to your ears. Listening from this distance will make poor room acoustics somewhat less important, but near field refections, comb filtering and room resonance, will effect the sound coming out. Especially if you are siting in a null. An expression you may come across related to monitoring sound is "sweet spot". This is the spot exactly in the middle between the speakers, where you will hear the full stereo image. It might read in studio monitor descriptions that they have a "large sweet spot". This means that you can move your head around and still be able to hear the full stereo sound. This is also known as a "uniform off-axis response". Active vs. Passive monitors- You also have to choose between active and passive speakers. Active speakers, a.k.a. powered or bi-amplified speakers, have a built in power amplifier inside its casing. Unpowered/passive monitors do not. Active studio monitors have some advantages over passive ones. They save space, as they don't need that extra amplifier. The amp is matched to the speaker so you don't have to worry about your external amp not matching your speaker frequencies. Don't go in thinking you need huge monitors. Most home studios are no bigger then you spare bedroom (about 10x12). For this size room you only need a monitor with a 5.5" base and dome tweeter. Also with powered monitors you don't need to worry about matching impedance between the monitors and the amp. Buying Monitors- You almost have to use published reviews to narrow things down to 2 or 3 competing systems in your price range, because experienced reviewers have tried the monitors while mixing, whereas any Jo Schmoe with a computer can post "these things sound awesome"...oblivious to whether that sound translates to mixes. Again, the important thing is not do they sound cool, but do they mix well! I suggest bringing CDs to the store that you're familiar with, and at least one that "everyone" agrees is well-mixed. Here's a good list: Elton John - Goodbye Yellow Brick Road The Beatles - White Album Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik The Who - Who's Next Traveling Wilburys - Volume 1 The audio chain should be: CD player, mixer, amp speaker- That's it, no EQ, no processors. Assuming that you're listening to monitors that have been well-reviewed for mixing, I'd listen for clarity and shimmer and good bass tones, and I wouldn't want to hear distortion, buzzing, or excess thumping. Make sure you hear good stereo imaging in more than just one tiny "sweet spot"...you don't want to have to keep your head still forever while mixing. Crank it up and turn it down. Good speakers can take the former without flinching (make sure that nothing rattles or buzzes, even at VERY LOUD VOLUMES) and will sound good (although you won't hear everything) at lower volumes too. When you hear good monitors, instruments may jump out at you without warning, you may hear subtle things you never heard before, or hair may suddenly grow in strange places on your body. But they won't necessarily make you want to dance, because they don't emphasize frequencies at either end of the spectrum (or the middle, for that matter) the way "listening speakers" tend to do. | ||||
67 | processing | Quote: Where to do the high-pass filtering? Generally Mic Rolloff Switches were once intended to be used when mics are used out doors, particularly on windy days, or if you are in a very boomy room or there are any low frequency noise in the background, the rolloff can cut most of that out. Personally I've never used a mic's rolloff switch, I will use the rolloff on a mixer before I use a mic's. Why? That's just me, and I know the frequency rolloff of the mixer better then I do all the mics. Let's understand, there is noting useful in the human voice below 80Hz, if you hear a difference in your vocals when you use an 80 or 75Hz highpass or rolloff, more than likely it is room resonance and bass build up, and your room needs treatment. If we use compression on vocals, we want to use a Highpass or rolloff before the audio goes into the compressor, so the compressor does not "Pump" or compress to the powerful bass frequencies. Quote: And is this a hard-and-fast rule, or does it depend on the equipment.? No, just do what sounds good: Record, Listen, and Compare your audio files. Learn what sounds good and what does not. If you need help, run it by us. Quote: a) you don't want to do the filtering on more than 1 outboard device If you can do that, and have the proper gear and it sounds good - do it out board first. I've always said, develop your sound outside the computer first. One you're all dialed in, all you need to do is simply record, do a few edits and go. Quote: b) you want to do the filtering at first item in the chain (the mic if it has one; otherwise the pre-amp). Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Just do what sound the best. I generally roll off after the preamp, before it goes into an outboard compressor. If you are going directly into the DAW you can rolloff before it goes in. Or you can do it in the DAW. General rule of thumb: Anytime you want to take away something do it before the compressor If you want to add something (EQ boost echo etc..) do it after the compressor. Quote: Are these both ALWAYS true, and if not, when/why not? Nothing is right or wrong- there may be a better way of doing something but there is never a Best Way. Do what sounds good to you. Quote: I guess in normal conditions, it is rumble and vibrations that is best to filter out those. Of course!! that goes without saying. Quote: do the (tube-ish) mic pre's possibly create some noise at the low end that should be attenuated at the pre or at the mixer? Depends. Sometimes they can add roundness and fullness, they can be tubby, sometimes they can sound thin. BUT they only work with the frequencies that are given to them. If pushed tubes can even create there own compression, which gives the illusion of more bass, but it's only the compression increasing the quieter parts. That's what compression does. | ||||
68 | quote | If you're on a budget you need to work harder at getting better sound. This has always been the case. You learn the tricks to get better audio, then when you've pushed your gear to its maximum then you start looking for better gear. That's how I learned and that's how most every engineer I know has learned. Step by step. | ||||
69 | processing | I'm guessing that the 'coloring or augmenting' you speak of would be an undesirable thing, right? Yes, it can be. It would be like mixing different wines in the same glass. What you have will still be wine, but the complexities of each will be lost and may not be as enjoyable as the each of the wines on there own. Let's then look at compressors. Compressors, for all intent a purposes, are amplifiers. These amplifiers can be clean to colored. A compressors like the LA2A for example are cherished for the tone and sound that they bring to the mix. Just running a signal through the LA2A without compression will add an extra dimension to the audio. BUT let's understand something. Compressors are designed to take line level in, and that's the diffrence. So if you're running the audio from let's say the GAP, into the DBX 286a you may get louder but you may not get anything special. There can also be impedance problems because you are feeding line level out from one pre into what it normally mic level impedance, things can load up and distort or create other problems - like hiss or noise. Levels can get very hot and distort, again not a good thing. Can you do it? SURE. But not me. | ||||
70 | mics | For VO, 99.44% of the time you'll only need a Cardioid pattern. With a Hyper Cardioid patter, you're going to get a tighter focus - like that of a shotgun mic. Each of the patterns of the CS5 will give you a different sound. What the CS5 has to offer more than anything, is that the capsule has a smoother sound, compared to the C1. Now we can send you on all kinds of wild goose chases. But the they only way you are going to understand, is to try it out for yourself. With that said, I would stay where you are, make your interface and preamp choice, then go for a mic upgrade after that if you need to. | ||||
71 | ||||||
72 | quote | We are actors, not trained seals working for ice cram after every trick. | ||||
73 | quote | It sounds pedestrian, and rather dull | ||||
74 | misc | Some people claim they have latency issues but I have never come across that in my travels. Most of the issues can be centered around improper settings, driver issues, the computer or the operator. Firewire is the way to go if you can get it. | ||||
75 | room | This cycle of "I'm not happy with my mic" stuff will go on and on until you implement the acoustical changes in your room. Believe me you're not the first guy to come here looking for that magic tube to pop into his mic. There is no such thing, it does not exist. The simple truth is 90% of our sound comes from the room we record in, if you room sounds like crap your audio will sound like crap. It's just that easy. | ||||
76 | tubes | You can spend a lot of time and money rolling tubes to find the right one. And at the end of the day you're only going to be a fraction to the left or right of where you are now. And in a month you'll forget there ever was a difference. Believe me I've spent a lot of money on tubes. ( Though there is a difference from NOS and the new chinese tubes) If you want a good tube get a 6922 Amperex Holland and call it a day. It's spendy, but it's a damn good tube. | ||||
77 | ||||||
78 | room | Mike's point that room treatment is important is valid, but I'm also of the opinion that at lower levels, nearfields aren't as affected by room modes and standing waves as larger speakers are. And if you're really in doubt, pop on a pair of decent headphones (Senn HD280s, here). I don't want to have to say this, but that is just wrong and bad information. How do you think I test studios?- Oh nothing, just nearfield monitors. "Acoustics are counter-intuitive. If one thing is certain about acoustics, it is that if anything seems obvious it is probably wrong." What may be working out in your room, may not be working in someone else's room. Every, and I mean every room needs acoustical treatment. The mix area does not need to be as heavily treated as the the booth (unless both and mix area are one in the same) but I can guarantee most everyone's mix area needs acoustical treatment. Here is an example of a proper set up for a mix area: ~ Standing waves are controlled using absorption wideband and bass traps and or diffusion. ~ Speaker should be far enough away from walls to avoid bass-reesonace proximity effect ( yes speakers can create proximity effect). ~ Walls and ceiling should be treated to absorb first reflections. ~ Mixing positon should be symmetrical from left to right. IF you are just editing your vocal tracks, you can get away with minimal treatment. If you're doing production -full tilt or otherwise- you will be well served by treating your mix area. | ||||
79 | room | Just an FYI most professional control rooms are Reflection Free (dead) or have Reflection Free Zones (RFZ). The general goal of a Reflection Free Zone is to eliminate the early reflections. WHY? Because when direct sound from a speaker is accompanied by an echo that arrives within 20 milliseconds or less, our ears and brain are unable to distinguish the echo as a separate sound source. You may think it sounds great in your room, but because of the way our brain is wired, you can't hear how bad it really is. It's not a trick it's not an illusion- it's just how our brain works. This occurs at low volume as well as high volume; sound travels at the same speed no matter how loud it is. So to say the sound coming from your monitors is not effected, is just wrong. Even the sound bouncing off your desk colors and blurs the sound. So instead of sounding like an echo or general room ambience, the sounds coming from different directions combine, which obscures clarity and will blur the audio image. You can tell when your audio is panned all the way to the left or right, but the in-between positions are not as defined. Listening to audio in a Reflection Free Zone it is a lot like listening with headphones - audio sounds clearer, and sound elements placement in a stereo field are better defined or identified. One other reason for working in a RFZ is to control early reflections and to reduce comb filtering. This is a specific type of frequency response error that is caused when a source and its reflections are combine. Depending on the difference in arrival times, some frequencies are boosted and others are reduced. Thus making accurate adjustments with an EQ almost impossible, because you're adjusting to the frequency response error and not to what is actually coming form the speakers. My opinions may not be the end of the story, but what I offer comes for proven acoustical science. Yours is based on personal preference or conjecture. | ||||
80 | mics | The capsule of an early U87 were PVC, the new capsules are Mylar, which accounts for the darker sound of the original. Also the PVC has a shorter self life than the Mylar. Many older U87 have had new capsules installed, I know of a pair of Original U87's here in LA that are just fantastic- of course a lot of it has to do with the transformers in the mixer too. But over all, without a side by side comparison you would be hard pressed to hear the difference. One final note. The electronics in a U87 have seen about 10 changes over the years, but they all sound pretty darn close. Not to bad for hand built mic. | ||||
81 | gear | G.A.S. or "Gear Acquisition Syndrome" can be a very serious problem. If you do make a preamp upgrade, you may want to do an interface upgrade too- if not now, at least at some point down the road. As we move along and we begin to have a greater understanding and hear things in our audio, we naturally want to upgrade, and that is a good thing. Going for another "cheep" up grade would not be an up grade. With that said the DBX is a good piece of gear that will go a long way, and would be better than what you have at the moment, at an affordable price. The DBX will feed the the hungry RE 20 and is more than enough for the NT1-a. | ||||
82 | ||||||
83 | mics | It might be good to understand that this Telefunken company is not the original Telefunken of Germany. This is TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik, and has only been around since 2001, and located in South Windsor Connecticut in the good ol' US of A. They have exclusive rights to manufacture and sell replicas of the original Telefunken mics, to over 27 countries. Every mic is hand built in the USA, only the capsule and the power supply of the AR51 are made offshore . Personally, I would not be worried about the Chinese capsule. Over the past few years the Chinese have become quite adept at making capsules. The capsules also receive 3 levels of quality control before they go into the mic. With any mic, even a clone, we know that there are going to be some differences to the sound - we expect that. Every capsule is going to sound different, no matter where they come from, because there are many kinds of capsule, made in many different ways. The art of microphone design, is to take a capsule, whether it cost $100 or $800, and make it sound the way you want it to. In this case they wanted to make an more affordable mic that sounded something like the $9,000 ELA M 251 E, and they achieved that goal. They did this by using a less expensive capsule, tuning and mounting the electronics onto a PC board vs. "point to point" like in the ELA M251, and moving the pattern switching to the power supply, thus eliminating a very costly and complicated part. Yeah, you cold get the German capsule version of the AR51, but in the end, it would cost you about $5000.00. Here are some nice samples: http://proaudiotoys.com/AudioTests/TubeMicsComparison_3-29-2010/ | ||||
84 | ||||||
85 | blog intro | Howdy Folks! Well, here it is, my first headlong dive into the Blogosphereteria. "To all who come to this happy place: Welcome. The Voice Over Audio Blog is your blog....." Oh wait.. that's the Disneyland dedication... (head smack) Silly me. This should be more like it- There is nothing more confusing than entering into field, such as Voice Over, and find yourself thrown headlong into a technology that you know very little, if any anything about. Even those folks that come from radio, I find are full of misunderstandings and preconceived notions, as to what it takes to make a good audio recording. And what to do with it, once they get it. Here, I hope to present my years particle use, insights and understanding of audio recording, my knowledge of Voice Over studio design, along with bringing much of the confusing information together from other sources, and lay them out in simple, digestible and understandable chunks (with gravy). Along some good old fashioned entertainment, and commentary when I can find it or muster it up. I will try to focus a great deal on acoustics, the most important and most confusing sciences of them all- in regards to recording. I'll just point out that even NASA had a difficult time of interpreting information from a test that they had conducted almost twenty years ago. So it's easy to understand that some Studio engineers don't understand how complex it really is, and how often they hand out poor, yet well intentioned advice. Though I know many studio owners and engineers that do hand out great information, but there is very little chance that you will ever meet these folks, because their studios are far too expensive for VO to be recorded in. So, sit back and relax, and don't afraid to ask questions if you don't understand something. I'm hear to help, and I don't bite. Be well, and enjoy, Mike Sommer | ||||
86 | blog ipad | A few weeks ago, there was a discussion on one of the VO boards in regards to the iPad, as a portable recording device. There were a great deal of opinions, but they all seemed too eager to spend money on things they don't really need. I say this because, many of whom don't even have a proper demo yet, let alone the need to record on the road. Here is what I had to say about that: There is no doubt that the iPad will someday become the electronic equivalent of the Chevy big/small block engine, that faithfully powers most everything from boats to saw mills. The key word here is, SOMEDAY. For as wonderful and amazing as Apple products are, the company is notorious for taking 2 or 3 generations to get a product completely dialed in. And the third party component manufactures know this. I'll also say, that our own good judgement is often trumped by our need to have the latest and greatest gadget. Do we not remember the rush to adopt the iPod or iPhone as a portable recording device just months ago? I do. I though it was silly then, and I think that it is silly now. How portable do we need to be? Sure the iPad is sleek and powerful. But at the moment, I consider it a toy, a novelty, a convenience device to have at you side while on the couch to distract you from the boring reality show on the TV, as you post your latest thoughts on Facebook, or to check your emails for the fifteenth time, in as many minuets, for auditions. Yes, the device is a wonder, but I wonder, do we really need another device? If you already have a laptop, you already have a great portable device to record and send your auditions on, whether it be Mac or PC. For the Laptop owner, your "on-the-road-rig" can be a small and simple as an Apogee Duet or Duet 2 (for the Mac) or Mic Port Pro, or your favorite interface, along with your Microphone. The thing is, keep it simple. The more stuff you need to rely on, the more the chances are you will have something that will fail. There are several companies that are developing interfaces for the iPad, my money is on Apogee -though I believe the Apogee "Mic" will be a swing on miss, simply because it will limit the user to a single microphone choice. Apogee is already working on a interface for the new Thunderbolt wire connection, that will replace Firewire on most every computer in the near future. When a Thunderbolt port is incorporated into the iPad we will know we have arrived. Bottom line is, you can have all the latest and greatest 'Stuff', but the fact remains "most in VO" have a hard enough time getting good audio from their home. So how can you truly be expected to get good audio on the road? Well, one needs to first learn how to use what they have and prefect the techniques of making good audio while recordings at home. All the slick gadgets, and great sounding equipment in the world, is not going to make you sound any better, because great sounding crappola is still crappola. So once you learn what is needed and how to get good audio in your home studio, you can then take it on the road. My advice, use the tried and true like a laptop computer. Let the early adaptors spend their money, and stumble around in the dark. Once the bugs are all worked out of these new devices, the on line posts will read, "Have you tried this? This is the greatest thing ever." Not, "How do I make this thing work?" Oh, and for you Mac enthusiast, the Macbook Air is the best possible world between the iPad and a Macbook Pro. Though personally, I would rather have the MacBook Pro. | ||||
87 | ||||||
88 | blog apogee | Earlier this year Apogee eliminated their Firewire Duet from their line up. This is a tactical move for Apogee, to take advantage of Apple's recent Firmware update that increases the speed of USB2. Though we are talking milliseconds here, USB2 is now faster than Firewire. Apple also introduced Thunderbolt© (TB) a very fast PCIe connection (twice as fast as Firewire), and begins Apples slow phase out of its once darling Firewire connection. Thus seeing the writing on the wall, Apogee dropped the Duet (firewire) like a hot potato. Apogee now has two USB interfaces the Apogee One, and the Duet2. Now the question on the minds of confused consumers is: What should I get? Well that would be difficult to answer, but I believe the Apogee One will either get a small upgrade, or get dropped. The Apogee ONE was always priced as a good quality budget minded device, next to it's higher quality Firewire Duet sister. The Apogee One at $250, sits near the middle of the $100 to $300 preamp/interface combo Pack. And at $500 and $600, the Duet and the Duet2, both sit at the lower-middle tier of the $300 to $1000 preamp/interface combo group. The problem a lot of people had and have with the Apogee One, is that it can be a little noisy and not as refined as the Duet1. The ONE has always been a good budget minded device. When you take the time to read the the on-line literature regarding the ONE it says, "ONE features a world-class microphone preamp... Based on the award winning mic preamps in Apogee's Ensemble and Duet" The key word here is BASED. The Apogee One components are indeed different, and its price reflects that. The talk from the hep kids on the streets, is that Apogee is developing a new device that will take advantage of Apple's new Thunderbolt© wire connection. This will in effect, make such a new Apogee device an external PCI sound card. Though Duet1 is a fine device, and in some aspects Duet 2 is an upgrade, depending where you are coming from. The one problem that I and others had with the Duet1, was a headphone "Latency issues" that did pop up from time to time- but was always fixable. With Mac's Firmware update for USB2, speeds were greatly improved, so apogee is able to take advantage of that. Here are some (roundtrip) latency numbers: FW duet 32 buffer @ 96kkHz = 4.6 ms 64 buffer @ 44.1kHz = 7.23 ms USB2 duet 32 buffer @ 96kkHz = 3.6 ms 64 buffer @ 44.1kHz = 5.3 ms (To take advantage of this you need to have a Mac with Core 2 Duo or later, and current Firmware and OS updates. If not you'll be getting around 8.7 ms.) A Thunderbolt duet would conceivably be: 32 @ 96HZ = 1 ms -or something like that. The D2 converters are on par with Apogee's Rosetta, this is an upgrade from D1, the preamps are improved also. The D2 sounds cleaner and more transparent than the D1. You may need to use the external power supply when using power-hungry condenser mics. This tells me that the power supply will be a must in any at home home setup, and while on the road. If find this true with any USB interface, and you will get an improved dynamic range when using an external power supply with USB or Firewire devices. (Some folks are reporting a small hum for their D2 power supply units) The new Maestro2 program that controls the Duet2, is a big improvement and adds more functionality and is easier to use. Over all the D2 is a noticeable improvement from the D1, it has a pristine/clean sound over that of the D1, and this can be a problem for some people. Espeicly if your recording environment is less than perfect. The strength/problem with getting the best hi-end mics and pres ad/da convertors is that it will always magnify any flaws in the source - thereby making it harder to mask any weakness in the performance /audio chain. So in some cases, an inferior/more colored signal chain may suit a particular source better than a 100% pristine clean front end/signal path like the D2. Clean audio isn't always best. Hence the need or love for vintage audio gear. Digital is best at capturing the sound without color/distortion - pure sound is akin to "lifeless" "digital" "boring" in some cases. To best maximize the benefits of the Duet2 add a tube mic or a Golden Age Pre 73 preamp and you'll be rocking it. No doubt there are better convertors and pres than Apogee, however, if you compare the price to quality ratio, Apogee seems to be a real winner here, especially for a bare bones VO set up. UPDATE: I know these two videos have nothing to do with VO, but they do show off the Duet 2's clarity and bigger soundstage. This first video compares the Duet 2 with the $1800 Apogee Rosetta 800: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1gYvvAI_NA Next the Duet 1 vs. Duet 2-- Bounce between the examples for a good side by side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gyqiwxJY4w To be fair, do not read the following until you've heard the two videos for yourself, I do not want to color your judgment.:: [ From the first note I heard a more open sound. For some people that don't have great treatment or isolation, this may not be a good thing when recording, but for mixing it is a must.] |