Hi Letouch.
Let's just talk signal chain to begin with
Here's what you did. Gate, EQ, Comp, normalize, comp.
First, normalize isn't necessary. The only thing it does is calculate the highest peak and level the track up to a set threshold. You are processing your track for nothing because you used a compressor after which changed the level again...

Try this : Gate (a bit slower release than you have), EQ (Same but a bit more bottom), compressor and limiter to avoid digital peaks.

Compressor vs Limiter ;

Actually a compressor and limiter does the same job and most compressor can do both. The only difference is that the limiter will act harder on the signal to avoid going over a certain threshold.
Most mastering jobs will use a limiter at the end of the signal chain as a safety precausion and to do the last level lift.
Both compressor and limiter can kill a performance by removing the dynamics, but used well they can help to get a better focus

pcrecord, post: 449017, member: 46460 wrote: Compressor vs Limiter

Not really sure what a limiter is , is that what the way I did " second compression " is called ?

pcrecord, post: 449016, member: 46460 wrote: Hi Letouch.
Let's just talk signal chain to begin with
Here's what you did. Gate, EQ, Comp, normalize, comp.
First, normalize isn't necessary. The only thing it does is calculate the highest peak and level the track up to a set threshold. You are processing your track for nothing because you used a compressor after which changed the level again...

Try this : Gate (a bit slower release than you have), EQ (Same but a bit more bottom), compressor and limiter to avoid digital peaks.

I just edited my gate release to 125ms and my EQ up to 50hz instead of 40. '

Also, after I normalized, I barely touched the audio with the Camtasia studio compression. I can literally see the audio change as I use the editing tools. The only parts of the audio even TOUCHED by the compressor there were the abnormal peaks, which I didn't completely get rid of either. Then I added 2dB ( it felt right at the time ). After that, I brought up my audio by an actual percentage rather then dB. When bringing up audio with dB, it goes through the compressor in Camtasia, but when it's a percentage, it's not touched by it. Lastly, I see many views on normalization. It changes the audio so that you don't need to turn up the volume when I speak softly or turn it down when I'm loud, it kinda brings it all together. So if I'm recording to put something in my demo, I should have my audio normalized right ? If I was recording for a client and he wanted the audio ready to be taken straight into whatever it's going to be used for, they would want it normalized correct ?

Before I had a video on a famous voice actors demo made in a studio using the MKH 416. I wanted to see it, so I downloaded the video and looked at it in Camtasia Studio, and I edited it to get out only the demo itself at the end.

Edit : I was talking about the audio ^ , but I realized I was looking at the wrong thing.

Anyway, since it was done in a studio, I'm assuming that this is good audio and mixing ? How do people get audio like this ?! What's separating my audio from that audio ?

Also, for about 2 seconds, 1:37-1:38, there's the least amount of music and you can see/hear the wave forms of mainly just his voice if that's important.

This is one done with the recommended settings. It's also been normalized. I made another one not normalized to post, but I ended up having processed it wrong and didn't save the RAW file.
 

Nice work, I haven't been following your threads.

So, based on me coming in on this thread now, I would tame the tightness on some of your words like "discover... " HD... sounds a bit exaggerated and edgy to me but other than me being picky, you really have a good sound.
I loaded this last track into my DAW, used a HPF until the low mids started sounding smoother.I would probably do that but a Mastering Engineer would be a good move once you are done.

Nice work

Lelouch, post: 449033, member: 50238 wrote: How do people get audio like this ?! What's separating my audio from that audio ?

There are several factors involved with VO quality, (or quality of any type of recordings) - the mics, the preamps, the acoustics of the environment, top level processing and conversion, the knowledge of the engineer - and, not the least of which is the natural timbre and resonance of the VO performer.
Some people just inherently have great-sounding voices for VO work - James Earl Jones, Martin Sheen, Blythe Danner, David McCullough, ... and of course, the great Don LaFontaine ( R.I.P.).

But you can bet that these performers were also recording in studios where the gear was stellar - great microphones -(and of which there was also a nice selection of )- along with great sounding preamps such as Neve, SSL, API, etc., and in spaces that were very well-tuned for this type of work. And, they had a skilled engineer at the helm.

All of that matters - a lot.

audiokid, post: 449035, member: 1 wrote: I loaded this last track into my DAW, used a HPF until the low mids started sounding smoother.I would probably do that but a Mastering Engineer would be a good move once you are done.

I see, at what Hz did you set the HPF till it sounded smooth ? I also really don't want to go through the trouble of hiring a Mastering Engineer !

DonnyThompson, post: 449040, member: 46114 wrote: There are several factors involved with VO quality, (or quality of any type of recordings) - the mics, the preamps, the acoustics of the environment, top level processing and conversion, the knowledge of the engineer - and, not the least of which is the natural timbre and resonance of the VO performer.
Some people just inherently have great-sounding voices for VO work - James Earl Jones, Martin Sheen, Blythe Danner, David McCullough, ... and of course, the great Don LaFontaine ( R.I.P.).

But you can bet that these performers were also recording in studios where the gear was stellar - great microphones -(and of which there was also a nice selection of )- along with great sounding preamps such as Neve, SSL, API, etc., and in spaces that were very well-tuned for this type of work. And, they had a skilled engineer at the helm.

All of that matters - a lot.

I agree, but I mean mixing wise more then anything. I use an HP Pavilion x360 outside the " studio ". It has a Beats Audio mixer that I CAN'T turn off. When I hear my audio, it sounds COMPLETELY different ( for the worse ) then what I hear over the headphones through the interface. But when I hear something someone else made like the file up there called " Someone Elses Demo ! ", sure it sounds different .. But the audio still sounds great ! Is this due to EQ ?

BTW ^ That recording I mentioned was also done with the MKH 416. Different interface though obviously.

Lelouch, post: 449060, member: 50238 wrote: I see, at what Hz did you set the HPF till it sounded smooth ? I also really don't want to go through the trouble of hiring a Mastering Engineer !

In general, the way I use hpf... go up until you hear it removing unwanted low end, then come back down a touch and its just right. That's of course, easier said than sometimes done. I know what I "don't want to hear".

I rolled your track off to about 100 hz. I hear a boominess that is in your vocal which is partially ( guessing) is a bit to do with gear. Easily fixed using that hpf.
Mastering engineers are not expensive. They are also a second set of ears which is a critical component to finishing sound. I'm thinking $25 for something that simple.

These are only suggestions though. I think you are well on your way to perfecting your craft.

audiokid, post: 449063, member: 1 wrote: In general, the way I use hpf... go up until you hear it removing unwanted low end, then come back down a touch and its just right. That's of course, easier said than sometimes done. I know what I "don't want to hear".

I rolled your track off to about 100 hz. I hear a boominess that is in your vocal which is partially ( guessing) is a bit to do with gear. Easily fixed using that hpf.
Mastering engineers are not expensive. They are also a second set of ears which is a critical component to finishing sound. I'm thinking $25 for something that simple.

These are only suggestions though. I think you are well on your way to perfecting your craft.

Thanks ! Once I'm back with my equipment on Monday, I'll try the HPF in Reaper at about 100Hz to see what that sounds like . And I guess I may hire one for when I finish recording my demos, but I wouldn't want to rely on one every time I record something for a client, you know ?

Lelouch, post: 449070, member: 50238 wrote: I wouldn't want to rely on one every time I record something for a client, you know ?

If you are the recording engineer, then having someone good master your work will be positive step you. Add the small fee into your costs. If you are just doing this as a hobby, then I agree. If you are wanting to build a solid reputation in this industry, always have a second person master it. Read up on mastering and why its so important to have some master your work.
Its not that you can't, its that you shouldn't.

audiokid, post: 449071, member: 1 wrote: If you are the recording engineer, then having someone good master your work will be positive step you. Add the small fee into your costs. If you are just doing this as a hobby, then I agree. If you are wanting to build a solid reputation in this industry, always have a second person master it. Read up on mastering and why its so important to have some master your work.
Its not that you can't, its that you shouldn't.

Well, this is something I'm taking up now to hopefully be able to do as a living ( far fetched and probably wont happen ). But I'v personally seen the successful VO actors at home do the processing themselves. Usually a client wont have the ears to hear the difference between a pro mastered and simple basic processing I suppose ? Anyway, unless I get a big client who specifically asks for great mastering, I suppose it's not always needed ?

Lelouch, post: 449032, member: 50238 wrote: Not really sure what a limiter is , is that what the way I did " second compression " is called ?

I though I just explained it... it's named Limiter because it limits the signal from passing a thresold level. (a compressor with very high ratio if you want)

Lelouch, post: 449034, member: 50238 wrote: This is one done with the recommended settings. It's also been normalized. I made another one not normalized to post, but I ended up having processed it wrong and didn't save the RAW file.
 

I know your goal is to get noticed and be hired.
I think the sound in the best hd mp3 is good enough to accomplish your goal.

The performance could be better tho. Be more engaging, have more energy and a faster pace (if you simulate a publicity)
On the technical side of things, I think you are forcing your voice in an unnatural way. Pushing the sound to get a lower voice is ok, but I think you are forcing it too deep in the throat. (specially in the first part of the file.) On the long run you could damage your vocal cords and it doesn't sound natural.
I know most wanted voice over artists have deep voice, but for most of them it's natural.. they talk like that without forcing it.
I'd like to hear you do something with your natural voice, like if we were to talk together on the street.

pcrecord, post: 449075, member: 46460 wrote: I'd like to hear you do something with your natural voice, like if we were to talk together on the street.

+1
And, not every VO you do will require ( or be wanted by the client) that you have that "deep" voice; that at times sounds very forced on your part.
If you want to get work, You have to be able to do more than always sound like the same VO artist, or the ones whom you look to for reference.
There are times you'll be required to be "conversational", times where you'll want to smile while you are reading the ad copy ( yes, you can "hear" a smile), other times they may want a more serious or intimate tone.
You're gonna get a lot more work if you're not a one-trick pony. Stretch out, try reading an owner's manual, or tell a joke, or act like you're just talking to someone. Write your own mock-up ad copy for The Red Cross, or a Funeral Home, or Cancer Awareness, or, try reading a page from a book, or read poetry. Try getting away from the "movie trailer" voice that you seem to be shooting for right now, or the voice you would use to sell cars.
All of these things help you to expand your style into other styles, which will make you much more attractive to clients, and improve your skills.
Remember... as a VO artist, you also have to be an actor. Your voice needs to fit the content and mood of the copy you are reading.

(Ask me how I know).

pcrecord, post: 449074, member: 46460 wrote: I though I just explained it... it's named Limiter because it limits the signal from passing a thresold level. (a compressor with very high ratio if you want)

Sorry , I forgot .

pcrecord, post: 449075, member: 46460 wrote: I know your goal is to get noticed and be hired.
I think the sound in the best hd mp3 is good enough to accomplish your goal.

The performance could be better tho. Be more engaging, have more energy and a faster pace (if you simulate a publicity)
On the technical side of things, I think you are forcing your voice in an unnatural way. Pushing the sound to get a lower voice is ok, but I think you are forcing it too deep in the throat. (specially in the first part of the file.) On the long run you could damage your vocal cords and it doesn't sound natural.
I know most wanted voice over artists have deep voice, but for most of them it's natural.. they talk like that without forcing it.
I'd like to hear you do something with your natural voice, like if we were to talk together on the street.

Yea, these are things I record literally just to post onto here. I sing in a choir, and I was required to sing a song a little out of my range, so I stretched out my voice to reach higher pitches. Doing that made me lose some of the low end ( Something that naturally happens ). If you recall the " French Down " recording I did back with the MXL770, it was very deep and natural. It'll eventually come back, but I'll lay off it for now to avoid hurting my voice as you said.

I've posted recordings with my normal voice before, but I'll post another tomorrow when I get back home to my mic.

DonnyThompson, post: 449076, member: 46114 wrote: +1
And, not every VO you do will require ( or be wanted by the client) that you have that "deep" voice; that at times sounds very forced on your part.
If you want to get work, You have to be able to do more than always sound like the same VO artist, or the ones whom you look to for reference.
There are times you'll be required to be "conversational", times where you'll want to smile while you are reading the ad copy ( yes, you can "hear" a smile), other times they may want a more serious or intimate tone.
You're gonna get a lot more work if you're not a one-trick pony. Stretch out, try reading an owner's manual, or tell a joke, or act like you're just talking to someone. Write your own mock-up ad copy for The Red Cross, or a Funeral Home, or Cancer Awareness, or, try reading a page from a book, or read poetry. Try getting away from the "movie trailer" voice that you seem to be shooting for right now, or the voice you would use to sell cars.
All of these things help you to expand your style into other styles, which will make you much more attractive to clients, and improve your skills.
Remember... as a VO artist, you also have to be an actor. Your voice needs to fit the content and mood of the copy you are reading.

(Ask me how I know).

Thanks for the advice ! I have plenty of self written material, but whenever I go for a sad tone, my accent makes it feel unnatural. Otherwise, I'v recorded myself reading part of a book series called " Dante's Divine Comedy " and other things . I'll make sure to get more into other things then the typical booming announcer/selling voice !

These two are pretty much what I always sound like normally. Lelouch ! I did just now, and the other one is one I sent before.

I was just recording, and I tried to use an EQ preset. I'm uploading a file with the usual EQ ( Which is just cutting off low and high frequencies that aren't needed ), called " Blue Aprin No EQ ". And the other has EQ done to try and enhance the sound called " Blue Aprin EQ " Any opinions are appreciated. Most of the other presets completely sucked for dry voice, but this one made the audio sound different, in a way I didn't think was good or bad ! But I don't know, so thanks for any advice !

Lelouch, post: 449122, member: 50238 wrote: EQ preset.

No presets knows how your room, voice, mic, preamp and converter sound.
EQ is like driving you need to make conscient decisions to stay in your lane (what sounds good to you).
So before you start you need to build a taste to what sound good in the industry you are competing in.

I never use presets EQ and when I do use a preset for a reverb or other pluggins I never leave the settings there. They are starting points not to fit all settings.

Why don't we start from a raw track again.. Asking ourself, what we don't like about it and act on it step by step.
If you post a raw file we will give you more ideas and reasons to process it or not to process it.

pcrecord, post: 449123, member: 46460 wrote: never use presets EQ and when I do use a preset for a reverb or other pluggins I never leave the settings there. They are starting points not to fit all settings.

The only time I might use a preset, is one I would develop myself; for my own voice, in the same room, using the same mic...but even then, it's bound to be altered to some degree to fit the context of the track I'm working on at the time.

Presets, as Marco mentioned, don't have brains, don't have ears, nor do they know your situation, or your voice, or your room.

Factory presets are also destructive in another way: Those who lean on them, who rely on them alone, generally don't take the time to learn the parameters of the processors/plug-ins themselves.

Your best bet, if you want to be really good at turning out quality sounding audio, is to knuckle down and learn the fundamentals yourself.

Learn about EQ, Gain Reduction, Gain Structure, RMS/LUFS Levels, Mics and Mic placement Techniques.
For example, learn to understand what happens to a -12db RMS signal when you insert 3:1 compression @ -18db threshold, with a fast attack and slow release. Understand what "Q" is, what 3k "sounds" like, and what a corner frequency is.
Research acoustics basics; learn to recognize flutter-echo when you hear it; what the fundamental frequencies of the human voice are, and how a 1" piece of acoustic foam will do virtually nothing to effect a large portion of those frequencies.

You don't need to be an expert at audio recording for what you are doing - but you should know the fundamentals, the basics... and all those things mentioned above are as such - if you want to be known for not only having a good voice for your clients, but also that you can be relied upon to deliver really good sounding readings.
-----------------------------------------------------

Finally - and this one is just an opinion based on years of experience in both recording and performing Voice Overs:

Find your OWN voice. Stop trying to sound like someone ( or everyone) else.

If you truly desire an eventual career in this craft, you need to stretch out and do things that others can't do, or that you can't do now ( or that you think you can't do)... things that will make you stand out from all the other "DJ" voices out there.
Find your niche, and if necessary, create one for yourself. Put a demo together where you are reading ( performing) a bunch of different styles. Write your own mock-up Ad Copy for The Red Cross seeking blood donations...or read a paragraph from a book, or a poem. Then read an excerpt from a technical/instructional manual. Do a "message on hold" reading... you know, the voices that you hear when you are on-hold: "we apologize for the delay, please hold, we appreciate your business, and someone will be right with you"...
Take a few acting lessons at a local university... develop a wider array of voice styles than what you are capable of right now. Have the ability to sound funny, poignant, serious, happy, sad, goofy, smart, stupid, young or old.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.

-d.

I took a few minutes to check your no EQ file.
I found a HPF could be of help to remove stuff below 50hz but not much higher.
I added a bit of low end (like if it was on the radio) and removed some low-mids. Then added a bit of high-end (around 6khz and up, but I used a deeser to prevent it from going out of control.)
This is definitely not a end product, just what a few minutes on relatively good monitors and a bit of taste can do.
How does that sound to you ?

pcrecord, post: 449123, member: 46460 wrote: No presets knows how your room, voice, mic, preamp and converter sound.
EQ is like driving you need to make conscient decisions to stay in your lane (what sounds good to you).
So before you start you need to build a taste to what sound good in the industry you are competing in.

DonnyThompson, post: 449125, member: 46114 wrote: Presets, as Marco mentioned, don't have brains, don't have ears, nor do they know your situation, or your voice, or your room.

Factory presets are also destructive in another way: Those who lean on them, who rely on them alone, generally don't take the time to learn the parameters of the processors/plug-ins themselves.

Yea, I would never have relied on a preset. I was just wondering what it sounded like to you guys since I don't know much about EQ. It made the audio different, but I didn't know if it was good or bad, guessing bad !

DonnyThompson, post: 449125, member: 46114 wrote: Finally - and this one is just an opinion based on years of experience in both recording and performing Voice Overs:

Find your OWN voice. Stop trying to sound like someone ( or everyone) else.

If you truly desire an eventual career in this craft, you need to stretch out and do things that others can't do, or that you can't do now ( or that you think you can't do)... things that will make you stand out from all the other "DJ" voices out there.
Find your niche, and if necessary, create one for yourself. Put a demo together where you are reading ( performing) a bunch of different styles. Write your own mock-up Ad Copy for The Red Cross seeking blood donations...or read a paragraph from a book, or a poem. Then read an excerpt from a technical/instructional manual. Do a "message on hold" reading... you know, the voices that you hear when you are on-hold: "we apologize for the delay, please hold, we appreciate your business, and someone will be right with you"...
Take a few acting lessons at a local university... develop a wider array of voice styles than what you are capable of right now. Have the ability to sound funny, poignant, serious, happy, sad, goofy, smart, stupid, young or old.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.

-d.

Thanks for the advice. I knew about half the things you talked about when you talked about basic audio knowledge, so I'll be sure to listen and understand these concepts. All these things are for making my demo, I uploaded what I have so far. I have a wide range of voices that come naturally to me, but they don't sound that good on recording ! That's probably due to my arsenal of one mic ! Acting lessons aren't a bad idea, but I really don't have time. Either way, I already do musicals and plays on a small scale, and about 2 a year.

Anyway, this is what I have so far for my demos. Tell me what you think ?

pcrecord, post: 449152, member: 46460 wrote: I took a few minutes to check your no EQ file.
I found a HPF could be of help to remove stuff below 50hz but not much higher.
I added a bit of low end (like if it was on the radio) and removed some lowmids. Then added a bit of highend (around 6khz and up, but I used a deeser to prevent it from going out of control.)
This is definitly not a end product, just what a few minutes on relatively good monitors and a bit of taste can do.
How does that sound to you ?

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

I'll be completely honest, I do hear the difference between what you uploaded and my original one. But I couldn't say for better or worse. I feel less mid's and more low end, but I didn't really hear the added high end. I did get that sense that it sounded like it could be on the radio with the added lows ! Either way, thanks a lot for working with my audio ! I know your time and effort isn't free, so thanks for sparing some to help me hear some good EQ ^/^ !

Lelouch, post: 449167, member: 50238 wrote: I didn't really hear the added high end.

Either your ears are not used to discerne those frequencies yet or your monitoring system isn't precise enough...
Most EQ plugins let's you create a point and sweep the frequencies. Try to boost and sweep the whole spectrum and try to identify the changes. It's a good way to train your ears and pinpoint spots that we don't like.

pcrecord, post: 449152, member: 46460 wrote: I added a bit of low end (like if it was on the radio) and removed some lowmids. Then added a bit of highend (around 6khz and up, but I used a deeser to prevent it from going out of control.)

I think Marco's changes were of great benefit. You might not hear what he did on the top end at this point; it takes time to train your ears to hone in on certain frequencies, there's nothing you can do about it but listen - a lot - and try to discern these kinds of tones. Some are born with the ability, but most of us had to get there through repetition and lots and lots of listening and study and comparisons.

I think what you have done sounds good - for what you do. But, you are fairly "typical" of hundreds of other VO people and the way they read. And being "typical" will keep your work potential to a very limited amount.
The one thing I hear in your readings, over and over, ( and I've heard this common trait in others who are trying to be VO artists) - is the dramatic pitch dip at the end of every phrase ( sometimes even in the middle of a phrase) - you "slide down" every time with the last word of every sentence. This is one of the things I meant when I suggested that you try "different" reading styles... it's highly doubtful that you talk that way conversationally, this is not your "real" voice... If you and I were talking sitting in a coffee shop somewhere, you wouldn't talk like that, dipping the pitch of the last word of every sentence - or every other word - you said... somewhere, you've picked up on this style from someone else, most likely from someone like Don LaFontaine ( or the hundreds of others who have attempted to use his style) - But Don did that style pretty much only for movie trailers, ( "In a world where..." ) because that's what the producers of the ads wanted from him... but he was able to do other styles, too.
Even Don made fun of himself, using "that" voice that we all came to recognize whenever we went to the movies and watched trailers for up coming releases:

But it's become cliche'... and there have been hundreds of VO performers since who have decided that his voice was the voice they wanted to use... except that it's already been done - by him originally - and then, by so many VO people after him who have attempted to copy his style.

Morgan Freeman, LaFontaine, Martin Sheen, James Earl Jones, Steven Webber, Sally Fields, David McCollough ... all use a sense of "drama" if needed, or, with a light-mood timbre, or a comic vibe, depending on the script and what is wanted for the spot(s). With the exception of McCollough - who is a writer, historian, and does the narration for Ken Burns' documentaries, all the others are actors, and have the ability to do both their own voices, but also in other styles, too.

For the one style you do, I think your recordings sound of sufficient quality to be played on radio and local/regional cable stations. I do think you would need to up your game gear-wise, to compete with the quality level of national spots; which would include things like a really nice mic ( that works on your voice), a quality pre, nice conversion, a decent sounding room in which to record, and a general understanding of recording fundamentals.

I won't critique you any further from here on out... you've got your own vision for what it is that you want to do, and that's as it should be.
All I can do is suggest some things based on my own experience of both recording VO artists, and being one myself over the years.

I sincerely wish you luck! :)

DonnyThompson, post: 449174, member: 46114 wrote: a really nice mic ( that works on your voice), a quality pre, nice conversion, a decent sounding room in which to record, and a general understanding of recording fundamentals.

Fogot a good set of studio monitors... ;)

pcrecord, post: 449175, member: 46460 wrote: Fogot a good set of studio monitors... ;)

LOL... well that's why I count on you, Mon Ami... to remind me of things that senility makes me forget. LOL ;)

Yes, of course Marco is right. With a good-sounding room, you should have a good pair of monitors. Don't trust headphones - or at least don't trust cheap headphones - because they inherently hype certain frequencies. In short, they lie to you.

That being said, I'd rather mix in a well-treated room with "decent" monitors than I would to mix in an untreated room with high-priced models.... but of course, I'd rather have both a well balanced room and a pair of very nice monitors. :)

Getting great sounding recordings isn't cheap...I think Lelouch has realized this. Your recording quality will only ever be as good as the weakest link in your chain. A high quality microphone connected to a cheap pre, or with cheap AD conversion, will never allow that mic to sound as it's supposed to. That said, it's okay to improve links in the chain over time. Any improvement is still an improvement.

If forced to choose, my personal opinion is that I'd rather use a 'decent" mic through a great-sounding preamp, than I would to use a high quality u mic through a cheap preamp.
The first time I heard an SM57 through the ADK preamp, I was knocked out. It certainly sounded a lot better than my Neumann U89 through a cheap Tascam pre I was using at the time.

Just my opinion... ;)

pcrecord, post: 449172, member: 46460 wrote: Either your ears are not used to discerne those frequencies yet or your monitoring system isn't precise enough...
Most EQ plugins let's you create a point and sweep the frequencies. Try to boost and sweep the whole spectrum and try to identify the changes. It's a good way to train your ears and pinpoint spots that we don't like.

I'll try it out, but I dont know what people see " bad " in audio to change !

DonnyThompson, post: 449174, member: 46114 wrote: I think Marco's changes were of great benefit. You might not hear what he did on the top end at this point; it takes time to train your ears to hone in on certain frequencies, there's nothing you can do about it but listen - a lot - and try to discern these kinds of tones. Some are born with the ability, but most of us had to get there through repetition and lots and lots of listening and study and comparisons.

I think what you have done sounds good - for what you do. But, you are fairly "typical" of hundreds of other VO people and the way they read. And being "typical" will keep your work potential to a very limited amount.
The one thing I hear in your readings, over and over, ( and I've heard this common trait in others who are trying to be VO artists) - is the dramatic pitch dip at the end of every phrase ( sometimes even in the middle of a phrase) - you "slide down" every time with the last word of every sentence. This is one of the things I meant when I suggested that you try "different" reading styles... it's highly doubtful that you talk that way conversationally, this is not your "real" voice... If you and I were talking sitting in a coffee shop somewhere, you wouldn't talk like that, dipping the pitch of the last word of every sentence - or every other word - you said... somewhere, you've picked up on this style from someone else, most likely from someone like Don LaFontaine ( or the hundreds of others who have attempted to use his style) - But Don did that style pretty much only for movie trailers, ( "In a world where..." ) because that's what the producers of the ads wanted from him... but he was able to do other styles, too.
Even Don made fun of himself, using "that" voice that we all came to recognize whenever we went to the movies and watched trailers for up coming releases:

But it's become cliche'... and there have been hundreds of VO performers since who have decided that his voice was the voice they wanted to use... except that it's already been done - by him originally - and then, by so many VO people after him who have attempted to copy his style.

Morgan Freeman, LaFontaine, Martin Sheen, James Earl Jones, Steven Webber, Sally Fields, David McCollough ... all use a sense of "drama" if needed, or, with a light-mood timbre, or a comic vibe, depending on the script and what is wanted for the spot(s). With the exception of McCollough - who is a writer, historian, and does the narration for Ken Burns' documentaries, all the others are actors, and have the ability to do both their own voices, but also in other styles, too.

For the one style you do, I think your recordings sound of sufficient quality to be played on radio and local/regional cable stations. I do think you would need to up your game gear-wise, to compete with the quality level of national spots; which would include things like a really nice mic ( that works on your voice), a quality pre, nice conversion, a decent sounding room in which to record, and a general understanding of recording fundamentals.

I won't critique you any further from here on out... you've got your own vision for what it is that you want to do, and that's as it should be.
All I can do is suggest some things based on my own experience of both recording VO artists, and being one myself over the years.

I sincerely wish you luck! :)

Please continue to critique me, I take every word seriously ! If what I have now takes me places, then I will spare no dime in making sure I have the right space, interface, and mics in my arsenal.

To be honest, I sound in person just as I'm recording. I've tried different voices but they ended up not sounding right on recording. I said before people always tell me that I should be a VO, these are the reasons .. But again, what they hear and what I KNOW they hear, doesn't really come out on my recordings the way they would sound else where, ya know ? But I understand, I'll look for a way to use my voice that's unique and sounds good. Thanks for the advice and help

pcrecord, post: 449175, member: 46460 wrote: Fogot a good set of studio monitors... ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 449176, member: 46114 wrote: LOL... well that's why I count on you, Mon Ami... to remind me of things that senility makes me forget. LOL ;)

Yes, of course Marco is right. With a good-sounding room, you should have a good pair of monitors. Don't trust headphones - or at least don't trust cheap headphones - because they inherently hype certain frequencies. In short, they lie to you.

That being said, I'd rather mix in a well-treated room with "decent" monitors than I would to mix in an untreated room with high-priced models.... but of course, I'd rather have both a well balanced room and a pair of very nice monitors. :)

Getting great sounding recordings isn't cheap...I think Lelouch has realized this. Your recording quality will only ever be as good as the weakest link in your chain. A high quality microphone connected to a cheap pre, or with cheap AD conversion, will never allow that mic to sound as it's supposed to. That said, it's okay to improve links in the chain over time. Any improvement is still an improvement.

If forced to choose, my personal opinion is that I'd rather use a 'decent" mic through a great-sounding preamp, than I would to use a high quality u mic through a cheap preamp.
The first time I heard an SM57 through the ADK preamp, I was knocked out. It certainly sounded a lot better than my Neumann U89 through a cheap Tascam pre I was using at the time.

Just my opinion... ;)

Was cute to see you two with that connection xD ! Either way, I don't trust my cheap $50 headphones or ME to EQ, so I'll just do the usual EQ of cutting off the really high or low frequencies that aren't needed. Also , what kind of preamps do you propose ? I know the iD14 is cheap, but it's still pretty good right ?

Lelouch, post: 449223, member: 50238 wrote: I know the iD14 is cheap, but it's still pretty good right ?

Yes, out of alot of audio interface, it was a very good choice. For what you do, you don't need more, specially not before knowing more about the craft.
It's just that when we start to compare with the pro, we just need not to forget what they use.
For VO, I often use my Universal Audio LA-610 but there is a lot of other choices..

What you do sounds just fine.. Concentrate on performance and get it outthere !! ;)

Lelouch, post: 449223, member: 50238 wrote: I know the iD14 is cheap, but it's still pretty good right ?

pcrecord, post: 449237, member: 46460 wrote: Yes, out of alot of audio interface, it was a very good choice.

I wasn't insinuating that your preamp was bad. I agree with Marco, I think it's fine for what you want to do. This wasn't aimed at you in particular.

I was just stating that in "general", gear does matter, and the sonic quality of a recording will only ever be as good as the weakest link in the gain-chain ( mic, pre, conversion, along with the acoustics of the space being used for tracking/mixing).
Bettering your knowledge on the things we've discussed throughout this thread will also help you to achieve better-sounding audio as well.
I know it's not your goal to be an audio engineer - I do get this - but there are some things you should learn, because you are doing your own recordings, and ultimately, you are responsible for your own quality; and, you'll be competing against other VO artists who have taken the time to learn about the fundamentals of audio recording, and who are turning out pro-quality product.

The other reason I mentioned the things that I did, was that a great many people do search engine queries on many topics of audio recording/mixing every single day - and because RO has such a high search engine rating, a fair amount of those search returns ultimately lands them here at RO; so when I'm writing a post - or an answer to a post - I try to keep in mind that there's a very good possibility that the OP won't be the "only one" reading; that others - both RO members and non-members alike - will be reading the thread as well. ;)

-d.

pcrecord, post: 449237, member: 46460 wrote: Yes, out of alot of audio interface, it was a very good choice. For what you do, you don't need more, specially not before knowing more about the craft.
It's just that when we start to compare with the pro, we just need not to forget what they use.
For VO, I often use my Universal Audio LA-610 but there is a lot of other choices..

What you do sounds just fine.. Concentrate on performance and get it outthere !! ;)

I understand, thanks !

DonnyThompson, post: 449238, member: 46114 wrote: I wasn't insinuating that your preamp was bad. I agree with Marco, I think it's fine for what you want to do. This wasn't aimed at you in particular.

I was just stating that in "general", gear does matter, and the sonic quality of a recording will only ever be as good as the weakest link in the gain-chain ( mic, pre, conversion, along with the acoustics of the space being used for tracking/mixing).
Bettering your knowledge on the things we've discussed throughout this thread will also help you to achieve better-sounding audio as well.
I know it's not your goal to be an audio engineer - I do get this - but there are some things you should learn, because you are doing your own recordings, and ultimately, you are responsible for your own quality; and, you'll be competing against other VO artists who have taken the time to learn about the fundamentals of audio recording, and who are turning out pro-quality product.

The other reason I mentioned the things that I did, was that a great many people do search engine queries on many topics of audio recording/mixing every single day - and because RO has such a high search engine rating, a fair amount of those search returns ultimately lands them here at RO; so when I'm writing a post - or an answer to a post - I try to keep in mind that there's a very good possibility that the OP won't be the "only one" reading; that others - both RO members and non-members alike - will be reading the thread as well. ;)

-d.

I see, and thanks for the advice again. I'll be sure to learn about all these details of audio recording ( Over time as I continue to do this ).

Guess this is the end of the road ? I suppose there isn't really much left to teach me that I wouldn't be better off learning on my own through time and practice. Wanted to say that I auditioned for voicebunny.com . Apparently less than 2% of applicants make the cut, however I was accepted . I passed their audition " test ". Thanks for all the help so far guys, it's helped a lot ^/^.

Lelouch, post: 449538, member: 50238 wrote: Guess this is the end of the road ? I suppose there isn't really much left to teach me

On the contrairy, I'd say you haven't absorbed all that you've givin yet. When the cup is full... You know this one don't you ;)
The biggest thing for you at this point is ear training. Being able to recognise what sound good and what not is the key with any gear that we use. The last thing I did was offered you a remix of you work and you weren't able to distinguish the high frequency changes. Take a time off of the forum if you want, or stick around and read the comments we make on mixes members make. Try to figure out why we say the things we say.
Get studio monitors and put the headphones aside.

I wish you the best with this and future auditions ;)

pcrecord, post: 449539, member: 46460 wrote: On the contrairy, I'd say you haven't absorbed all that you've givin yet. When the cup is full... You know this one don't you ;)
The biggest thing for you at this point is ear training. Being able to recognise what sound good and what not is the key with any gear that we use. The last thing I did was offered you a remix of you work and you weren't able to distinguish the high frequency changes. Take a time off of the forum if you want, or stick around and read the comments we make on mixes members make. Try to figure out why we say the things we say.
Get studio monitors and put the headphones aside.

I wish you the best with this and future auditions ;)

I'm sure I'd be able to recognize these changes with a nice pair of studio monitors as you said, but all the money went towards the other equipment. But as soon as I can, I'll be sure to get a good set of studio monitors ( Or maybe I'll work on my space instead so I can benefit from studio monitors ! ) Thanks for the help, and I'll stick around. Voicebunny.com usually wants minimum processing to no processing, so I'v been forced to deal with my recording space a little more to keep my noise floor under -60db as they want. I'v been training my ears, but it's not the easiest thing to get a hang of, but I'll keep listening ! ( I still have the recommended SoundMan application for ear training ! ) . Thanks again for the help, I'll keep on practicing ^-^

Hey guys, I'm thinking about returning my MKH 416 and getting a different mic ( Second time, I know ! ) . The 416 is really nice, but it doesn't " feel " right for me. I may or may not return it, depending on my other options. My range is $1000, ( less but anything around a $1000 I can probably get a little cheaper ). And note that my recording space isn't perfect. I have a laptop in here that has a noisy fan ( I'v been trying to look for solutions for a while now, like moving it around and stuff, but in the end the only way is to take it out of the room, which makes recording hard. ), and traffic out side. Thanks for the help.

That's exactly why I insisted you go and try some mics before you buy.
Even so, the MKH416 wasn't one of our suggestions, you picked it up from youtube videos or somewhere else...
I don't want to sound like a smart ass and say I told you so... Just want to help man...

Please review the other thread about this subject ;
https://recording.o…

So what don't you like about the 416 ?

pcrecord, post: 449641, member: 46460 wrote: That's exactly why I insisted you go and try some mics before you buy.
Even so, the MKH416 wasn't one of our suggestions, you picked it up from youtube videos or somewhere else...
I don't want to sound like a smart ass and say I told you so... Just want to help man...

Please review the other thread about this subject ;
https://recording.o…

So what don't you like about the 416 ?

Trust me, I KNOW your right ! I really should be trying out microphones before I buy them, but I simply can't for extraneous reasons. And I picked it because unlike the usual condensers, this one was more forgiving for my recording space. My recording space registers less then -60dB when it's nice and quite, but you can still hear my laptop fan ( Which is apparently registering less then -60dB since it's behind-right under the mic ). I'll check out the list of mics you recommended before, thanks for the link.

The thing I don't like about the 416 .. I'm still not sure about these technical things, so I'll just explain the situation. If you hear me in person, I don't necessarily sound the way I'm being recorded by the 416. I find myself limited on how far I can go with my voice, since it can sound very bad on recording, even when it sounds really nice to my ears. I forget who mentioned this before, but someone said that a studio was using a mic for a voice actor, but the performance sounded bad, and he made them switch out the mics, and it made a world of a difference. Which I realize leads back to the fact that I should try out different mics to see what " fits " me the best, and I'll try, thanks for the help, it's greatly appreciated.

EDIT : I also wanted to mention that in behind the scenes kind of stuff in animated movies ( Like Kung Fu Panda ), you see the voice actors literally doing their voice and getting really into the performance. But I could guarantee if they did that in front of my microphone, they will hear things they never knew could have come out of their mouths !

Again, while I realize I have never tried a Neumann ( TLM 103 ), I know that it's a type of microphone that a studio may leave on for every recording session they have, and get a good raw recording out of it in the first place to edit and process later. So I am thinking about it, but will definitely also think about and research the other recommended mics. Thanks again, your a big help, and I always feel like I'm getting reliable information when I speak with you. So thanks again for sparing time with me all this while.

Edit, again.. : Sorry for all the info, but I'm in Las Vegas, Nevada ( The U.S. ), do you know any place where I could test out mics as you recommended ? I searched but didn't really find anything.

Lelouch, post: 449650, member: 50238 wrote: forget who mentioned this before, but someone said that a studio was using a mic for a voice actor, but the performance sounded bad, and he made them switch out the mics, and it made a world of a difference.

It wasn't the performance that was bad. The performance was actually very good, but the sonics of her voice on that first original mic (as I recall we started with a U87 which is a highly respected mic) but it just didn't "work" for the timbre of the artist's voice for what we were going for at that time and on that particular track. The room's acoustics were also very good.
Switching the mic out to another that ultimately did capture her voice well, enabled the artist's voice to be heard in the way that was best for that particular track.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say you can't try different mics for "extraneous reasons". If it's because you don't live relatively close to a music retailer, then it's really just simply a matter of ordering a mic from a mail order store - like Sweetwater or GC - and then, if you don't like the way it sounds on your voice - and in your studio on your gear - sending it back for another model to try. Just keep it pristine (use a pop filter, don't have it in an environment where people smoke, don't drink a sugary beverage and then sing into it, etc) so you won't run into hassles when you go to return it. Basically, it's just common sense ...Don't give them any reason to deny the return. Keep ALL packaging materials, and pack it up exactly as it came to you.
If it makes you feel more confident, then ask about the store's return policy on mics. I've had several friends try out some very nice mics from SW and to my knowledge they have never had any difficulties returning gear they didn't like as long as they were exchanging it for something else.
If you call SW, ask for Kenny Bergle. Tell him Donny Thompson from AIR Productions in Cleveland referred you. Kenny is a great guy, he's been there a very long time... very knowledgable, very laid back and friendly. I've been buying gear from him since the mid '90's.
There's a reason that I still buy gear from him 22 years later. ;)
FWIW
-d