pcrecord, post: 445960, member: 46460 wrote: Honestly, it sounds bad and cheap... I heard headsets plugged in internal soundcards sound as good as this.
I bet he is using a gate and a compressor but I still hear inconsistent high frequencies. Not as bad as yours but still far from pro results...

Apparently the audio in that video was completely untouched.. Probably would have been much better with processing

Lelouch, post: 446015, member: 50238 wrote: While it may sound that I'm too close to the mic and getting a lower bass tone, I'm just sick and my voice has gotten deeper. I'm about 2 inches closer then the recommended 6 inches for correct mic technique. Could you evaluate this audio ? The audio probably needs to have compression done, then maybe normalization, but I'm still getting the hang of that and haven't used it for this audio. I'm pretty sure that after this, i wont have any more questions to post on here, so thanks guys. I'll still be checking in if anyone has more advice. Thanks again.

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…

It sounds pretty much the same in my earbuds.. I'm gonna check it in the studio a little later. ;)

I think the Improvements.mp3 sounds much better and natural.
You don't have the boosted bass that some voice over have but I'm sure it's your natural voice that doesn't produce much or the mic itself. (BTW, is the HPF engage on the mic ?? )
This is your best recording to date, so if you like it, keep the recipe and enjoy ;)

pcrecord, post: 446023, member: 46460 wrote: BTW, is the HPF engage on the mic ??

It has 2 switches, one is -10DB and the other is flat or .. whatever the other one is, just a line going up then being flat. It's on flat and 0 DB. The setting with the 2 lines is probably what your talking about, it's on flat, which i guess means that no, it's not on.

pcrecord, post: 446023, member: 46460 wrote: You don't have the boosted bass that some voice over have but I'm sure it's your natural voice that doesn't produce much or the mic itself.

Well, I can always get closer to the mic for added bass tones or effects. And my voice is gets those deep bass tones ! Or at least I like to think so xD

pcrecord, post: 446023, member: 46460 wrote: This is your best recording to date, so if you like it, keep the recipe and enjoy ;)

Well, I'm hoping I could get some advice on how to get it as close to professional quality audio as I can. I'm aware this is probably one of the cheapest setups you've seen xD, but I want to be able to draw the best quality I can from this setup I have. Any tips for editing the audio using compression, equalization, and normalization would be a help. Thanks again for all the advice and help.

here's the thing. crap is crap. more processing just makes it crap with more processing. the best quality you can get is mic - preamp- converter into daw. once you begin with the eq and compression plugs, you are simply degrading the signal further. so the short answer is you can't do better than your raw tracks. this is why we put such emphasis on getting it right at the recording stage. if you want "best quality" (whatever that means) you will need to pay up and buy a better mic and preamp / converter package.

Lelouch, post: 446038, member: 50238 wrote: I want to be able to draw the best quality I can from this setup I have.

I don't remember if you said what was the goal of this.. Voice over, podcast, signing ?

Kurt Foster, post: 446040, member: 7836 wrote: here's the thing. crap is crap. more processing just makes it crap with more processing. the best quality you can get is mic - preamp- converter into daw. once you begin with the eq and compression plugs, you are simply degrading the signal further. so the short answer is you can't do better than your raw tracks. this is why we put such emphasis on getting it right at the recording stage. if you want "best quality" (whatever that means) you will need to pay up and buy a better mic and preamp / converter package.

Lol yea, I understand . Any processing I do on my audio is minimal, but I heard from various sources that compression and EQ are good for stable audio levels, then normalization to top it off and make the audio louder. And you're correct, there really isn't the " best quality " out there. However, with cheap setup like this, you can probably spot the difference in quality between my recordings and one done in a professional studio. So I want the best quality MY setup can offer, which will never be able to even closely reach the theoretical " best quality " out there. But thanks for the advice.

pcrecord, post: 446041, member: 46460 wrote: I don't remember if you said what was the goal of this.. Voice over, podcast, signing ?

Sorry, I never did say but you mentioned voice over before so I assumed you found out. But yea, I'm doing voice overs.

pcrecord, post: 446041, member: 46460 wrote: I don't remember if you said what was the goal of this.. Voice over, podcast, signing ?

Sorry, I never did say but you mentioned voice over before so I assumed you found out. But yea, I'm doing voice overs. Any suggestions ? Thanks.

You know, when starting off, the most abstract thing to understand is ear training. Once you can hear the problems and know how it should sound, things gets much easier. This is why with time and learning we put so much effort and money on getting the right room accoustic and studio monitors, and then choosing the right mic and preamp for the instrument or type of voice we record.
All this energy is spent in context of the wanted end product. So it's very hard to give you more pointers without hearing on what the voice over is going to be done.
My modo is to say : 80% of mixing is fixing problems and getting everything to sound right together.
For now, your recording doesn't have problem. if you put it on top of the bagpipe song, it might be a problem but with sea wave it might be ok like it is.
See where I'm getting at ?

The best thing for you now is to experiement.. learn what a compressor is, learn what an EQ is and when to use them. You can search the forum for those, we have many threads on those subjects. Recording and mixing is hard work into it (I'm still learning after 20years)
With time you will overgrow the equipement you have and you will know what you need, but this can't happen without doing it !
I'm doing it, every day. Even if I don't have a customer that day, I go to the studio, make some tests, record some of my own music, search for online trainings...

pcrecord, post: 446048, member: 46460 wrote: You know, when starting off, the most abstract thing to understand is ear training. Once you can hear the problems and know how it should sound, things gets much easier. This is why with time and learning we put so much effort and money on getting the right room accoustic and studio monitors, and then choosing the right mic and preamp for the instrument or type of voice we record.
All this energy is spent in context of the wanted end product. So it's very hard to give you more pointers without hearing on what the voice over is going to be done.
My modo is to say : 80% of mixing is fixing problems and getting everything to sound right together.
For now, your recording doesn't have problem. if you put it on top of the bagpipe song, it might be a problem but with sea wave it might be ok like it is.
See where I'm getting at ?

The best thing for you now is to experiement.. learn what a compressor is, learn what an EQ is and when to use them. You can search the forum for those, we have many threads on those subjects. Recording and mixing is hard work into it (I'm still learning after 20years)
With time you will overgrow the equipement you have and you will know what you need, but this can't happen without doing it !
I'm doing it, every day. Even if I don't have a customer that day, I go to the studio, make some tests, record some of my own music, search for online trainings...

Yea, I understand. Thanks for all the help. I'll keep on learning about recording and processing until I can figure these things out myself. Thanks again for helping me so much.

You can ask any questions really... I just feel you need to experiment a bit. The best thing to get better is just doing it again and again ;)

Here is a test of one DIY mic I built (T47 from Microphone-parts.com) no EQ or compression, just the mic a focusrite ISA preamp and the converter.

pcrecord, post: 446052, member: 46460 wrote: You can ask any questions really... I just feel you need to experiment a bit. The best thing to get better is just doing it again and again ;)

Here is a test of one DIY mic I built (T47 from Microphone-parts.com) no EQ or compression, just the mic a focusrite ISA preamp and the converter.
 

Thanks, I'll make sure to come here with any questions ^-^ . Anyway, I'm not really sure what quality the audio you uploaded is because I'm a noob xD ! And I also can't really tell the difference between your audio and mine, though I'm sure your's is better quality. Thanks for the upload !

Lelouch, post: 446057, member: 50238 wrote: Thanks, I'll make sure to come here with any questions ^-^ . Anyway, I'm not really sure what quality the audio you uploaded is because I'm a noob xD ! And I also can't really tell the difference between your audio and mine, though I'm sure your's is better quality. Thanks for the upload !

Well.. Question. I'm obviously new to this, but I've always heard that you shouldn't ever speak directly into the mic, or the diaphragm that's inside the grill. But, I just did ! And it sounds better ? I'm not sure, the audio seems to be a bit more clear and " better " , to me anyway. I uploaded the audio. The first line is said while using correct mic technique and not speaking directly at, but directly under it. The second line is me just speaking directly into the diaphragm ( Which may not be good for the diaphragm I'm guessing ! ) . So, does it REALLY sound better , or are my ears just hearing a louder version when speaking directly into it and making me feel like it's better ? Anyway, thanks for any advice !

Lelouch, post: 446057, member: 50238 wrote: And I also can't really tell the difference between your audio and mine, though I'm sure your's is better quality.

If you really are into recording, that's the first thing you should learn. Ear training is the key ! A good audio engineer will hear things that other people won't. Like when an instrument produces certain frequencies and the recording doesn't. When 2 instruments are fighting for space in a mix.
The how and when is easy. We need to identify problems in order to address them. ;)

Lelouch, post: 446063, member: 50238 wrote: So, does it REALLY sound better , or are my ears just hearing a louder version when speaking directly into it and making me feel like it's better ? Anyway, thanks for any advice !

Yes it sounds much better ! the results is fuller and has more low frequencies (Bass).
Depending on the mic choice, it sometime sounds better when very close to the mic.. Be sure to have a pop filter to avoid plosives with B and P sounds.

pcrecord, post: 446064, member: 46460 wrote: Ear training is the key ! A good audio engineer will hear things that other people won't. Like when an instrument produces certain frequencies and the recording doesn't. When 2 instruments are fighting for space in a mix.

I looked up on ear training, and there was a site giving you 3 different versions of a song and asking which is higher quality. All 3 would always sound exactly the same to me ! However, that may be because I only listened to the first 10 seconds or so of each. I'll keep trying to adapt to hearing these things.

pcrecord, post: 446064, member: 46460 wrote: Yes it sounds much better ! the results is fuller and has more low frequencies (Bass).

Well, I noticed that I may have had the gain on my audio interface too low. Reaper was giving me 10DB extra on my recordings. I think that my original signal was weak so speaking directly into the mic made it stronger and more pronounced ( Again, I'm new to all this and am probably wrong ! ). But just in case, I'm gonna speak under the mic as one's supposed to, then directly into it without the extra gain from Reaper ( Or at least not right off that bat ), and a higher gain setting on the interface to see if the audio quality was increasing just because my gain was low.

Lelouch, post: 446081, member: 50238 wrote: However, that may be because I only listened to the first 10 seconds or so of each. I'll keep trying to adapt to hearing these things.

Or your listening environement and monitors are masking things.

Try this :
https://www.puremix.net/ear-training.html

Search for ear training, a lot of free stuff out there.

this reminds me of someone trying to teach a blind person to drive a car.

most successful people in the music recording business, have some kind of background in music or electrical engineering. this is what happens when you make gear so cheap anyone can afford it and you get someone with no background or experience who thinks being a "producer" would be a glamorous job. we need to start thinning the herd guys.

Kurt Foster, post: 446086, member: 7836 wrote: this reminds me of someone trying to teach a blind person to drive a car.
.

;)
We all need to start somewhere. Thing is like, a lot of other activities, for exemple; playing an instrument, the industry is selling us the idea ; it's easy and affordable !! But in fact anyone would needs to put hard work into it to succeed. You know even if nike put up some nice running shoes, you won't automaticly be an olympic athlete !!

Imagine the advertisement ; Invest 10 000 hours of hard work and this 100$ instrument and you might be able to play guitar !! Would you buy one ?
My nephew abandoned his guitar after only 1 hour.. lol .. Hard work isn't something youngster would invest anymore. (except for a few)

Kurt Foster, post: 446086, member: 7836 wrote: this reminds me of someone trying to teach a blind person to drive a car.

most successful people in the music recording business, have some kind of background in music or electrical engineering. this is what happens when you make gear so cheap anyone can afford it and you get someone with no background or experience who thinks being a "producer" would be a glamorous job. we need to start thinning the herd guys.

Uh, I guess you're right in a few points. But, I'm not interested at all in music production, even though I do have a background in music xD ! Voice overs are a WHOLE lot easier to process/edit then any music can be. Concerning your comparison to the blind guy learning to drive, he may have the potential to be the best driver in the world ! However, being blind means he wont be driving in the first place. I'm not physically unable to hear xD, so I'm sure this is a skill I can acquire. And I see no point in " thinning the herd " since as long as there are other people on the bottom of the chain, then you don't have to be. Thanks.

pcrecord, post: 446084, member: 46460 wrote: Or your listening environement and monitors are masking things.

My space is pretty " dead " sounding. Either way, I'm using headphones rather than monitors. Cheaper, and I really have no room to setup monitors. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out ^/^ .

Try this one too : http://www.v-plugs.com/mr_soundman

pcrecord, post: 446100, member: 46460 wrote: Try this one too : http://www.v-plugs.com/mr_soundman

Thanks, I'll make sure to try and learn quickly. This helps a lot, so thanks again.

Here are recordings with the gain I guess I should have been using all along. Tell me if the sound quality still improves from speaking under to right at it. I think it does, but that's just me. Under Mic is me speaking under it as usual, and Directly At Mic is me speaking towards the Diaphragm. Thanks for the help and advice.

I don't hear real improvement from Speaking Into Mic.mp3
I hear more sibilance and high frequencies but might just be your voice or because you were not as near as in your previous recording.
It needs to be said that the MXL 770 have an exagerated high frequency boost in its curve which makes it way unatural sounding.

Strangely enough those hyped high frequencies is often considered good quality by newbies.
Fair enough the mxl 990 is a bit more balanced :

pcrecord, post: 446105, member: 46460 wrote: I don't hear real improvement from 

I hear more sibilance and high frequencies but might just be your voice or because you were not as near as in your previous recording.
It needs to be said that the MXL 770 have an exagerated high frequency boost in its curve which makes it way unatural sounding.

Strangely enough those hyped high frequencies is often considered good quality by newbies.
Fair enough the mxl 990 is a bit more balanced :

Well that kills me ! I was told that the MXL 770 was rated better than its twin the MXL 990. I Should have picked the ladder I see. Maybe the ratings came because of what you said about newbies liking the high frequencies ! Those high frequencies can be balanced out using EQ right ? Also, to be very honest, I don't hear these high frequencies, maybe it's my ears or headphones, or a combination of both. Anyway, thanks a lot, you're a BIG help to me as I try to achieve the best recordings I can get. Thanks again for the info, I'll make sure I don't speak right into the diaphragm as to not damage it since it doesn't help apparently.

Lelouch, post: 446106, member: 50238 wrote: I was told that the MXL 770 was rated better than its twin the MXL 990.

Probably by amateurs...

Lelouch, post: 446106, member: 50238 wrote: Those high frequencies can be balanced out using EQ right ?

You can, but it will never sound like if the mic didn't capture them. . .
Don't get me wrong, on some sources, it might be ok. But it's not a good choice forthose looking for a natural sound.

Lelouch, post: 446106, member: 50238 wrote: Also, to be very honest, I don't hear these high frequencies,

It's not that those frequencies are not supose to be there, just that the mic boost them. Concentrate on the Sss when you speak.

`

pcrecord, post: 446108, member: 46460 wrote: Probably by amateurs...

The can, but it will never sound like if the mic didn't capture them. . .
Don't get me wrong, on some sources, it might be ok. But it's not a good choice forthose looking for a natural sound.

It's not that those frequencies are not supose to be there, just that the mic boost them. Concentrate on the Sss when you speak.

Yea, I understand . I'll try out ways of reducing the high frequencies and tone it down with processing. I'll upload an audio file of it at some point when I get to figuring out how to process better ! Thanks for the advice, very appreciated.

Keep in mind you can remove (or lower) some frequencies but cannot create some that weren't captured in the first place.
I think getting closer to the mic (with lower gain settings) will be a winner for you. The proximity effect will bring some low end that won't be there otherwise.

pcrecord, post: 446113, member: 46460 wrote: Keep in mind you can remove (or lower) some frequencies but cannot create some that weren't captured in the first place.
I think getting closer to the mic (with lower gain settings) will be a winner for you. The proximity effect will bring some low end that won't be there otherwise.

Yea, I'm trying it out for my recordings as you said. But I guess I didn't do that for the recordings I put on here since I was trying out things and looking for feedback. I'll make sure to upload one of my actual recordings when I think I've gotten it correctly to see if I indeed have. Thanks for all the help, its done a lot !

pcrecord, post: 446105, member: 46460 wrote: Strangely enough those hyped high frequencies is often considered good quality by newbies.
Fair enough the mxl 990 is a bit more balanced :

Yup,
The better quality tracking gear and acoustic space, the less savage EQ. I mean, we record something, shouldn't it sound the way its supposed to sound without much EQ. That's the idea anyway. Why doesn't it? Or why do we feel we need to EQ?
One thing for certain.... our ears do not treat all frequencies the same which is why some of us are better at mixing and mastering.

Experience has led me to believe, if I pay close attention towards the negative impact EQing has the moment I increase certain frequencies of a track or mix, the fatter and more pleasing a mix usually ends up. But that's easier said than done.

Whenever I notice something not standing out enough in a mix I try and remind myself that a 3 db lift on particular freq's means I increased that track 3db more, away from its natural captured state. If I was sitting beside you and speaking, would I want my voice 8db louder at 9k. OMG! I would likely sound pretty irritating.

But look how easy it is to do that when we aren't paying attention to the balances of the entire mix. And how easy it is to go beyond the point of overkill when other things in a mix are distracting us (forcing extreme EQ curves like the MXL 770) is in this example.

Its so easy to be distracted: Before we know it, everything has EQ overload, thus, thin sounding music needing the now waiting compression that usually is overdone as well. And so it goes. More and more stuff to fix or make something sound like its supposed to.

I'm guilty of this, but glad I am more aware of this each time I try another mix.
Its so important to have a listening room where you hear things better to begin with.

Back to the curves pcrecord posted... wow, that's one nasty curve on the MXL 770.

audiokid, post: 446131, member: 1 wrote: Yup,
The better quality tracking gear and acoustic space, the less savage EQ. I mean, we record something, shouldn't it sound the way its supposed to sound without much EQ. That's the idea anyway. Why doesn't it? Or why do we feel we need to EQ?
One thing for certain.... our ears do not treat all frequencies the same which is why some of us are better at mixing and mastering.

Experience has led me to believe, if I pay close attention towards the negative impact EQing has the moment I increase certain frequencies of a track or mix, the fatter and more pleasing a mix usually ends up. But that's easier said than done.

Whenever I notice something not standing out enough in a mix I try and remind myself that a 3 db lift on particular freq's means I increased that track 3db more, away from its natural captured state. If I was sitting beside you and speaking, would I want my voice 8db louder at 9k. OMG! I would likely sound pretty irritating.

But look how easy it is to do that when we aren't paying attention to the balances of the entire mix. And how easy it is to go beyond the point of overkill when other things in a mix are distracting us (forcing extreme EQ curves like the MXL 770) is in this example.

Its so easy to be distracted: Before we know it, everything has EQ overload, thus, thin sounding music needing the now waiting compression that usually is overdone as well. And so it goes. More and more stuff to fix or make something sound like its supposed to.

I'm guilty of this, but glad I am more aware of this each time I try another mix.
Its so important to have a listening room where you hear things better to begin with.

Back to the curves pcrecord posted... wow, that's one nasty curve on the MXL 770.

I feel the wisdom dripping out of you like an overly filled cup ! Yes, I now really regret getting this MXL 770, I can probably still exchange it for another mic, I'll try to do that at some point. But yea, I heard all about over processing, and I know that I'm no pro at mixing, so I'm keeping everything as minimal as I can. Whenever I use compression, it's around -30DB. I always fear destroying my audio with bad processing, so I do the bare minimum that I feel is needed, and leave the rest be. I'v never actually tried EQ, so that's something I'm gonna have to figure out and use cautiously. Thanks for this post, it was well written and informative.

Also, quick question. Since it seems like I MAY return this mic to get another one. I wanted to ask whether a large diaphragm or small diaphragm mic is best for voice overs. Thanks for the help.

Lelouch, post: 446132, member: 50238 wrote: I feel the wisdom dripping out of you like an overly filled cup ! Yes, I now really regret getting this MXL 770, I can probably still exchange it for another mic, I'll try to do that at some point. But yea, I heard all about over processing, and I know that I'm no pro at mixing, so I'm keeping everything as minimal as I can. Whenever I use compression, it's around -30DB. I always fear destroying my audio with bad processing, so I do the bare minimum that I feel is needed, and leave the rest be. I'v never actually tried EQ, so that's something I'm gonna have to figure out and use cautiously. Thanks for this post, it was well written and informative.

Lelouch, post: 446133, member: 50238 wrote: Also, quick question. Since it seems like I MAY return this mic to get another one. I wanted to ask whether a large diaphragm or small diaphragm mic is best for voice overs. Thanks for the help.

I'm no recordist, but the Shure SM7B Dynamic Vocal Microphone is exception and well priced in comparison to a lot more vocal mics costing much more money. Many radio announcer use this. You need a good preamp as well. Not sure your budget but this is a good start.

audiokid, post: 446135, member: 1 wrote: I'm no recordist, but the Shure SM7B Dynamic Vocal Microphone is exception and well priced in comparison to a lot more vocal mics costing much more money. Many radio announcer use this. You need a good preamp as well. Not sure your budget but this is a good start.

Well vocal mics are usually for singing. Voice Overs require condenser microphones. I have no doubt the SM7B is a good mic, but it's dynamic ! Thanks for the recommendation though !

Lelouch, post: 446137, member: 50238 wrote: Well vocal mics are usually for singing. Voice Overs require condenser microphones. I have no doubt the SM7B is a good mic, but it's dynamic ! Thanks for the recommendation though !

Not necessarily true, I'm afraid.

If you search around you'll find that dynamics - including the SM7, Sennheiser MD421 and Beyer M201 among others - are recommended for this kind of thing in a suboptimal space which you exclude by working close in to the mic....so voiceovers don't need condensers...you use whatever tool is necessary to get the job done.

audiokid, post: 446131, member: 1 wrote: Experience has led me to believe, if I pay close attention towards the negative impact EQing has the moment I increase certain frequencies of a track or mix, the fatter and more pleasing a mix usually ends up. But that's easier said than done.

Whenever I notice something not standing out enough in a mix I try and remind myself that a 3 db lift on particular freq's means I increased that track 3db more, away from its natural captured state. If I was sitting beside you and speaking, would I want my voice 8db louder at 9k. OMG! I would likely sound pretty irritating.

The old adage of "EQ at source" is one to bear in mind. It implies choosing the type and positioning of a microphone in relation to the source of the sound so that the result needs the minimum of EQ in the mix.

The other rule-of-thumb I go by is that, if you have to use mix EQ, use subtractive EQ where possible. This is especially true in live applications (as opposed to mixing recorded tracks in a DAW), as using real-time EQ necessarily results in perturbations in the phase characteristic. By using EQ boost, you are making these perturbations stand out, whereas with an EQ cut, they are being lowered by the amount of the cut. I've never seen this point made in any audio articles or books.

Keith Johnson, post: 446139, member: 49792 wrote: If you search around you'll find that dynamics - including the SM7, Sennheiser MD421 and Beyer M201 among others - are recommended for this kind of thing in a suboptimal space which you exclude by working close in to the mic....so voiceovers don't need condensers...you use whatever tool is necessary to get the job done.

The EV RE20 dynamic is also a staple choice for voiceovers, particularly favoured for its much-reduced proximity effect.

audiokid, post: 446135, member: 1 wrote: the Shure SM7B Dynamic Vocal Microphone is exception and well priced in comparison to a lot more vocal mics costing much more money.

That's true, the SM7B is a very good choice for voice over. The only reserve I have is that it needs a good preamp because its output level is lower than condenser mics. I doubt the Behringer U-Phoria UM2 would be a good choice to drive it well.

Boswell, post: 446140, member: 29034 wrote: The EV RE20 dynamic is also a staple choice for voiceovers, particularly favoured for its much-reduced proximity effect.

Another very good choice ! So many radio stations has it...

Here are some condenser mics in action made with a budget audio interface (focusrite 2i2)