Have you tried a good dynamic mic like an sm58?

Thanks for replying!

Yeah I've been through each high-end one that I could get my hands on,

I own a C5 and a D5 from AKG,
got Beta 58s, SM58/57s,
even tried a Telefunken M-80,

The problem I run into is that they are too susceptible to plosives which sometimes for Narration it's too out in the open (no music under it etc.) and I can't have that.

If there was a trick that I could get a 58 or something similar close enough to sound good without popping that would be the ticket.

Are you using a pop filter with the 58? The internal one it has was only designed for live applications.

Yeah I've got the Steadman metal mesh one.

I've never recorded spoken word before....but when I use my 58 to record vocals, I get pretty darn close and it's probably the least plosive prone mic I have. You could try using one of those foam windscreens. It might take a little more off the high's, but you could pretty much smother the mic and not have any issues with one of those.

Ok cool - I'll try that for my next recording of a screechy voice.

Thanks!

The mic of choice for cartoon characterizations has been the the Neumann U87 for many many years.Before that it was the U67 and before that usually a ribbon.

If the SM58 does not do the job, try an EV RE20.

A Heil PR40 is another mic with a top roll-off, I believe originally designed to combat wind and rain noise in outdoor broadcast, latterly its become a popular go-to mic for bass and kick drum but it does retain a midrange peak which allows clarity. I do own one but I've only ever thrown it up on live sessions drunk, its yet to hit tape. Very cheap though.

Jeemy, post: 347018 wrote: A Heil PR40 is another mic with a top roll-off, I believe originally designed to combat wind and rain noise in outdoor broadcast, latterly its become a popular go-to mic for bass and kick drum but it does retain a midrange peak which allows clarity. I do own one but I've only ever thrown it up on live sessions drunk, its yet to hit tape. Very cheap though.

Jeemy.....Yer missing something by NOT doing that very thing. That Heil will surprise the hell outta ya.

Thanks for the replies everyone,

I have yet to try an RE-20. Is it similar to an SM7B?

Does anyone have any experience with a TLM 103 with the dip around 3K? Think that would smooth out a peaky voice?

Davedog, post: 347048 wrote: Jeemy.....Yer missing something by NOT doing that very thing. That Heil will surprise the hell outta ya.

i gotta try that.
i bought a pr-40 a year ago and shoved it in my bass drum and it's been there ever since.(love it for that) but i never tried it on anything else.

Utopia, post: 347050 wrote: Thanks for the replies everyone,

I have yet to try an RE-20. Is it similar to an SM7B?

Does anyone have any experience with a TLM 103 with the dip around 3K? Think that would smooth out a peaky voice?

You dont want a TLM103 around anything peaky or squeaky. You want a mic with a very smooth and prominant proximity effect that you can use for this kind of voice-over. It is why the 87 is go to mic for the cartoons and has been for so long.

The RE20 is a smoother mic than the SM7b (maybe 'flatter' is a better discription....flatter and with more range) and has more output. Both are excellent and as a general type of mic of this ilk, the PR40 is right there with them in all aspects except one.........It is more 'high-fi' sounding than either. I'm sure its due to its little peak in that upper mids area. An Audio Technica ATM25 has an interesting vocal performance character.

I think you should throw up any mic you have and rehearse them all till you find what you need. It could be right in front of you.

Thanks and yeah,

The other day I used my C12A on a guy who has literally NO bass in his voice at all and squawks like a crow and it worked brilliantly.

I have also used a 414 EB on people like that (especially Spanish voice overs) because it smooths them out more than a U87.

In all my experience of U87s, though (hours and hours and hours, trust me) I cannot figure out how to handle the little 3K "shing" that is added either by the mic or something - I don't think it's my preamp because I have tweaked it in within an inch of it's life.

What do you think?

Also, are solid state pres better than tubes for cartoony voices? (high pitched, screechy?)

Also, how do you guys deal with the SM58's honky 400-800 on a voice?

I guess it all depends on the mic itself. I like that 3K shimmer. It means that no matter how close and personal the vocalist gets to the mic and therefore accentuates the added bass hump, its still going to be clear as a bell.

I have an older 87 and its not as 'toppy' as the newer ones seem to be. Age does mellow things...........

I like pres that are fast for any odd voices....cartoon voices would fit in that catagory.

Quality EQ fixes all those humps and bumps if you dont want them. Pultec.

Ah - I come from a school of thought that the 2.5K and 3K resonance of a U87 is objectionable and was taught to rid it wherever it popped up.

I also have an older U87 and I think it sounds smoother than the new ones.

What I am referring to is more Narration work and not so much vocal tracks for music - which might be what you mean and I can understand that-

I AM talking spoken word, cartoon voice over, announcer, product endorser, TV shill....etc.

Ah okay - my apologies.

Now what sort of compression do you use if any on a voice to make it less peaky if you have someone like Kermit the frog?

I not saying I wouldnt use compression on something like that, but generally speaking after rehearsing a part and a couple of run throughs I wind up riding the fader more than anything else.

Same here.

How about when mixing?

Do you like static EQ, dynamic EQ, dynamic compressors? How do you handle a screechy voice's peaky frequencies?

I battle with the guy not sounding present enough when I cut something but too peaky when there is no cut...

a high shrilly voice should be good with a nice ribbon mic especially a vintage like an RCA, Coles or an American DR332.
you can always have them back a bit more from the mic, and roll off some high end in the mix. try that on a quick take from the talent, then do a quick mix of eq and comp to see if that mic will work. then you have a plan to proceed.

Utopia, post: 347307 wrote: Same here.

How about when mixing?

Do you like static EQ, dynamic EQ, dynamic compressors? How do you handle a screechy voice's peaky frequencies?

I battle with the guy not sounding present enough when I cut something but too peaky when there is no cut...

Environment. Dead Dead Dead!

A booth you barely hear yourself in.

Barring that, static in place EQ to track and then serious repair at the mix if needed. I love the pultec style of EQ at mix. Theres generally nothing you cant fix with that. If I EQ at tracking it will be through a 3-band parametric.. I have old DBX's and that circuit sounds very good. I also will use Aphex Compellors at tracking if EQ'in kills the presence but I need it for control. The compellor puts back the sparkle and compresses without artifact ,certain selectable frequencies.

Thanks for the info guys!

I tried out a Royer 121 last night - it worked awesome on a female Taiwanese talent.

However, one thing is that my Manley pre adds in quite a bit of noise because I had to boost the input so much to get any kind of level from the 121 as it's not phantom powered - I guess Royer makes powered mics for this purpose?

What type of preamp do you use generally with Ribbon mics to not get the self-induced noise? (hiss/hum)

I have a Pultec and a GML EQ outboard... Any difference you have noted for yourself on them?

When you say it can fix any problem - do you mean with general boosts like a gentle low end and a high end boost?

Bottom line I have found with voice talent is if they're trained, they sound so much better on the recording than the ones who aren't trained...

And that if you want a "bigger" voice, you speak softer..

I'm really surprised you're having any kind of problems? You have all of the proper & most desirable gear ever manufactured. Your problem is not one of selection. Somehow, you are missing something in your technique or perhaps lack thereof? If you can't record something with an 87, perhaps you should think about becoming a manager for Taco Bell? I mean the sound of the room can have a huge factor. Putting folks in a vocal booth sounds like that. Like a telephone booth. Even worse when it's filled with foam. You need them in the size of a bedroom or living room. I hate the sound of vocal booths. They suck. Reflections off of scripts don't help either. This is a logistics issue. SM 7 & RE 20's both sound nice, both sound different and don't replace 87's. Your GML stuff is very nice. And George likes that extra clean and open quality that his stuff produces. But that's not necessarily what you want for your application. I think you'll find an API 312/512/3124 preamp and an 1176 limiter might give you more color and flavor to your high-pitched screeching vocal. Oh yeah and that PULTEC would fit in very nicely. So, transistor microphone, transistor preamp, tube EQ, transistor Limiter. Stay about 8 inches off the microphone. Screw the screen, go with the foam pop protection. TToo clean, with screechy, don't go together.

Deal? Or No Deal?
Mx. Remy Ann David

Wow - sorry if I offended you.

I just turned 25 this month with 8 years of recording experience in recording the literal top of the top voice talent to the lowest of the low. Hours of VO, ADR, audiobook, vocals - you name it. I didn't really want to go there.. C'mon man... Taco Bell? Isn't this a board for people to ask questions and learn?

The only trouble I have ever had in recording is with a talent who belts it and is in a higher register.

Sorry, but the U87 which is the first mic I go to on animation-type voices is too harsh wherever I place it. There is a sheen, veil, glassy, facade, cloud, whatever you want to call it on the voice which I cannot get rid of and is most likely not the room which is why I posted a thread about microphones.

I have tried literally every high-end mic money can buy on this type of voice and I merely wanted to see if there was one which is under the radar - RE-20 and SM7B being an example - that people swear by and use.

Whenever I have used an 1176 they are too slow for this type of application. Ditto for the LA3A and 2As. I guess a solid state would fit it better like you said.

Anyway - I guess it's hopeless. I finished up a project in 2009 where I literally had to dip 8 dB at 3.5K, dynamic EQ and tons of De-Sing on the narrator and I still wasn't 100% satisfied with the recordings.

Just seeing what else is out there is all.

EDIT: Oh yeah... Foam on a mic makes a recording dull and boxy. Screens are much better for quality... But by that do you mean that it takes some of the edge off?

Some of the problems you are describing sounds like you may have inverted the phase of the microphone. This inverted polarity can have a huge effect on how you perceive the sound through your monitors, headphones and the like. Polarity & phase are related but are not quite equal to each other. You have no idea how many control rooms I have corrected by simply inverting polarity on the monitoring system. In the preamp? In the equalizer? Somewhere in the signal path? 1176's are by no means a slow limiter, unless you tweak that way. And yeah, De-essers are popular for dealing with sibilance. That and high-frequency sensitized limiters. No, none of these analog limiters have (look ahead) capabilities. But that sounds screwy anyhow. Foam does not make a recording sound dull and boxy. It affects the sound very little and at best you might lose -.5 DB at 15 kHz. So it's perfectly adequate and plenty of people (professionals) use them. Maybe you should consider using a sanitary pad pop filter? It can help all of those bloody vocals.

Euwwwww
Mx. Remy Ann David

Thanks for the info.

What do you mean by phase of the microphone?

Are you talking about like if it is reversed like when the speaker cone is supposed to push out and it's sucking in instead? Is that what you mean by reversed polarity?

Anyway, thanks for the info. You're right, there is no reason I should be having problems and the top top pro guys I record sound awesome and everyone is happy with the sound I get on narrators and the like - on this certain talent I record he's just a goddamn chainsaw that I can't seem to get a good sound on for the life of me.

In terms of foam pop filters, the foam windscreen I place on my Schoeps MK41/MK6 it definitely alters the tonality. What kind of foam pop filter are you talking about for U87s? Maybe since you work in TV you don't hear the top end getting dulled...

Thanks - P.S. What's the Euwwwww mean? You remind me of most producers... I like how they make people wrong for asking questions.

Another mic to try along the line of the RE and SM7 would be a 421.
While I DON'T do VO work, it seems to round out some vocalists w/o... dulling them.

Remy can be difficult to understand sometimes, but if you get the core of her message, she's almost always right, in my experience. Right is relative, but she knows the nuts and bolts as well as anyone, and often has a simple front-end solution that is easily overlooked or unknown.
Even if she seems to be coming at you sideways, there's something in there that tells you what you're missing.
Might be the polarity?
Try flipping it on the speakers. If it suddenly sounds better, flip it on the mic preamp, and return your speakers to your normal getting-good-results setup.

I know Remy is fan of inverting the kick drum mic. "Why would you do that?" I said.
Well, every once in awhile, I do it now, and the presence that was intermittent comes alive.
Just something to consider.

I doubt it is the mic. It is most likely mic placement and/or the mic technique of the performer in question. I did quite a few high energy, gyratingly wild VOs and never had any problem with plosives although I do not have a high-pitched voice. The only problems I've had in my high-energy recordings was getting the levels restrained enough that the recording wasn't distorted; that was accomplished with VO technique and manual control on high volume portions of the pitch.

Hi Utopia,

Purists will probably consider this cheating but I have often used a multi-band compressor in limiter mode for problems like this (applied to the vocal track itself, not the mix). I'll just use one of the bands to zero in on the range of offending frequencies and set the limiter to kick in only when I want it to (ie, I'm not looking to impact 90% of the sound - only the 10% that gets annoying). It's sort of like a de-esser only I'm usually honing in on a narrow band in the mid-range area. I posted recently about this technique here (as applied to an acoustic guitar track) here: http://recording.org/acoustic-music-forum/44958-acoustic-guitar-track-heavy-backbeat-strumer-help.html#post347402.

I have mixed vocals that seem to have peaks that can be harsh/screechy at times and so this technique has helped me a lot. The trick is knowing what frequency range you need to manage. I'll often solo the track and put a spectrum analysis plugin on it so that I can get confirmation on the exact range I'm looking at and how wide of a range it is.

I hope this helps! Best of luck.

Wow that's a great idea. Thanks for that, rmsaudio.

I do that trick with the Oxford Suppressor. It works like a charm.