Subject:"Lightening up 'Howard Stern' type audio

Posted by: danderson

Date:7/23/2002 9:26:32 PM

Hi,
We have a client who has supplied us with their own vocal talent's recordings. I don't know how to explain it other than to say it's very Howard Stern like in that it's extremely bassy?? I don't know if that is the right term for it but it's the best way to describe it.

Our problem is that it sounds totally out of place with the other narrations we have for the course from the other 2 narrators.

What we want to do is either: Make the other 2 narrators voices sound like the "stern" like one,

or,

Make the "Stern" like voice sound lighter like the other two.

We just need for everything to sound consistent (as best as possible.)

Any ideas/suggestions are deeply appreciated at this poing.

What do you think our client did to get that type of audio? Did he just crank up the bass in their studio?

Thanks!

David Anderson

Subject:RE:

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:7/24/2002 11:03:37 AM

Stern uses an Electravoice RE-20 dynamic microphone. This is not a typical voice over microphone. It is highly used in music for kick drum applications. The difference is that this microphone has a good response for low-frequencies and not so good for higher frequencies. The end result is the bassy sound you hear. To get rid of the bassy sound to match the others, I would use a low-pass eq and do a cut from 150-200hz, probably around -6dB. You also might want to increase the presence range also, to get some of the high end back. 3.5Khz-5Khz (+3dB). Also add a high pass filter around 10Khz and boast there +4-6dB.

Subject:RE:

Reply by: davidanderson

Date:7/24/2002 12:17:39 PM

Thanks for the VERY specific settings suggestions.
Exactly what I was looking for.
I'll let you know how how it works out.


David

Subject:RE:

Reply by: jaypea

Date:7/24/2002 2:01:20 PM

actually, the e-v re20 (and it's newer brother, the re27) are the preeminent voice mikes for broadcast use. having been in radio for 25 years, I encountered my first re-20 in 1980, and have worked in many re20-based studios since. the station I'm now at in philadelphia has 7 re20's and 2 re27's spread throughout the facility. I even have one in my home voicetrack studio. that being said, we also use the re20 as described by rednroll for kick drums, and other musical applications.

also remember, when comparing the quality of a live or live-on-tape voice with what you hear on the radio, the audio signal broadcast by a radio station is very highly processed depending on the station's format. compression, limiting, equalization, expansion, etc, are all used--in most cases way too much. a station that would run stern may well be using enough processing to create a louder, denser sound, which would artificially boost bass, while the show's live satellite feed sounds crystal clear prior to broadcast.

rednroll is absolutely correct about the adjustments you'd make. just save the boosting of the highs as the very last thing you do, and then do it only if you need to. I find it's always easier to fix an error in cutting than it is in boosting. and keep your fingers crossed that the mike (or the track) wasn't overly compressed to create that effect--that usually can't be fixed...

Subject:RE:

Reply by: davidanderson

Date:7/24/2002 3:24:08 PM

Speaking of mics, we currently use a shure sm7b in our studio and have been considering a TLM103 as a candidate for upgrade.

Would we see much of a difference for one track, audio recording for internet delivery?

Thanks!

David

Subject:RE:

Reply by: rraud

Date:7/24/2002 6:39:10 PM

For internet delivery I don't think you would notice "that" much difference between an RE-20 and a TLM-103, assuming you are streaming it. But both are great mics to have.
I watch Howard occationally on the "E" network which video tapes his radio show. He was seen using a Neumann U-87 for a while. The last 6 months or so I see he is using what looks to be a Neumann M-150 tube mic or TLM-103. The other cast members and guests are given EV RE-20s, 27s, Sennheiser 421s, Shure SM-7s or an occational hand/held.
The EV RE-20 is by far the most popular mic used in radio.. and they do work good on kick drums. (My personal kick favorite is an AKG D-12e.) The RE-20s do not have an overerly pronouned proximity effect which gives it a nice tight bottom end unlike many of the cardioid dynamics which get boomy when worked close. The 20/27 has what EV calls a Variable "D" design, I forget what the "D" stands for... distance maybe?

Subject:RE:

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:7/25/2002 10:08:21 AM

"Speaking of mics, we currently use a shure sm7b in our studio and have been considering a TLM103 as a candidate for upgrade."

"Would we see much of a difference for one track, audio recording for internet delivery?"

Every microphone no matter if condenser or dynamic, or ribbon, has differenct frequency responses and some have different pre-amps (transistor/tube). Therefore, they will ALL sound different from one another. This is why most people use the same model of microphone when micing Toms of a drumset. This is so the drums sound similar and are not sounding drastically different, by placing different mics on each tom. The Shure SM57 has been for years a guitar mic of choice. It's a dynamic cardiod pickup pattern microphone. There's 1000's of dynamic/cardiod microphones, so why would everyone use an SM57 if all dynamic/cardiod mics sounded the same? So to answer your question, "yes" you would see a difference for one track, but that's also what EQ is for, to reduce the differences.

"The 20/27 has what EV calls a Variable "D" pattern"

Variable-D is a patented EV technology, which involves putting ports along the case of the microphone behind the diaphram. Behind these ports are a dense wedged shape foam, causing the ports to be different lengths and therefore, being tuned to different frequencies. These are also referred as "tuned ports". The end result is that the increase of bass frequencies due to the "proximity effect", when close micing is greatly reduced. The proximity effect will usually add around +15dB in bass frequencies (150Hz and below), with the variable-D technology it reduces this gain to around +5dB. The RE-20 also has a large diaphraphm which is required to reproduce low frequencies properly. The end result is less muddy bass response.

Subject:RE:

Reply by: davidanderson

Date:7/25/2002 1:28:28 PM

I hear you. I guess a better question on my part would be "Would we see an increase in clarity and presence from the TLM103".

I realize the mics are considerably different as one is a dynamic and the other is a condenser. We just heard from several of our vocal talent that they liked that model.

Thanks.

Subject:RE:

Reply by: fishtank

Date:7/25/2002 1:38:23 PM

I have a suspicion that the track was probably compressed heavily and a fair amount of EQ was used. You may want to add some compression (Waves Ren Comp - voice-over preset should do nicely if you have it) to the other tracks in attempt to match them with the bassy one. I worked as an engineer for a radio station for a short time and was surprised at just how much compression was used through the entire chain. Voice-over stuff with little or no compression always sounds thin to me and EQ alone will not do the trick IMHO.

Subject:RE:

Reply by: davidanderson

Date:7/25/2002 1:47:12 PM

Waves Ren Comp is a plugin that will work wiht 4.5 XP? I've not heard of it but we're willing to try it.

Subject:RE:

Reply by: fishtank

Date:7/25/2002 3:03:35 PM

I am fairly certain that 4.5 XP will not work with Direct-X plug-ins (Waves etc). There may be a compressor under one of the drop down menus though I doubt it will sound all that great. Also, I noticed that the newer version of Waves plug-ins do not work properly in the full version of SF 4.5 and I had to use the plug-in chainer to make things work (even with only one effect). I ended up buying the SF 6.0 upgrade as I needed it for 24 bit work anyway.

If you want to go through the trouble you could try downloading the demo versions of Sound Forge 6.0 and the Waves stuff (www.waves.com). This way you could verify that you can get the results that you want. The downside is that you will have to spend a fair amount of money to purchase these if you like them.

Other than that you could email me short (10-30 seconds or so) MP3 clips of the bassy track and the ones you recorded. I could attempt to process the less bassy track(s) to match the other and send it back to you.

Good luck....

Subject:RE:

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:7/25/2002 6:02:37 PM

"Would we see an increase in clarity and presence from the TLM103".

If "presence" and "clarity" is what you're looking for, then the answer is YES. I have never used the TLM103 or the SM7b. What you're really looking to ask is the difference between Dynamic vs. Condenser. A Condenser microphone (TLM103) is better suited for voice over type of work. That's because a condenser microphone has a better response in higher frequencies (the "presence" range), because the diaphram must move quickly to the higher frequencies. A dynamic microphone (SM7b) has a large coil of wire that is connected to the diaphram, thus it reacts alot slower, because of the laws of inercia (ie it has to get the large coil of wire moving. Dynamic microphones have a large "throw" (throw=the distance the diaphram can travel without bottoming out). A large "throw" is needed to produce lower frequencies. Condenser microphones don't have a large throw, thus a dynamic microphone is better for these types of applications.

This is just a few differences between Condenser vs. Dynamic. You need to know all the differences between the microphones and how they effect the sound they're being used to record and what you want to achieve. In the instance of radio stations, using the RE-20's. One of the main reason's why it is so popular for these applications, is because it is a dynamic microphone that gives good low-end to the voice and therefore makes the announcer sound full and puts authority behind the voice, and adds warmth. In commercial voice over work this is not so popular, because "Clarity" and "presence" is more important, like you're asking for. Popular microphone's used for this type of work are the AKG 414 and Neuman U-87.

I use to teach recording classes and explained the differences between condenser, dynamic, and ribbon, both how they're made and why each has it's pluses and minuses. I would always get the question, "What is the better microphone to use, condenser or dynamic?" The answer always is, "It depends on what the sound source is and what you are looking to achieve". A general rule is that dynamic microphones reproduce low-frequency sounds better, and condenser microphones reproduce high-frequency sounds better.

Hope that helps,
rednroll

Subject:RE:

Reply by: danderson

Date:7/25/2002 7:52:22 PM

Hi,

You guys sure know what you're talking about. Thanks! The company I work at (www.corpedia.com) does online training. We hired an audio tech several years ago to "set us up". We had a very small but ample studio built and all equipment and hardware was purchased on his suggestion: pro tools 4.3 ( think thats the version, i know it's older) a Mackie 1202vlz and the Shure. We use Sound Forge 4.5xp for cleaning up the audio. Generally to apply a small noise gate and chop up the audio tracks for importing them into Flash. Occassionally we get to have some fun with SoundForge when we get vocal talent that is not used to reading for elearning courses. This is the case right now:-/

Anyway, I'm the only one who's interested in the audio recording and I'm always seeing what we can do to get "better" gear and lately we've had some recommendations for the TLM103.

Tomorrow we're doing more audio work and I'll let you know how it turns out.

Appreciatively,

David

Subject:RE:

Reply by: RiRo

Date:7/29/2002 1:32:11 PM

I gotta agree with Rednroll again. This guy is on track!

The station I do some voice work for has migrated from the Sennheiser 421 to Shure SM7s, but still aren't happy with the sound. I take my large capsule condenser and a tube preamp and compressor, and I am constantly asked how I get the mics to sound the way I do. The compressor has a de-esser and a few other tricks, which help, and the tube pre doesn't hurt, but the condenser mic is the ticket. I hooked it up with just a phantom power in the line to the regular equipment, and it was noticibly crisper and brighter than the SM7. Funny thing is you can get half a dozen condensers online for the price of a single new SM7.

RiRo

Subject:RE:

Reply by: davidanderson

Date:7/29/2002 4:10:23 PM

Hi RiRo,

Can you recommend a compressor for vocal only recording?

Thanks,

Dave

Subject:RE:

Reply by: fishtank

Date:7/30/2002 9:40:32 AM

Are you looking for an analog hardware unit before you go to digital? If money were no object I would recommend an Empirical Labs EL8 Distressor though it is very expensive and is only a compressor (no de-esser or EQ etc). The FMR Audio RNC is quite nice, fairly cheap and will allow you to compress the crap out of a vocal track and still sound good. The Behringer Composer Pro can be had for about $99 mail order and should be a decent unit for you.

There are tons of low cost compressors out there these days though some of them suck like the Alesis 3630 which is probably one of the worst comps ever made IMHO - be careful. Also, proper setup is key to getting good results. I prefer a fairly high ratio and fast attack/medium-fast release for vocal tracks. Some comps can behave much differently than other so giving settings is not always helpful.

Subject:RE:

Reply by: RiRo

Date:7/31/2002 10:11:35 AM

The Behringer Composer pro is ok, though not my favorite. The Behringer Ultravoice is a much better choice and has the preamp and tube emulation in the same box. It also de-esses, EQs, expands, gates, and has an enhance feature. I also like the ART Levelar, but it is strictly a compressor, albeit a good sounding one.

RiRo

Subject:RE:

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:8/1/2002 5:35:59 PM

Behringer and especially ART work, but are extremely noisy compressors. If sound quality isn't your main concern, but functionality is then go for it. I prefer anything from DBX on the compressor side. The DBX 286A is a great all-in-one, vocal processor, or if your budget allows for it then, go for the 386, which has a tube pre-amp. I've never been let down by a DBX compressor yet.

Subject:RE:

Reply by: fishtank

Date:8/1/2002 10:03:36 PM

Are you saying all Behringer compressors are extremely noisy or just a particular model? I have to say that while the Behringer units I have used may be mediocre at best, they were not excessively noisy by any means. I hate to see blanket statements like this when giving advice to a newbie.

FWIW - I feel DBX makes some pretty decent stuff though I would not necessarily say it is any amount better than the comparable Behringer product(I'm talking about some of the products-not all). DBX may be a much more reputable company, but that is another issue. Did I not see a post from you indicating that you worked for Harmon\DBX? I apologize if I am incorrect but you seem very biased towards DBX either way.

I'm not trying to give you crap or start a flame war but come on now....all this DBX, ART and Behringer gear we are discussing is nothing spectacular. A good hi-end compressor is leaps and bounds better than any of these. I'm not saying the DBX gear you recommended is bad, just that it is not necessarily light-years ahead of the Behringer unit as you inferred. I personally wouldn't get any more excited over a 1066 than I would a Composer Pro. An old Urei 1176 or a distressor ................now were talking.

Subject:RE:

Reply by: RiRo

Date:8/2/2002 4:00:49 PM

I was looking at a 286a anyway. I'll pick it up and do a side by side with the behringer and the ART. The behringer is a bit noisy under some circumstances, when background noise is high or such. We use quiet rooms for recording and noise has not been much of a bother. We do not use the gate, as the room is quiet enough, and we cut and paste the voice audio anyway.

RiRo

Subject:RE:

Reply by: Rednroll

Date:8/2/2002 6:58:11 PM

"Did I not see a post from you indicating that you worked for Harmon\DBX? I apologize if I am incorrect but you seem very biased towards DBX either way."

Yes, it is true that I work for Harman, who owns DBX. My experience before working for Harman came from being an audio engineer with 8 years of working in recording studios, where I had worked with many DBX, Behringer, Drawmer, Urei, Avalon and other compressors. Sorry, I can't recall a particular Behringer compressor, to point out, because if it sounds noisy, it isn't worth remembering a model number. So my recommendation doesn't really come from working for Harman, it comes from my experience. I in no way benefit from the sales of DBX. I actually work in the JBL, Infinity and Mark Levinson product lines of Harman, so I don't consider my opinion as bias as you would lead to believe.

I think behringer products are good for the price, heck I even own one of their headphone amps. I'm a critical listener though and I can even hear the noise of the amplifiers in that too. My headphone mixes don't get recorded, so that noise is not that important to me, but my compressors are in my signal path going to tape/hard disk and past experience has led me to stray away from behringer products. Shoot, Harman even owns AKG, but that doesn't keep me from buying Shure SM57 and SM58 microphones.

"An old Urei 1176".....BTW, Urei is another harman product, and I agree these are some pretty good sounding compressors, although I never did care for the parameter adjustments.

Subject:RE:

Reply by: rraud

Date:8/3/2002 3:32:52 PM

I second Red's suggestion of DBX comps. They are easy to set-up and work w/o getting much of the pumping and breathing side effects, which ARE very audible in many of the Behringer models and take much tweaking to get the side-effects to a minimum and still do the job.

Thanks and RIP David Blackmer. (Founder of DBX)