I get more comments and mail about my Cloudlifter review. This question comes courtesy of Scully:
Hmm. Maybe I should get one [an H4n]. The SM57 sounds smooth with the H4n. I'm currently trying an SM57 with a dbx 286A + CL-1 to an Edirol R-09HR. I'm also swapping out the dbx for an Edirol UA25. In both cases it just sounds too... "dry." Your voice sounds smooth, and I don't think it's just your voice.
Whoa. Scully. Pump the brakes.
If I find out that, with the gear you already own, you went out and bought a $300 portable recording unit JUST to make an SM57 sound better, I swear to a deity I don't believe in, I will find where you live, drive there, and deliver a swift kick up the arse.
Couple things you can try:
Play with mic position. It's sort of like a stage actor finding their light. Move around. Change the position and angle in your booth. Move the mic around. Find that sweet spot.
Try different locations. Do you usually record in a small space? Go bigger. Typically recording in a large space? Go small.
Check out your preamp settings. Maybe your dbx is hitting the compressor to hard? Maybe the de-esser or expander is getting in the way?
I like to record as clean as possible. Usually I'll go solely preamp, sometimes I'll throw in a compressor as a safety net, but I never use any other gear to affect the sound of spoken word.
I'll always recommend working backwards. Disable everything you can to work with as simple a recording chain as possible, and with THAT see if you can achieve the sound you want.
After that, then it's easy to replace a de-esser or compressor, since they wont be used to CREATE the sound you want, they'll only be there to protect it.
Shop for the Zoom H4n, Edirol UA25, Shure SM57, or dbx 286A, and you'll be supporting this site at no additional cost to you! Looking for different gear? Hit the shop links on the left!
I usually get the "what's the least amount of money I can spend to get that pro VO sound" question. The question where basically they want me to validate the purchase of a SnowBall, and they tend to get a bit spiky when I suggest they set a budget instead.
So, when I get the "what should I buy" question framed by asking about setting a proper budget for recording equipment, I like to spend a little time answering that question.
From Twitter user @kirstynjohnson I received the following tweets:
okay, @SomeAudioGuy. trying to get an 'equipment' savings account set up. I figure just starting with a single mic is the best route, aha.(@SomeAudioGuy cont.) so, what would be the best choice for a beginner like myself? I'm not limiting price range, as it's an investment.
OK.
You're asking the right question here. How much SHOULD I save up? Yes. Set a budget. This is a business investment, and no business can succeed if it just throws money around willy-nilly, or if it spends too little on producing its product.
Where you're going to run into a problem, the mic is only ONE piece of your chain. How are you going to power that mic? You could spend thousands on a Manley reference mic, but if you haven't considered the rest of your chain, your recordings will sound awful. From the room you're in, to the source you're recording (namely you), to the preamp/compressor/digital interface, to the computer, and then to playback, if you plan for EACH of these pieces of your chain then your recordings will sound MUCH better than if you over-buy on one link.
One of the reasons people start to think mid range mics don't sound as good, or are noisier, or any number of other faults, is that they are only being powered by the preamp built into an interface. Moving to a dedicated preamp can usually mean more recording signal at a lower noise floor. Spending around $500 on a preamp (like a Grace M101 or an FMR Audio RNP8380), and then picking out a mid-range mic like the AKG C214, Rode NT2000, AudioTechnica AT4040, or Shure KSM32 will almost always sound noticeably better than just spending $1000+ on a mic.
If your space is really noisy, you might also want to consider a dynamic mic solution, like from my video review of the Cloudlifter CL1. A Heil PR40, EV RE20, Shure SM7b, or even just a lowly SM58 can sound pretty great when properly driven (which the Cloudlifter will help with in providing clean gain), and will be MUCH more tolerant of less than ideal recording spaces (which is why these types of mics are used in radio).
So, as you may have figured out by now, mic selection alone can start to get a little overwhelming with all of the genuinely good options available to us. If it's me, I think I'd set a budget around $2000 for everything. That gets me a good interface, a nice preamp, great mid range mic, and some cash left over to do some room treatments. The sum total of your chain at that point should be a marked step above entry solutions like USB mics.
As to exactly which mic I would buy, that's as personal a selection as picking out your undergarments. Realistically you should sound fine on ANY of the choices listed above, but if you're really exacting on tailoring your mic selection to the specific qualities of your voice, you might need to spend a little time and cash on booking some studio time to play with a couple different mics, or on hiring someone like me to actually go out to your place with a couple different mics to do a shootout.
If you record with low output mics you'll always be craving more gain. The CL-1 is here to give it to you. For engineers using ribbon and dynamic mics, check out my review of Cloud Microphone's Cloudlifter CL-1 Mic Activator.
Click on the Amazon links to the left before shopping, and you'll help keep SomeAudioGuy on the web at no additional cost to you!
***Update 07/06/10 Apparently my file storage service has deleted the FMR + 416 recording I used in this test, and I no longer have a copy of it backed up. Apologies for the incomplete comparison***
So this really isn't going to be a fair fight, not even a little.
If you read my blog, you'll know already, that I don't run a booth out of my home anymore, and no longer keep a lot of gear here. From bouncing around town though, I've been getting the equipment bug (I have Gear Acquisition Syndrome, if you will), and decided to throw down on some mid range consumer kit.
I've got a pretty well established mic collection, so I figured it was time to invest in a decent little preamp/compressor combo. After reading some reviews, and using one in a studio, I've been pretty interested in checking out the Really Nice Preamp and the Really Nice Compressor from FMR Audio.
So, I bought one of each.
I'm the proud new owner of an RNP8380 and an RNC1773. To start breaking them in, I figured what better than setting them up against my old workhorse the ART Tube PAC. I picked my two Sennheiser mics for the shootout, an MKH416 P48 and an MD421u5.
Usually for the Living Room Labs, I just record in my living room (get it?), but seeing as how we need to take a closer listen to the differences in tone between the two, I actually padded up a closet to do the test.
I tried to match the settings on the two different setups as close as possible. After hardware, no further editing was done other than to convert to 320kbps MP3.
Hardware settings for the 416:
30dB input Gain
-15dB Threshold
3:1 compression
"Fast" A&R (.2 sec attack and .1 sec release)
0dB output Gain
Lets take a listen! MKH416 P48 on ART Tube PAC:
MKH416 P48 on FMR RNP/RNC combo:
I have to say I was really surprised by the sound here. First up, either ART's marked settings are way low, or FMR's are way high. On average there's about a 5dB difference between the two. That doesn't sound like a lot on paper, but I think you can hear between the two samples just how much louder the FMR combo seems compared to the PAC. Ignoring the boxy-ness of the closet, I feel the FMR is a little harsh. If I hadn't been trying to match it to the PAC, I probably would've rolled it off another 6dB. I like how the tubes in the PAC smoothed out the 416 a little, but there's a lot more noise. Given a little more time to refine the sound of the 416/FMR combo, I'm sure I'll have a winner there. It's just SO much cleaner.
Hardware settings for the MD421u5 were the same except for an additional 8dB of output Gain.
MD421u5 on ART Tube PAC:
MD421u5 on FMR RNP/RNC combo:
WOW! I've never gotten a sound like that out of my decades old MD421. I didn't know she could do that. The FMR brought a smooth, rich, clean sound out of a dynamic mic which has been knocked around since before I was born. I honestly have never recorded so "true" a sound at home. The FMR/MD421 combo is the closest I've ever come at home, with my own kit, to capturing what I feel I really sound like in real life. The 421 on the PAC sounds AWFUL!
I'm kinda torn. My voice on my most expensive condensor mic doesn't sound as good as my old beat up radio dynamic mic. I'm not sure how I feel about that, LOL!
Just as a last note on the test, with no mics plugged in, the noise floor of the PAC was hovering around -70, while the FMR combo was hovering around -78. That sounds pretty good at first, until I considered that the FMR signal chain was being sent through two separate outboard devices, and STILL had a lower noise floor than the all in one Tube PAC. That's kind of awesome.
Now what I said up at the top is totally valid though. This wasn't a fair test AT ALL. You can pick up an ART Tube PAC for around $100, but picking up BOTH an RNP and RNC will run you closer to $700. More expensive doesn't always mean better, but even giving the PAC the benefit of the doubt, the FMR combo is around three and a half times more expensive per channel.
I've gotten this question a couple times, so I figured it was time to throw some equipment at the problem.
Should you plug your mic directly into your soundcard (or mixer), or should you invest in a dedicated preamp?
The answer is "yes".
Either.
Correct.
Let's take a listen! For today's experiment, we're going to use my M-Audio Solaris because it's a decent budget condenser microphone, and it's become one of my favorite work horse microphones.
The two preamps we're going to compare it with are the Behringer T1953, which I've had for a while now...
...and, an ART Tube PAC, which I've only just recently acquired.
To keep everything as neutral as possible, I'm recording into my Firewire 410.
All recordings were done 6 inches from the mic's diaphragm, and have not been edited (unless noted) accept for compression to 320Kbps MP3 for streaming (initial recording were done @ 24/96). The PAC was used low threshold with 3:1 compression.
OK, so what can we glean? Well, none of these sound "bad" to me. I prefer the sound of the PAC, it's a little fuller than the direct to soundcard, but I still feel like that sounds like me, natural. The T1953 sounds "hotter" or "louder" (odd as it doesn't have a compressor like the PAC), but it adds a slightly unnatural timbre or edge to my voice. It's a subtle texture that's not unpleasant, but I don't feel that's what I really sound like. Also the T1953 adds a bit more noise to the chain than the PAC. The direct to soundcard is the cleanest of the group, but is also the plainest to me. It's not bad, just vanilla, and we all know that vanilla is the best "base" ice cream. I think this recording would probably be the easiest to EQ and mix in front of music on a commercial.
As with so much of what we do, if you're already working a mic you like with a good soundcard, then adding a preamp (especially ones like my budget preamps) isn't going to bring an earth shaking difference to your recordings. It can make editing easier however as it instantly brings up the level of your recordings, giving you a nice hot signal to work with, but it can also make editing harder if your preamp is noisy.
For us VO people, I can only recommend buying a dedicated Pre if you've compared a few, and you've picked one out that compliments your mic and soundcard in accentuating the qualities of your voice you MOST want people to hear.
And of course, everything in this article can be purchased through SOME AUDIO STORE, LOL! someaudioguy some audio guy voice over recording auditions VO voice acting equipment kit gear microphone preamp soundcard digital audio interface
I do quite a bit of business teaching people how to record themselves. Working in voiceover, this is becoming more and more necessary. Not that VO artists need to be full on recording engineers, but having a basic understanding of how to make their voices sound presentable is becoming more important. At work we recently worked on a promo job where the budget was so low, that to pay for union talent they had to be able to record themselves, and send the audio back as quickly as possible. They didn't care about whisper rooms or ISDN, just a decent clean recording and a good performance. The job would've covered 30+ national promos.
Not a bad incentive to invest in some recording equipment!
My favorite setup to recommend is an external soundcard and condenser microphone. For newbies I tend to start low, say a USB MobilePre and MXL 770 (I can't say I'm a big fan of USB mics, as they don't give you anywhere to go, say you want to upgrade the mic or soundcard, you're starting from scratch all over again, not to mention adding a mixer, preamps, or monitors). Good flexibility, good sound, and all starting at under $300 (including stands and cables).
So, why not use a more expensive mic?
I get this question quite a bit. Every VO actor seems to have dreams of recording at home on a U87 or some vintage ribbon mic, and expensive mics are great, but an expensive mic wont make something sound "good-er". You get an expensive mic because it has a particular character that you are wanting to use. Personally I prefer the sound of an AKG 414 to the U87 FOR MOST PEOPLE. This is of course totally subjective as no one's really going to sound "bad" on either of these, but the Neumann will run you two to three times as much. Will you sound two to three times better?
It's all about bang for buck. For a newbie at recording, who wont understand about monitors, mixing, preamps (where mics really start to shine), and sound proofing/isolation it makes little sense to spend more than a couple hundred bucks to start experimenting. This kit can get really expensive really fast.
So all that being said, I've setup a little experiment. I've taken 3 of my favorite mics (and one beater) set them up under the same conditions, and two at a time, recorded the same piece of text (the first paragraph of 'Under Milk Wood' by Dylan Thomas, one of my favorite plays). All mics were connected directly to my Firewire 4-10, with gain set at half for each. Mic diaphragms were set approximately 10 inches from my face. After recording I punched each track through Sound Forge 9 and boosted the volume about 300% (exactly the same for each), then mixed each down to an mp3 @ 320kbps.
The mics we'll be hearing are:
*The M-Audio Aries @ $120 - Hand held condenser mic I got for free with my soundcard.
*The M-Audio Solaris @ $300 - This was the first multi-pattern condenser I've ever purchased, and it's served me very well for years.
*The Neumann KM184 @ $700 - I inherited this mic, before I was serious about recording, from an internet news "broadcast" station I worked at briefly in college. None of us knew about phantom power, so this mic "never worked". Years later I figured it out, and this has been a great utility and over head mic.
* The Sennheiser MKH 416 @ $1400 - This is THE L.A. mic. Originally used for outdoor broadcast, it also found a home in studios thanks in part to it's laser like focus.
With introductions out of the way, let's take a listen! While listening try to keep your headphones or speakers set to the same level. Each clip is about 40 seconds long.
M-Audio Aries:
M-Audio Solaris:
Neumann KM184:
Sennheiser MKH 416:
Wow! The Aries sounds not great at all! To be fair it is meant to replace dynamic mics like the sm57 (which I originally planned on using but sounded even worse), and even though it's phantom powered, the Aries really is meant to be passed through a preamp just like the Dynamic mics it competes against.
The Senny 416 sounds great. This thing is meant to be attached to video equipment or thrown on a boom, run off batteries, and get ONE person's voice even in noisy environments. Little wonder it handily beats the living crap out of the budget "studio" mics, and at twice the price of the Neumann, it had better.
But here's where a little know-how comes in. What if we normalized the volume of the Neumann and the Solaris to match the volume of the 416? Would the Senny still sound that much better? Let's see! Solaris NORMALIZED:
Neumann NORMALIZED:
OK! That's much better. The Solaris comes in a little brighter. The Neumann made my voice a little muddy, but now we're much closer in terms of "quality".
Now can we really say the Senny is twice as good as the Neumann? FOUR times better than the Solaris? Or if you're just starting out do you just boost the volume after the fact with a budget mic?
Thin voice? Movie trailer voice? No one mic is going to be the best. Matching a mic to a voice is as personal as the right pair of shoes/jeans/etc. Dumping a ton of cash on a "good" mic is kind of useless unless you've got the time, money, know-how, and effort to put into the surrounding kit as well.
Let me know what you think! Comments always appreciated! Hopefully I'll be able to do more of these as time goes on.
