VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD! :: View topic - Microphone for a Storyteller

VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!
Established November 10, 2004

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Microphone for a Storyteller
Goto page Previous 1, 2

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD! Forum Index -> Gear !

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Sinocelt
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:14 am Post subject:

Mike Sommer wrote:

It does not matter whether someone is singing or speaking, the voice range is still the same.

Voice range and guitar range are also quite similar. I still believe there's a big difference between someone speaking softly and, as captain54 described, someone singing loudly.

When Lukas Hajek speaks and sings, there's little difference, but (1) he's using a condenser and (2) he doesn't sing loudly. Neither does Loreena McKennitt in the "Lady of Shalott," and I very much doubt that her heartbreakingly soft "t" in this song, like a petal falling on still water, was recorded with a dynamic.

Mike Sommer wrote:

Just to prove my point:
http://www.coutant.org/sm3b/sm3bspeak.mp3
http://www.coutant.org/sm3b/sm3bsing.mp3

As you can hear, the mic does not know if you are sing or talking, it's all the
same to the microphone. The tone, timbre and the voicing of the mic are
the same.

You were arguing in favor of dynamic microphones... and use a ribbon mic as an example? Even then, I think the mic reacts somewhat differently to the singing and spoken voices, so we don't hear the same thing.

(As a sidenote, this spoken sound is my favorite of all the samples you linked to!)

Mike Sommer wrote:

I've been in session were the SM58 has been used along side a U87 and an
RCA BK-5A. There were no music beds, or any crazy processing- it was
simple straight vox. And when all was said and done, you could not tell the
difference.

The U87 is an hoax, then. Let's all buy an SM58 and be done with it.

Mike Sommer wrote:

When you hand over your audio it will be contoured, adjusted and enhanced.
So when all is said and done, people are not listening to the mic, they are
listening to the performance.

By your logic, I could stick to my $20 webcam. Only there are audiobooks (mostly old ones) with good performers but crappy recording: the voice sounds remote, details are lost, etc.

Mike Sommer wrote:

All this "My mic is bigger than yours," is just that.

The M930 is quite tiny, actually. ^_^

Mike Sommer wrote:

So as long as you can capture
good clean audio, that's all that matters. Because at the end it does not matter
what microphone you are using in the VO application. There is no "Best" microphone,
only possibly "Better." And even that is a subjective appraisal.

Of course there's no "best" microphone, or the market wouldn't be flooded. But there are different microphones better suited to different purposes, voices, and even tastes.

Mike Sommer wrote:

The problem is that we have a brain that's wired in a particular way, and our hearing is easily influenced.

Not just our hearing. Still, while I may call the cyan color "blue" or "green" at different times, I'm not likely to get confused between blue and red.

I listened to the samples you graciously linked to. I still don't like the dynamics, not for narration purposes. The RE20, in particular, seems to lend robotic accents to the voice.

This said, yes, different samples of the same microphone can lead to different appreciations; for instance, I didn't like the samples of the U87 and U47 you linked to as much as others I gathered of those same microphoes. Still, reading reviews and listening to samples are the best way I had to pre-select mics.

Mike Sommer wrote:

By adding more and more options, you're just making it more difficult for
yourself to make a final decision. Boil it down to the top 3 or 4 VO mics
that you can afford and take the plunge. Then you'll need to find the
proper Preamp for the mic you decide to go with. I gets deeper and deeper.

That's why I've got a short list (much shorted than my extended one, which I didn't bother to post), though I agree it would benefit from being even shorter! If I had to buy only one mic, unheard, it'd probably be the M930: compact, quiet, and good enough that if I don't get a good recording out of it, I'll be the one to blame, not the mic! Still, I'd rather compare it to other mics, if I've got the opportunity.

whalewtchr wrote:

Go to my website. Heart of A Patriot is Shure SM7B.
The condenser I am using at the moment, because pennies are tight, is a Behringer B-1 for 99 bucks...it sounds fine to my ear, but hey everyone is different.

I didn't like it, sorry. Sleep

Your voice sounds "cut" at the end, all the time: there's no breath. It sounds a little artificial, in spite of your fine performance. I preferred "AUDIOBOOK DEMO" even though the microphone seems to "break" on your growling voice. I really enjoyed your performance on that one, the different voices, and I truly believe it would have benefited from a better recording. There are harsh overtones in "BOOK OF THE BUSH" too but, curiously, "THURLOW'S GHOST" is noticeably smoother.

whalewtchr
Cinquecento

Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 582
Location: Savannah, GA

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:44 am Post subject:

Quote:

I didn't like it, sorry. Your voice sounds "cut" at the end, all the time: there's no breath. It sounds a little artificial, in spite of your fine performance. I preferred "AUDIOBOOK DEMO" even though the microphone seems to "break" on your growling voice. I really enjoyed your performance on that one, the different voices, and I truly believe it would have benefited from a better recording. There are harsh overtones in "BOOK OF THE BUSH" too but, curiously, "THURLOW'S GHOST" is noticeably smoother.

The Audiobook Demo cut one is SHURE SM7B fed thru a Symetrix. Cut two and three were on a U87 at a recording studio. Book of the Bush and Thurlow were both on the same SHURE. Go figure.
_________________
jonahcummings

Sinocelt
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:16 am Post subject:

whalewtchr wrote:

The Audiobook Demo cut one is SHURE SM7B fed thru a Symetrix. Cut two and three were on a U87 at a recording studio. Book of the Bush and Thurlow were both on the same SHURE. Go figure.

That's pretty weird. I'll do another listen tomorrow, with better audio gear.

[EDIT:] Now I remember why I didn't listen to your sample with my DACPort, but only with my crappy notebook soundcard: I cannot download your samples, and the DACPort only works -- and even then, not all the time, not without my having to convert the file or burn it on a virtual audio CD -- with Foobar and/or Audacity. It's a problem with my two notebooks, possibly due to my old Logitech webcam's drivers (I tried to remove those, without result, but even with CCleaner, who knows if I really removed everything). I tried the DACPort on other computers than mine and it worked perfectly. Dammit

Deirdre
Czarina Emeritus

Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13023
Location: Camp Cooper

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:02 pm Post subject:

This is your Den Mother here: Remember that this is a civil forum, gents, and nya-nyahs are not allowed. Keep things in the polite range or please take it elsewhere. Deebs _________________ DBCooperVO.com IMDB

Mike Sommer
A Hundred Dozen

Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 1222
Location: Boss Angeles

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:36 pm Post subject:

captain54 wrote:

Mike Sommer wrote:

[EDIT]
It does not matter whether someone is singing or speaking, the voice range
is still the same.

.

So in your opinion, there is no difference between a rock singer screaming his ass off with his lips wrapped around the pop shield of a 58, and a Vo artist doing long form narration...

okay

You are confusing the subject.
- If someone is screaming their ass off, a Telefunken 251 nor any capacitor mic, would not be found in the mix.

- There are also a differences between a mic gulping stage performances and studio production.

- And when one is screaming, it does not matter what mic you are using. Especially if you do not care about the microphone.

So let's be clear-
When one is listening to microphones, with the intention of finding one that best suits their voice. It does not matter if one is singing or talking, for the timbre tone and voicing of the microphone will remain the same. The microphone does not suddenly or magically take on a new sonic dynamic dimension simply because one is either singing or talking. If one sounds good speaking on a particular microphone then they will sound good singing on a microphone.

I have never found this not to be true.
_________________
The Blog:
http://voiceoveraudio.blogspot.com/

Acoustics are counter-intuitive. If one thing is certain about acoustics, it is that if anything seems obvious it is probably wrong.

Mike Sommer
A Hundred Dozen

Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 1222
Location: Boss Angeles

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:37 pm Post subject:

Sinocelt wrote:

Mike Sommer wrote:

It does not matter whether someone is singing or speaking, the voice range is still the same.

Yes an acoustic guitar and the human voice are very similar in range. But differ greatly in voicing and tone.
If one tries to choose a microphone for the human voice, based upon its performance of an instrument, then that person is indeed making a mistake.

There is of course a difference between screaming and speaking softly, and that is not an argument for what I'm trying to illustrate. If one is screaming (as I pointed out above) a super sensitive microphone would not be needed, and a dynamic would be the mic of choice, and the beauty of the SM58 is the it can handle both extremes rather neatly. In the studio if someone needs to scream a different mic is brought in, or the performer is backed off the microphone. One needs to consider that a condenser mic would overload rather quickly if one were screaming.

The screaming analogy is argumentative and not entirely cogent, since we are indeed speaking to voice acting. Though some screaming does take place in animation, and thusly safe guards are set in place for such performances.

As for capturing a "heartbreakingly soft 't'." Breath control and articulation, "the talent of the performer" are most likely the champions here, along with good acoustics. Recently, I was asked to record audio for a small independent shoot a few months ago. The actress was rather soft spoken Asian lady with a very delicate voice, with very clean articulation (when not acting she does speech therapy). Because of the scene set up (a long truck, into an extreme close u Hobo Happy

I was not able to put a boom on her. So I used a lav that was pined on her shoulder hidden by her hair. I was able to pick up every heart breaking nuance of her performance. If I can do that with a lav mic, it can done with a dynamic.

Quote:

Mike Sommer wrote:

---It's not so much as arguing for dynamic mics, in as much as I'm pointing out the fact that when all is said and done, you'll be hard pressed to tell which mic is what in the end. ---

In the examples above, I am illustrating that a microphones voicing does not change because one is sing or talking.

The only difference is that the voice moves into higher ranges. The voice is changing, not the microphone.

So I ask you, how is the microphone reacting differently?

I'll just say it can't. It's a stupid machine.
We, can only sound different.

On your side note: A ribbon mic is one of the most wonderful and most forgiving mics you'll ever use.

Quote:

Mike Sommer wrote:

The U87 is an hoax, then. Let's all buy an SM58 and be done with it.

You very well could. That's why I say, much of this is all just a big piss fight-- Nobody wins.

For years Disney TV animation used Sennheiser 421's, dynamic microphones. It's only
been in about the last 15 years that the change was made to U87's and in some cases Gefell Um70s'.

There is a little studio here in LA and he uses 421's and 441's all the time, and they sound beautiful.

So why do we use condensers? Because in a properly treated room, the clarity of a good quality condenser
will bring extra detail to a performance. But in most home studios, the acoustics and isolation are not that
great, so all that goodness a is washed down the drain. You pay a lot and get little.

Quote:

Mike Sommer wrote:

When you hand over your audio it will be contoured, adjusted and enhanced.
So when all is said and done, people are not listening to the mic, they are
listening to the performance.

By your logic, I could stick to my $20 webcam. Only there are audiobooks (mostly old ones) with good performers but crappy recording: the voice sounds remote, details are lost, etc.

In regards to the $20 webcam, you're just being silly. Never did I suggest that one does not need a professional grade microphone.

As for the audio book you speak of, if that is the case I would have returned those audio books and asked for my money back.

If I could hear what you are referring to I could possibly decipher the problem. If they were recored on tape there could be generational loss, poor transferring technique, or the audio was not remastered for the digital domain. Or it could have been poor recording technique.

Quote:

Mike Sommer wrote:

Of course there's no "best" microphone, or the market wouldn't be flooded. But there are different microphones better suited to different purposes, voices, and even tastes.

And that is subjective.

The market is flooded with cheap Chinese mics because, every dreamer want to be a star in Hollywood. And these companies know this. They also know that folks don't know the difference between the #1 pin and the #3 pin on and XLR cable. And thusly the vail of bullshit continues to descend.

Quote:

Mike Sommer wrote:

The problem is that we have a brain that's wired in a particular way, and our hearing is easily influenced.

Still, while I may call the cyan color "blue" or "green" at different times, I'm not likely to get confused between blue and red.

Indeed, but lets not confuse the subject of "critical listening" to that of deciphering color. When one has a single auditory cue as a stimuli, that is when our brian can make critical judgments as to what we are hearing. The article alludes to this, it states we hear with our eyes It describes how when someone mumbles we look at there mouth (read their lips) to fill in the missing information. This is in fact an outside influence. The fact is, the audio information is not there, or is not complete, our brain, through outside cues, is filling in the missing information. We do this all the time.

So what does this have to do with picking a mic?

Since one is trying to make an informed decision, one has surely read all the pros and cons about all the microphones he is considering. All this information is indeed outside influence; cues that will sway our judgment, and the way one listens mic samples.

They only way one can make a true microphone choices, is by critical listening based on sound alone, i.e. listening blindly.
This means:
- Audio files must not be labeled with the microphones names.
- Samples must be made in the same studio with the same audio chain.
- The listener must be comfortable and relaxed

Quote:

And listening blindly is the only way to make a true decision.

Otherwise it's buy and sell, buy and sell.
I see it all the time on these boards.

And that's why I say, put your money into your acoustics first, your equipment will thank you.
_________________
The Blog:
http://voiceoveraudio.blogspot.com/

Acoustics are counter-intuitive. If one thing is certain about acoustics, it is that if anything seems obvious it is probably wrong.

Edo
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:22 pm Post subject:

I'd like to thank everybody for contributing to this here thread. It seems the storytelling exceeds the subject of the proper microphone by now and everything has been said I think. If not, I'm open for discussion. Feel free to PM me. For now the subject is closed.

Display posts from previous:

	VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD! Forum Index -> Gear !	All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum