VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject:

ok, a quick pass:

here's Amy's file normalized. The loudest volume is at 99% or just under 0db. It sounds kind of thin (no offense to Amy). In audition the file has lots of peaks and valleys:

Now here's the same file compressed. It has a "louder" sound though it never peaks above 0db. The sound file in Audition looks fuller with more peaks and less valleys:

Proof that compressed audio sounds bigger, fuller and more dynamic than normalized audio!
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

Rob Ellis · M&M Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 2385 Location: Detroit

Question Jeffrey, I am an Audition 2.0 user (love it) and I usually normalize, but you have sold me on compression. What specific compression function did you use on the file you pictured? And how much compression did you apply?

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject:

For Amy's, I used:

For my voice (and where I'd start with any male), I use:

Notice I chop the top and bottom most frequencies off completely because they don't contain much int he way of good sonic info. they contain hiss and rumble, if they're there.

Mine are far from perfect (I seem to enhance unwanted breath sounds), so I'd love to see others post their compression settings.
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

Hart · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject:

Great example Jeff. That plugin is one of my favorite parts of 2.0. Watch it though, you'll become a plugin junkie, lol. They're like potato chips. You always gotta have one more.

For example, Chuck has me thinking about Wave Hammer from soundforge.
_________________
Hart Voice Overs Blog
Brian Hart Productions

bobsouer · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject:

Hart · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject:

Thanks for your thoughts Bob. Am I really going to buy another editor? Apparently, lol.
_________________
Hart Voice Overs Blog
Brian Hart Productions

asnively · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject:

This has been so educational! (I love you Jeffrey!)
_________________
Love Help

Frank F · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject:

Gota go with Wave Hammer too! I love it for mastering. Using the proper settings makes it a dream. In a lot of ways smoother than Izotope.

Just my $0.02 worth.

F2
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject:

I didn't get the results I was looking for with Wavehammer. So I'd love a screengrab of your settings to see what I might be doing wrong.
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

Frank F · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject:

Here are the settings for Wave Hammer using the Smooth Compression preset and some modifications. The waveform is the same as shown above with the original processing:

This is the file after processing using Wave Hammer:

Although the sound is still thin due to the original low input level. the file is more robust and louder.

Upon increasing 'presense' with a higher original input level the issue of thin-ness would disappear, theoretically.

Frank F
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

Jeffrey Kafer · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject:

Frank, you have your threshold set at -4.9 db. That means you are affecting all sounds quieter than that level?
_________________
Jeff
http://JeffreyKafer.com
Voice-overload Web comic: http://voice-overload.com

Frank F · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:54 pm Post subject:

Wave Hammer uses a different alogrithm than you are used to with traditional compressors. Try it, you will like it.

Without squashing the sound you will find a more robust feel, without the compression artifacts.

F2

Edited for spelling errors... whoops.
_________________
Be thankful for the bad things in life. They opened your eyes to the good things you weren't paying attention to before. email: thevoice@usa.com

allensco · Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:01 am Post subject:

Sounds like I'll be placing an upgrade order for SF9 too!

I've not seen the WaveHammer plugin guys...that's cool! Does it come with the full version of SF ? I'm using SF Audio Studio 8 right now.

sdelgo · Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:01 am Post subject:

Dan,
If the program material is severely mismatched
you'll most likely be better off using a limiter to avoid "pumping" by the compressor. The limiter will allow you to set a limit on the highest peak as not to overshoot it and set a threshhold on the program material that will be boosted. You can get "that loud" sound without boosting noise as in normalizing. Pumping is the time it takes for the volume to return to the output level that is set on the compressor after the program material level falls beneath it's set threshold. Normalizing is just like a volume knob and shouldn't be used for tracking or mastering purposes ever.

Steve
_________________
you'll always have something on your plate... if you keep your bearings straight.

www.steviedproductions.com

bobsouer · Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: