| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Robert D. M.
Contributor
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 29
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: Re. Voiceover: Aphex 230 vs Focusrite Liquid Channel??\ |
 |
|
Hi,
I'm a baritone male (with bass overtones) with some upcoming pure-voice projects (ranging from narration/audiobooks to hard-rock commercials) and am trying to grasp the merits of the above two preamps/processors.
Would you have an opinion/rationale regarding the advantages/disadvantages of these two units for my voiceover applications? (If you also have a viewpoint regarding a matching mic, please feel free...)
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SomeAudioGuy
Contributor III
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 75
Location: LA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Robert!
You've asked kind of a loaded question here ya know. All of the advice you're going to get, it'll still come down to which one sounds better to you.
Not knowing the actual sound of your voice, the microphone you use, and what kind of space you record in, I'm going to say Aphex 230. I don't love the fixed compressor, but having used one, it's a really decent preamp.
I've not used the Liquid channel, but aside from all the normal stuff the big draw seems to be it's modeling software. I've never really been impressed with modeling. It always seems to sound like mild distortion to me.
Though I have had a lot of success using Antares Mic Modeler and Isotope Vinyl to make my demo production spots sound different from each other.
Just to throw one out, at less than the Liquid, I'm kinda digging the LA-610.
Realistically though, I would recommend trying to get your hands on these first.
_________________
Hey! Whaddaya hear?
http://someaudioguy.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert D. M.
Contributor
Joined: 08 May 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the input. From what I can gather, the Liquid Channel's technology is significantly enough different than 'modelling' that the emulations are considered much more accurate (some A/B tests among engineers seem to result in an inability to distinguish).
My concern was that, for pure, cold voice, are the emulations necessary? One potential advantage (I'd appreciate your thoughts on this) may be that, in the absence of having found that one, perfect microphone, I could play with the preamp options on the Liquid Channel and arrive at the preferred sound sort of through the back door: find the right preamp match on the Focusrite to suit the mic in hand. rather than the preferable (but not always possible) option of locating the ideal mic off the bat.
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenn Moore
Been Here Awhile
Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Posts: 241
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Robert-
Not sure about the Focusrite Liquid Channel....but I use the Aphex 230 along with a Neuman TLM-103 and I have a very nice, clean sound. I have the same type of voice that you have and for the money you can't beat the Aphex if you have your settings correct. That's very important. Just my two cents...and hey...I just realized this is my 100th post! Good luck!
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yoda117
M&M
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 2362
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
