| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
|Message |
Caroline Burgess
Talent and/or Voice Producer
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006, 23:19 (GMT) Post subject: Can't record on computer. |
 |
|
| I just joined and need to be able to record for the auditions. How???? I have the software Sound Forge. What else do I need? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Blake Williams
Talent and/or Voice Producer - Voice Seeker
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006, 23:49 (GMT) Post subject: What else is needed? |
|
|
Look for a great microphone. No ifs ands or buts, you need a great if not an excellent microphone. You can get a great mic for around $200.00. I use a condencer. You may perfer a dynamic.
Your studio must sound decent. Have some carpet and curtains in the room. A good door is not an option.
One thing that is optional but strongly suggested is a Voice Processor. It doesn't change your voice, it just has the ability to reduce noise in the studio and it can also equalize and compress your voice to where you sound more consistant.
Another strongly suggested option is high speed internet. Dial up just wont work in the long run. A large file can take hours to send if you don't have access to high speed (DSL, Satellite, Microwave ...).
A decent sound card is also a must. Garbage in = Garbage out. You want a clean, no noise card.
Blake Williams
VBW Productions, Inc.
Moriarty, NM 87035
amfmrx@lobo.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
Freddie Molina
Voice123 Team Member
Site Admin
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 1227
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Nikki Saco
Talent and/or Voice Producer
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 465
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006, 01:13 (GMT) Post subject: Re: Can't record on computer. |
|
|
| Caroline Burgess wrote: | | I just joined and need to be able to record for the auditions. How???? I have the software Sound Forge. What else do I need? |
The mic is really important. Everything I read said the Shure SM7b was the best voice over mic. It hasn't let me down. All else equal (without changing anything in my studio but the mic), I can't believe the difference between my old demos and my new ones (same script and music for many clips). It's about $319. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Blake Williams
Talent and/or Voice Producer - Voice Seeker
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006, 01:22 (GMT) Post subject: Microphone |
|
|
Okay, you can get really excellent results using the Marshall condencer microphones. They sell new for around $150 - $200 and these babies will run rings around the Shure SM-7 at over $300.
Broadcast Supply Worlwide is the best place to buy these puppies. You may luck out on e-bay.
Blake Williams
VBW Productions, Inc.
Moriarty, NM 87035
amfmrx@lobo.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
Erik Sheppard
Talent and/or Voice Producer
Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 1317
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006, 01:49 (GMT) Post subject: mics |
|
|
| I use an ElectroVoice RE20 and I absolutely love it. $400 bucks at sweetwater.com or musiciansfriend.com. Both of those sites kick butt for pro audio and instruments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Nikki Saco
Talent and/or Voice Producer
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 465
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006, 02:07 (GMT) Post subject: Re: Microphone |
|
|
| Blake Williams wrote: | | Okay, you can get really excellent results using the Marshall condencer microphones. They sell new for around $150 - $200 and these babies will run rings around the Shure SM-7 at over $300. |
Not really true for female voice overs. I tried my friend's MXL2006 and it was tinny for higher pitched voice. The Shure is truer, more forgiving of background noise too. The day it arrived, my a/c died, but I still tested the mic with an open window. Even a plane overhead didn't come through; that was surprising.
Not all Marshalls are built the same and I don't know which model Blake felt out-performs the Shure. Maybe there are models that run rings around the Shure for instrumentals or male voices. For female voice overs, the Shure SM7b was a noticeable difference. Better. The Shure also out-performed my Nova condensor mic from M-Audio. That was a gift and still got me some work. It's an OK condensor mic. The Marshall did give me slightly better audios than the Nova. It's definitely a better condensor mic. The Shure is a dynamic mic.
I did sound engineering in the 80's for theater and did voice overs then too, a lot of live work. I recently retired from the legal field and am returning to voice over work. Although I kept up with digital sound equipment, software and mixers, I didn't care as much about mics until this last year when I returned to doing voice overs professionally. Mics have changed a lot in the last 20 years, but Shure has consistently provided terrific products. I wasn't surprised that the SM7b performed so well.
To the original poster: just know that different mics may work better for different voices and instrumentals. There are a lot of variables. If you know people in the biz who are willing to let you try their mics with your studio set up and your voice, well that's really the best test - the best opportunity for comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Todd Ellis
Talent and/or Voice Producer - Voice Seeker
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 817
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006, 03:49 (GMT) Post subject: |
|
|
Careful of the Marshall mics (and other Chinese made mics) quality control is nil. You could buy two "identical" mics and they sound completely different. I have a Marshall V-69 tube mic and I'd compare it to a Neuman - it's possible others have had a different experience. The E.V. RE-20/27 is a great broadcast mic - not as good for voiceover. You'll find as many opinions on microphones as people you ask. ALSO - beware of counterfit mics on ebay - if the price sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
I saw this on another board today
http://www.transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200508.mic_shootout.html#
Maybe it will help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Erik Sheppard
Talent and/or Voice Producer
Moderator
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 1317
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006, 12:37 (GMT) Post subject: |
|
|
| Todd, with all respect, I feel I must defend the RE20. It has been a broadcast standard for a thousand years in the radio, music recording and voice-over industry. I will concede, however, that it has a very flat response and is not for talents that are not using compression/EQ/post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Todd Ellis
Talent and/or Voice Producer - Voice Seeker
Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 817
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006, 13:51 (GMT) Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Erik. To each his own. The RE-20 is obviously a broadcast standard, but one of the reasons it is so is because of the flat response and all of the processing and compression that occurs to audio from the time it leaves your mouth til the time it exits the radio. I happen to have one and wouldn't give it up for the world. I just rarely use it for straight VO work. For the money I believe there are mics better suited for the job. At least the kind of work I do ... mostly long form narration and straight voice spots. The folks I work with require a very clean, unprocessed sound. So no EQ, no processing of any kind. The Rode NTK tube mic is pretty close in price and with the tube change I made to my Marshall MXL V69 - I'd put it up against a mid-range Neumann any day - and I paid less that $400.
Again, everybody has a different voice and a different opinion, that's just mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
