Audio Quality Check

P

Polaroid22

Well-known member
Hi Guys,

So I got some feedback that my audio isnt on par with some good content creators. The quality sounds ok to me, but I do have tinnitus and no trained/skilled ears. The audio is recorded with an sennheiser mkh416 into a zoom, around 30cm away from an angle. Post audio is just "levelator". Not sure what to look for, or what is making sound cheap. Here is an link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cssmXb6SO4

Do you hear anything that is off? Could I spot is myself? Also how to fix would be great. (I edit in davinci resolve btw.)

Thanks!
 
If this is a way to get some more views, probably won't get too many more here, ha.

I think the audio is perfectly fine and there are YouTubers with millions of subs with the same type of audio quality (and even less). I didn't watch the entire video so perhaps the mix may need work (IDK), but the quality is fine.
 
NorBro said:
If this is a way to get some more views, probably won't get too many more here, ha.

I think the audio is perfectly fine and there are YouTubers with millions of subs with the same type of audio quality (and even less). I didn't watch the entire video so perhaps the mix may need work (IDK), but the quality is fine.
Click to expand...

haha lol no it isnt. Thanks for checking! I just take every feedback serious as I need it to improve and expand my channel, as youtube is hard as it is. No point in me making 100 more video's to find out later nobody likes the audio quality, I rather fix it from video 2 on.
 
Both the sound and video were clear and completely acceptable for this type of production. A step above most spot news coverage and comparable to most locally produced studio TV shows. And I like your style and content.
 
I think that audio is acceptable, but perhaps your client doesn't like the bit of room reverb and wants some Radio-DJ bump. I'm not really familiar with the audio tools in Resolve, but look up some tutorials on using EQ to reduce reverb/echo, and see if Resolve has any built-in tools to reduce reverb. I usually use iZotope RX's de-reverb and dialog de-reverb tools, but as great as RX is, not everyone needs it. Adobe Premiere Pro and Audition have decent de-reverb and "voice enhancement" tools, I think built on code licensed from iZotope. If you're an Adobe CC subscriber, check out the easy-to-use sliders and presets are in those apps' Essential Sound Panel. There are other dereverb plug ins, too. Google up some tutorials; getting things great is hard. Getting things a touch better than what you have (which again, is OK), isn't that hard... just don't overdo the EQ, dereverb, etc.... A little goes a long way.

And for the next shoot, maybe try a mic other than the 416. I've had a 416 for a couple decades, but don't use it much these days. It's not the best, imo, on interiors, mainly because of the reverb it picks up. But if that's what you have, make sure your mic is well placed and close to the frame line. And if the talent is sitting at a desk, maybe put a sound blanket (or thick/dense carpeting or even thick towel or heavy jacket) on the desk, and judiciously place a couple more sound blankets in the room.

Of course, you can ask the talent/client what they don't like about the audio, but in case they can't articulate what they don't like, I'd still go with reducing reverb and working EQ.
 
Polaroid22 said:
Hi Guys,

So I got some feedback that my audio isnt on par with some good content creators. The quality sounds ok to me, but I do have tinnitus and no trained/skilled ears. The audio is recorded with an sennheiser mkh416 into a zoom, around 30cm away from an angle. Post audio is just "levelator". Not sure what to look for, or what is making sound cheap. Here is an link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cssmXb6SO4

Do you hear anything that is off? Could I spot is myself? Also how to fix would be great. (I edit in davinci resolve btw.)

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Like others have said. Sounds totally acceptable on YT, if that's where you are aiming for the production to go. A bit hard to totally analyze it as a mix. Any chance you can upload just a vocals WAV file somewhe? Maybe both tracks, vocal and music. Personally, I like to hear a bit more dynamic range. I downloaded the YT clip and I see a few minutes into the clip it is averaging a LUFS dynamic range of about 2.6 to 3. I generally like to see, or rather hear a bit less compression and have more dynamic range, like a range between 5 and 8 LUFS. I notice you are using Levelator. This is a pretty decent tool for quick turn around, but it does tend to compress your dynamics. The more compression, the less dynamic range you end up with. Plus as someone else mentioned maybe a little less reverb. But hey, throw up the files and let some of us have a tinker.

Chris Young
 
You did ask, so I'll be the naysayer. The sound quality is acceptable, but it's not what I would call good. The top end is rolled off a fair amount, as is the bottom end to a lesser extent. The mid range feels "stuffy" and indistinct, and somewhat "nasal", at least to me. You can probably "sweeten" most of this away in post with judicious use of EQ if you have a parametric equalizer available (I have no idea what tools resolve has available for you to use). The thing you'll have trouble correcting in post is the "small room sound" you get from reflections off nearby surfaces (walls, ceilings). The software out there that is used to correct reflection problems is at the point where it does a reasonable job of dropping the room reflections, but while it has improved over the years, it certainly hasn't gotten any cheaper. Better to avoid the need.

Basically, you can fix most of this stuff at capture time with the right mics and techniques. First, while I love my 416 I'd never use it in a room like this. In a small room reflections come right on the heals of the direct sound. This causes most interference tube mics to comb filter which is part of your stuffy and indistinct sound. Save your 416 for larger rooms or exteriors. Interiors like this will be generally better served with a cardioid or hyper cardioid mic like an Audio-Technica AT4053b or equivalent.

Second, your sound needs more direct sound and less room sound. That is, your signal to noise ratio needs to be skewed more toward signal. This is done by getting the mic closer to the source (mouth). The obvious choice in my mind for this is a wired (not wireless) lavaliere mic. Use an omni lav., not a directional like a cardioid (because turning head can take voice out-of-pattern, not to mention the variable proximity effect if the presenter looks down at desk while talking); my rule is that if it's a lav -- it's an omni. Mount it where you can see it, just like TV news -- the best place IMHO is right on the sternum. If you get too close to the mouth you'll end up in the "chin shadow" which has it's own problems.

If you're one of those guys who thinks the viewers will be turned off by lavs, then put your hyper cardioid condenser mic on a stand. It needs to be about 60 cm from the presenter's mouth, in front and above, looking down at about a 45 degree angle. That should put it just out of frame on the top.

Either the lav. or the hyper in close will really clean up your sound -- it will be cleaner, smoother, less "artifacty", more natural, and generally easier to understand.

If you want to go farther, consider upgrading your electronics. You should be able to find an old Sound Devices Mix-Pre D on the used market without much trouble. Excellent mic preamps, lots of control, lots of options. And you can feed the signal into your camera fairly easily and get yourself out of any sync issues as well.

And you can also move all the way up to an earset mic, like a Countryman E6. This will all but completely remove the room from your recordings. You can add a little artificial reverb back in with Resolve and make it sound as professional as you want.

Anyway, you did ask. Do with my comments what you will.
 
cyvideo said:
Like others have said. Sounds totally acceptable on YT, if that's where you are aiming for the production to go. A bit hard to totally analyze it as a mix. Any chance you can upload just a vocals WAV file somewhe? Maybe both tracks, vocal and music. Personally, I like to hear a bit more dynamic range. I downloaded the YT clip and I see a few minutes into the clip it is averaging a LUFS dynamic range of about 2.6 to 3. I generally like to see, or rather hear a bit less compression and have more dynamic range, like a range between 5 and 8 LUFS. I notice you are using Levelator. This is a pretty decent tool for quick turn around, but it does tend to compress your dynamics. The more compression, the less dynamic range you end up with. Plus as someone else mentioned maybe a little less reverb. But hey, throw up the files and let some of us have a tinker.

Chris Young
Click to expand...
This thread is almost 2 years old so hopefully he sorted things out.

I have come to believe that YT compresses the audio as much as the video.

I’ve been watching reviews of 2.4ghz wireless systems. They would say this sounds worse than that and I could barely notice any difference even when wearing headphones.

So while I’ve become picky about audio quality YT compression does take away fine differences between brand of mics. You’ll notice an untreated room, bad reverb, wind noise, bad placement and technique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top