VO Studio Setup, Thoughts and Suggestions?

Alrighty, Sony PCM M-10 and Sennheiser 280's arrived today. Figured these would be a good starting point. Unboxing was fun, nice gear, good quality, but then I turned it on. DEAR GOD I CAN HEAR FOREVER. The next purchase will definitely be Aurelex and some hardware to build myself some nice mounts for it. The M-10 has some amazing clarity, and the mics are nice and sensitive. I was able to get a very good vocal recording...along with the echo, my computer fans, the AC unit outside of the window, the neighbor walking upstairs, the rustle of my clothes, you name it :D
 
The room treatment will help the room's unfriendly acoustical reflections and such, however, it will have little to no effect attenuating extraneous noise.
Try using live performance cardioid mic. An affordable SM58 for example would allow you to 'eat' the mic w/o serious close proximity problems.. while this would not be my first choice for a VO session mic, it would likely reduce the acoustical and extraneous noise issues. And/or.. record when most of the outside world is asleep and A/C is not running. I know this may be of little help, but dealing with STL problems can be extremely expensive.
 
Last edited:
Doc Bernard said:
Ok, I saw on step two he was using his own voice for pacing/timing, then recording the voice actors. I figured that was an audio track that he was recording to first and then replacing.

Shows what I know about animation.........
Click to expand...

Ah I understand your misunderstanding ;~) I've done a bit of animation so I knew the workflow, but I can see how one could read it the other way.

Animation dialog is almost always recorded before the animation is finished so the lips can be sunk with the sound. It's very hard to time the mouth with out the words.
 
Last edited:
If you have a space you need to isolate AND you can build in your space you can go along way with fiberglas covered in cloth. It soaks up sound like a sponge. To really do it you need to isolate the floor and walls and lots of other things but tacking up (or much better, framing) some fiberglass roll with burlap covering the pink side, you really don't want it touchable, will get you fairly close at a minimal cost.
 
Noiz2:

For now where I live is not buildable, but I will be looking at a house over the next couple of years. I'm definitely keeping an eye on the ones that have a small room that could be converted into a studio space. However, I have been reading up and watching some youtube videos of people building everything from mic boxes to pads for their walls to portable booths, you name it. I am very mechanically minded when it comes to these things, and I see a ton I could improve on their designs. More than likely I will frame out a 4' x 4' x 7'(tall) modular booth that can be taken down into square pieces, and getting some insulation and some cloth to be the insulating material. I can also place this booth in the quietest part of my apartment, and treat the walls around the back of it as well for noise bouncing back into it. I will probably treat the upper half of the booth where the mic is with acoustic foam for added absorbing. I know there's not much I'll be able to do about external sources, especially road noise or planes flying over which seem to be the biggest things I have to deal with. The nice thing about it is that the bill of materials is fairly cheap. Should be able to do it for a couple hundred bucks.


Rick, I hear ya on the cardioid, after hearing what just this little recorder can do, I think it's best application will be ambiance and sound effects. I may consider something other than a Rode NT1a, but for now that's the idea for vocals.
 
Well you can build the kind of thing I was talking about as free standing units. Recording studios have usually have a bunch to help isolate players. Basically you make a 1X4 frame, skin one side with Luan, put fiberglass batting in (if it's foil backed the foil should go against the luan) and skin the open side with a corse weave fabric. They suck sound like magnets and you can build a small booth out of them if you need. Plus you can flip some if you need more bounce.

I would also recommend a nice dynamic like the Heil PR-40. It sounds really nice on most voices and it's a dynamic so you won't pick up as much background sound.
 
ZephyrStar said:
after hearing what just this little recorder can do, I think it's best application will be ambiance and sound effects. I may consider something other than a Rode NT1a, but for now that's the idea for vocals.
Click to expand...

Try this and see if you like your own recorded voice using M10: find a quiet place/time, fully cover the internal mics with a small wind protector (both Sony and Rycote make one specifically for M10, but a Rode Dead Cat works well, and I believe genuine silk cloth can be used too). Plug in your headphones, set the record level to about 2, and set the headphone volume to around 17-18. Make sure the mic sensitivity switch is set to HI. Optionally, turn on both the low cut filter and the limiter. Now push the record button, and use your headphones to find noise sources and avoid/eliminate them as much as you can. Make sure nothing gets registered on the meter (so the recorded ambient noise < -40db). Hand hold M10 and don't move your fingers or recorder during recording. Speak to the mics within 1 inch away (as close as possible), and adjust your voice to make sure the meter peaks at about -6db. Or, if your voice is too loud, set the record level to 1.5. Now, push the pause button to start recording your voice. Use your headphones (not the speaker on M10) to judge the quality of the recorded voice.

Cardioid mics like SM58 and NT1A have proximity effect, which is a distortion that many people prefer to hear. M10 doesn't have such distortion, so you can speak right into M10's internal mics to raise the signal/noise ratio as high as possible without distortion. Combined with M10's low self noise (< 17dB), that can give you intimate sweet results. For voice, its recording is flat and clean, comparable (by my ears) to that made using standalone mics (minus proximity effect if any) such as my SM58 and AT 4053b.

As long as you (can) have a relatively quiet environment, I guess M10 may very well be good enough to you for recording VO.
 
henryqiu said:
As long as you (can) have a relatively quiet environment, I guess M10 may very well be good enough to you for recording VO.
Click to expand...

I would love to hear samples of this, as I've never used this model or heard it before.

...

I've used Electrovoice RE-20 and Sennheiser 441 dynamic mics for voice over and they sound great. I've set these mics up in professional voice over studios many times so don't go thinking you need a LDC. When you get to the point where you can spend the money on a LDC mic grab a U87! It could only set ya back 10 grand!
 
Mitch.Kear said:
I would love to hear samples of this, as I've never used this model or heard it before.
Click to expand...

Here is the result of a quick test using the 96KHz, 24bit, BWF WAV format: click here to download the WAV file, or click here to download its MP3 version.

The file has two audio tracks. One is from AT 4053b -> MixPre-D -> DR-680. The other is from one of Sony PCM M10's internal mics. Limiters and low cut filters were turned on in MixPre-D and M10. M10 was hand held, and was configured exactly as I described in my previous post. The recording was done in front of a desktop computer, and I didn't bother to turn off AC, meaning: M10 should pick a bit more ambient noise than AT 4053b. The volume of M10's track is boosted by +6dB using Sound Forge. Other than that, both tracks are unmodified. I sync'ed the two tracks on the time line and saved them into a single file.

If you load the file into an editing program, you can see that the noise levels of both tracks are below -50dB. M10 has slightly higher noise level (just as expected), and is slightly less sensitive than AT 4053b. I don't think I need to tell which track, right or left, is from which mic.


Mitch.Kear said:
I've used Electrovoice RE-20 and Sennheiser 441 dynamic mics for voice over and they sound great. I've set these mics up in professional voice over studios many times so don't go thinking you need a LDC. When you get to the point where you can spend the money on a LDC mic grab a U87! It could only set ya back 10 grand!
Click to expand...

Here is my opinion: in recording vocals, there is no guarantee that a more expensive mic yields "better" results. What really matters is to get a clean take with good clarity and low noise. As long as build quality is no issue, everything else is more or less subjective or situational. Given a specific recording to do, which mic or mics are the best for the job varies with whom, what, where, how to record. Although it was (and probably still is) a classic standard for voice work, U87 does not necessarily sound better than a much cheaper mic such as RE 20. And although another mic may be cheaper than RE 20, it does not necessarily sound worse either.

For audio video work on budget, I see no reason to go for a very expensive mic. Unlike in the past, nowadays you can easily get all sorts of effects in post production that were impossible in the past. You may also easily simulate the effects you might otherwise get from a "classic standard" mic, provided that you have a clean low-noise recording to start with. In my opinion, having a clean low-noise recording to start with is where an exceptionally low-noise and flat response mic such as NT1A shines. In fact, if a mic has a noticeable special character, I guess it might make your post production work harder to do, as strictly speaking that's nothing but a noticeable pattern of distortion (no matter how much it may be liked).
 
henryqiu said:
Here is the result of a quick test using the 96KHz, 24bit, BWF WAV format:
Click to expand...

I'm quite surprised at these results, though clearly the 4053b is a cleaner recording, the m10 mics sound very nice and low noise. In my opinion they are too roomy to be used for voice over. Especially if in an untreated room.

U87 does not necessarily sound better than a much cheaper mic such as RE 20. And although another mic may be cheaper than RE 20, it does not necessarily sound worse either.
Click to expand...

I agree that a U87 isn't better than a RE-20 because they are different mics. RE-20 is high quality dynamic, U87 is high quality LDC. Though the U87 is completely better than the NT1A. And an RE-20 is completely better than a... 30$ cardioid dynamic.

Not set by price... there's Low, medium, and high quality. If your mic locker exist of low quality mics then no mic is better or worse. If of high quality then the same, it becomes a matter of the right tool for the job. Now I would say the NT1A falls into the medium quality range for a very low price.

The reason I brought up the two dynamics is because a LDC is impractical in a basement and they both sound different but both great with less reflections and noise. I wasn't serious about the U87 for a untreated basement.
 
Last edited:
Mitch.Kear said:
I'm quite surprised at these results, though clearly the 4053b is a cleaner recording, the m10 mics sound very nice and low noise. In my opinion they are too roomy to be used for voice over. Especially if in an untreated room.
Click to expand...

M10's internal mics are omnidirectional. And 4053b is hyper cardioid. They are not the "right" (default) pattern for VO. But if you (like OP) happen to have no cardioid mic or LDC, I see no reason why they can't be used for VO. In the digital era, that just means you'd have to do somewhat more post work. As long as you have captured in a more or less pristine manner what you intended to capture in the first place (which is some voice in this case), you can always digitally alter, enhance and fine tune the recorded audio to your heart's content.

Mitch.Kear said:
Though the U87 is completely better than the NT1A.
Click to expand...

I strongly doubt that U87 is "completely" better than NT1A, despite NT1A is a single pattern mic. If you are lucky enough to own a U87 and if you have developed some sort of attachment to it, that's fine and I may agree that in your specific case U87, not NT1A, is a best mic to you. But if you think others can always benefit more from using U87 than from using NT1A (that's what a better mic always means), I can't disagree more.

As far as cardioid pattern is concerned, with some possible exceptions, I don't think in general U87 is better than NT1A at all. As far as multiple patterns are concerned, NT2A or NT2000 (not NT1A) are better suited to compare with U87. I don't think NT2000 is better sounding than NT1A or NT2A (other than NT2000's exceptional flexibility in altering its pickup pattern). But I do think NT2000 (which costs a small fraction of U87) is technically better than U87 in many ways by a noticeable margin.

Mitch.Kear said:
Not set by price... there's Low, medium, and high quality. If your mic locker exist of low quality mics then no mic is better or worse. If of high quality then the same, it becomes a matter of the right tool for the job. Now I would say the NT1A falls into the medium quality range for a very low price.
Click to expand...

IMHO, nowadays the only benefit of buying a luxury mic like U87 is to impress your clients, friends, colleagues, and possibly others too. If impressing clients and others is your job, I agree U87 is one of the few "right" tools for you. If recording audio for films is your job, U87 is just an unnecessary luxury (a burden in field recording). If you happen to be a proud owner, use it. If you don't have one, there is absolutely no reason to pay a lot extra to even rent one, let alone buying one.


Mitch.Kear said:
The reason I brought up the two dynamics is because a LDC is impractical in a basement and they both sound different but both great with less reflections and noise. I wasn't serious about the U87 for a untreated basement.
Click to expand...

Why is NT1A impractical in a basement? In fact, as long as you can and will take good care of it, NT1A is cheap enough to take with you for field recording and it will really shine where exceptionally low noise is desired. NT1A is the world's quietest mic (this is what Rode claims).
 
I think we have a proud owner of an NT1A... I'm not going to get into it but you are wrong on many levels here. I would just recommend anyone looking for info on this topic understand there are better ways to do this then mentioned.
 
Guys! Your ah... personal parts are equally long and dragging on the ground.

The thread is not about your proving how expensive (or not) your mic cabinet is. The OP is trying to do VO on a budget.

The quality you can get for not much $$$ is great these days.
BUT the bigger difference is who's using that mic.

A U87 is very nice and completely OT.

The bottom line for the OP is to get a mic that works well with the voice he's trying to record.

And I think under $1,000 is probably safe, so bye bye U87
 
Mitch.Kear said:
I think we have a proud owner of an NT1A... I'm not going to get into it but you are wrong on many levels here. I would just recommend anyone looking for info on this topic understand there are better ways to do this then mentioned.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you turned to being sarcastic on this forum. I have witnessed many people here have the patience to offer advice even on the simplest questions and provide help and guidance to beginners and non audio pros. If I'm indeed so terribly wrong that there are "many levels" on which you think I am wrong, would you mind naming but a few?

I have never said there are no better ways to do anything, VO or not. In fact, even if you do have one or a few U87's and cost is no issue to you at all, there still exist numerous better ways to do a given recording than using U87. No mic is perfect. Regardless where you look for the info, compared to U87, NT1A is significantly quieter and has substantially better dynamic range.

BTW, I didn't quite understand why you had mentioned 3 more expensive mics and suggested buying 1 used, as OP was clearly only interested in finding a good enough solution within his budget. (Honestly, you somehow left me the impression that you or your friend were trying to sell one of those used mics. Well, I could be wrong.)

After OP bought Sony M10, I suggested (and also demonstrated in response to your post) that M10's internal mics, if used properly, could already be good enough to OP for his voice over work. If you think I'm wrong, I would like to see you prove or demonstrate why Sony M10's internal mics are NOT suitable to voice over work at all.

Please note: the M10 audio track that I provided from my quick A/B test is essentially the raw sound from the $230 recorder, and its noise level (less than -50dB ) had included noises from computer fans, wall clock, AC, and hand holding. I used >$2000 mounted equipment with wide noise rejection to get a just marginally better result.
 
Spoken like a true Neumann inexperianced. If you cant hear the difference its NOT the mic. its your hearing... I used to own 8 of them, and there IS a reason for them.
 
Apologies if I offended Henry... I think that for under a grand you can get a great mic, good pre, cheap interface, treatment and produce great results. These are all going to work together to get the good quiet sound you need.

I was joking about using a U87 as I had already said. This would be as useless as any ldc in an untreated basement. It would just sound like a much better reflective recording. Also a nice vintage one can cost over 10 grand.
 
recordingwhiz said:
Spoken like a true Neumann inexperianced. If you cant hear the difference its NOT the mic. its your hearing... I used to own 8 of them, and there IS a reason for them.
Click to expand...

Mics are different. None that I know are universally better. I have regularly recorded with both Neumann and Oktava ,now that is a gap $$$ wise. This is for FX so... But really I can hear a difference but I don't have a hard preference. I like the Oktava's a lot. I might trade them for the Neumann but, not nec.

Anyway mics are fairly subjective and better at certain things than others. If you think Neumann is the best choice always then you haven't used a lot of mics.
 
Way to stay on topic with the OP Noiz! Haha... You're right that all mics can be useful for certain situations. I used an ntg2 all day today because it worked for what I was doing. But you can't say that this is a good sounding shotgun for dialogue comparitively.

I know certain people that use a vintage U87 for their first choice for voice every time. If it doesn't work with the voice then they go to one with the characteristics the sound needed. In studio is a completely different way of working than field/location recording.

This U87 argument came from joking about using it as a suggestion to a budget setup. Albeit a lame joke, should not take things so seriously. It brings down the "happy place" that is the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top