Voice Over Recording, XLR to USB or XLR Into Recroder?

R

Robertofish

Active member
I have a Sennheiser handheld microphone and want to use it for voice overs, for software I have the latest Final Cut Studio, and Logic Studio, and my recorder is a zoom h4n. I wanted to know what will give me better sound, using an xlr to usb to and recording with Soundtrack Pro, Final Cut Pro, Logic etc or recording via xlr into the h4n and then importing the files into Final Cut Pro, when filming I use a Rode NTG-3 for outside, and an Audio Technica AT4053b for inside, I like to use 24 bit 96khz for recording to get good quality sound and I convert my sound files to aiff before importing to Final Cut Pro, thats a bit of background of what I use, so what do you suggest for recording voice overs, xlr to usb or xlr into h4n, I don't care about how long it takes as much as which is better quality.
Thanks
 
Do you already have a USB preamp? Is it as good or better than the preamps on the H4n? If either answer is "no", record with the H4n.

Beside the logistics, it's basically a question of desired workflow. If you record straight to software (via USB preamp), then you can review you recordings very rapidly (I don't have an H4n, so I don't know how much button-mashing is involved to review your recordings).

Specifically for ADR, recording straight to the computer using software that provides audio cues, etc. for doing a voice over is very useful.
 
It depends on what, and how much of it, you will be doing. You can get a little adaptor like the one Shure makes (XLR to USB), or a direct-to-USB microphone (Blue and Samson make them), or a real A/D preamp/converter (all over the map in terms of price).GJ
 
Having a recording interface for the computer makes VO recording much easier to handle. On the low end, the Lexicon Omega isn't bad for the money. Or look at the M-Audio Fast Track USB interfaces. Also, Allen & Heath ZED mixers feature USB interface. There are tons of options above that, if your budget isn't too tight.

I have to ask, though: if you have an NTG-3, and a 4053b, why are you wanting to use the Sennheiser handheld to record VO? Without knowing exactly which handheld mic you're talking about, I assume it's a dynamic mic made for stage vocals. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) These mics may not give the best results for VO. On the plus side, being dynamic and thus less sensitive, it can be a bit more forgiving in poor acoustic environments... so recording in an untreated bedroom editing suite may not sound as bad. On the downside, these mics don't generally have the best sound (frequency response) for VO.

You have an NTG-3... that can make a great VO mic.
 
Last edited:
Since you have the H4n and the H4n can be used as a USB interface, why don't you test out both options you're trying to decide between (to computer, or direct to recorder)? Then you can easily compare which yields the best results for you.
 
If it's VO or ADR to be recorded in a "studio" environment, I'd go with a nice USB interface with good pre's. RME makes good stuff, but like others have said, there is a really big list of interfaces out there. That market has really been flooded with new products over the past several years. I like to use a nice Avalon pre, and then go into an interface. If you can swing that, go for it.
 
In the recording environment I'm in the NTG-3 doesnt work that well, and also it needs phantom power are there pre-amps that can provide that? Its a low end mic the e835, but its very good for low background noise recordings, I didn't know that the NTG-3 would be good for VO recording.
 
Honestly, I wouldn't use the e835 for VO recording. Try it and see what results you get, but my experience with using mics like that (or the SM58 or similar) is that the VO comes out sounding cheap. Part of it has to do with handling noise and windscreening issues, so be sure it's stand-mounted, well isolated, and has a pop screen in front of it (the foam cover does not count).

As for the NTG-3, it can be a great VO mic. It will also need a pop screen in front of it. You can create a "treated" environment with a few cheats, such as recording in a closet with lots of hanging clothes, or by hanging sound blankets (or heavy comforters, or furniture blankets) to knock down reflections, or by creating a table-top "VO booth".

There's also a really easy-to-build gobo that creates a very effective recording area.

And regarding phantom power, just about any pre-amp out there is going to offer that.
 
Last edited:
Probably not, as the AT4053b is an indoor mic and the Shotgun NTG-3 is designed for outdoor. HOWEVER I have heard rumors that peiple in LA like the Senn MKH-416 for VO work sometimes, and the NTG-3 is a clone of that mic, so maybe. But really for VO work, a large diaphragm condenser is the way to go. Look at the Rode NT2a. That's a great mic.

henryqiu said:
For VO purposes, is NTG-3 better sounding than AT 4053b?
Click to expand...
 
Chadfish said:
Probably not, as the AT4053b is an indoor mic and the Shotgun NTG-3 is designed for outdoor. HOWEVER I have heard rumors that peiple in LA like the Senn MKH-416 for VO work sometimes, and the NTG-3 is a clone of that mic, so maybe. But really for VO work, a large diaphragm condenser is the way to go. Look at the Rode NT2a. That's a great mic.
Click to expand...

All depends on the room, hopefully you are in a studio or at least treated room for voice over work. In this case a shotgun will sound just fine.

You can't answer the question is this mic better than this mic until you hear it with the talent doing the voice over. Some people sound better with sdc, some with dynamics, shotgun, ldc, ect...
 
What about usb microphones they are on the cheaper side and would be great for VO work, how does their quality compare to something like an NTG-3, and which one would you recommend? As far as the room its just an ordinary small room which is why I was worried about the NTG-3 and even the AT-4053b not sounding to great, I have tested the e835 and it does sound pretty good, the quality however is not as great, but theres a lot less background noise.
 
You're on the right track using a dynamic mic, take a look at the SM7b, and the RE 20. These are two great sounding mics that are used for many voice applications.
 
I like to use 24 bit 96khz for recording to get good quality sound and I convert my sound files to aiff before importing to Final Cut Pro
Click to expand...

Hi, sorry for hijacking the question but do you convert to aiff files in the same bitrate/frequency (24 bit, 96khz) or use another one?

I was wondering if you lose sound quality downgrading them to a lower frequency/bitrate. From 24/96 wav to 16/44.1 aiff for instance. Being the Aiff an uncompressed format I really don't know... Sorry if the question is lame.
 
Fernando Lino said:
Hi, sorry for hijacking the question but do you convert to aiff files in the same bitrate/frequency (24 bit, 96khz) or use another one?

I was wondering if you lose sound quality downgrading them to a lower frequency/bitrate. From 24/96 wav to 16/44.1 aiff for instance. Being the Aiff an uncompressed format I really don't know... Sorry if the question is lame.
Click to expand...

Short answer is yes you lose quality. Dither while down sampling will help reduce this loss.
 
Well I usually record the microphone into the h4n, upload the files to my computer and use compressor to convert the wav files into aiff and then edit them in Final Cut Pro, but ya downsampling does reduce quality if you do downsample do aiff as compression choice for video if possible.
 
FCP will open.wav files no problem. No need to lose a generation making an aiff. Just use the original file off the h4n, and go to the Modify menu in FCP and un-check 'stereo pair', which will allow you to edit each channel separately, or delete the unused channel.
 
Appreciated guys, I've always used the original files but I was wondering if it would be as good converted to aiff...

FCP will open.wav files no problem. No need to lose a generation making an aiff. Just use the original file off the h4n, and go to the Modify menu in FCP and un-check 'stereo pair', which will allow you to edit each channel separately, or delete the unused channel.
Click to expand...

In case you've a sequence that is 96/24 and it was recorded like that in the Zoom, and you've a song that is aiff 44.1/16 do you think that you can use it like that in the sequence and render it, or that it would be best to convert it to that bit rate?

Thanks in advance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top