Best Voiceover Settings using Rode Broadcaster (2 Samples inside)

S

SInstitute

New member
Hi guys, I have gotten good advice here before and I have upgraded my microphone to using a Rode Broadcaster and Scarlett Solo interface. This is for my Youtube channel, where I do maths tutorials (how amazingly interesting huh).

The first sample I'm using voicemeeter (which I know a lot of people don't like) along with Reaper plugins like compression etc. I add the low end within voicemeeter, and I think for me it sounds brighter of the two, because I think voiceemeeter is adding something else like reverb or something - but is that good to have?



The second sample, I'm not using voicemeeter, so I'm adding the high pass filter and low end boost from Reaper equaliser plugin and other than that I am using the same plugins for both samples (compression, de-essing, noise subtract).



I'm using foam cover sock sponge type pop filter and my room isn't acoustically treated.

Appreciate your thoughts on which approach is better, if should add more low end or any other recommendations?

Thank you
 
Learn to come in close to the mic while talking across it to prevent pops. that way you can ditch much of the processing. Both samples sound far too processed to me and the popping is annoying. It is best to aim to get the sound at source by using good mic technique and voice technique rather than processing.
 
jamesperrett said:
Learn to come in close to the mic while talking across it to prevent pops. that way you can ditch much of the processing. Both samples sound far too processed to me and the popping is annoying. It is best to aim to get the sound at source by using good mic technique and voice technique rather than processing.
Click to expand...

Thank you James, if I come in close and talk across it, as you say, will it still sound the same?

And I'm sorry about the popping, should I use an actual pop filter instead of the foam cover thing? Or both?
 
jamesperrett said:
Learn to come in close to the mic while talking across it to prevent pops. that way you can ditch much of the processing. Both samples sound far too processed to me and the popping is annoying. It is best to aim to get the sound at source by using good mic technique and voice technique rather than processing.
Click to expand...

+1! The most usual case for voice repro is to CUT the low end when the aim is clarity.
This is especially the case where you are amplifying a voice, PA, because boosting level beyond the natural level causes a bass boost in the ear due to the Equal Loudness Contours effect.

For people like me friend who chop off at 2kHz (yes, TWO!) you are pretty deep and dark. Not everyone out there has 20-20 lugs you know!

BTW. Maths boring? Was at school, now I find it fascination and beyond me. Wish I had paid more attention!

Dave.
 
I agree with what's said above. Ask yourself a question. Why are you doing all the things?
You mention a high pass filter, then mention boosting the bass?
You talk about compression - what is the compression for?
Reducing keyboard noises? Surely getting a quieter keyboard that doesn't clack would be more sensible than trying to chop it out of the recording?

Why not record the radio news from a few big broadcasters. I'd suggest going online and finding the BBC, NBC, SKY and maybe BBC RADIO 4 which is mainly speech. A variety of speech sources and have a really good listen on decent full range loudspeakers or very good headphones. You will find that they use very light and transparent compression, and often some clever gentle processing, but rarely can you hear it. They're intelligible on hifi systems, small computers, pads, phones, cheap stereos - all with wildly differing qualities and frequency responses, and of course in spaces with variable background noise.

Yours sounds very processed and fiddled with. Does it need all this? I suspect not.

If you want to improve the subscribe pressing on things like Youtube, there's one issue you may be totally unaware of. I bet you do not speak like this in person. You have in these clips a very unusual inflection in your speech, you go up in pitch where people don't normally do it. AUDio INTerface EQualiser all get this odd voicing where the capital letters go up in pitch, returning to the normal for the remainder if the words. I suspect this has crept in without you realising and you need to fix it, because people will start to listen for the next one, rather than take it what you are saying.

The audio is clear, well recorded (bar the pops of course, and that's just technique) and tonally acceptable BEFORE you start adding all these effects and processing. Clarity is good. Your diction is good. Tonal balance is good. Then I suspect the processing makes it worse. Losing a little bottom end to make the distance to the mic less variable in tone works well. The room content is quite low. No noise or room sounds to detract. I'd love to hear a version with just you and no processing whatsoever so we can hear everything before fiddling takes place.

Compared to many - even with the processing its much better than many you hear online.
 
rob aylestone said:
I agree with what's said above. Ask yourself a question. Why are you doing all the things?
You mention a high pass filter, then mention boosting the bass?
You talk about compression - what is the compression for?
Reducing keyboard noises? Surely getting a quieter keyboard that doesn't clack would be more sensible than trying to chop it out of the recording?

Why not record the radio news from a few big broadcasters. I'd suggest going online and finding the BBC, NBC, SKY and maybe BBC RADIO 4 which is mainly speech. A variety of speech sources and have a really good listen on decent full range loudspeakers or very good headphones. You will find that they use very light and transparent compression, and often some clever gentle processing, but rarely can you hear it. They're intelligible on hifi systems, small computers, pads, phones, cheap stereos - all with wildly differing qualities and frequency responses, and of course in spaces with variable background noise.

Yours sounds very processed and fiddled with. Does it need all this? I suspect not.

If you want to improve the subscribe pressing on things like Youtube, there's one issue you may be totally unaware of. I bet you do not speak like this in person. You have in these clips a very unusual inflection in your speech, you go up in pitch where people don't normally do it. AUDio INTerface EQualiser all get this odd voicing where the capital letters go up in pitch, returning to the normal for the remainder if the words. I suspect this has crept in without you realising and you need to fix it, because people will start to listen for the next one, rather than take it what you are saying.

The audio is clear, well recorded (bar the pops of course, and that's just technique) and tonally acceptable BEFORE you start adding all these effects and processing. Clarity is good. Your diction is good. Tonal balance is good. Then I suspect the processing makes it worse. Losing a little bottom end to make the distance to the mic less variable in tone works well. The room content is quite low. No noise or room sounds to detract. I'd love to hear a version with just you and no processing whatsoever so we can hear everything before fiddling takes place.

Compared to many - even with the processing its much better than many you hear online.
Click to expand...

Hi Rob, thank you very much for your comments - you guys really know your stuff. I've included a sample below with the raw microphone with no processing whatsoever, as you requested.



So I followed instructions from this person YouTube and booth junkie who are amazing actors. Elijah Lucian has a series of videos talking through all the Reaper plugins and in the link I just posted, he talks about compression.

The high pass was for the very very low frequencies, like room noise, rumble etc and not the low end of my voice - again directed by the video series I linked. I guess I like the idea of compression as it brings the louds down and the quiet sections up and audible?

In terms of why, I would say because I would like to have radio type/professional voice over type effect for my videos. Some teachers use my videos with very bad classroom speakers, also many students with rubbish smartphone speakers so I just want good audio. Although I know my natural voice and presentation is not ideal for voice over, but got to work with what I have haha.

And, to me a lot radio stations seem overly bassy, more so than how much I've put on. So should I add more low end? And yes I guess I do sound different sometimes on Youtube, I think it's the pressure of loads of people listening (some of videos have like 100k views), I definitely don't pitch and down like that in normal conversation haha.

Thank you once again.
 
It sounds far better with no processing but you're still not working the mic properly as there are still too many pops. Speaking across the mic is the first thing that any aspiring voiceover artist should learn. If the people that you are learning from aren't doing it then I'd question whether they really know what they are doing - the guy in that video certainly isn't working the mic properly either.

I'm also not sure that the mic suits your voice. Do you have an SM58 to try as a comparison? I'm pretty sure that an SM58 will sound better on your voice to someone like Dave (ecc83) who can't hear the extreme high frequency boost that Rode mics often seem to employ. An SM58 will also sound better through bad speakers - while it may not be the best mic in every case, it is amazingly versatile and works well with poor loudspeakers thanks to a very sensibly tailored frequency response. The Neumann U87 shares many of these qualities - that's why it is a long established industry standard on this side of the pond although in the US they seem to prefer the SM7 or the EV RE20.
 
Just FYI. I am sitting around 1.5mtrs from the centre speaker of the 5.1* system I listen to TV and Freeview Radio3 on. The speaker is a home build using a 4" SEAS mid/lf unit and an Audax tweeter. I am forced by circumstance to be well off axis. but nonetheless I can understand nearly 100% of the words of Petroc Trelawny the R3 link man. A C weighted meter give the average SPL at 70dB. There seems to be little or no processing to the voices. I have a sub woofer in the system which gives good 'heft' on music but shows no output from R3 speech.

Flipping over to the news on R4 the voices, both male and female, are equally clear and I get 95% of what is said, even stuff I could not give a chuff about like sport.

Switching to Classic FM the voices are distictly 'darker' and even though the meter shows about the same 60/70dB they seem louder. That is for 'sane' link chat. Adverts are a mess! CFM is not harkended unto much at all.

Bottom line, except for a bit of LF roll off I doubt the BBC use any but the very lightest processing on voice.
(I remeber that equation! For solving quadratics innit?)

*Not got any rear speakers hooked up yet but then that would only annoy 'er indoors. She sits that end of the room! Ooo! just playing Tico Tico, piano and bass. That SEAS unit is bloody good!

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