Can I Rockwool my coffin?

B

British VO guy

New member
I refer to it as my voiceover coffin, because there's just enough room to stand up straight in it. (H2m x L1m xW 0.6m). It's in my loft room in a wardrobe area with a 3rd party wall and roof which are heavily insulated. This is the only space I can use, I can't treat the room. The sound isn't bad, a little boxy and boomy but it's a little box. An audio engineer friend suggested removing the 15mm of foam and replacing with fabric covered, Rockwool RWA45 30mm slabs, doubling it up where possible and particularly behind, above and around my head area, with the result being a less muddy sound which has only been taking out the high frequencies. I'd massively appreciate your thoughts. Would the £200 spend make a discernible difference?
edit: (416 mic pictured but also use AT4050 condenser)
IMG_6836.webp
IMG_6836.webp
IMG_6835.webp
 
Last edited:
I think we need to hear an example. I can imagine the sound. The thing you've got is the fact foam only works on the top bit of the spectrum, and rockwool will indeed go lower - the question is where your voice energy actually is? a bass baritone needs more treatment than somebody with a much higher voice. remember an octave is a doubling of the frequency - so as you said voiceover, I'm thinking you are speaking - so no real 'note' just speech frequencies. Your mic is rather 'difficult' for very close miking - it looks like a 416? They tend to need space to operate in a friendly manner, as close in and confined, the tone shifts with very small movements in/out/left/right. Record a bit - ten seconds at your normal position and level will do. 416's can be very boomy at lower frequencies where the polar pattern widens into cardioid. Some people have voices that really don't get flattered - which could be part of the problem - top gone with the tiles and the boomyness being enhanced? We can easily tell from a sample of what it sounds like. Rockwool could work - but it might make it worse?
 
I might get rid of the frequency muffling foam - put it up over the top of the Wardrobe - and then point your 416 at the clothes - and do voices from that position - the clothing and shoes will probably add a nice degree of diffusion - and the angles will help with reflections not reaching the mic - no way to tell that without it being done and then tested - all that said you voice over is not that bad - but your voice is not helped by the narrowness of the ‘Coffin'.
 
rob aylestone said:
I think we need to hear an example. I can imagine the sound. The thing you've got is the fact foam only works on the top bit of the spectrum, and rockwool will indeed go lower - the question is where your voice energy actually is? a bass baritone needs more treatment than somebody with a much higher voice. remember an octave is a doubling of the frequency - so as you said voiceover, I'm thinking you are speaking - so no real 'note' just speech frequencies. Your mic is rather 'difficult' for very close miking - it looks like a 416? They tend to need space to operate in a friendly manner, as close in and confined, the tone shifts with very small movements in/out/left/right. Record a bit - ten seconds at your normal position and level will do. 416's can be very boomy at lower frequencies where the polar pattern widens into cardioid. Some people have voices that really don't get flattered - which could be part of the problem - top gone with the tiles and the boomyness being enhanced? We can easily tell from a sample of what it sounds like. Rockwool could work - but it might make it worse?
Click to expand...
Thanks Rob, appreciate you coming back to me. Here's a link as requested...studio audio test. I use a 416 mic (pictured) but recently bought an AT-4050 as used in the test.
 
Last edited:
The link didn't work, so I can't listen to your samples. I was wondering how you could read in that booth. I don't see a light, and it is quite close which would be almost claustrophobic.

I don't know that I would have picked a shotgun mic for close micing. The AT 4050 might help, and adding the high pass filter could also help minimize any boominess you might be getting. Different mics absolutely have different response profiles. Depending on your voice, something like an RE20 might be good as it can control the proximity effect. The problem is it takes time and testing to choose the best fit. Lots of people like that deep booming "James Earl Jones" sound, but no mic is going to make a Pee Wee Herman voice sound like that.
 
TalismanRich said:
The link didn't work, so I can't listen to your samples. I was wondering how you could read in that booth. I don't see a light, and it is quite close which would be almost claustrophobic.

I don't know that I would have picked a shotgun mic for close micing. The AT 4050 might help, and adding the high pass filter could also help minimize any boominess you might be getting. Different mics absolutely have different response profiles. Depending on your voice, something like an RE20 might be good as it can control the proximity effect. The problem is it takes time and testing to choose the best fit. Lots of people like that deep booming "James Earl Jones" sound, but no mic is going to make a Pee Wee Herman voice sound like that.
Click to expand...
Hi Rich, thanks for posting. I've re-linked the audio...studio audio test. Like I say, it's not ideal but it's what I'm working with in the short term whilst I save to upgrade. Being so close to the roof, the jeopardy of whatever is happening outside the house is a constant threat, so the shotgun mic has been more forgiving, compared to a TLM 103 I tried but picked up everything. That said, the AT4050 is more forgiving for a condenser and I'm preferring that, as are studio engineers. There's a light cut into the foam on the ceiling but most reads happen off iPad anyway. It's certainly cosy, but needs must!
 
I would stop right there and use it as it is. I expected dull, muffled, boxy audio - it wasn't. I seriously doubt if you will even hear the swap to rockwool. Seriously - your voice and the space work 100%. There is a little strange sibilance - but it's minor and probably the angle of the mic to the wind sream coming from your mouth. Maybe raise the mic and tilt down a tiny bit, but acoustically - your coffin works fine. My guess is I would prefer the 416 less to be very honest. What you have is good enough to charge for properly!
 
The only reason I could see for using Rockwool would be to try to minimize outside noise through the room. With the angled panel in front you shouldn't get much buildup of standing waves.

Rob mentioned sibilance. That was something that I heard quite distinctly. In the spectral view, the S sounds are the green lines above the arrows. Based on the spectrum of your voice, you could almost LoPass around 15K. Obviously, if you can learn to avoid producing strong sibilance that would be the best option. You said it was an unprocessed file. What processing do you normally apply when doing any adjustments?

sibilance.webp
 
For VO work don’t your clients want just the raw audio? Then they adjust their end to match what else is going on? Audio beds, sfx, that kind of thing. The last thing I would want would be any kind of processing I can’t remove?
 
rob aylestone said:
I would stop right there and use it as it is. I expected dull, muffled, boxy audio - it wasn't. I seriously doubt if you will even hear the swap to rockwool. Seriously - your voice and the space work 100%. There is a little strange sibilance - but it's minor and probably the angle of the mic to the wind sream coming from your mouth. Maybe raise the mic and tilt down a tiny bit, but acoustically - your coffin works fine. My guess is I would prefer the 416 less to be very honest. What you have is good enough to charge for properly!
Click to expand...
thanks for being so generous with your time with this Rob, you've saved me a lot of time and expense, and it's really appreciated. I tinkered with the mic positioning as suggested and it sounds better already!:-)
 
TalismanRich said:
The only reason I could see for using Rockwool would be to try to minimize outside noise through the room. With the angled panel in front you shouldn't get much buildup of standing waves.

Rob mentioned sibilance. That was something that I heard quite distinctly. In the spectral view, the S sounds are the green lines above the arrows. Based on the spectrum of your voice, you could almost LoPass around 15K. Obviously, if you can learn to avoid producing strong sibilance that would be the best option. You said it was an unprocessed file. What processing do you normally apply when doing any adjustments?

View attachment 150366
Click to expand...
Thanks Rich, again, really appreciate you taking the time to share your experience. I've adjusted the mic position and there's already a distinct improvement. It might be a characteristic of my voice, but yes, I'd usually adjust both ends of frequency spectrum in EQ in Pro Tools, and lightly run it through RX 11 Elements repair assistant which does a pretty good job.
 
rob aylestone said:
For VO work don’t your clients want just the raw audio? Then they adjust their end to match what else is going on? Audio beds, sfx, that kind of thing. The last thing I would want would be any kind of processing I can’t remove?
Click to expand...
True. But it depends. Live directed sessions get a clean unprocessed feed. Recorded jobs, some clients want raw, some want finished product, so I provide both. And with auditions I provide as close to broadcast finish as possible so the client gets a better idea of the finished product without over-processing.
 
AT4050, interesting, its not the usual RE20, SM7x tried out.
4050 self noise 17, sensitivity 15mv/pa. $769 new, $250~450 used. Made in Japan, nice read. Quality mic.

I think the "sss" thing in general can be improved with a mic, finding the right one, or the right angle/ or eq/desser.

I think the sound room can be much easier to build for voice only, in comparison to the hard work for a mixing room with speakers and sound bouncing all over and much louder. Outside noises are hard to isolate out, imo, but that doesn't seem to be the focus in this case. The room sounded nice and smooth, no outside noises in your sample. I agree with Rob, the room sounds fine.

If anything Id try other mics for the "ss" thing and maybe lower boom could be tamed. The bass is pleasant enough but the sss's would be the focus to improve and the rockwool probably wont fix that.

More sensitive mics seem to get the sss, thing easier. I have that on some days. Read drinking or not drinking certain fluids can help too...Im not a VO but messed with sss before. I've got channel strips, JoeMeekVoiceChannel1Q, ISA430, and Symetrix 528E that have some help with voice. Though the desser's can give a "lisp" sound. I've ran across mics for me that the ss- issue is gone.
I wonder if a RE20 or SM7x might roll some sss off the take? or less sensitive mic, 8 or 7 mv/pa, maybe a simple foam or pop filter might take out some of the "sizzle sss"
 
Not sure if you're interested, but I have a spare EV320 which I'd happily loan you if you cover the postage. I'm not using it - if you fancy experimenting with a different kind of mic?
 
Hi Rob, that’s incredibly generous, thank you but I’ll hold fire for now. The sibilance thing hasn’t been an issue previously although granted it was on that test but I’ve only had the AT4050 a week and already experimenting with positioning as you recommended, has improved sound markedly. Thank you 🙏
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top