HELP: How to choose voice acting mic based on *my* voice type? See sample file. Male, not a lot of presence, usu needs compressing to beat bkgd noise.

[Libertinus]

I'm an oldish geezer with *not* a lot of presence in my voice. Mine is not a bass sound, not a castrate choir boy pitch. Mid-something. Have worked in radio and tv for decades, and engineers usually needed to compress my voice a lot, to make it able to fight the background noise at listener's tv viewer's homes. I guess the freezerd, fridge, traffic hum and I compete at the same bandwith or something.

For audiobook reading, podcasting, VO and some creative voice acting I am looking for various mike solutions.

The recording environment will be a somewhat (amateurishly) treated cottage / log cabin environment, doing the recordings at night time. This being Finland, during summers the birds will be chirping at night, and an occasional truck or moped might be heard in the distance. I can dampen the rooom(s) with some thic duvets, mattresses, even some acoustic cheapo panels. Due to asthma am *not* going to make DYI acoustic panels from weawed glass insulation mattresses. Can't take that risk with my lungs.

The mic price range where I start to cringe and shut down mentally is at 800-1500 €, which does not mean I want to spend 1500 unless it gives me extreme versatility or unfathomable ease of use. At the top of the price range is a "mic for life" or a very good stereo pair. (As I will do multiple roles "in real time" a stereo set might be handy - when I had a Zoom with XY mikes, that worked very well. Some weasely scoundrel stole my H6 so that is gone.)

As for gear I have Mixpre-6 II, Audition or Reaper for editing, possibly Wavelab later (as I'm most familiar with Wavelab, which is currently not installed, since I need to find the USB-licence key, otherwise can't afford to upgrade to current from my old Wawelab 6 license.)

I am a creative guy, writer and whatnot, but a noob techwise, as at work there were always engineers taking care of the sound and image, and I just wrote the script and shoot my mouth on cue when told to speak.

The mics I have read about and are interested in are a single Neumann TLM 107, a single or a stereo pair of AKG C414 XL II, Neumann TLM 193, Neumann, Neumann BCM 104 (and even its similar-looking, much cheaper Dynamic bro), Neumann KM 184 single or a stereo set, and I have heard good things about Lewitt mikes from a real broadcasting audio pro.

The mics mentioned above seem to be "all over the place" but that's because I do not know which type of mic would be best for my voice and circumstances. One thing is sure, though: I cannot have a mic that needs to be "glued to my face" as I need to be able to read a book, turn pages, and move sideways in front of a stereo pair to change characters "live" and have the audio move in the stereo image accordingly.

I will attach a short sound file. Mic used: AKG C-214. My voice, but wrong environment.

My s's are even normally rather dull (like Arabic Saad insted of an Arabic Sin) and a temporary dental problem has it exaggerated right now.

Low cut is set to 80 HZ, nothing else done to my voice.


Sorry the long post - all help is really appreciated!

L

 

[DaleVO]

Which mics were used on your voice, in the radio and TV recordings that benefited from the compression and presumedly rendered good results for broadcast, that you mentioned?
Dale

 

[rob aylestone]

Well - I'm not finding much in your voice to indicate the mic you have is poor. Once I normalised it to give some level so I could hear, I heard - hardly any noise, hardly and intrusive room sound at all. In fact - for narration, I think I really would be looking at a couple of boom stands and a duvet behind you just to mop up a little top end reflections, and then give the top end some minor treatment. Compression would be very, very mild. I'd like to hear what it was at the bottom end you removed - I suspect little. The AKG mic seems to suit your voice. If it really is the spoken word, why would you want two mics? You mentioned stereo for other recording - so a pair of 414s are probably the most versatile mics I own - but while I like 414s, but I don't think they would add very much to your voice capture. A couple of 414s for other recordings would not be wasted. You have the characteristic Scandinavian sound - the little differences in how some words are formed, and finished. You're aware of the little habits you have when you close your mouth and the tongue/teeth noises but these could even be edited out.

I hear a perfectly usable capture - just sort the level matching to maximise signal to noise. Have you experimented with closer mic positions and pop shields? I'd like to hear some more?

If you want to exclude external sound that's expensive and intrusive - rooms within rooms, extra mass, etc - so probably difficult to do, but that also prevents you getting out of the space to annoy others at night maybe?

 

[mjbphotos]

BTW, 'compression' does nothing to help eliminate background noise, in fact if used improperly it can do the opposite and boost up the volume of 'silent' parts so the background noise is more obvious.

 

[Libertinus]

Which mics were used on your voice, in the radio and TV recordings that benefited from the compression and presumedly rendered good results for broadcast, that you mentioned?
Dale

With radio productions our studios had those old big Neumanns that cost much more than my car. If you can get one. On TV either some (Shure?) lavaliers or boom - dunno which mic in the boom. Expensive stuff, anyway.

 

[Libertinus]

Well - I'm not finding much in your voice to indicate the mic you have is poor. Once I normalised it to give some level so I could hear, I heard - hardly any noise, hardly and intrusive room sound at all. In fact - for narration, I think I really would be looking at a couple of boom stands and a duvet behind you just to mop up a little top end reflections, and then give the top end some minor treatment. Compression would be very, very mild. I'd like to hear what it was at the bottom end you removed - I suspect little. The AKG mic seems to suit your voice. If it really is the spoken word, why would you want two mics? You mentioned stereo for other recording - so a pair of 414s are probably the most versatile mics I own - but while I like 414s, but I don't think they would add very much to your voice capture. A couple of 414s for other recordings would not be wasted. You have the characteristic Scandinavian sound - the little differences in how some words are formed, and finished. You're aware of the little habits you have when you close your mouth and the tongue/teeth noises but these could even be edited out.

I hear a perfectly usable capture - just sort the level matching to maximise signal to noise. Have you experimented with closer mic positions and pop shields? I'd like to hear some more?

If you want to exclude external sound that's expensive and intrusive - rooms within rooms, extra mass, etc - so probably difficult to do, but that also prevents you getting out of the space to annoy others at night maybe?

Thank you for the extensive reply. It is really a lot you could hear in such a short sample!

Mouth noises come from two things, a current dental problem plus the fact that I haven't done radio work in ages - one forgets how to talk, breathe. Also, unless I constantly remind myself to do otherwise, I sound extremely monotonous, and Finnish not being a melodic language (the intonation in a Finnish sentense is a minor-sounding diminuendo) the result becomes rather flat oftn anyway.

I am surprised the recording wasn't worse, as my current abode in a block of flats has nothing in the way of sound suppression - except perhaps my high and broad book cases right behind me. In front of me I have two big compter flat screens and one of those modern walls you could punch a fist through. I had a cheapo pop filter and a foam windscreen on the C-214. But the floors are covered with carpets, that might help somewhat. On the other hand I have big windows but no curtains.

The reason I'd like to use two mics when I do a live "dialogue" with two voices I find that workflow rather smooth. Each of the two dialogue "persons"are on their own track, and I first cut A's lines out from B's track, then cut B's utterances from A's lines, then make the "persons overlap" a bit here and there to make it sound like one interrups the other one, and Bob's your uncle. That is podcast matériel, anything from 20 seconds to a minute or two, short stuff.

One crazy and unavoidable source of noise I have from time to time is my stomach. Due to a couple of operations my intestines can make loud and weird noises of various pitches, most of them low, of course. Extremely amusing ..when one is not recording. They're not always there, but can be for hours. And if I have an audiobook recording to do, that means very long recording sessions, and it might be difficult to say - while recording - whether those noises ended up somewhat audible on the track or not. At some point soonish I might purchase the NoiseAssist plugin from Sound Devices for my Mixpre-6 II to minimise background noise even before it ends up "on tape".

A mic that interests me most at this moment - now that I have gone through a lot of mics is - Lewitt 640 TS.
Link: Lewitt Audio, 640 TS mic page

As described in Lewitt's site the 640 TS has this feature of having the dual output mode - two outputs so it it can work as a stereo mic.

It'll send the front and the back of the capsule's diaphragm to two individual outputs. This allows for stereo recording. And changing the polar pattern after the fact (using a Lewitt plugin in post).

This Lewitt seems to have gotten very good reviews. Austrian manufacture, I believe, like Arnold Schwarzenegger. (As Austrians always remember to remind their less fortunate co-Europeans.)

I will do a better sound sample for you later. Will also un-check the low-cut filter in my Mixpre-6 II. The recording will be done at night, as I am a night creature; or a crepuscularian one, at best. However, I am a not a noisy person, my puttering about has never bothered any neighbours.
At night I do not use loudspeakers, I have a pair of AKG 714's to check the recorded sound at night, (I wear them while recording) and during the day I use a pair of Yamaha monitors.

However, the place I will eventually record my pay-dirt stuff is more of a log cabin thing, countryside, rugs on the floor, those duvets on mic booms perhaps a pillow on which the copy rests in my lap, and a chair that won't make cracking sounds.

BTW, after I have eventually done the second sample recording, I'd love to hear your comments regarding using an equalizer and/or compressor to get more presence. As I stated in another reply, while I have worked in tv and radio live and not, and my voice was always compressed, it was always done by pros, and it is something I really know nothing about. I have never been a hifi hobbyist, and for a long time broadcasting journalist / radio, tv comedy scripwriter, performer & host I know so little about all things tech I'm shamed to admit the thickness and the depth of my ignorance. But I like to learn stuff!

Regards,

L. / mk

 

[Libertinus]

BTW, 'compression' does nothing to help eliminate background noise, in fact if used improperly it can do the opposite and boost up the volume of 'silent' parts so the background noise is more obvious.

I hear you! I just know those tech pros did compressing when recording me in TV and doing live radio - and I know I do not have their skillset, their ears, so compression is something I have to learn to do eventually - but perhaps I'll ask an ex-workmate audio engineer to give me some compressor settings to begin with, so I won't mess up things with a compressor. An equalizer is not something I know how to use, either. Yet.

Having said that, while there are those male radio voices that have this raspy, bassy element with a lot of presence, I am not one of them. If one of those persons and I speak at the same dB volume in a cafeteria, their voice can be heard 100 yds away, while my voice only carries to the next table or so. You get what I mean...

L / mk

 

[rob aylestone]

Keep in mind that the Lewitt is NOT a stereo mic. It has dual diaphragms - like U87s, C414s and the other popular multi pattern mics. They are fitted back to back so they function as a type of cardioid, in terms of polar pattern, but with a sealed back and not a rear vent. They're working in pressure operated mode as the back is sealed, but as the back does not offer capture, it's a kind of cardioid pattern. The two back to back just get added together to get an omni pattern, or with some polarity changes, they operate in fig-8. Adjusting the balance by dropping the level of one, simulates quite accurately the capture pattern of a cardioid. Having the two outputs fed out to be recorded, lets you change the combination of the two capsules after recording. It's a clever idea and one I'm surprised hasn't been done before in this way.

The snag, if there is one is that apart from the two people facing each other, the separate channels just record you untreated potentially troublesome recording space.

I think before spending money on a microphone that may sound worse, I'd try to organise the room to sound better. I don't think in your example that it's as bad as perhaps you think, but maybe you just recorded on a quiet day?

Getting settings from somebody else is pointless - it won't work. You need to train your ears to hear compression. many people are expecting one kind of sound and totally miss what the compressor is doing = you need to experiment. One friend always says, if you can hear it, you didn't set it properly. The thing I really hate are compressors pumping. The horrible sucking noise they make as the ratio squashes and releases. You get the voice or instrument at the correct level but the background seems to swim up and down - horrible.

 

[Libertinus]

I hear you. I take the dual mode in said Lewitt as a bonus trick feature. A bit like a free umbrella or cool mouse mat. Nice to get, but not a deal breaker. Well maybe something more than a free mouse mat, but you know what I mean.

The podcasting stuff I go would benefit even from a quick and dirty "quasi stereo" or pseudo-stereo, but the main reason for choosing said Lewitt would be the "normal" cardiod mode quality of the mic. Plus the availability other polar patterns.

I can't readily see what I would need to do with the Lewitt "shapeshifter plugin" in post. Propriatory software can consist of, in my experience, often a fair dose hot air and hype. And as I do not do complex music recording - any music recording - I guess it won't be too useful for me.

The recording I made was not done in the environment where I will end up doing my recordings. I expect the real environment to be intrinsically a lot quieter plus I'm able to choose between 2-3 rooms plus I'm able to do acoustic modifications at will, although within a very very small budget and using the construction skills of an obese pencil pusher with a lame left hand.

On getting help with a compressor - what I meant, if a pro friend gives me an introduction and shows me where the problem spots might be, I bet I'll learn compressordom faster than starting from zilch alone. Having said that, I hate that pumping stuff, too.

Will begin to do the 2nd sound sample for you, though gotta feed myself first.

L / mk

 

[rob aylestone]

Actually - you would need the plugin to integrate the two feeds in the same way the preamp does - which just switches few capacitors and resistors in the backplate and diaphragm part of the circuit, so the plug in would need to do the merging. That's a pretty cool feature really, and does give some scope for control of the room sound capture. It's really just adding together with either one polarity or the other - one omni as a result, the other bi-directional and this can be done by simply flipping the polity and feeding the same signal to two faders with flipped on one, normal the other - the two faders control the change from one to the other, and just one fader up is cardioid. I think they use the capacitors for phase shifts which tidy up the omni pattern, but the maths is a bit complicated for me to completely understand it to be honest!

 

[Libertinus]

Keep in mind that the Lewitt is NOT a stereo mic. It has dual diaphragms - like U87s, C414s and the other popular multi pattern mics. They are fitted back to back so they function as a type of cardioid, in terms of polar pattern, but with a sealed back and not a rear vent. They're working in pressure operated mode as the back is sealed, but as the back does not offer capture, it's a kind of cardioid pattern. The two back to back just get added together to get an omni pattern, or with some polarity changes, they operate in fig-8. Adjusting the balance by dropping the level of one, simulates quite accurately the capture pattern of a cardioid. Having the two outputs fed out to be recorded, lets you change the combination of the two capsules after recording. It's a clever idea and one I'm surprised hasn't been done before in this way.

The snag, if there is one is that apart from the two people facing each other, the separate channels just record you untreated potentially troublesome recording space.

I think before spending money on a microphone that may sound worse, I'd try to organise the room to sound better. I don't think in your example that it's as bad as perhaps you think, but maybe you just recorded on a quiet day?

Getting settings from somebody else is pointless - it won't work. You need to train your ears to hear compression. many people are expecting one kind of sound and totally miss what the compressor is doing = you need to experiment. One friend always says, if you can hear it, you didn't set it properly. The thing I really hate are compressors pumping. The horrible sucking noise they make as the ratio squashes and releases. You get the voice or instrument at the correct level but the background seems to swim up and down - horrible.

Here is my second VO sound sample file. AKG C214, NO lo-cut, pop-filter on, windshield foam cap on, Mixpre-6 II. One long sentence in Finnish to show my normal voice, plus some stuff in English in normal and non-normal (= two mad podcast characters) voices. This time I put a towel on the two LCD screens opposite the mic, and a pillow on the table that is in front of me, near the mic. This is not my recording-environnment-to-be, however. That will be a log cabin cottage / small country house type thing, a quieter place. The recording has been done during the night. What does the sample file tell you on my sound(s), regarding mic choices, etc?

L. / mk

 

[Libertinus]

Actually - you would need the plugin to integrate the two feeds in the same way the preamp does - which just switches few capacitors and resistors in the backplate and diaphragm part of the circuit, so the plug in would need to do the merging. That's a pretty cool feature really, and does give some scope for control of the room sound capture. It's really just adding together with either one polarity or the other - one omni as a result, the other bi-directional and this can be done by simply flipping the polity and feeding the same signal to two faders with flipped on one, normal the other - the two faders control the change from one to the other, and just one fader up is cardioid. I think they use the capacitors for phase shifts which tidy up the omni pattern, but the maths is a bit complicated for me to completely understand it to be honest!

Ok! Now I got the 2nd sound sample file done. I attached it to a reply of mine to an earlier answer post of yours. Seems to have ended up in the previous message. So raise thine eyes a bit.

L. / mk

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I would consider a mid-side setup for what you're doing. While I'm a fan of X-Y, it can behave oddly up close. A mid-side starts with a mono mic for the mid and adds the side channel with the second mic, so it would be easy to transition between stereo and mono without changing your mic or recording setup. You would just turn down the side mic for the mono parts, and turn it up for the stereo parts.

 

[rob aylestone]

I've never opened a 5:1 mp3 before - I didn't actually know it was possible in an mp3? Interesting. VERY low audio levels again, I had to normalise the recording to get it louder.

Your speaking voice comes across fine again. Please forgive me, but your other 'voices' do not - at all. You used Stephen Fry in the recording - he is an expert in narration with other voices, but if you study this (Harry Potter being the mots easiest available) you'll hear a master class in how to do it. Back when I was teaching performing arts we had to continually cover this in characterisation classes. The obvious thing to do is to try and speak higher or lower, and it always sounds exactly like that, because you do that with your throat and squashed vocal folds. What you have do do is adjust the pitch just a little but alter your internals - your diaphragm has so much to do with it - so you can take in a large breath, stretch your spine and instead of your usual talking position, adopt a new one - start with chest up, lumbar spine forward, shoulders down. alter your mouth - drop your jaw, or pull it back or fowards and try to change the space in your mouth - if you reduce the mouth capacity, it appears to go up in pitch, and making the cavity bigger lowers it. The process also makes you pronounce words differently. I suspect this is crazily difficult for you in a foreign language. Most characterisation is done by how you speak - how you form words, the emphasis on certain formants and of course accent. Stephen Fry is a master of accents - your clip even mentions Norfolk. We have a huge variety of crazy accents here and his different characterisations are based on tone and accent - NOT pitch. everyone can be forgiven for thinking that pitch is the key feature, but it isn't. Delivery speed also matters greatly. Small creatures speak fast, large ones speak slowly. Clearly in real life they don't, but it's a convention. Children's cartoons series often totally ignore changing the style of speech because the image fits the voice they hear. So a girls voice fits a small furry character, and a male voice fits the wolf - the viewer accepts this. A man trying to speak in a high pitched voice will always be a man speaking in a high pitched voice. We can tinker with our own voice, but pitch wise it needs to remain similar or it becomes unacceptable to the listener. Stephen Fry could do Scabbers the Rat - simply by speaking like a rat - clipped, short and simple delivery, not trying to speak in a squeaky voice. He could also do Hagrid the huge gamekeeper - and he did it by using a Norfolk accent - that's all. In the movie it was Robbie Coltrane - so was Scottish, not Norfolk and nobody ever commented. Very clever stuff!

 

[TimOD]

"Due to asthma am *not* going to make DYI acoustic panels from weawed glass insulation mattresses. Can't take that risk with my lungs." I've made dozens of those things, both with the more dangerous fiberglass and the less dangerous Roxul. I only use Roxul now. But I always used a respirator whilst working with the stuff. From cutting the wood frames to installation of the Roxul between frames to the attaching of the fabric (you don't want to breathe in those cotton fibres either!). I always made them in a well-ventialted garage, but the main thing is the respirator. It has to be on at all times. As a painter by trade I'm used to wearing them, and they work. I work with a guy who has repiratory issues, and the use of the mask (a half-mask in this case for the both of us) pretty much eliminates the hazards involved when working around compromised environments.
Once the baffles are built, and covered with fabric and installed on walls, the material inside is not a problem, as long as it isn't disturbed, which of course it won't be, unless there's a fire or explosion, in which case breathing in the fibres is the least of your worries.

 

[Libertinus]

"Due to asthma am *not* going to make DYI acoustic panels from weawed glass insulation mattresses. Can't take that risk with my lungs." I've made dozens of those things, both with the more dangerous fiberglass and the less dangerous Roxul. I only use Roxul now. But I always used a respirator whilst working with the stuff. From cutting the wood frames to installation of the Roxul between frames to the attaching of the fabric (you don't want to breathe in those cotton fibres either!). I always made them in a well-ventialted garage, but the main thing is the respirator. It has to be on at all times. As a painter by trade I'm used to wearing them, and they work. I work with a guy who has repiratory issues, and the use of the mask (a half-mask in this case for the both of us) pretty much eliminates the hazards involved when working around compromised environments.
Once the baffles are built, and covered with fabric and installed on walls, the material inside is not a problem, as long as it isn't disturbed, which of course it won't be, unless there's a fire or explosion, in which case breathing in the fibres is the least of your worries.View attachment 109981

Good comments! In my case, however, as I'm not a handyman by any stretch of imagination, getting cheap and good enough acoustic panels from Thomann.de or some such place, plus using thick mattresses and duvets I already do have - have too many of them, actually, plus very large rugs I'd have to throw away otherwise as I'm moving to live in one location instead of living in two - in such a case making panels is perhaps not the easiest or most convenient option for me. I am creating more like a small place for recording audio books than anything else. No recording of music or podcast interviews or anything like that. Small, one person stuff.

 

[Libertinus]

I've never opened a 5:1 mp3 before - I didn't actually know it was possible in an mp3? Interesting. VERY low audio levels again, I had to normalise the recording to get it louder.

Your speaking voice comes across fine again. Please forgive me, but your other 'voices' do not - at all. You used Stephen Fry in the recording - he is an expert in narration with other voices, but if you study this (Harry Potter being the mots easiest available) you'll hear a master class in how to do it. Back when I was teaching performing arts we had to continually cover this in characterisation classes. The obvious thing to do is to try and speak higher or lower, and it always sounds exactly like that, because you do that with your throat and squashed vocal folds. What you have do do is adjust the pitch just a little but alter your internals - your diaphragm has so much to do with it - so you can take in a large breath, stretch your spine and instead of your usual talking position, adopt a new one - start with chest up, lumbar spine forward, shoulders down. alter your mouth - drop your jaw, or pull it back or fowards and try to change the space in your mouth - if you reduce the mouth capacity, it appears to go up in pitch, and making the cavity bigger lowers it. The process also makes you pronounce words differently. I suspect this is crazily difficult for you in a foreign language. Most characterisation is done by how you speak - how you form words, the emphasis on certain formants and of course accent. Stephen Fry is a master of accents - your clip even mentions Norfolk. We have a huge variety of crazy accents here and his different characterisations are based on tone and accent - NOT pitch. everyone can be forgiven for thinking that pitch is the key feature, but it isn't. Delivery speed also matters greatly. Small creatures speak fast, large ones speak slowly. Clearly in real life they don't, but it's a convention. Children's cartoons series often totally ignore changing the style of speech because the image fits the voice they hear. So a girls voice fits a small furry character, and a male voice fits the wolf - the viewer accepts this. A man trying to speak in a high pitched voice will always be a man speaking in a high pitched voice. We can tinker with our own voice, but pitch wise it needs to remain similar or it becomes unacceptable to the listener. Stephen Fry could do Scabbers the Rat - simply by speaking like a rat - clipped, short and simple delivery, not trying to speak in a squeaky voice. He could also do Hagrid the huge gamekeeper - and he did it by using a Norfolk accent - that's all. In the movie it was Robbie Coltrane - so was Scottish, not Norfolk and nobody ever commented. Very clever stuff!

Thank you again for your valuable comments, Rob! When I'm in a normal speaking shape (not in a post-accident kind of dental state) and working in my native language, I can geographicaly place (enunciate, utter) a familiar dialect so it sounds the way it is spoken 35 kms from where I live. Or do it the way it is spoken 70, or 100 kms away. Can do this only with the most familiar dialect, but the voicing is very very subtle. It is in the "colour" or bredth of the vowels, very small changes in intonation, an occasional idiomatic word. In my current state I can only do a croaking caricature of anything - of even my own voice . And in English it is umpteen times worse. So I realise the examples provided were quite useless - except you gave me good ideas for the future, sound-hobby-wise.
When I recorded my first audiobooks (my own published books that I read on tape some 20 yrs ago) I did not try to change my voice, did not try to be another person when I read dialogue. I just used intonation and an extra tag or two if necessary to make it clear who is talking. I have never been an actor, have never wanted to be one. Have done standup, though, and a myriad of radio shows in my own voice, but actor is a different animal altogether and one I am not ever going or trying to be. But I enjoy fooling around with voice, just as much now, as I did when I was 16-17 and had a reel magnetophone and a small Telefunken mic. Plus too much time in my hands during those dark winter nights...

L. / mk

 

[rob aylestone]

I just wish my foreign language skills were 10% of yours! The English are, by race, terrible at even our own language. Those fluent in any language have huge job market potential. Joking aside, you could write a paper on Stephen Fry’s storytelling. If you have not listened to his potter audiobooks, I can send you one. Emulating him would be really worthwhile. Especially as you have the hang of our slang and jargon. i accidentally got the US version of one book with Jim Dale reading that one. It was simply awful.I hope you get the dental issues sorted. Must be annoying.

 

[Libertinus]

I just wish my foreign language skills were 10% of yours! The English are, by race, terrible at even our own language. Those fluent in any language have huge job market potential. Joking aside, you could write a paper on Stephen Fry’s storytelling. If you have not listened to his potter audiobooks, I can send you one. Emulating him would be really worthwhile. Especially as you have the hang of our slang and jargon. i accidentally got the US version of one book with Jim Dale reading that one. It was simply awful.I hope you get the dental issues sorted. Must be annoying.

When one’s mother tongue is Finnish, learning other languages is merely linguistic ”realpolitik”. That’s why we study a bunch of tongues here in Periphery. Also, I like languages like people like golf or complaining about the lack of manners among the young.
My favourite English dialect is probably Glaswegian working class. (Rob C. Nesbitt is a challenge, though! But I try to muddle through, being thankful for each and every wee bit I ”get”.)
I’ve had so many health issues it was tragic at first, tragicomic later, and now it is just comic, as I’m getting better and better.
Mr. Fry is a personal favourite. In several fronts from Greek mythology to QI and his novels. Jeeves of course. Haven’t got the Potter audio stuff, though. But I haven’t got anything in exchange for you, I fear.
Re dialects - one good book & audio book is ”A murder of crows”, read by the author, Ian Skewis. Edinburgh or Glasgow accent, but can’t recall which one, right now. Skewis a native speaker, thence. The book is characterwise and plotwise very well put together (in my humble opinion, but I’m just a self-taught scribbler) and the reading by Mr. Skewis is pleasing to my ears. The dialect has a homely ring to it, for me, for some unfathomable reason, though I have never set my foot let alone feet on Scottish soil.

Here’s a Skewis link:

Skewis, Ian - The Crime Writers’ Association

thecwa.co.uk

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Uh oh! You called Glasgow English.