Todays Radio Voice. HOW SHOULD anouncers voices SOUND today?

[radiotoday]

One of my questions which i havent get any anwers is this.

The years go by and as radio is changing dramatically, the " voice fashion" is changing also. So the question is.
What sort of voice is now in fashion? And i mean ANY VOICE. Beyond how a good voice sounds naturally, i mean the voice wich is usually more familiar these days for the listeners.
In the past the voices sounded very powerfull. Very un-natural. But this was something what the listener was excpecting from his radio.
He did know that the voice from a anouncer would be somehow, "hard" powerfull, mysterius. It was something which would fantasize his imagination, and more.

Some of the most famus voices did use some compressors like symetrix or others. However the fashion in the past was something like a powerfull un-real voice. the

Todays voices using lots of voice compressors and voice processors plus the way the good "big" fm processors are changing the voices, are promissing voices but without anything powerfull.

The question is, what is that what the listener wants to hear. A POWERFULL VOICE WITH INFLUENCE, OR JUST A "POLITICALY" CLEAN VOICE?

Also do per example the new generation fm processors like omnia and optimod giving a more hi-fi sound which is also changing the style of the voices, making them more female oriented and less agressive?

 

[knowbetter]

One of my questions which i havent get any anwers is this. <snip>

The question is, what is that what the listener wants to hear. A POWERFULL VOICE WITH INFLUENCE, OR JUST A "POLITICALY" CLEAN VOICE?

Also do per example the new generation fm processors like omnia and optimod giving a more hi-fi sound which is also changing the style of the voices, making them more female oriented and less agressive?

My Vote, since this is strictly an opinion....(and I haven't been in a good flame war lately)

Clear, easy to understand, smooth, and a bit larger than life...so don't expect to lost the compressors and mic processing anytime in the near future, especially since the newer processors that you mentioned pretty much require them.

Female voices have never really been the problem, there are just very few that really sounded good on the radio, and even fewer who bothered to learn to basics of good voice skills. This isn't to say that most men have either, its just that an "UP' male voice (or pushed, projected, or whatever term you want to use), generally wasn't pushed to the squeak or squeal, or generally irritating factor.

There are a whole lot of folks, male and female, who probably shouldn't have been on the radio. Short of those with real talent, most fall along the wayside very quickly.

Bottom Line, if it doesn't sound great, WHY LISTEN!

 

[ChiefEngineer]

Rush Limbaugh - Distinctive

Mason Adams - (Smuckers) Distinctive

Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, etc.

 

[SFM-Ptgal]

take a "listen" to this showreel:

http://www.cantinhomusica.com/showreel_en.html

Most of this guys are actors. A few are radio personalities and a fewer are advertising pros...

This means something...

Ohhh.... It's the portuguese reality. Different from yours?...

 

[stace]

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=5pYCawF11y8

 

[littlejohn]

Charlie Tuna - Gary Owens. Those guys had good pipes. Yiou didn't have to do a lot to make them BIG.
Currently, George Lowe, among others (the voice of Space Ghost)

The common thread is good diction, familiarity with what they have to say, and an ability to inflect an emoption without overdoing it. It really is an art, the good ones are fun to work with, the bad ones can be tolerated (usually) and the mediocre ones are fun to watch improve.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

As I flip across the dial, particularly when travelling, I get the idea there are 3 voice-over guys who record everything heard on every radio station in America. Now, I am making an over-statement, but variety and originality do not seem to be in vogue today.

I worked mostly small markets in my career. An early employer tipped me off to a fact that was very important to him: Much of what we do in radio makes it somewhat impossible for people who have partially impaired hearing. He pointed out to me what about my voice made it understandable and intelligible. I have carried that knowledge through several careers following broadcasting and when I make a public presentation, it is a rare day when someone comes up to me and says: Thank you, I could understand you.

Radio voices and production today basically 'give the middle finger' to those who do not have 20/20 hearing ability. (I know. 20/20 is vision. What is the proper language to describe robust hearing ability?)

 

[knowbetter]

As I flip across the dial, particularly when travelling, I get the idea there are 3 voice-over guys who record everything heard on every radio station in America. Now, I am making an over-statement, but variety and originality do not seem to be in vogue today.

I worked mostly small markets in my career. An early employer tipped me off to a fact that was very important to him: Much of what we do in radio makes it somewhat impossible for people who have partially impaired hearing. He pointed out to me what about my voice made it understandable and intelligible. I have carried that knowledge through several careers following broadcasting and when I make a public presentation, it is a rare day when someone comes up to me and says: Thank you, I could understand you.

Radio voices and production today basically 'give the middle finger' to those who do not have 20/20 hearing ability. (I know. 20/20 is vision. What is the proper language to describe robust hearing ability?)

huh?????

(translation) I really don't understand what you are trying to convey. What did he tell you?

 

[Info-warrior]

Radio voices and production today basically 'give the middle finger' to those who do not have 20/20 hearing ability. (I know. 20/20 is vision. What is the proper language to describe robust hearing ability?)

Some things I can think:

Music beds that run too hot in spots. A trick I was always told to do is mix the spot, then turn the volume down very low. If the voice is still legible, even if the music/SFX dissappear or are unintelligable, than the mix is good.

Fast talkers, especially ones that don't care to enounciate. There's a man who sometimes fills in for Glenn Beck. He talks a mile a minute and doesn't speak very clearly, to compound things further, since he's speaking so fast he tended to stumble a lot which made things difficult to follow and I have pretty good hearing.

In modern times, call ins done over digital cellphones and some digital codecs.

Sometimes two or more of these are combined.

Thinking of the impression of powerful voices. One night last year, Ross Mitchel, the Coast to Coast voice guy, filled in for Ian Punnet. He did a good job with the program, but at the same time, it was kind of surreal to hear him for the entire four hours. Perhaps they should have had Ian cut the liners going in and out of program segments for that night to break things up.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

Don LaFontaine.

Nuff said. 8)

 

[CatFM]

Don LaFontaine.

Nuff said. 8)

Isn't he the "movie trailer guy?" He does have an incredible voice! I also have to toss in a vote for Charlie Van Dyke. I consider both to be powerful, but naturally so, not really forced.

To answer the original question...about how should annoucer voices sound today, I can only figure that things have changed. Having a great voice used to open a lot of doors. Today, I hear voices that would have been in the unemployment line not too long ago, so maybe having a great voice is "old school" now. The guy who does most of the announcing for ESPN is a good example. That guy never could have found a job on the air, especially in a network setting, not all that long ago. Maybe having that kind of voice is now considered to be the "in" and "cool" thing now.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Radio voices and production today basically 'give the middle finger' to those who do not have 20/20 hearing ability. (I know. 20/20 is vision. What is the proper language to describe robust hearing ability?)

huh?????

(translation) I really don't understand what you are trying to convey.

We think of hearing loss being a problem reserved for the elderly.

Look around you and figure out what percentage of the population in the 21 to 30 year old range wear glasses because their eyes are not perfect. Is there any reason to not believe that just as many people in that age range have less than perfect hearing?

In a bar, in a mall, at your church, at a ball game.... pick out someone wearing a hearing aid and get them into conversation. Ask them what sounds are hard to hear, what situations create problems for them. Can they hear a radio well while driving a vehicle. Ask them what they think of all these transition "swoosh" noises (inherited from the video game world?) that punctuate some of the TV programs as they go from once scene to another. Ask them what it is like to listen to a radio commercial with music bed underneath it that has a lot of tinkly high frequency content. What is it like to have a car windown cracked just enough to whistle a tiny bit. Ask them if they can comprehend traffic reports given from a helicopter, or with simulated helicopter sounds in the background.

I think the main focus of the beginning question that started this thread was a question intended to ask two things: what is the pitch, the timbre, the overtones of today's ideal radio voice, and what is the ideal processing, compression, limiting and equalization to deliver that voice.

The translation of my previous post is: You may have the perfect announcer person and a world class techical audio chain, and radio guys will wet their pants when they hear it, but depending on what condiments and seasoning components of sound you throw in the blender, you may have just invited all the listeners with less than perfect hearing to leave the radio planet.

 

[RadioFixerCLE]

[
Isn't he the "movie trailer guy?" He does have an incredible voice!

Yes sir. That's the man!

 

[radiotoday]

Yes, Don is one of the voiceovers legends, but...

we do not talk about natural talent voices... Don and others are legends since they born with those voices...
If you find per example 100 persons like Don, because, in that area they are not more then 100 in totall...you will realise one simple thing.

Those guys are lessthen 0,001% from those who we hear in radio. The " others" are thousands. And i am not talking of persons who - as a example are behind of a COLLEGE OR ANY LPBFM RADIO STATION.

I am talking about all those 2.000.000 other persons who work in the radio , they do live from it.
What sort of voices do THEY need to have to be "in fashion". Not all the persons are talents like Don or similar.
This DOESNT MEAN THEY HAVE A BAD VOICE. They just have totall diferent voices. ALSO MORE SIMPLE - EASY TO HEAR VOICES- NOT VERY EXECUTIVE.

So what do they need to do to sound better? Or what do they need to use - a good voice processor - to sound diferent?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I am a bit of a perfectionist. Whether it is my OWN voice, or some civilian off the street who just voiced a plea for volunteers at her social service organization, I want the mic, the audio chain, the entire delivery system to deliver that voice, whether it is Don LaFonataine or some local grandmother who smoked about three cigarettes too many every day for the last 43 years, deliver that voice the best I can.

But think with me. I climb in my car and light out for five hours to see my grandchildren. The first 42 minutes my mind is evaluating traffic, making a list of things I absolutely must do when I get back, and composing an e-mail I am going to post here to end war and stop hunder. Now, about 43 minutes out, I am getting beyond the coverage of my favorite stations and I begin to search the ether.

Do I really care whether its the movie trailer guy, Wink Martindale, or that squeaky grandmother? I want someone to talk to me. Entertain me. Tell me a 'stoooh-ree' even if it is only 24 seconds long. Say something to me. I am not a judge at the Radio Announcers County Fair for the voice with "the greatewst testicular characteristics" that someone was posting for recently.

Please entertain me. Squeak if you like. Clear your throat if you must. Tell me something I didn't know 44 mi utes ago.

But remeber, I am a perfectionist. Keep your gain in limits. Don't left the road and window noise overcome you. And process it just enough that it sound pleasant (if possible) but leave me guessing whether you are processing it or not.

Sad truth- Minute 78 of my five hour trip: "Dang, I'm glad I brought some CDs with me."

 

[xmtrland]

It’s that tone or fullness of the voice that is the real thing that make a good voice. Some voices just broadcast better, whether on the air, recorded or just spoken. The common thread, the “voice” is clear, easy on the ears, maintaining good tone and well versed.

I see three types of Voice Talent. “Voice Over Talent”, “Day to Day on air talent music format” and “Talk show host”. There is a difference in just a day to day on air talent and a professional voice over person. Delivery of the words is different if your voicing something versus doing a day to day “on air” show. Some good “on air” voices have taken themselves to the next level of “Voice Over Talent”.

“Voice Over Talent”, have good natural voice, cadence and inflection. It almost sounds like they wrote the human dialect. And naturally know the correct way to annunciate each word for the current phrase they are speaking at the time. They are very well versed in talk and have much better control of their voice as they speak. A voice over talent will more likely talk with better inflection in a natural way in day to day conversation. A voice over talent will research words to make sure they are speaking them right. Because of the demands of voice over work, the voice over person needs to better train their voice to perform for that hourly rate. And I have found that through that training they just roll those words out better. A voice over talent gets to use the best of his takes.

Your day to day “on air talent” music format voice is almost more conversational now days, trying to tie into the listener. Only when a day to day on air talent is in production (cutting a spot) do they concentrate more on the actual cadence of the voice and inflection of words. When they are “on the air” the style is more conversational sometimes over emphasizing some words to make a point. Conversation is meant to sound like it’s on the fly, annunciate clearly maintain good voice tone and hope you pronounced that word correctly. When your voice tracking, you may get to pick your best take, but you should sound natural and conversational. Voice trackers need to sound more natural like your just having a conversation with just that one listener. Radio is supposed to be spontaneous because it is happening “now/live” (or that’s what your supposed to think). Which now days means your inflecting or over stating your annunciation less to sound more natural like conversation (talking to some one versus talking at some one). A good “on air talent” voice should use inflection and cadence to maintain a level of authority in what they are saying without being in their face or talking down to the listener. If you do AM or PM drive you are a hybrid of “day to day music” and “Talk show” host.

“Talk show” voices are more like “voice over talent” in their use of the language on air. Tone quality can vary but the successful ones have good natural listenable voices. The difference is how they connect to the listener. It’s all in the cadence, inflection of voice and how the words roll off out of the mouth. Talk show host also have to have well researched content. They need to know about the subject they are speaking about or well versed( it may seam some that some do not follow this). Talk show host always have authority when they speak and may actually appear to be talking down to the listener.

Notice I have said nothing about processing because processing can’t make a good voice. It can only help if applied right. and make it sound worse if not done right or maintained

I actually have observations of two well know voices where I live, Bean Baxter and Jeff Hoyt. Bean is on day to day in the mornings on KROQ (via ISDN from his home on Vashon Island). Jeff Hoyt is a Voice Over Talent (does his work from Vashon Via ISDN). Of the two I would have to say Jeff has the better voice technically.