I have noticed that my vo's do not sound the same on TV as they do in my studio. I am not sure if it is an eq problem on my end or compression or what. I would really appreciate any help you guys can offer. I use Event 20/20 monitors eq'd flat. Thanks for your help!
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
VO EQ Question
- Thread starter xdjproductions
- Start date
> I have noticed that my vo's do not sound the same on TV as
> they do in my studio. I am not sure if it is an eq problem
> on my end or compression or what. I would really appreciate
> any help you guys can offer. I use Event 20/20 monitors
> eq'd flat. Thanks for your help!
>
TV audio is terrible. No, you're not going to get the same Freq. response you get in your studio. But just as you learn how to mix for radio processing, you can learn to mix for TV
> they do in my studio. I am not sure if it is an eq problem
> on my end or compression or what. I would really appreciate
> any help you guys can offer. I use Event 20/20 monitors
> eq'd flat. Thanks for your help!
>
TV audio is terrible. No, you're not going to get the same Freq. response you get in your studio. But just as you learn how to mix for radio processing, you can learn to mix for TV
B
bigwoody
Guest
> I have noticed that my vo's do not sound the same on TV as
> they do in my studio. I am not sure if it is an eq problem
> on my end or compression or what. I would really appreciate
> any help you guys can offer. I use Event 20/20 monitors
> eq'd flat. Thanks for your help!
>
Monitor via your headphones only, with them off. If it sounds clean/clear, then you'll be good to go.
If you can listen to your mix thru a mono speaker aka "The Motown Mixdown" (Barry Gordy mixed everything thru a mono speaker so it would sound good on AM radios) then you'll be good.
<P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net
</P>
> they do in my studio. I am not sure if it is an eq problem
> on my end or compression or what. I would really appreciate
> any help you guys can offer. I use Event 20/20 monitors
> eq'd flat. Thanks for your help!
>
Monitor via your headphones only, with them off. If it sounds clean/clear, then you'll be good to go.
If you can listen to your mix thru a mono speaker aka "The Motown Mixdown" (Barry Gordy mixed everything thru a mono speaker so it would sound good on AM radios) then you'll be good.
<P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net
</P>
1
192khz
Guest
If you use T-Racks find the TV preset and add a little (less than 2db) multi-band compression (not a lot) and add on about 2db at 2khz EQ.
Also, you may want to try another microphone. Something with a smaller diaphragm. My choice would be a Rode NTG-2 shotgun (with a pop filter).
Good luck and experiment.
________ <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by 192khz on 03/31/06 04:24 PM.</FONT></P>
Also, you may want to try another microphone. Something with a smaller diaphragm. My choice would be a Rode NTG-2 shotgun (with a pop filter).
Good luck and experiment.
________ <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by 192khz on 03/31/06 04:24 PM.</FONT></P>
> If you use T-Racks find the TV preset and add a little (less
> than 2db) multi-band compression (not a lot) and add on
> about 2db at 2khz EQ.
>
> Also, you may want to try another microphone. Something
> with a smaller diaphragm. My choice would be a Rode NTG-2
> shotgun (with a pop filter).
>
> Good luck and experiment.
>
> ________
>
Just curious if you've tested the NTG-2 against the MKH 416...for v/o???
> than 2db) multi-band compression (not a lot) and add on
> about 2db at 2khz EQ.
>
> Also, you may want to try another microphone. Something
> with a smaller diaphragm. My choice would be a Rode NTG-2
> shotgun (with a pop filter).
>
> Good luck and experiment.
>
> ________
>
Just curious if you've tested the NTG-2 against the MKH 416...for v/o???
1
192khz
Guest
I have never done a comparison. However, I own several Rode microphones and I am so impressed with them I don't think the MKH 416 would even be a consideration for me. Besides, they seem a little over priced to me. My money goes to Rode.
~Loyal Rode fan
~Loyal Rode fan
B
bigwoody
Guest
> I have never done a comparison. However, I own several Rode
> microphones and I am so impressed with them I don't think
> the MKH 416 would even be a consideration for me. Besides,
> they seem a little over priced to me. My money goes to
> Rode.
>
> ~Loyal Rode fan
>
I too am a RODE fan having owned the NT2 and the NTK tube (nice warmth and richness). IMO the NT2, which is no longer in production, is as good as the TLM103. I've owned both...and the nod goes to the NT2 considering the price difference.
I'd love to get a Rode Classic II. Chris Corley uses one...with a Manley. NICE combo!
I do know Corley, years ago, that Corley used a 416 to a Valley 400. He made the combo rock as well.
<P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net
</P>
> microphones and I am so impressed with them I don't think
> the MKH 416 would even be a consideration for me. Besides,
> they seem a little over priced to me. My money goes to
> Rode.
>
> ~Loyal Rode fan
>
I too am a RODE fan having owned the NT2 and the NTK tube (nice warmth and richness). IMO the NT2, which is no longer in production, is as good as the TLM103. I've owned both...and the nod goes to the NT2 considering the price difference.
I'd love to get a Rode Classic II. Chris Corley uses one...with a Manley. NICE combo!
I do know Corley, years ago, that Corley used a 416 to a Valley 400. He made the combo rock as well.
<P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net
</P>
V
voiceguy
Guest
> > I have never done a comparison. However, I own several
> Rode
> > microphones and I am so impressed with them I don't think
> > the MKH 416 would even be a consideration for me.
> Besides,
> > they seem a little over priced to me. My money goes to
> > Rode.
> >
> > ~Loyal Rode fan
> >
>
> I too am a RODE fan having owned the NT2 and the NTK tube
> (nice warmth and richness). IMO the NT2, which is no longer
> in production, is as good as the TLM103. I've owned
> both...and the nod goes to the NT2 considering the price
> difference.
>
> I'd love to get a Rode Classic II. Chris Corley uses
> one...with a Manley. NICE combo!
>
> I do know Corley, years ago, that Corley used a 416 to a
> Valley 400. He made the combo rock as well.
>
I can tell you from experience ( and having a pair of 'em myself ) that there's a great number of television voiceovers done on the 416. Specifically TV promo...
If you're looking for a more nuanced, intimate performance...more presence...then it calls for a large diaphragm mic...
I've got a 416 that I use all the time...both at work and at home.
Also have a TLM 103, and a few other fun condensers and even an RE-27 layin' around somewhere...
Every mic is good for something...the 416 is a great all around I think. It's made for using as a boom mic...but it has been found to be an excellent mic for studio use as well. Its tight pattern makes processing almost unnecessary...
The audio I send to TV clients is almost always dry...almost no compression what-so-ever.
TV mixers hate the way radio guys blast everything with compression...
You might want to cut your low-end a touch...back off your compression...use the cleanest path to your recorder possible.
I go 416 to ISA 220 to Digi 002...
no compression...just a clean signal.
For radio reads, I ratchet up the compression a bit to give it the snap and sizzle...
> Rode
> > microphones and I am so impressed with them I don't think
> > the MKH 416 would even be a consideration for me.
> Besides,
> > they seem a little over priced to me. My money goes to
> > Rode.
> >
> > ~Loyal Rode fan
> >
>
> I too am a RODE fan having owned the NT2 and the NTK tube
> (nice warmth and richness). IMO the NT2, which is no longer
> in production, is as good as the TLM103. I've owned
> both...and the nod goes to the NT2 considering the price
> difference.
>
> I'd love to get a Rode Classic II. Chris Corley uses
> one...with a Manley. NICE combo!
>
> I do know Corley, years ago, that Corley used a 416 to a
> Valley 400. He made the combo rock as well.
>
I can tell you from experience ( and having a pair of 'em myself ) that there's a great number of television voiceovers done on the 416. Specifically TV promo...
If you're looking for a more nuanced, intimate performance...more presence...then it calls for a large diaphragm mic...
I've got a 416 that I use all the time...both at work and at home.
Also have a TLM 103, and a few other fun condensers and even an RE-27 layin' around somewhere...
Every mic is good for something...the 416 is a great all around I think. It's made for using as a boom mic...but it has been found to be an excellent mic for studio use as well. Its tight pattern makes processing almost unnecessary...
The audio I send to TV clients is almost always dry...almost no compression what-so-ever.
TV mixers hate the way radio guys blast everything with compression...
You might want to cut your low-end a touch...back off your compression...use the cleanest path to your recorder possible.
I go 416 to ISA 220 to Digi 002...
no compression...just a clean signal.
For radio reads, I ratchet up the compression a bit to give it the snap and sizzle...
B
bigwoody
Guest
> I can tell you from experience ( and having a pair of 'em
> myself ) that there's a great number of television
> voiceovers done on the 416. Specifically TV promo...
>
> If you're looking for a more nuanced, intimate
> performance...more presence...then it calls for a large
> diaphragm mic...
>
> I've got a 416 that I use all the time...both at work and at
> home.
>
> Also have a TLM 103, and a few other fun condensers and even
> an RE-27 layin' around somewhere...
>
> Every mic is good for something...the 416 is a great all
> around I think. It's made for using as a boom mic...but it
> has been found to be an excellent mic for studio use as
> well. Its tight pattern makes processing almost
> unnecessary...
>
> The audio I send to TV clients is almost always dry...almost
> no compression what-so-ever.
>
> TV mixers hate the way radio guys blast everything with
> compression...
>
> You might want to cut your low-end a touch...back off your
> compression...use the cleanest path to your recorder
> possible.
>
> I go 416 to ISA 220 to Digi 002...
>
> no compression...just a clean signal.
>
> For radio reads, I ratchet up the compression a bit to give
> it the snap and sizzle...
>
Mike
I agree, the 416 rocks! After producing John Wells for years and learning that he uses the 416 to a Mackie 1202 - nothing else in the chain - I bought a 416.
I run my 416 to a Symetrix 528, then a Mackie pre-amp (1402), not much from the Mackie, then into Adobe and tweak from there. I leave the EQ OFF on the Symetrix.
Now, John Wells has told me "I don't need any extra compression...", and he;'s right. Me? I need a little help, lol!
For those who aren't aware, Ernie Anderson pioneered the use of the 416 for VO when working for ABC, then later for radio vo.
Chuck
WRWK/WTOD/WXKR Toledo<P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net
</P>
> myself ) that there's a great number of television
> voiceovers done on the 416. Specifically TV promo...
>
> If you're looking for a more nuanced, intimate
> performance...more presence...then it calls for a large
> diaphragm mic...
>
> I've got a 416 that I use all the time...both at work and at
> home.
>
> Also have a TLM 103, and a few other fun condensers and even
> an RE-27 layin' around somewhere...
>
> Every mic is good for something...the 416 is a great all
> around I think. It's made for using as a boom mic...but it
> has been found to be an excellent mic for studio use as
> well. Its tight pattern makes processing almost
> unnecessary...
>
> The audio I send to TV clients is almost always dry...almost
> no compression what-so-ever.
>
> TV mixers hate the way radio guys blast everything with
> compression...
>
> You might want to cut your low-end a touch...back off your
> compression...use the cleanest path to your recorder
> possible.
>
> I go 416 to ISA 220 to Digi 002...
>
> no compression...just a clean signal.
>
> For radio reads, I ratchet up the compression a bit to give
> it the snap and sizzle...
>
Mike
I agree, the 416 rocks! After producing John Wells for years and learning that he uses the 416 to a Mackie 1202 - nothing else in the chain - I bought a 416.
I run my 416 to a Symetrix 528, then a Mackie pre-amp (1402), not much from the Mackie, then into Adobe and tweak from there. I leave the EQ OFF on the Symetrix.
Now, John Wells has told me "I don't need any extra compression...", and he;'s right. Me? I need a little help, lol!
For those who aren't aware, Ernie Anderson pioneered the use of the 416 for VO when working for ABC, then later for radio vo.
Chuck
WRWK/WTOD/WXKR Toledo<P ID="signature">______________
www.OhioRadio.net
</P>
> Just curious if you've tested the NTG-2 against the MKH
> 416...for v/o???
>
I like the Rode line too, used an NTK for year's. But, I just did this last week. Tested the NTG-2 against my MKH-416. There's no comparison, the 416 is leagues above the NTG-2 shotgun. What's that old saying, "You get what ya pay for".
<P ID="signature">______________
Russ McLamb
Chris-Mar Studios</P>
> 416...for v/o???
>
I like the Rode line too, used an NTK for year's. But, I just did this last week. Tested the NTG-2 against my MKH-416. There's no comparison, the 416 is leagues above the NTG-2 shotgun. What's that old saying, "You get what ya pay for".
<P ID="signature">______________
Russ McLamb
Chris-Mar Studios</P>
> > Just curious if you've tested the NTG-2 against the MKH
> > 416...for v/o???
> >
>
>
> I like the Rode line too, used an NTK for year's. But, I
> just did this last week. Tested the NTG-2 against my
> MKH-416. There's no comparison, the 416 is leagues above
> the NTG-2 shotgun. What's that old saying, "You get what ya
> pay for".
>
lol I guess there should be a difference in sound quality to match the thousand dollar difference in price...
Thanks guys for another great thread!!
> > 416...for v/o???
> >
>
>
> I like the Rode line too, used an NTK for year's. But, I
> just did this last week. Tested the NTG-2 against my
> MKH-416. There's no comparison, the 416 is leagues above
> the NTG-2 shotgun. What's that old saying, "You get what ya
> pay for".
>
lol I guess there should be a difference in sound quality to match the thousand dollar difference in price...
Thanks guys for another great thread!!
>
> lol I guess there should be a difference in sound quality
> to match the thousand dollar difference in price...
>
> Thanks guys for another great thread!!
>
Hey, he asked I answered.
The only reason I even did the test was because I've talked to some guys who actually like the NTG-2 over the MKH-416. Wanted to see for myself. Well, question got answered. The 416, for me, is here to stay.<P ID="signature">______________
Russ McLamb
Chris-Mar Studios</P>
> lol I guess there should be a difference in sound quality
> to match the thousand dollar difference in price...
>
> Thanks guys for another great thread!!
>
Hey, he asked I answered.
The only reason I even did the test was because I've talked to some guys who actually like the NTG-2 over the MKH-416. Wanted to see for myself. Well, question got answered. The 416, for me, is here to stay.<P ID="signature">______________Russ McLamb
Chris-Mar Studios</P>
S
scottmason
Guest
> I have noticed that my vo's do not sound the same on TV as
> they do in my studio. I am not sure if it is an eq problem
> on my end or compression or what. I would really appreciate
> any help you guys can offer. I use Event 20/20 monitors
> eq'd flat. Thanks for your help!
i've always found that taking your post mix through a medium dynamics processor, equalizing on a stadard 20 channel classic V formation, then normalizing to about 80% gives it a clear and punchy sound for TV....but i guess it depends on the hardware youre using...
>
> they do in my studio. I am not sure if it is an eq problem
> on my end or compression or what. I would really appreciate
> any help you guys can offer. I use Event 20/20 monitors
> eq'd flat. Thanks for your help!
i've always found that taking your post mix through a medium dynamics processor, equalizing on a stadard 20 channel classic V formation, then normalizing to about 80% gives it a clear and punchy sound for TV....but i guess it depends on the hardware youre using...
>
- Status