By Dan Friedman

Recording Magazine sends out a newsletter to its subscribers every few weeks. The newsletter is (coincidentally) titled “Sound Advice” and this month it features a new series on headphones and monitors. I asked permission to reprint this newsletter (and will ask to reprint the others in the series as well) so that those of you with home studios can also benefit from the information. I want to personally thank Brent Heintz, VP/Associate Publisher for granting permission, allowing me to share this great information with you.

Please visit Recording Magazine‘s website and their Facebook Page.

One quick note: I did not reprint the first installment from last month on SOUND4VO because I didn’t feel it had enough information from which the majority of the voiceover community could benefit. Voiceover usually deals with a singular signal (your voice) and therefore it is typically mono. Many of the concepts you will read about in this article are critical for music, because music is typically in stereo (or surround sound). However, the importance of space and spatial recognition cannot be overstated. By their very nature, how you hear headphones and monitors greatly effects how you hear yourself and your ability to interpret what you hear. This article begins to deal with those issues.

So… please enjoy this installment from Recording Magazine’s Sound Advice on Acoustics.

Welcome back to Sound Advice on Acoustics! Last month author Robert Auld presented us with some intriguing problems that seem to have a common solution, if a radical one: What would happen if we elected to do all of our tracking and mixing and mastering with headphones rather than speakers? The answer to that question is a complicated one, and we’re going to spend the next few months taking it apart. Read on!

***

First the bad news: headphones really sound different from loudspeakers. Let us count the ways.

“The principal problem with headphone listening is you have no mixture of left and right channels; they’re piped directly into the respective ears. Because of that it is very hard to judge the width of your stereo stage, the amount of center that you’re getting, as opposed to left and right. You tend to misjudge that on headphones.”

The fancy name for what Jerry is describing is interaural crosstalk. Loudspeakers have lots of it (if your right ear can’t hear the left loudspeaker, something is wrong), but headphones have none. Mr. Bruck continues:

“A sometimes very serious misjudgement on headphones is to think that it’s wetter than it really is. You find on loudspeakers that you are much closer in perspective than you thought you would be listening on phones.”

The reasons for this are a bit complex, but they probably have a lot to do with aural masking—that is, with the tendency of one sound to mask another. In this case we are dealing with direct sound (a lead vocal, for instance) and reflected sound (as in the reverberation stimulated by that vocal). To quote another authority:

“Angular separation between direct and reflected sounds has a minor effect on the audibility of the reflections, except when the two are coincident, when the reflection tends to be masked by the direct signal.” —Ron Streicher and F. Alton Everest, The New Stereo SoundBook, 2nd edition.

In other words, if the reverb is coming from the same direction as the vocal or very close to it, it will tend to be masked by the direct sound. Here is how I think this applies to the headphones vs. speakers question.

With typical stereo loudspeaker monitoring the angle between speakers is about 60 degrees, or 30 degrees to each side of our listening position. This is a small portion of the 360 degrees over which we hear. It is safe to say most of the sound approaches from in front of us.

With headphones the earcups encompass an angle of 180 degrees relative to our ears, equivalent to speakers placed 90 degrees to each side. This is a big change, and it allows for greater angular separation between at least some of the direct and reflected sounds in a recording. A portion of the reverberation will literally be unmasked, and so the recording will sound subjectively wetter.

Experimental data on angular separation and masking imply that this difference is equivalent to increasing the reflected sound level by 5–10 dB. This would certainly be an audible difference, and it bears out Jerry Bruck’s observation (and my own experience). But there is one circumstance where “it sounds wetter on headphones” does not apply. This is when you are making a binaural or quasi-binaural recording.

In its purest form, binaural recording uses small-diaphragm microphones placed in the ears of an anatomically correct dummy or, less conveniently, in the ears of a real person. Then there are quasi- binaural microphone arrays like the Crown SASS that mimic the ear spacing and acoustic shadowing effects of the human head.

In either case, recordings made with these systems and reproduced with headphones preserve the spatial cues of the recording environment with considerable accuracy. This allows our brain to sort out the direct and reflected sound as it does in real life, with a gain in realism and clarity that can be really startling.

When you play the same binaural recording over loudspeakers the spatial cues are altered. What had been all around you is now placed in front of you, as if viewed through an open window, and—masking effects or not—it tends to sound more distant.

This is, of course, a special case, as most recordings use conventional microphone arrays that do not preserve spatial cues accurately, regardless of the playback method. So lacking a realistic acoustic model to work with, our brain resorts to other methods of analysis, and things like masking effects assume greater importance.

So far we’ve learned that headphones create a weird stereo image and do strange things to reverberation. What else have we got to look forward to from our potential critical monitors? Let’s have Jerry Bruck talk about low frequencies:

“Low frequencies are only partially a question of what you are hearing with your ears. A lot of it is, in fact, called “skin effect,” borrowing a term from another discipline. No matter what the frequency response of the headphones turns out to be, no headphone ever gives you the sense of low frequencies that you get from speakers.” This is why Hollywood doesn’t use headphones when it wants to make you feel an earthquake or an explosion.

If headphones differ from loudspeakers in such significant ways, can we still use them as critical monitors? The answer, I think, is “Yes, but…” Starting next time, we’ll look at the advantages that might make us say “Yes”, and then follow up with the “buts”. See you then!

In this weeks episode they mention SOUND ADVICE – Voiceover From an Audio Engineer’s Perspective and Sound4VO.com!

Thank you to Chuck Duran, Stacey J, special guest Tara Strong and everyone at VO Buzz Weekly!

Questions about tube microphones come up often. So many people in the voiceover and recording industries are in search of a certain, often elusive sound, that most people describe as “warm”. For some, tube microphones are the answer. “Tubes” refer to vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes are similar to light bulbs, but designed to regulate, or control the flow of an electrical signal .

Unlike in solid-state audio equipment where signal is confined and carefully controlled, or digital equipment where everything is converted to 1‘s and 0‘s and is very precise; when used in the construction of audio equipment, tubes tend to blend the frequencies of an audio signal. This blending is known as harmonic distortion. This sound can be very pleasing, as it gives the impression of a smooth and flowing sound that isn’t harsh or edgy (unless specifically dialed in to sound that way).

Generally speaking, tube microphones are not the first choice for voiceover. They can be a bit noisier than solid-state microphones and also require a bit more care and special handling. However, because questions about tube microphones come up often, I asked Michael Joly, Pete Turbiville and Matt McGlynn, three experts in the field of microphones about tube mics. These experts provided insight into the care and handling of these mics, and specifically about what is known as a “burn-in” period. Be sure to check out these industry expert’s websites to learn more about them and how they may be able to you get the sound you are looking for.

Michael Joly (oktavamod.com) is a microphone design engineer with over 35 years of experience working with analog studio equipment. He is well-known for taking lower priced off-the-shelf microphones and modifying them to sound like models that are far more expensive. Here is what he had to say.

Yes, tube mics do need some burn-in and warm up. When a mic is shipped the tube gets shaken up and this causes a degree of spitting and sputtering for the first couple of days until the tube heater burns off the impurities in the electron flow and that stream of charged particles gets purged of impurities. After the initial burn-in period of several days a tube mic that has been stationary and not shaken, will warm up and behave well after an hour.

oh, the initial burn-in also helps form the capacitors and they do their job better and with less noise and artifacts after being treated to a burn in.

btw – in the old days of tubes, professional installation always left the gear on. This prevents in rush current from damaging the heaters (remember – a light bulb burns out at turn on, not while its illuminated because the cold resistance of the filament is much lower than the hot resistance thus allow much more turn on current to flow through it). And the other benefit is a lower and more stable noise floor.

- Michael Joly

Pete Turbiville (peteturbiville.com) is one of my best friends in the voiceover business. He is a great voice talent, audio engineer (with gold records on his wall) and microphone builder. I’m proud to say that he built my U47 clone that is pictured in my author’s photo. Pete says:

Absolutely about letting the mic cook for a while. I’d let it go for at least 2~3 hours before expecting it to perform to specs..When you first light them up the filament heats up and expands. As the filament sits at it’s operating temperature the heat it generates expands the rest of the components inside the tube. Most all specs for tubes are taken at their designed operating temperature and after a few hours. So, it’s always a good idea to let the tube cook allowing the other components to expand and settle in before using it. Actually, it’s best to just leave it on unless you simply have no other choice.

Just like any device, heating it up and cooling it down once a day or more is wear and tear on the tube and is detrimental to it’s life and specs.

- Pete Turbiville

Matt McGlynn operates one my favorite sites on the web, recordinghacks.com.
It is the premier site for all things involving microphones. Looking for information on a certain make or model (no matter how rare)? You’ll find it on recordinghacks.com using their comprehensive microphone database.

Tube microphones should be given time to warm up prior to use. The microphone will not be damaged if it is used immediately, and indeed most tube microphones will pass an audio signal as soon as they’re powered up. But the tonality of the microphone will change as the tube warms up to its standard operating temperature.

I know of no scientific studies of how long the optimal warmup period is, and I imagine it would depend on the difference in the mic’s “cold” temperature and the tube’s operating temperature — the bigger the gap, the longer the stabilization period. In my experience, 15 minutes is enough; I don’t hear significant tonal changes after that point. But if you’re storing your tube mic in a 50 degree basement, then maybe you should give it more warmup time before the session.

As in all things, you’ll run into a spectrum of practices and advice. I know studios that never turn their tube mics off. And I know engineers (with many album credits) who never let their tube mics warm up.

On a related note, if the mic is to be left warm for any period of time, it should be inverted so that the tube is above the capsule. This prevents the heat of the tube from drying out the diaphragms.

- Matt McGlynn

Some like it hot! Tube microphones clearly do.

By Dan Friedman

In the past, I’ve tried to write Fafftermath blogs much sooner than a week and a half after the event. But, over the last week, I was still working on FaffCon; editing and working with the recordings we did with Dean Panaro for Voicebank. Between jet lag and all of my regular responsibilities, it was slow going. I’m pleased to say that I’ve finally wrapped it all up.

Listening back to all of the recordings has been a great experience. Like Dean mentioned several times in the session… it is all about the playback. While I work with several of you on a regular basis, it is pretty awesome to get to know nearly all of you behind the microphone as well as face to face. It really is a special privilege and just one of many reasons why I love being a part of FaffCon.

Like all FaffCons, each is very different… and they just get better and better. While I’ve been bringing audio gear since FaffCon2, this was the first time I was an official member of the staff (it was actually the first time we had an official staff). Being a part of planning and creating the experience was amazing. I can’t say enough good things about the people who help make it all happen and let me tell you, more time, effort and attention to detail goes into it than I ever realized. That being said, I’d like to recognize the people who’ve shared in the planning over the last six months.

Amy Snively (and Paul and Devon), Pam Tierney, Connie Terwilliger, CC Heim, Natalie Stanfield Thomas, Kelley Buttrick, Lauren McCullough, Bob Souer (and Karen, Eric and Cinda), Peter O’Connell and Corey Snow. What can I say that I haven’t told you all in person or written in the past. You are all amazing and I thank you for the wealth of experience, generosity and talent you’ve shared with me. It has been great getting to know each of you better, talking with all of you week after week and watching our efforts come together to make it happen. I simply can’t thank each of you enough for your friendship. I love you all!

….and now some other special mentions.

Marc Cashman – You are as nice as you are talented and I meant what I said in closing circle; (paraphrasing) while I would’ve been a part of FaffCon no matter what, knowing you were going to be there brought my level of excitement and enthusiasm to new heights. Meeting you exceeded all of my expectations.

Cliff Zellman – I appreciate your experience, talent and support. You’ve become a great friend and I look forward to many years of sharing the craziness we see and hear.

Doug Turkel – We never seem to get to talk enough at FaffCon, but I like the fact that when we do, we always seem to be on exactly the same page. I know we’ll be talking a whole lot more very soon.

Liz deNesnara – Within seconds of meeting you for the first time at FaffCon 2, you’ve been an amazing friend. You are genuine… and I always enjoy hanging out with you.

Amy Taylor – Working with you is always a pleasure. Getting to know you better and being able to call you a friend… even more so.

George Whittam – It was great to meet you and share stories with you. Who knew we had so much in common? I’m certain we can help each other and simultaneously help everyone in the industry.

J.S. Gilbert – While you’re wealth of experience and talent make you a force to be reckoned with…it was great getting to also see the softer side of J.S. Gilbert. Thank you for sharing your experience, your stories and the many characters you do.

Tim Keenan, Steve Cunningham, Steve Sevanyu and Dan Lenard – It was great being on the “Ask the Audio Guys” panel with each of you (along with Cliff and George). I hope we get the chance to do it again sometime.

Diane Maggipinto – I was thrilled to give you a tip that earned a “Golden Nugget”. Thank you!

Andy Curtis – It was a pleasure getting to know you and I’d love to hang out with you more… especially in Australia!

David Goldberg – Okay, we barely had the chance to hang out this time other than at breakfast, but it is always great talking to you. I’m thinking a trip to New York is in my future for this summer… I hope to see you then and I’m sure we’ll talk even sooner.

Colleen Collin and Ashley Russo – Colleen, I always enjoy working with you (and Courtney) and I can’t thank you enough for all of your kind words and support. Ashley, you are fantastic. I’m really excited about the future possibilities and opportunities. YOU BOTH ROCK!

Dean Panaro – Major thanks for going the distance with all of us on Friday night. I loved your insight and especially how emphatic you were about the importance of having good gear. Thank you and I hope we’ll work together again in the future.

Thanks also to: Trish Basanyi, Bobbin Beam, Lisa Biggs, Tom Bromhead, Matt Cowlrick, Melissa Exelberth, Tom Dheere, Larissa Gallagher, Lee Gordon, Mara Junot, Randye Kaye, Fran McClellan, Chris Mezzolesta, Bruce Miles, Jay Patrick, Jenifer Platt, Talmadge Ragan, Mercedes Rose, Monk Schane-Lydon, Kitzie Stern, Leslie Wadsworth, Dave White, Janet Walton and everyone else at FaffCon4.

I look forward to seeing you at FaffCon5 in Charlotte, NC!

At this time next week, I’ll be on my way to Ventura Beach to start my FaffCon experience… and let me tell you, it really can’t get here soon enough. Like past FaffCons, I fully expect that this one will exceed all of my expectations. It will be educational and inspiring. The talent will be stellar. I’ll have fun with old friends and make many new ones.

If you are a pro and have never been, you should put it on your list of things that you must do. If you’ve already attended a previous FaffCon then I’m sure you will be back again and I will see you there because…

I LOVE FAFFCON!

As always there is an incredible list of talent and sponsors who help make it possible. Please visit them and support them.

Now… I’m going to go pack.

Voicebank.net
Bob Souer – Professional Story-teller
Edge Studio
Mara Junot – Professional Voice Talent
Audio-Technica
BSW (Broadcast Supply Worldwide)
Voice Actor Dave Courvoisier
Liz de Nesnera – French and English Voice Over Talent
GA Voiceovers – The Voice of Technology
Get Rich – Rich Owen | Voiceover Talent
JS Gilbert -Professional Voice Talent
Bobbin Beam – ISDN Voice Actress | Female Voice Talent
Voiceovers by Moe
Melissa Exelberth – Bilingual ISDN Voice Talent
Harlan Hogan’s Voiceover Essentials
The VO-BB.com
VoxMan – Corey Snow Voice Actor
Word2Wav An Automated Audio Recording Application
Source Elements
Lynda.com – Online Software Training Videos
D3 Voiceworks – Diane Maggipinto Female Voice Talent
Sound Advice – Voiceover from an Audio Engineer’s Perspective
Voice Over Xtra – The voice-over industry’s online news, education and resource center
The Dallas Voice Acting Meetup Group

Please visit Recording Magazine‘s website and their Facebook Page.

Here is the ninth newsletter in the series on Room Acoustics:

Welcome to Sound Advice on Acoustics! We’ve started off this e-newsletter with a long multipart look at the basic concepts of acoustics and room treatment. In the coming months, we’ll have a variety of shorter articles on all manner of important acoustics ideas, reinforcing the basics and adding tips and tricks you can use in your room. But for now, let’s wrap up our primer with a few final notes, shall we?

This article has focused on control room acoustics, but the issues in the live (tracking) room are the same, though treatments will reflect the different usage of that space. Room modes introduce the same problems, and the same solutions apply. Additionally, being familiar with whatever standing waves may be present in the recording space can help the engineer in determining where to place instruments and microphones (to avoid a mic ending up in a null, for example).

Controlling reflections is also desirable in the live room, but here the criteria may be a bit different. In the recording room we might be more forgiving of colorations and echoes than in the control room. Rather than being a reference environment, the live studio space needs to support the sounds of singers and instruments, and here the acoustics may benefit from some “pleasant coloration” and enhancement of sound, though we certainly want to maintain control.

We may want to have different areas, some more ambient, some more dry (damped), to suit different recording situations, but this need not be implemented as rigorously as in the control room. One common approach to providing varying acoustics in the recording space is to mount two- or three-sided panels with different degrees of absorptive and reflective materials on the different faces. These panels can then be rotated individually to create the desired degree of ambience for a particular session.

In our discussion of control room acoustics we focused on early reflections and ambience, and didn’t really look at reverberation in detail, other than to point out the desirability of a diffuse sound field. In control rooms there’s very little reverb tail by design, so as not to overshadow the ambience and reverberation in recordings. In the live space, however, a good reverberant sound field is an asset, imparting a natural richness and dimension to recordings made there.

Had we focused on live room design, we’d have spent a lot more time discussing how to measure and control various aspects of the reverberant sound field via design criteria and room treatments. Fortunately, there’s no shortage of reference material available on this topic (see the recommended readings, and we’ll almost certainly get to this topic in a future installment of this e-newsletter!).

And there we are, several months after we started, with hopefully a good grasp of the basics. This article has tried to provide an introduction to the complexities of room acoustics, with a few practical suggestions for remedies and treatments. Anyone who plans to really get involved in designing and tuning the acoustics of a recording studio will want to delve much more deeply into the relevant physics and math. An excellent textbook on the subject is the Master Handbook Of Acoustics by F. Alton Everest, which contains both theoretical and practical information in great detail. Two other books that present practical design templates for DIY studio construction are Sound Studio Construction On A Budget, also by Everest, and How To Build A Small Budget Recording Studio From Scratch, by Mike Shea and F. Alton Everest (he does get around, doesn’t he!).

There’s also plenty of information to be found on the Internet that could be of help to any would-be studio designers out there (try the websites of some of the companies that make studio acoustic products, for starters). And to anyone who is designing and building their own recording space, large or small, good luck—it can be daunting, but the results will be worth it!

There’s lots more to learn and lots more to share… come back next month as we bring you more Sound Advice on Acoustics!

Part 8

Part 7

Part 6

I believe that as an audio engineer, voiceover talent and author, I have a responsibility to you and to the voiceover industry to provide the best and most accurate information whenever I write a blog or am asked to share my expertise. I believe that I have a responsibility to my clients and to those who recommend me, to be the best voiceover talent that I can be. I believe in helping newcomers who have a true passion for voiceover and are willing to work hard to be among the best, as well as those who have earned my respect by demonstrating that they believe, as I do, in raising the bar for this industry. I believe in helping my friends. I believe that being a voice talent and audio engineer is not just about earning a paycheck, its also about the love I have for doing it, the pride I take in doing it to the best of my ability and the joy I get from being a part of this great industry. I believe in earning credibility through accomplishment. I believe in speed, accuracy and efficiency. I believe in being positive and I believe in honesty.

But this post isn’t about me, I promise.

So… why am I telling you what I believe? Because I also believe that many of you could be an unknowing victim of those who are self-proclaimed experts, gurus, coaches, trainers and whatever else they claim to be, when in reality they are either:

- At best, unknowing purveyors of bad information.
- At worst, knowingly trying to capitalize on people’s inexperience, emotions or desires.
- Somewhere in between

Whether you are a pro or just starting out, the possibility exists for you to lose a job or miss opportunities because you were misinformed or misguided by the ignorance of others. Worse than that would be to lose the money you already have to people who are deceptive or trying to take advantage of you.

This past weekend several pros sent emails to me that contained links to things that were either completely inexplicable or simply despicable. While we shared some laughs about what we were witnessing, the prevailing feelings were those of disbelief and frustration. For me, it is disheartening to see, read and hear things that are contradictory to ideas and concepts that I post about regularly in my blog. But what is more concerning is when bad information is being shared that, if mistakenly taken as fact, could hurt someone’s career. I don’t expect everyone to believe in the same principles that I believe in, but some of what I was reading and hearing was outrageous. In at least one instance the information being shared contradicted the laws of acoustics.

I know what you are thinking, WHO? SEND ME THE LINK! I WANNA SEE! I WANNA KNOW WHAT AND WHO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

As much as I would like to share these things, I believe that it is important to let my “keep it positive”  and “praise publicly, criticize privately” mantras prevail. But because it is important that everyone understand just how unbelievable some of this stuff is, without naming any names, I will share one thing to illustrate my point.

If you are one of those folks who is currently seeking voiceover coaching by searching the internet, you might just feel as though you are walking through a minefield. Whether you are new to the industry or a working voice talent wanting to further your training, the choices for coaching are vast. Type “voiceover coaching” into google and you’ll see what I mean. I see over 2 million possibilities. Even if 1% of those are relevant, that is a big number of sites to deal with.

One of these coaching sites had a post that stated it was okay to make mistakes and perform pickups whenever necessary. In the audio presentation, the speaker encouraged it. It was suggested that this could help your delivery. The “coach” actually said, “If God hadn’t wanted you to make mistakes… he wouldn’t have invented editors, editing software…(etc.)” WOW?! Now, even if this was said in jest (and I didn’t get the impression that it was), is this the kind of idea that makes any practical sense at all? If you want to share your paycheck with the editor… it might be.

A proper coach teaches how to deliver a script with all of the feeling, emotion and communicative skills required, without needing pickups to do it. Obviously we all need to pickup from time to time, but that isn’t the point. Imagine what the engineer (or editor) is thinking if your attitude as a voice artist is, “My coach told me that I can screw up as often as I need to, because the engineer will put it together.” Believe me, knowing that there is job security in working with you, will not make the engineer want to work with you even more. Not to mention that more editing requires additional studio time and that will cost your client more money. This is the antithesis of what it means to provide good customer service. Do you think this will put you at the top of the booking list?

Is this the sort of thing that a voiceover coach should be teaching? Do acting coaches teach that it is okay to forget a line or miss a mark because someone else will fix it?

What I’ve just shared with you is absolutely true. But sadly, it is also only one example of bad information out of several I could share. Furthermore, this and the other examples are things that could effect anyone at any level of their career… there is plenty of bad information to go around.

There is not much any of us can do to stop this activity and it certainly is not limited to the voiceover industry. We all know that the internet is full of both good and bad information. Complicating things even more is that the people sharing this information probably don’t know or believe they are wrong, or were just lazy and didn’t do the necessary research before making their presentation. In the example I presented above, its a matter of perspective. The “coach” is only thinking about what seems to be good for the talent (in the short term), not for the engineer/editor and definitely not for the client, which will only end up hurting the talent in the long term.

So what can we do? First, don’t be fooled by slick marketing, websites and web videos. These don’t reveal the whole story. They only reveal what the creator wants you to see and believe. Second, do some research (a seemingly lost art in this country). Usually, a little bit of additional research at undeniably reliable and factual websites will reveal whether someone knows what they are talking about or what they stand for. Use your ears. The best thing about being in voiceover is that there is usually some audio available that can help to confirm whether someone is who they say they are, that they know what they are talking about or whether they can deliver on what they promise.

Generally speaking, I don’t believe that back and forth battles in chat rooms, social media groups and forums are all that productive. Too much context can get lost and intentions can be easily misinterpreted, which has the potential to create even more and greater problems. So finally and most importantly, talk to people with first-hand knowledge of (and experience with) the people you are interested in working with, or who you are getting your information from.  Many people share the mantra “praise publicly, criticize privately” and valuable information will be revealed in private conversations. Communicate with people you trust and don’t forget to trust your own instincts as well.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what I believe or what anyone else believes. It only matters what you believe.

By Dan Friedman

There is nothing like the energy and excitement a person feels when they are starting something new… especially when that “something” is a career in voiceover. Once a person has made that decision they often can not wait to make their demo, set up their website and announce to the world, “Hey listen to me… I’m a voice talent now!” One thing is certain, this is EXACTLY what some people are doing. This is a terrible mistake for many wannabe voice talent. But before I get to the voiceover part, I thought I’d present an analogy.

I’ve worked with several young musicians at various points in my career. Some of them have been very talented and certainly could have had careers in music. One of the greatest things about working with young musicians is their hunger, their passion and their enthusiasm. Its a running theme (to the point of being a joke) among sound engineers to hear something like this from the young bands we work with, “Dude, when we make it big, we’re soooo going to take you with us.”

Sure, awesome… can’t wait.

Needless to say, that “opportunity” rarely materializes. But, you do have to love their enthusiasm. It truly is infectious. It is amazing what professional recording, extensive editing and a solid mix can do. These young musicians never heard themselves sound so good. At that moment, they really do think that they will “make it big”. But in reality, they are usually not ready and as any real rockstar can tell you, there really is no such thing as overnight success. It takes years of practice, planning, determination and timing. The same holds true for voiceover.

Timing is everything in music and it is also important in voice work. But I’m not referring to technique. I’m referring to when to make and unleash your demo on the world. Far too often people are calling themselves voice talent and releasing demos before they (the demo or the person) are ready. These demos get sent to agents and quickly get discarded. What is worse than being simply discarded, is being remembered for being not ready or (to put it gently) no good. This often happens to those who have good marketing materials and a good marketing strategy… but can’t deliver the goods. Think… Milli Vanilli.

Just as musicians try not to release a single until it is ready, a voice artist shouldn’t release a demo until it (and they) are ready. Believe me, the audience you are trying to attract can hear whether you are, or aren’t. Most professional voiceover artists will have several trusted colleagues, as well as several people outside of the industry, listen and critique a demo before they release it to agents. Pros definitely do not unleash a demo in social media until it is ready… if they choose to release it there at all.

The bottom line is this; if you are interested in getting into voice work, don’t kill your career before it even gets started. Get training, practice, be patient, use your ears, practice more and build credibility and trust before unleashing yourself on the world. You can not be a rockstar… until you’ve spent some time in band camp.

By the way, as I was putting the finishing touches on this blog, an article was posted in Voiceover Universe by Debora Duckett of dbtalent. The theme is similar and it contains many questions that everyone who wants to be “the next big thing” in voiceover should be asking themselves. You can view that article HERE.

Good luck and when you are ready… ROCK ON!

By Dan Friedman

Happy 2012! What better way could there possibly be to start a new year than with new opportunities, auditions and more voiceover work? Auditions are like a job interview, and it is important to get them right. Everyone approaches their auditions differently, but I’m guessing that if you are going to take the time to audition for something… you are hoping to get the job. Obviously you want to do anything you can to increase that possibility, but more importantly… do nothing to decrease or eliminate that possibility entirely. Here are some tips to help ensure that you are providing exactly what you need and nothing you don’t.

Provide one or two takes (under some circumstances 3 takes) of your best interpretations of the script. Some people submit auditions with numerous takes, sometimes as many as six or more, often without any significant variation in the delivery. This is not a good strategy. Casting directors, engineers and clients do not have time to sort through those takes with the hope of finding what it is they are looking for (not even if they like your voice or delivery). Very few decision makers are willing to listen to more than a few seconds of an audition, much less take after take of either wildly unlikely deliveries or worse, the same delivery over and over again with just a few changes in inflection.

Making a decision on a delivery is an important part of being a voiceover pro. It shows that you can follow the road map the script provides. Offering an alternate delivery shows that you can travel a different direction, but still reach your destination. Submitting lots of different reads or submitting lots of reads in the same style… indicates  that you are probably lost.

Next is the issue of sound quality. Why should any prospective client trust that you are going to be able to provide great sounding audio, if you didn’t do so in the audition? Its been my experience that the requested turnaround time for getting an audition out to an agency is usually around 24 hours (at least). This amount of time should allow every VO pro to take a few minutes to record an audition properly. I don’t believe that you should sacrifice quality in an effort to get an audition delivered quickly. Quick delivery of a poor sounding audition does nothing more than allow decision makers to pass on your submission faster. Unless you are instructed to do otherwise, send voiceover auditions in mono. You are a single source of sound, therefore mono is preferred. Stereo is simply unnecessary, as is the larger file size.

Follow all of the instructions carefully. Preferences about slating and naming conventions vary a little from place to place, but these instructions are always provided and should be followed exactly. Also, be sure that your contact information is included if it is not already well known to the person or agency sending the audition. How can you do the work if people are unable to contact you?

Finally and most importantly, believe in yourself. My friend Terry Daniel mentioned this in a recent facebook post:

“When auditioning, if you think you’re not going to get the gig, you probably won’t. One of my agents told me that when she receives submissions, about one out of every four talents reply back saying, “I’m sure I won’t get it but here it is!” Buck up and believe that you are going to get the job, every time!”

You do not have to audition for everything that comes your way. There are many reasons why you may not be the right voice for a particular job; if the specs don’t suit you, you lack confidence in your ability to deliver a certain message or style, or perhaps you just aren’t connecting with the script. Whatever your reasons, if you have doubts they will usually be reflected in your audition. While you don’t necessarily have to believe in every product, person or position that the message of a script is communicating, you do have to believe in yourself and believe that you are the right person to be delivering that message.

Good luck and best wishes for a successful 2012!

Recording Magazine sends out a newsletter to its subscribers every few weeks. The newsletter is (coincidentally) titled “Sound Advice” and this month it features the eighth in a series about room acoustics. Room acoustics is one of the biggest concerns for Recording Magazine readers. I know that this is also a big issue for those of you in the voiceover world. I asked permission to reprint this newsletter (and will ask to reprint the others in the series as well) so that those of you with home studios can also benefit from the information. I want to personally thank Brent Heintz, VP/Associate Publisher for granting permission, allowing me to share this great information with you.

Please visit Recording Magazine‘s website and their Facebook Page.

Here is the eighth newsletter in the series on Room Acoustics:

Welcome to Sound Advice on Acoustics! Last time we discussed how reflections from walls and ceiling and floor at the front of the room could be spotted and damped; now it’s time to look at the rest of the room, and one critical piece of studio furniture…The potential problem in having a live rear end of a control room is that too much reflected energy may be directed straight back at the mix position. To avoid this, various techniques have been used to diffuse, or spread out, this reflected sound. One of the simplest and most traditional is the use of a curved rear wall (see Figure 8A).

Another approach is to create an irregular surface on the rear walls, to send reflections in many different directions, effectively diffusing the ambient sound field. A wall covering consisting of various sized blocks or grooves can be employed to accomplish this; even a bookcase filled with different-sized books can be pressed into service in a pinch. However, the best results will be achieved when this kind of surface treatment is not just random, but specifically designed to diffuse sound most effectively at a wide range of frequencies.

More recent computer-assisted designs of this type are able to not only distribute reflections around the room, but also deliver an optimum balance and distribution of all the diffused reflected frequencies. There are many types of these diffusors available. One good example of this approach is a quadratic residue diffusor. This is a panel made up of what appears to be a series of blocks or grooves. They’re not just randomly arranged to simply spread out reflections—their arrangement and depths are determined mathematically by a quadratic residue sequence (there’s a mouthful!), to provide the greatest degree of diffusion and the most even distribution of reflected sound.

Fortunately, for those who tend to cringe at anything more than long division, diffusors of this type are available commercially. Though not cheap, they are very effective and recommended if the budget allows.

Room boundaries are not the only surfaces that can generate reflections. How about that great big console right in front of you? Reflections off the console or work surface and other studio gear like racks can also contribute to a loss of clarity.

Console reflections in particular can be problematic, since they originate right in front of the listening position and therefore can be quite strong. If the speakers are wall- or soffit- mounted, an absorbent “hood” can sometimes be placed behind and over the meter bridge to prevent sound waves from hitting the console surface. Reflections from console-top monitors are more difficult to eliminate, but at least choosing monitors with narrow, controlled vertical dispersion and angling them carefully will beam less high-frequency sound down to be reflected off the console surface.

Keep other gear out of the direct path of sound from the speakers—use lower racks, or position tall racks to the rear of the mix position. The sharp edges of most racks diffract sound (diffraction is a change in direction of a sound wave caused by an obstacle)—rounding off such sharp edges helps diffuse such reflections. After the room is initially set up and tuned, checking the acoustics as additional pieces of gear are installed can help to identify and prevent new problems from being introduced.

Another approach to minimizing the problematic effects of strong early reflections is to set up the mix position no more than 3 feet or so from the speakers, placing the listener in the speakers’ “near-field.” Theoretically, in this zone, the direct sound from the speakers should be predominant over reflections from other surfaces, providing a more neutral response even in a room with less than optimal acoustics.

This approach is called Near-Field Monitoring™, a concept that was trademarked by industry veteran Ed Long. It is usually implemented via the use of console-top monitors. This does work fairly well, the sound in this near-field area is often somewhat smoother than sound from the same speakers in the far-field (at greater listening distances) of the same room.

This type of setup is often recommended for studios where, for one reason or another, room treatments are not able to completely control reflection issues (which includes most small studios). However, near-field monitoring is not a panacea for acoustic problems—standing wave effects will still be present, and as noted above, the possibility of close strong reflections from the console itself can still potentially compromise monitoring accuracy.

Next time we’ll wrap up our introductory discussion with a look at live rooms for tracking and a list of references you can look at. See you then!

Part 7

Part 6