Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BEST Audio Software for VOICE-OVER Only?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 5:13:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm getting into voice-over work and have invested in some mid-
range hardware (decent mic, pre, and Firewire interface). I've
looked at things like Steinberg and ProTools stuff but it's just
WAY too much for simple voice recording (no music, special effects,
etc). Once the HW/SW are dialed in I'll likely never change
settings and just want to record my own voice.

I want a faithful package the is capable of recording the BEST
sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job -- but I just
don't know if I'll HAVE to get a Protools-like package and live
with the overkill or if there is another option that will simply
give me what I need with few options beyond that.

Sound quality is the MOST important. I can live with the overkill
features if I have to.



The Horta.

More about : audio software voice

Anonymous
June 13, 2005 5:13:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"The Horta" <horta@janus6.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9673D8018E463hortajanus6org@208.49.80.188...
> I'm getting into voice-over work and have invested in some mid-
> range hardware (decent mic, pre, and Firewire interface). I've
> looked at things like Steinberg and ProTools stuff but it's just
> WAY too much for simple voice recording (no music, special effects,
> etc). Once the HW/SW are dialed in I'll likely never change
> settings and just want to record my own voice.
>
> I want a faithful package the is capable of recording the BEST
> sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job -- but I just
> don't know if I'll HAVE to get a Protools-like package and live
> with the overkill or if there is another option that will simply
> give me what I need with few options beyond that.
>
> Sound quality is the MOST important. I can live with the overkill
> features if I have to.
>
>
>
> The Horta.
>

Did you take a look at Steinberg's WaveLab?

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 5:13:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I want a faithful package the is capable of recording the BEST
> sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job

If you're just _recording_, there's no codec involved. That becomes an
issue only when you want to compress your audio files.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:17:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in
news:11apo8a11e9rc12@corp.supernews.com:

>
> Did you take a look at Steinberg's WaveLab?


Just briefly. It looked more like a CD/DVD authoring package rather
then a recording package. I'll look at it more closely. Cubase SX
scared me off as being another over-the-top application for my
simple requirements -- at least feature-wise.



The Horta.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:17:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"The Horta" <horta@janus6.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9673E2C59E799hortajanus6org@208.49.80.60...
> "John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in
> news:11apo8a11e9rc12@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>
>> Did you take a look at Steinberg's WaveLab?
>
>
> Just briefly. It looked more like a CD/DVD authoring package rather
> then a recording package. I'll look at it more closely. Cubase SX
> scared me off as being another over-the-top application for my
> simple requirements -- at least feature-wise.
>
>
>
> The Horta.
>

Wavelab does do real-time recording limited to two tracks ( stereo ). It
does have a nice 'audio montage' feature too that you might like for
combining different parts of different takes etc.

For what you are trying to do I think it would be a good choice. The Cubase
forum is down at the moment but when it comes back up look as the Wavelab
forum on there.
http://www.cubase.net/phpbb2/

Also, maybe Ty ford who hangs out here quite a bit will see this thread. he
is very experienced and skilled at voice over work and he may have some good
suggestions.

Best of luck!

John L Rice
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:17:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"The Horta" <horta@janus6.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9673E2C59E799hortajanus6org@208.49.80.60...
> "John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in
> news:11apo8a11e9rc12@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>
>> Did you take a look at Steinberg's WaveLab?
>
>
> Just briefly. It looked more like a CD/DVD authoring package rather
> then a recording package. I'll look at it more closely. Cubase SX
> scared me off as being another over-the-top application for my
> simple requirements -- at least feature-wise.
>
>
>
> The Horta.
>

Also there are two levels of WaveLab, or at least there used to be.
Currently there is WaveLab 5 which is about $550 street but there also used
to be Wavelab essentials which is only $100 street and may do everything you
need to do.

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:43:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"The Horta" <horta@janus6.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9673D8018E463hortajanus6org@208.49.80.188...
> I want a faithful package the is capable of recording the BEST
> sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job -- but I just
> don't know if I'll HAVE to get a Protools-like package and live
> with the overkill or if there is another option that will simply
> give me what I need with few options beyond that.
>
> Sound quality is the MOST important. I can live with the overkill
> features if I have to.
>

Sound quality isn't (or at least SHOULDN'T) be determined by the software.
That's a function of your audio chain and soundcard. The files the software
records in their raw state should be indistinguishable from one another
regardless of what program recorded them. It sounds like you just need a
basic stereo recorder. This should do every thing you need:
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/. Anything more and you're just paying for a
name and features you'll probably never use.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 6:45:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Take a look at Sony Sound Forge. It'll record just fine, and will let you
edit out the bad bits. There's even a cut-down version if the Pro version
gives you that familiar overkill feeling.

DScott


"The Horta" <horta@janus6.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9673D8018E463hortajanus6org@208.49.80.188...
> I'm getting into voice-over work and have invested in some mid-
> range hardware (decent mic, pre, and Firewire interface). I've
> looked at things like Steinberg and ProTools stuff but it's just
> WAY too much for simple voice recording (no music, special effects,
> etc). Once the HW/SW are dialed in I'll likely never change
> settings and just want to record my own voice.
>
> I want a faithful package the is capable of recording the BEST
> sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job -- but I just
> don't know if I'll HAVE to get a Protools-like package and live
> with the overkill or if there is another option that will simply
> give me what I need with few options beyond that.
>
> Sound quality is the MOST important. I can live with the overkill
> features if I have to.
>
>
>
> The Horta.
>
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:16:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Joe Kesselman <keshlam-nospam@comcast.net> wrote in
news:3fydnVySgMthYjHfRVn-vw@comcast.com:

>> I want a faithful package the is capable of recording the
>> BEST sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job
>
> If you're just _recording_, there's no codec involved. That
> becomes an issue only when you want to compress your audio
> files.
>

That sounds like it makes sense (COmpressor/DECompressor). I should
probably think things through before I post ;-)

Thanks.



The Horta.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:26:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vp6re.53249$xm3.38988@attbi_s21:

> It sounds like you just need a
> basic stereo recorder. This should do every thing you need:
> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/. Anything more and you're
> just paying for a name and features you'll probably never use.


THANKS! I just grabbed it. Free is always good, so I'll check it
out and see if it works for me. If so, great! If not I'll check out
Sound Forge. I used that app some time back (years) for editing DV
audio.

Much ablidged.



The Horta.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:35:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in
news:11aq2o2iehdb6bb@corp.supernews.com:


> Also there are two levels of WaveLab, or at least there used
> to be. Currently there is WaveLab 5 which is about $550 street
> but there also used to be Wavelab essentials which is only
> $100 street and may do everything you need to do.

Thanks John. They do seem to have two versions. I don't mind the
$500 price tag if it does what I want/need it to do. I just did a
little reading however and the "Essentials" version ($200) seems to
have everything I'm looking for without being grossly over-burdened
with too many nuts and bolts that I would likely get lost in. Also,
on-the-fly CD burning, compression and a couple of other
(recognizable) features look like they'll come in handy.

Thanks for the help. I think I'll give Wavelab a shot.



Brendan
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:35:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"The Horta" <horta@janus6.org> wrote in message
news:Xns967460F6C338hortajanus6org@208.49.80.60...
> "John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in
> news:11aq2o2iehdb6bb@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>> Also there are two levels of WaveLab, or at least there used
>> to be. Currently there is WaveLab 5 which is about $550 street
>> but there also used to be Wavelab essentials which is only
>> $100 street and may do everything you need to do.
>
> Thanks John. They do seem to have two versions. I don't mind the
> $500 price tag if it does what I want/need it to do. I just did a
> little reading however and the "Essentials" version ($200) seems to
> have everything I'm looking for without being grossly over-burdened
> with too many nuts and bolts that I would likely get lost in. Also,
> on-the-fly CD burning, compression and a couple of other
> (recognizable) features look like they'll come in handy.
>
> Thanks for the help. I think I'll give Wavelab a shot.
>
>
>
> Brendan
>

My pleasure Brendan. Sorry about the price misquote. I did see a site that
said $149 list, $99 'our price', but that must have been an outdated site.

Best of luck! I've used WaveLab since version 3 an I love it. I think it's
one of the best pieces of software I've used. If you get onto the
Cubase\Wavelab forum I mentioned and you see some one posting with the
initials 'PG', that's the designer/creator/programmer for WaveLab. I think
his posts are a little short, even a little annoyed sounding at times, but
he's the dude who knows all about WaveLab. ;-)

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 9:25:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"The Horta" <horta@janus6.org> wrote in message
news:Xns967448B7A8FAhortajanus6org@208.49.80.60...
> "Ricky Hunt" <rhunt22@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:vp6re.53249$xm3.38988@attbi_s21:
>
>> It sounds like you just need a
>> basic stereo recorder. This should do every thing you need:
>> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/. Anything more and you're
>> just paying for a name and features you'll probably never use.
>
>
> THANKS! I just grabbed it. Free is always good, so I'll check it
> out and see if it works for me. If so, great! If not I'll check out
> Sound Forge. I used that app some time back (years) for editing DV
> audio.
>
> Much ablidged.
>

Soundforge (the lite version) would be my second recommendation (it's the
most "Window's Interface"-compliant audio software I've ever seen) but I
think you'll find that Audigy will do every thing you need. Sometimes
simpler IS better. As I said the sound quality will be exactly the same as
if you were using Cubase/Wavelab/Pro Tools/etc.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:21:54 -0400, John L Rice wrote
(in article <11aq2j5g4962s0b@corp.supernews.com>):

> "The Horta" <horta@janus6.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns9673E2C59E799hortajanus6org@208.49.80.60...
>> "John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in
>> news:11apo8a11e9rc12@corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>>
>>> Did you take a look at Steinberg's WaveLab?
>>
>>
>> Just briefly. It looked more like a CD/DVD authoring package rather
>> then a recording package. I'll look at it more closely. Cubase SX
>> scared me off as being another over-the-top application for my
>> simple requirements -- at least feature-wise.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Horta.
>>
>
> Wavelab does do real-time recording limited to two tracks ( stereo ). It
> does have a nice 'audio montage' feature too that you might like for
> combining different parts of different takes etc.
>
> For what you are trying to do I think it would be a good choice. The Cubase
> forum is down at the moment but when it comes back up look as the Wavelab
> forum on there.
> http://www.cubase.net/phpbb2/
>
> Also, maybe Ty ford who hangs out here quite a bit will see this thread. he
> is very experienced and skilled at voice over work and he may have some good
> suggestions.
>
> Best of luck!
>
> John L Rice
>
>

Hi John, and all,

I was recently tempted to download Audacity, but since my Pro Tools rigs are
working so well, I decided not to install the Audacity. You know how finicky
computers can be.

Sounds like you're chafing against the learning curve. I can only say there
are still parts of Pro Tools I really don't know that much about and I've
been using PTLE for six years.

I came from an Orban Audicy, now pretty much a dead platform, but an
ass-kicking audio editor in its day.

I saw a Tascam digital portastudio last week. Eight tracks and simple
operation, about the size of a pizza box. Don't remember the model number,
but maybe that an even better solution.

ProVox is another simple system that IS PC based and just for simple
production.

Then there's the 360 systems thingee.

Good luck with that.

Regards,

Ty Ford




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 2:13:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Xns967448B7A8FAhortajanus6org@208.49.80.60> horta@janus6.org writes:

> > http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

> THANKS! I just grabbed it. Free is always good, so I'll check it
> out and see if it works for me. If so, great! If not I'll check out
> Sound Forge. I used that app some time back (years) for editing DV
> audio.

As one who doesn't do a lot of manipulation of recorded audio, I've
become a fan of Audacity. If ease of editing is high on your short
list of desireable features, I find the source-destination edit model
to make a lot more sense than the cut-paste model, and my program of
choice for this is Fast Edit from Minnetonka Software. You can
download a non-saving demo here:

http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/fastedit/fastEdit.html



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 3:00:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

The Horta <horta@janus6.org> wrote:
>
>I want a faithful package the is capable of recording the BEST
>sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job -- but I just
>don't know if I'll HAVE to get a Protools-like package and live
>with the overkill or if there is another option that will simply
>give me what I need with few options beyond that.
>
>Sound quality is the MOST important. I can live with the overkill
>features if I have to.

For the most part, avoiding software with the overkill features is
going to be an advantage to you. If you get a simple recording
application (and Cool Edit seems to be a reasonable one for Windows),
the chance that what goes in is the same thing that comes out is
a lot better than with something like Protools, where there are a lot
of opportunities for things to go wrong, either because the software
is doing hidden processing, or because of user error leaving some
processing turned on.

That is, your goal is just to make sure that what comes out of the
editor is what went in.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 7:56:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

A DAW with, Parametric EQ and Multiband dynamics are useful features for
Voice-Over work.... the hardware version is another option....

best recorded without and added later.

Rgds:
Eric
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 12:48:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:00:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article <d8k726$ha5$1@panix2.panix.com>):

> The Horta <horta@janus6.org> wrote:
>>
>> I want a faithful package the is capable of recording the BEST
>> sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job -- but I just
>> don't know if I'll HAVE to get a Protools-like package and live
>> with the overkill or if there is another option that will simply
>> give me what I need with few options beyond that.
>>
>> Sound quality is the MOST important. I can live with the overkill
>> features if I have to.
>
> For the most part, avoiding software with the overkill features is
> going to be an advantage to you. If you get a simple recording
> application (and Cool Edit seems to be a reasonable one for Windows),
> the chance that what goes in is the same thing that comes out is
> a lot better than with something like Protools, where there are a lot
> of opportunities for things to go wrong, either because the software
> is doing hidden processing, or because of user error leaving some
> processing turned on.
>
> That is, your goal is just to make sure that what comes out of the
> editor is what went in.
> --scott
>
>

On the other hand, try finding a hard drive under 100 MB.

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 12:50:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:00:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
> (in article <d8k726$ha5$1@panix2.panix.com>):
>
>> The Horta <horta@janus6.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I want a faithful package the is capable of recording
the BEST
>>> sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job -- but
I just
>>> don't know if I'll HAVE to get a Protools-like package
and live
>>> with the overkill or if there is another option that
will simply
>>> give me what I need with few options beyond that.
>>>
>>> Sound quality is the MOST important. I can live with the
overkill
>>> features if I have to.
>>
>> For the most part, avoiding software with the overkill
features is
>> going to be an advantage to you. If you get a simple
recording
>> application (and Cool Edit seems to be a reasonable one
for Windows),
>> the chance that what goes in is the same thing that comes
out is
>> a lot better than with something like Protools, where
there are a lot
>> of opportunities for things to go wrong, either because
the software
>> is doing hidden processing, or because of user error
leaving some
>> processing turned on.
>>
>> That is, your goal is just to make sure that what comes
out of the
>> editor is what went in.
>> --scott
>>
>>
>
> On the other hand, try finding a hard drive under 100 MB.

Ty, you mean 100GB? ;-)
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 4:14:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <wdKdnbvU_docTzPfRVn-ug@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> Ty Ford wrote:
> > On the other hand, try finding a hard drive under 100 MB.
>
> Ty, you mean 100GB? ;-)

My, how times change!

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:06:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:50:09 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <wdKdnbvU_docTzPfRVn-ug@comcast.com>):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:00:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
>> (in article <d8k726$ha5$1@panix2.panix.com>):
>>
>>> The Horta <horta@janus6.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I want a faithful package the is capable of recording
> the BEST
>>>> sound quality -- which I assume is the CODECs job -- but
> I just
>>>> don't know if I'll HAVE to get a Protools-like package
> and live
>>>> with the overkill or if there is another option that
> will simply
>>>> give me what I need with few options beyond that.
>>>>
>>>> Sound quality is the MOST important. I can live with the
> overkill
>>>> features if I have to.
>>>
>>> For the most part, avoiding software with the overkill
> features is
>>> going to be an advantage to you. If you get a simple
> recording
>>> application (and Cool Edit seems to be a reasonable one
> for Windows),
>>> the chance that what goes in is the same thing that comes
> out is
>>> a lot better than with something like Protools, where
> there are a lot
>>> of opportunities for things to go wrong, either because
> the software
>>> is doing hidden processing, or because of user error
> leaving some
>>> processing turned on.
>>>
>>> That is, your goal is just to make sure that what comes
> out of the
>>> editor is what went in.
>>> --scott
>>>
>>>
>>
>> On the other hand, try finding a hard drive under 100 MB.
>
> Ty, you mean 100GB? ;-)

No MB. I have an 80 MB LaCie HD. You can't buy them new. That was my point.

Ty




-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
!