BEST Audio Software for VOICE-OVER Only?

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.
20 answers Last reply
More about best audio software voice over only
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
    >
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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."
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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? ;-)
  19. 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
  20. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Audio Software