Voiceover with Multiple Talents

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

I'm doing my first voiceover on Wednesday. It is a skit-type narration for
some kind of children's motivational CD. There are several people reading
different parts and I was wondering what would be the best way to go about
this. Should I record each person individually, one at a time? It seems
like it may be tricky to give it a natural feel as far as the natural flow
of conversation. Is this just something I have to deal with in the mixing
process?

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

Thomas

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

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

"Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:gIpZe.6613$6e1.511@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> I'm doing my first voiceover on Wednesday. It is a skit-type narration for
> some kind of children's motivational CD. There are several people reading
> different parts and I was wondering what would be the best way to go about
> this. Should I record each person individually, one at a time? It seems
> like it may be tricky to give it a natural feel as far as the natural flow
> of conversation. Is this just something I have to deal with in the mixing
> process?
>
> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thomas
>
>

Is it a continuous skit ?

Put them all around one omni microphone. Pray that your environment
is as non-reflective as possible, or proceed to make it so, post haste.
Let them rehearse a bit while recording, and then hear themselves.
Adjust distance from mic (or awareness levels) for voices that are
more naturally dominant or projective. Fix any mistakes "on the fly"
(back up one phrase or one speaker and resume the scene, laying
a marker and making a physical note of the problem) as you record
directly to a 2-track editor... where you should be able to make a
cohesive and acceptable first-time product if the above goes smoothly.

Luck...

DM

Reply to Anonymous

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

Thomas Bishop wrote:
> I'm doing my first voiceover on Wednesday. It is a skit-type narration for
> some kind of children's motivational CD. There are several people reading
> different parts and I was wondering what would be the best way to go about
> this. Should I record each person individually, one at a time? It seems
> like it may be tricky to give it a natural feel as far as the natural flow
> of conversation. Is this just something I have to deal with in the mixing
> process?
>
> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thomas
>
>

I think seperate mics for each person is the only way to go. Unless your
voice-talent is really good, and/or you're a really good producer,
you'll have a hard time making it sound natural with overdubs...then
again, I don't know anything about the script or the VO talent.

That said, you can always go back and overdub later if something doesn't
turn out right....and of course any mic bleed is easily removed by
inserting room noise, which you should be doing anyway for a
professional voice-over. Good luck!

--

Jonny Durango

www.jdurango.com

"If the key of C is the people's key, what is the key of the bourgeoisie?"

Reply to Anonymous

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

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:10:47 -0400, David Morgan $MAMS$ wrote
(in article <HbrZe.9609$y64.4683@trnddc06> ):

>
> "Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:gIpZe.6613$6e1.511@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> I'm doing my first voiceover on Wednesday. It is a skit-type narration for
>> some kind of children's motivational CD. There are several people reading
>> different parts and I was wondering what would be the best way to go about
>> this. Should I record each person individually, one at a time? It seems
>> like it may be tricky to give it a natural feel as far as the natural flow
>> of conversation. Is this just something I have to deal with in the mixing
>> process?
>>
>> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>
> Is it a continuous skit ?
>
> Put them all around one omni microphone. Pray that your environment
> is as non-reflective as possible, or proceed to make it so, post haste.
> Let them rehearse a bit while recording, and then hear themselves.
> Adjust distance from mic (or awareness levels) for voices that are
> more naturally dominant or projective. Fix any mistakes "on the fly"
> (back up one phrase or one speaker and resume the scene, laying
> a marker and making a physical note of the problem) as you record
> directly to a 2-track editor... where you should be able to make a
> cohesive and acceptable first-time product if the above goes smoothly.
>
> Luck...
>
> DM

An omni will give you a pretty roomy sound. There's usually one softie and
one loudie in every group. If moving the softie closer and the loudie further
away doesn't work, and you have the space, split track the recording with two
mics knowing that you'll have to deal with it in mix.

We did some childrens radio programs a few years back with seven mics in a
largish studio. I think all mics were cardioid and we isoed each track.

Overlapping lines may or may not be a problem. If you need to edit, they will
be a problem.

Regards,

Ty Ford

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

"Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gIpZe.6613$6e1.511@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> I'm doing my first voiceover on Wednesday. It is a skit-type narration
> for some kind of children's motivational CD. There are several people
> reading different parts and I was wondering what would be the best way to
> go about this. Should I record each person individually, one at a time?
> It seems like it may be tricky to give it a natural feel as far as the
> natural flow of conversation. Is this just something I have to deal with
> in the mixing process?
>
> Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thomas

I've recorded many sessions with multiple voice actors. The number of mics
necessary depends on the savvy of the actors, the ambient noise in the
recording area, and available microphones. If you are working with
experienced people with good mic technique, you can often get away with a
single cardioid mic. Actors lean in for their lines adjusting distance and
volume according to the needs of the script and the quality of voice. This
can be a useful work-around for a noisy room (air conditioning, traffic,
etc.). A common approach is to have a solo mic for each of the actors with
large parts to play and a 'group' mic for bit players. The bit players move
to the mic and away as necessary. Individual mics for everyone requires a
quiet room, otherwise room noise multiplies as each mic is added to the mix.

I think better performances result from everyone working together. A flow
develops. Each actor's energy is better placed in the production than it
might be if actors were recorded separately.

Recording to separate tracks is of marginal benefit in my experience.
Unless the isolation between players is excellent, there will be enough mic
bleed that separate tracks won't help much. As far as overlaps--- overlaps
can be good. After all, that is what happens in the real world. Just note
overlaps and do a pickup if the overlap gets in the way of intelligibility
or seems inappropriate. Will you end up with a stereo master? If so,
overlaps from actors placed differently in the stereo perspective often add
to the energy and excitement. If it were me, I'd record straight to stereo,
stopping for pick-ups whenever necessary. Avoid going back too far in the
script for pick-ups. Avoid long delays between a mistake and the start of
recording the pick-up. Actors get in a groove. Move them back too far in
the script and you'll end up with a different groove. Also, actors are (or
should be) 'in the moment'. Make them wait five minutes, even a minute,
while you and your clients, hangers on, relatives, etc. 'discuss' things,
means the actor's energy level and concentration goes to hell. Now, you
should go back a page or so, because it may take that much for everyone to
get back into their character and at the appropriate energy. For pickups, I
say, for instance, "Go back to Charlies's speech in the middle of the page.
Track 22. Anytime." You don't need to explain why. They don't need to
know, unless an actor repeatedly steps on other's line inappropriately or
doesn't understand the intent of his or her lines. Essentially, what I'm
saying is that with competent actors it is best to stay out of their way as
much as possible, while attending to issues of recording quality always and
performance direction, only when really necessary.

Have fun.

Steve King

Reply to Anonymous

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

One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor is
talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of the
woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are qualified to
be doing this type of work. So, with that added information, does that
change anyone's opinion, or are there more that I should hear?

Thomas

Reply to Anonymous

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

Thomas Bishop wrote:
> One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor is
> talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of the
> woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are qualified to
> be doing this type of work. So, with that added information, does that
> change anyone's opinion, or are there more that I should hear?

Nope, that's enough. Set up an omni mic or a stereo pair if you want a
stereo recording, have them gather around it, and do their thing. If
someone complains about the result, just shrug and say "that's what you
did, I just recorded it like you asked me to."

Alternately, you could give them all headworn mics and record
multitrack, then put it together later. That would minimize the room
acoustics and the lack of mic technique.

Jobs like this are tough to do well. Do the best you can and move on.

Reply to Anonymous

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

> One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor is
> talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of the
> woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are qualified
> to be doing this type of work.

Then it really doesn't matter... if your client can't hear the difference
between real actors and amateurs she won't be able to tell a good recording
from a merely acceptable one.

That aside, there was an earlier post suggesting mics for the main players
and a mic for the bit parts which is the way to go. If the mics are going to
individual tracks it is a simple task to edit out any bleed and it makes
inserting pick ups a lot easier.

Usually you would only need two or three mics, assigning several talent to
each. It's fun watching them bob and weave to get up to the mic on cue. I
had one "actor" talk into the mic boom counterweight so a rehearsal might be
in order and a brief lecture on where to stand to be picked up by the mic
would be a good idea.

Always tell the actor why you are doing a retake if the reason isn't obvious
otherwise they will continue to do the same thing. Which many actors do even
AFTER you tell them, but that's another problem all together. Another tip is
to keep your control room mic open while you discuss the
performance--otherwise those sensitive actors think you are talking
negatively about them. If you ARE talking negatively about them, then ignore
this advice.

--
Chris White
Freelance Writer/Producer
chris@chriswhite.com

Reply to Anonymous

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> Nope, that's enough. Set up an omni mic or a stereo pair if you want a
> stereo recording, have them gather around it, and do their thing. If
> someone complains about the result, just shrug and say "that's what you
> did, I just recorded it like you asked me to."
>
> Jobs like this are tough to do well. Do the best you can and move on.

Thanks, Mike, that's just what I needed to hear from someone besides my own
common sense. Part of me wants this to turn out perfectly, but the other
part says that it is what it is. Either way, the client will be very happy
with the results, I'm sure.

Reply to Anonymous

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

In my experience it is better to record each actor separately.

Any benefit from the group performance will quickly be lost by frustration of the better actors having to redo parts as
lesser actors flub their parts.

I would suggest hiring one of the better actors to read lines to each actor over the headphone system as you record each
individually. This way you get the context of the scene without the endless rehearsal & frustration of a blown part ruining
the scene for everyone.

As you already know, OMMV.

Regards,

MM

Michael McInnis Productions

"Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:U8CZe.6722$6e1.6010@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor is
> talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of the
> woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are qualified to
> be doing this type of work. So, with that added information, does that
> change anyone's opinion, or are there more that I should hear?
>
> Thomas

Reply to Anonymous

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

"Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:U8CZe.6722$6e1.6010@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor is
> talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of the
> woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are qualified
> to be doing this type of work. So, with that added information, does that
> change anyone's opinion, or are there more that I should hear?
>
> Thomas

With only a few exceptions, I don't think the fact that your actors are
amateurs would make much difference in my approach. I definitely would do a
little briefing before the session. I'd point out that the mics pick your
voice up well if you are 'right here'. If you're further away or too close,
I'll be asking you on talk-back to do it again. I might suggest that the
mics are very sensitive and talking softer makes you sound better, unless,
of course, some screaming is part of the script. Someone suggested that one
should tell the actors why a re-take is being done. Sometimes that's a good
idea--- a mispronounced word, a misunderstood line-reading, etc. However,
sometimes it is better/faster to just say, "let's try another one from ____.
We can do better." Avoid long drawn out analyses of the lines in question,
if at all possible. Actors have a lot to think about as they do their
lines. I don't like to load them up with anything that is not essential.
Keep all your 'direction' as simple as possible: Less energy. A little
slower. A little faster. Many professionals can add a 1/2 second to a
thirty-second read, and then repeat that pace pretty closely take after
take. A non-professional doesn't have those tools. They tend to make
bigger, too big, changes in response to direction. That's why I try to keep
it really simple.

Steve King

Reply to Anonymous

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

I would suggest you hire the right talent.Audition the ones in question if
you have to. Then it doesn't matter how you mic it. I wouldn't be too
anxious to mix amateur with pro although the results may prove adequate. The
good ones will make your job easier and bring a synergy you will not get
with the wannabes. I know why union talent is expensive. It works(no pun
intended)

Rick Hollett
"Michael McInnis" <mmp@maineDahtrr.com> wrote in message
news:jrEZe.6867$Xl2.3716@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> In my experience it is better to record each actor separately.
>
> Any benefit from the group performance will quickly be lost by frustration
> of the better actors having to redo parts as
> lesser actors flub their parts.
>
> I would suggest hiring one of the better actors to read lines to each
> actor over the headphone system as you record each
> individually. This way you get the context of the scene without the
> endless rehearsal & frustration of a blown part ruining
> the scene for everyone.
>
> As you already know, OMMV.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> MM
>
> Michael McInnis Productions
>
>
>
> "Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:U8CZe.6722$6e1.6010@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor is
>> talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of the
>> woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are qualified
>> to
>> be doing this type of work. So, with that added information, does that
>> change anyone's opinion, or are there more that I should hear?
>>
>> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

Oops I didn't realize the "actors" were freinds of the producer. I wouldn't
be too worried about the session, but after it's done, suggest how much
better it could be(if you think it's worth it)

Rick Hollett
"rick hollett" <rhollett@nl.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:7IWdnUeqo6ezTqrenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@rogers.com...
>I would suggest you hire the right talent.Audition the ones in question if
>you have to. Then it doesn't matter how you mic it. I wouldn't be too
>anxious to mix amateur with pro although the results may prove adequate.
>The good ones will make your job easier and bring a synergy you will not
>get with the wannabes. I know why union talent is expensive. It works(no
>pun intended)
>
> Rick Hollett
> "Michael McInnis" <mmp@maineDahtrr.com> wrote in message
> news:jrEZe.6867$Xl2.3716@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> In my experience it is better to record each actor separately.
>>
>> Any benefit from the group performance will quickly be lost by
>> frustration of the better actors having to redo parts as
>> lesser actors flub their parts.
>>
>> I would suggest hiring one of the better actors to read lines to each
>> actor over the headphone system as you record each
>> individually. This way you get the context of the scene without the
>> endless rehearsal & frustration of a blown part ruining
>> the scene for everyone.
>>
>> As you already know, OMMV.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> MM
>>
>> Michael McInnis Productions
>>
>>
>>
>> "Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:U8CZe.6722$6e1.6010@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>> One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor
>>> is
>>> talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of the
>>> woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are
>>> qualified to
>>> be doing this type of work. So, with that added information, does that
>>> change anyone's opinion, or are there more that I should hear?
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

As a singer, in both unions for 20 years,
I say bring in the "right" people for the job.
It makes life alot easier,the work take s less time, and you get a good
product.
That said, if it's the producer's buddies,
I hope you're getting an hourly rate!

Good luck, Tom

"rick hollett" <rhollett@nl.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:0c-dnZQE_P_TSarenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@rogers.com...
> Oops I didn't realize the "actors" were freinds of the producer. I
wouldn't
> be too worried about the session, but after it's done, suggest how much
> better it could be(if you think it's worth it)
>
> Rick Hollett
> "rick hollett" <rhollett@nl.rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:7IWdnUeqo6ezTqrenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@rogers.com...
> >I would suggest you hire the right talent.Audition the ones in question
if
> >you have to. Then it doesn't matter how you mic it. I wouldn't be too
> >anxious to mix amateur with pro although the results may prove adequate.
> >The good ones will make your job easier and bring a synergy you will not
> >get with the wannabes. I know why union talent is expensive. It works(no
> >pun intended)
> >
> > Rick Hollett
> > "Michael McInnis" <mmp@maineDahtrr.com> wrote in message
> > news:jrEZe.6867$Xl2.3716@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >> In my experience it is better to record each actor separately.
> >>
> >> Any benefit from the group performance will quickly be lost by
> >> frustration of the better actors having to redo parts as
> >> lesser actors flub their parts.
> >>
> >> I would suggest hiring one of the better actors to read lines to each
> >> actor over the headphone system as you record each
> >> individually. This way you get the context of the scene without the
> >> endless rehearsal & frustration of a blown part ruining
> >> the scene for everyone.
> >>
> >> As you already know, OMMV.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> MM
> >>
> >> Michael McInnis Productions
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:U8CZe.6722$6e1.6010@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor
> >>> is
> >>> talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of
the
> >>> woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are
> >>> qualified to
> >>> be doing this type of work. So, with that added information, does
that
> >>> change anyone's opinion, or are there more that I should hear?
> >>>
> >>> Thomas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

<With only a few exceptions, I don't think the fact that your actors are
amateurs would make much difference in my approach>

So it's not about the performance? You may have trouble getting hired by
anyone who knows the difference. If it's not about the talent, just what is
it about?

Rick Hollett

Reply to Anonymous

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

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:38:44 -0400, Thomas Bishop wrote
(in article <U8CZe.6722$6e1.6010@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> ):

> One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor is
> talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of the
> woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are qualified to
> be doing this type of work. So, with that added information, does that
> change anyone's opinion, or are there more that I should hear?
>
> Thomas
>
>

Yes, it does change things. Your/her job will be like herding kittens or
earthworms. I'd Iso each person.

Ty

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

Reply to Anonymous

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

"Rick Hollett" <r.hollett@nl.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:g9ydne-Fd7bEaKreRVn-ow@rogers.com...
> <With only a few exceptions, I don't think the fact that your actors are
> amateurs would make much difference in my approach>
>
> So it's not about the performance? You may have trouble getting hired by
> anyone who knows the difference. If it's not about the talent, just what
> is
> it about?
>
> Rick Hollett

Don't be a jerk. I didn't say that say that "it's not about performance".
I said that my approach AS AN ENGINEER would not be much different than it
would be with professionals. The OP doesn't seem to be in a position to
dictate who the talent is going to be. His responsibility, as I read it,
was to get the project recorded and, perhaps, assist the CLIENT to direct
the actors, whoever they might be.

Incidently, after ten years of studio engineering, 25 years of SAG/AFTRA
membership (my only profession for 20 of those years), thousands of
commercials and video/film narrations, and a bunch of movies and television,
working in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles, plus 15 years of writing,
directing and production experience, you'll understand why I'm not much
affected by your comments. Based on your later post, wherein you seem to
recognize that THE PRODUCER is in control of selecting the talent, I accept
your apology ;-)

Steve King

Reply to Anonymous

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

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:goedna2tncFAZ6reRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:38:44 -0400, Thomas Bishop wrote
> (in article <U8CZe.6722$6e1.6010@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> ):
>
>> One thing that I keep seeing people mention is the line, "if the actor is
>> talented," or something to that effect. The "actors" are friends of the
>> woman who is in charge of this production, and none of them are qualified
>> to
>> be doing this type of work. So, with that added information, does that
>> change anyone's opinion, or are there more that I should hear?
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it does change things. Your/her job will be like herding kittens or
> earthworms. I'd Iso each person.
>
> Ty
>

You may be right, of course. However, earlier this year I did a project
with seven middle and upper management executives supplying the voices for
an animated "skit" for a client's national meeting. It reminded me that
what professional voice actors do is not rocket science. Would I have cast
any of these people if they were auditioning against professionals? No.
But, they were able to deliver their lines and do so with an appropriate
sense of fun, some taking surprising risks with their 'character'. The
recording was set up in a large conference room. I used two mics: the CEO
alone on an SM7 (he had the starring role-- no surprise); and, a single U87
in omni for everyone else. The script was a "challenge and response" idea
alternating between the CEO and the others, which made mixing back and forth
fairly easy. The script also gave the other 'players' time to move to and
away from the U87 on a straight up stand. We did the approximately three
minute piece straight through the first time. No stops. That tuned
everybody up. There were a lot of laughs as people bumped into each other
around the mic. We did two more takes with a number of re-dos along the
way. The CEO had to leave at that point, so we did a few line pick-ups from
the rest of the players and called it a day. It got a lot of laughs at the
meeting.

Steve King

Reply to Anonymous

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
>> Me, too. That way I could at least get the best recording of each voice
>> and hope to balance it decently in mixdown. Hoping that an omni will
>> pickup all these voices nicely balanced is potentially unproductive
>> without experienced voice talent.
>> ha
>
> But it's cheap and fast... which I think appears to be the scenario here.
> ;-)
> DM

Not necessarily. They've got a budget and are prepared to do it "right,"
although they do not know what "right" is.

Reply to Anonymous

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

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message news:mZqdneSCXZjWIaXeRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> news:wj%Ze.9600$TQ3.674@trnddc05...
> >
> > "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> > news:1h3hnsx.bvllwc1xj886mN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> >> Ty Ford wrote:
> >> > I'd Iso each person.
> >>
> >> Me, too. That way I could at least get the best recording of each voice
> >> and hope to balance it decently in mixdown. Hoping that an omni will
> >> pickup all these voices nicely balanced is potentially unproductive
> >> without experienced voice talent.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ha

> > But it's cheap and fast... which I think appears to be the scenario here.
> > ;-)
> >
> > DM

> Do you do this kind of work, David? Just want to understand your point of
> view.
>
> Steve King

<wink-wink, again>

Not if I can help it... but my point of view is based on the original post :
news:gIpZe.6613$6e1.511@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com ... in which
the OP is asking if he should record the players in the "skit-type narration
for some kind of children's motivational CD" by doing it "one person at a
time". This indicated to me that he doesn't have the microphones or the
space to iso everyone.

Given everything I have seen him say, I would still be inclined to toss
a couple of PZMs on a table, have the actors gather around, record
the lot to a good 2-track editor, and plan on taking lots of notes and
polishing some turds in post/edit.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

Reply to Anonymous

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

You are talking about a "company meeting" here.
It's not even going on the air.

When you're talking about a "real job", when companys are paying air time of
tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 30 seconds on Nat.TV spot,
that's when you call Gene Hackman!

Tom

"Thomas Bishop" <bishopthomas@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4z4_e.601$Y_5.115@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> >> Me, too. That way I could at least get the best recording of each voice
> >> and hope to balance it decently in mixdown. Hoping that an omni will
> >> pickup all these voices nicely balanced is potentially unproductive
> >> without experienced voice talent.
> >> ha
> >
> > But it's cheap and fast... which I think appears to be the scenario
here.
> > ;-)
> > DM
>
> Not necessarily. They've got a budget and are prepared to do it "right,"
> although they do not know what "right" is.
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:7w5_e.13149$y64.12234@trnddc06...
>
> "Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
> news:mZqdneSCXZjWIaXeRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
>> news:wj%Ze.9600$TQ3.674@trnddc05...
>> >
>> > "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
>> > news:1h3hnsx.bvllwc1xj886mN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
>> >> Ty Ford wrote:
>> >> > I'd Iso each person.
>> >>
>> >> Me, too. That way I could at least get the best recording of each
>> >> voice
>> >> and hope to balance it decently in mixdown. Hoping that an omni will
>> >> pickup all these voices nicely balanced is potentially unproductive
>> >> without experienced voice talent.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ha
>
>> > But it's cheap and fast... which I think appears to be the scenario
>> > here.
>> > ;-)
>> >
>> > DM
>
>> Do you do this kind of work, David? Just want to understand your point
>> of
>> view.
>>
>> Steve King
>
> <wink-wink, again>
>
> Not if I can help it... but my point of view is based on the original
> post :
> news:gIpZe.6613$6e1.511@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com ... in which
> the OP is asking if he should record the players in the "skit-type
> narration
> for some kind of children's motivational CD" by doing it "one person at a
> time". This indicated to me that he doesn't have the microphones or the
> space to iso everyone.

I don't know if that is a correct assumption or not. It may be.

I guess I'm reacting to what seems to be the arrogance of some posters who
seem to denigrate the recording of any kind of material except their own
niche. Why would one think that a studio (or an engineer) that accepts
corporate type work or children's programming would be any less
'professional' than someone who records music? My experience was in studios
that did a wide range of recording: large orchestras, rock groups, jazz,
blues, sound design for film and video, and narration. The same sense of
professionalism and quality standards were brought to all of those sessions.

> Given everything I have seen him say, I would still be inclined to toss
> a couple of PZMs on a table, have the actors gather around, record
> the lot to a good 2-track editor, and plan on taking lots of notes and
> polishing some turds in post/edit.

Which seems to show your disrespect for the OP's customer and the OP for
taking the job. On a lighter note, I suppose you don't spend any time
polishing turds in your mastering room.

Steve King

> --
> David Morgan (MAMS)
> http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
> Morgan Audio Media Service
> Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
> _______________________________________
> http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

David Morgan wrote:

> "Steve King" wrote...
> > "David Morgan wrote...

> > > "hank alrich" wrote...
> > >> Ty Ford wrote:
> > >> > I'd Iso each person.

> > >> Me, too. That way I could at least get the best recording of each voice
> > >> and hope to balance it decently in mixdown. Hoping that an omni will
> > >> pickup all these voices nicely balanced is potentially unproductive
> > >> without experienced voice talent.

> > > But it's cheap and fast... which I think appears to be the scenario here.
> > > ;-)

> > Do you do this kind of work, David? Just want to understand your point of
> > view.

> <wink-wink, again>

> Not if I can help it... but my point of view is based on the original post :
> news:gIpZe.6613$6e1.511@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com ... in which
> the OP is asking if he should record the players in the "skit-type narration
> for some kind of children's motivational CD" by doing it "one person at a
> time". This indicated to me that he doesn't have the microphones or the
> space to iso everyone.

> Given everything I have seen him say, I would still be inclined to toss
> a couple of PZMs on a table, have the actors gather around, record
> the lot to a good 2-track editor, and plan on taking lots of notes and
> polishing some turds in post/edit.

And I think you're right that this could be the cheap and fast way to do
it, escpecially if there isn't enough kit to mic each voice separately.

I still think that will produce a less polished result, but referencing
the poster's statements about the client, that may be entirely
acceptable to her.

--
ha

Reply to Anonymous

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

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message

> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message

> > Given everything I have seen him say, I would still be inclined to toss
> > a couple of PZMs on a table, have the actors gather around, record
> > the lot to a good 2-track editor, and plan on taking lots of notes and
> > polishing some turds in post/edit.

> Which seems to show your disrespect for the OP's customer and the OP for
> taking the job. On a lighter note, I suppose you don't spend any time
> polishing turds in your mastering room.

Well... I apologize if it looks that way Steve. I think you are reading
a little more in to my comments than is really there. The 'job' itself
is a given... never for an instant did I show any lack of respect for
the task that must be accomplished. There haven't been enough
details given to do much more than make assumptions. How you
think I have debigraded the OP's *client* is miles out of sight for
me, but I am learning from your comments never to be 'simplistic'
and try to get things done quickly & efficiently around you. ;-)

Surely you know that to get anywhere in this business, over 1/2 of
the real work load is customer service and good communication.
I am certain that the OP (who was willing to take the gig and come
here to discuss it as well), will communicate well with the client and
get the job done to the best of his ability.

I believe in the interaction between the actors... it may actually be
what saves this session. (One person at a time will be too sterile).

I have a nice room and plenty of mics... I might consider indy mics
on everyone and multitracking, depending on the budget. But it has
been my experience that the suggestions which I put forward would
not only get the job done in the quickest fashion - saving the so-called
"inexperienced client and volunteer voice talent" a bucket of cash - but
would be the easiest way to assemble and edit the final.

Different strokes... <g>

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

Reply to Anonymous

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:1h3jpm6.1kiwe7z5b8h4rN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> David Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Given everything I have seen him say, I would still be inclined to toss
> > a couple of PZMs on a table, have the actors gather around, record
> > the lot to a good 2-track editor, and plan on taking lots of notes and
> > polishing some turds in post/edit.

> And I think you're right that this could be the cheap and fast way to do
> it, escpecially if there isn't enough kit to mic each voice separately.
>
> I still think that will produce a less polished result, but referencing
> the poster's statements about the client, that may be entirely
> acceptable to her.

No questions about less polished... But for some reason I am still
envisioning anything else taking waaaay to long to develop a repeat
business working relationship with the client. It would be nice to be
wrong, but I had rather the client understood the limitations that they
imposed and still got their money's worth in a rapid fashion. Maybe
I place too much emphasis on growing with a new client for bigger
and better things down the road... but the first step in that direction
(in my mind) is to get the first job done with the greatest efficiency
and the least experimenting and noodling around with ideas and for
a really great price. Now if the OP doesn't need to make any money
or control his time... the sky is the limit. ;-)

DM

Reply to Anonymous

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:mBi_e.4512$211.4307@trnddc08...
>
> Well... I apologize if it looks that way Steve.

I appreciate that. I really did think that you were placing production work
in some lesser professional category. I was wrong.

> I think you are reading
> a little more in to my comments than is really there. The 'job' itself
> is a given... never for an instant did I show any lack of respect for
> the task that must be accomplished. There haven't been enough
> details given to do much more than make assumptions. How you
> think I have debigraded the OP's *client* is miles out of sight for
> me, but I am learning from your comments never to be 'simplistic'
> and try to get things done quickly & efficiently around you. ;-)

Quickly & efficiently is good. And, with respect is even better. Advice I
sometimes forget.

> Surely you know that to get anywhere in this business, over 1/2 of
> the real work load is customer service and good communication.

Maybe more.

> I am certain that the OP (who was willing to take the gig and come
> here to discuss it as well), will communicate well with the client and
> get the job done to the best of his ability.
>
> I believe in the interaction between the actors... it may actually be
> what saves this session. (One person at a time will be too sterile).
>
> I have a nice room and plenty of mics... I might consider indy mics
> on everyone and multitracking, depending on the budget. But it has
> been my experience that the suggestions which I put forward would
> not only get the job done in the quickest fashion - saving the so-called
> "inexperienced client and volunteer voice talent" a bucket of cash - but
> would be the easiest way to assemble and edit the final.
>
> Different strokes... <g>

Not so different. Since I do these kinds of sessions with some frequency,
I've adopted a straight to two-track (or mono) and a really attentive ear to
cover the unworkable over-laps and off-the-scale dynamics, when they occur.

As far as respect goes, anyone who can keep "a nice room and plenty of mics"
busy and profitable these days deserves a lot of it.

Steve King

Reply to Anonymous

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

When the OP used the VO & Brain Surgeon anaology, he opened up a can of
worms. While you might record both of these groups, sitting around the
table, in the same way, you might not get the same level of performance from
each group. It sounds like the OP might not even know the difference, and
that's where the arrogance starts.

Tom

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
news:GvKdnUsmMZKOzaTeRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> news:7w5_e.13149$y64.12234@trnddc06...
> >
> > "Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
> > news:mZqdneSCXZjWIaXeRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> >> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> >> news:wj%Ze.9600$TQ3.674@trnddc05...
> >> >
> >> > "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:1h3hnsx.bvllwc1xj886mN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> >> >> Ty Ford wrote:
> >> >> > I'd Iso each person.
> >> >>
> >> >> Me, too. That way I could at least get the best recording of each
> >> >> voice
> >> >> and hope to balance it decently in mixdown. Hoping that an omni will
> >> >> pickup all these voices nicely balanced is potentially unproductive
> >> >> without experienced voice talent.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> ha
> >
> >> > But it's cheap and fast... which I think appears to be the scenario
> >> > here.
> >> > ;-)
> >> >
> >> > DM
> >
> >> Do you do this kind of work, David? Just want to understand your point
> >> of
> >> view.
> >>
> >> Steve King
> >
> > <wink-wink, again>
> >
> > Not if I can help it... but my point of view is based on the original
> > post :
> > news:gIpZe.6613$6e1.511@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com ... in which
> > the OP is asking if he should record the players in the "skit-type
> > narration
> > for some kind of children's motivational CD" by doing it "one person at
a
> > time". This indicated to me that he doesn't have the microphones or the
> > space to iso everyone.
>
> I don't know if that is a correct assumption or not. It may be.
>
> I guess I'm reacting to what seems to be the arrogance of some posters who
> seem to denigrate the recording of any kind of material except their own
> niche. Why would one think that a studio (or an engineer) that accepts
> corporate type work or children's programming would be any less
> 'professional' than someone who records music? My experience was in
studios
> that did a wide range of recording: large orchestras, rock groups, jazz,
> blues, sound design for film and video, and narration. The same sense of
> professionalism and quality standards were brought to all of those
sessions.
>
> > Given everything I have seen him say, I would still be inclined to toss
> > a couple of PZMs on a table, have the actors gather around, record
> > the lot to a good 2-track editor, and plan on taking lots of notes and
> > polishing some turds in post/edit.
>
> Which seems to show your disrespect for the OP's customer and the OP for
> taking the job. On a lighter note, I suppose you don't spend any time
> polishing turds in your mastering room.
>
> Steve King
>
> > --
> > David Morgan (MAMS)
> > http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
> > Morgan Audio Media Service
> > Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
> > _______________________________________
> > http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net>...

> As far as respect goes, anyone who can keep "a nice room and plenty of mics"
> busy and profitable these days deserves a lot of it.

I am wondering how long it will last. I am the least expensive guy there,
and everyone else is much younger than me. I work often and they go
broke holding out for more money. Unfortunately, the studio was built
30 years ago in a leased space... which to this day, is STILL a leased
space!! Due to it's design, it can *not* be moved. Monthly overhead
is in the area of $5000-$6000. "Common Area" maintenance fees for
the property are more than most people pay for rent. It's very stressful
to see nice rooms falling like leaves from trees in the fall. I am counting
my blessings that there is still a room of that calibre that allows me a
decent producers rate (so they don't clear that much from me either)
in the immediate area. At least I am still working, while an awful lot
of my compadres are now in retail, working for A/V companies, or
totally changed professions. There aren't enough good rooms any
more that aren't phoenominally over priced.

DM

Reply to Anonymous

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

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:1mD_e.7175$WT3.6054@trnddc03...
>
> "Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net>...
>
>> As far as respect goes, anyone who can keep "a nice room and plenty of
>> mics"
>> busy and profitable these days deserves a lot of it.
>
>
> I am wondering how long it will last. I am the least expensive guy there,
> and everyone else is much younger than me. I work often and they go
> broke holding out for more money. Unfortunately, the studio was built
> 30 years ago in a leased space... which to this day, is STILL a leased
> space!! Due to it's design, it can *not* be moved. Monthly overhead
> is in the area of $5000-$6000. "Common Area" maintenance fees for
> the property are more than most people pay for rent. It's very stressful
> to see nice rooms falling like leaves from trees in the fall. I am
> counting
> my blessings that there is still a room of that calibre that allows me a
> decent producers rate (so they don't clear that much from me either)
> in the immediate area. At least I am still working, while an awful lot
> of my compadres are now in retail, working for A/V companies, or
> totally changed professions. There aren't enough good rooms any
> more that aren't phoenominally over priced.
>
> DM
>

I think it is the same here in Chicago, although these days I am not
familiar with all the studios. In my first studio experience in Chicago
(Sound Studios, a space now occupied by the Hard Rock Hotel), the owners had
the luxury of knowing that the three relatively low-paid workers in the
laquer channel, tape duplication, and shipping covered the nut each month.
The music and production rooms were profit. Even at Paragon, whose
reputation was as a cutting edge botique music facility, had two edit
suites, a VO studio, one five-slave RtoR duplicator, and a 35/16MM transfer
room that ad agencies kept reasonably busy. It helped smooth out the ups
and downs of album work. I've never experienced a music-only operation. I
go into a state of high pucker just thinking about it.

Steve King

Reply to Anonymous

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

Who pissed in your cornflakes? No one is infallible. And I really don't
remember apologizing to you. Maybe that's what you interpreted. You know,
you don't seem like a total ignoramus, but I could be wrong. God knows, I've
been wrong before.

Rick Hollett

Reply to Anonymous

Forum Audio : Pro Audio - Voiceover with Multiple Talents

Please mind

Focus On

Voiceover with Multiple Talents

Forum Audio : Pro Audio - Voiceover with Multiple Talents

Please mind