RMS Normalize seems to undo everything else

[spearcarrier]

sails through the ACX specifications with hardly any processing

Are we talking about the same clip? announcesample.wav will not pass ACX RMS by many dB.

announcesamplePatched.wav has been through the ACX Correction Suite and is ready for submission. That sounds like the one you measured.

Koz

Oh dear, I think I just got confused. So correct me if I'm wrong: the file was better and it was only a wee bit way off, as opposed to at the beginning of this post.

[spearcarrier]

Okay and it passes!

So my problem was... how I was recording and taking bad advice off of Youtube. Lesson learned! Now this passes Amazon's requirements. And the plus is I understand RMS... okay not very well but I get it a bit more. Sort of. Better than nothing.

But I can tell you this file probably wouldn't pass a voice acting review in some places, so now I have to concentrate once more on the mystery of volume peaks and other things. See I've been trying to put together my demo reel well for a long time. Mixing files from different shows and getting it even has turned into quite the challenge. But, that's for another thread I'm sure.

[kozikowski]

I think I just got confused.

I'll bet real good money Steve was measuring the wrong sound file.

Your original announcesample.wav is perfectly good for a live reading, but isn't as perfect as Steve makes it out to be. One quick trip through the three-step mastering suite and you should be good to go. Yes, if you want to get obsessive, you can add additional gentle noise reduction and a few more bells and whistles. But post-mastering passes by itself.

it could be said that the least amount of processing is the best amount given you'll be doing it for years. It makes my teeth hurt when new users arrive with a laundry list of effects and corrections and they haven't put voice into the computer yet.

RMS (loudness) and peaks are built into the suite. You don't have to worry about any of that. It's a corrections suite (harmonious grouping).

Now if you're after creating a reel out of many different performances, good luck. I'll watch. We can't take processing out of a performance. This is where good speakers or headphones become terrifically important. Past basic recording hygiene, it's all about the sound.

I need to sit and read your publication if it's not already obvious I'm missing many of your questions.

Koz

[kozikowski]

Just to bring this around. Steve told the Noise Reduction tool to reduce the background noise by about 6. When I measured it, I got -68dB (third number). After additional processing, the noise is about -75. Subtract those two........

You can't do that forever. Noise Reduction affects your voice, too, and too much processing will fail ACX.

Please note we don't have official YouTube training. It's too hard to do right, it gets left in the dust too easy, and nobody wants to go through the editorial process. So. Almost all of the video postings are wrong, misleading or for a very old version of Audacity. Sometimes all at once.

Also note ACX processing is only the first half. It also has to make it through Human Editorial Inspection. That's where voice quality and reading artistry becomes important. So, you're now at the artist presentation starting line.

You can be theatrical, but you do need to back away from the microphone when you yell, etc. etc. etc. I once played two different people (of different sexes) by clever microphone management. Directional microphones sound very different when you're up close.

Lauren Bacall's voice was lower than Humphrey Bogart.

"You know how to whistle, don't you Steve?"

Koz

[spearcarrier]

I actually didn't do noise reduction in the last take. It didn't need it - and noise reduction doesn't take out those mouth smacks and tiny sounds you do when the mic is, well, where human ears aren't normally. So I went through it today and took those out manually for a better file - which is good because listening to it again helped me to catch where I'd repeated myself in reading. Oy vey!

As for putting together my demo reel - well. That's for another thread I suspect.

For the first time I actually feel hopeful about the entire getting the first recording down process, so that's something. Da da da da. You found: sound recording booth. Da da da DA da da... You are now level (1)!

[kozikowski]

We have a good track record for getting people published.

If the microphone is crisp and harsh, sometimes a sock or hanky over the microphone can help. People make microphones with a high pitch boost because it "sounds more professional."

Whatever you say.

That boosts every tick, pop and mouth noise.

Koz

[spearcarrier]

Well I certainly am grateful for your track record. But what is a high pitch boost? The mic picks up the sounds more in the treble area? Wouldn't that change how a baritone sounds when recorded?

[kozikowski]

The mic picks up the sounds more in the treble area?

Yup.

Wouldn't that change how a baritone sounds when recorded?

Yup.

Blue isn't the most forthcoming about technical specs, but apparently, the Pro model is pretty flat and accurate over the audible range. No serious boosting.

Screen Shot 2018-03-30 at 18.31.18.png (24.62 KiB) Viewed 450 times

Compare that with the Shure rock band microphone.

Screen Shot 2018-03-30 at 18.34.50.png (16.47 KiB) Viewed 450 times

Those hills over on the right are the famous "presence boost." Crisp, hard sound whether you want it or not. Somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 is infants screaming on a jet to give you a reference point.

So, no, you should be OK.

Do experiment with a sock, though. Experiment. One poster got good, balanced sound with a thinner polyester sock. It's worth it if you don't have to correct each and every lip smack. That's going to get old on your fourth book.

Koz

[spearcarrier]

Well I have a pop glove on it. Like this one: https://www.zzounds.com/item--MUP58WS?s ... UQAvD_BwE=

I guess I could put a sock under the filter? Or is that what the sock is for? Just making sure.

[kozikowski]

Well I have a pop glove on it.

Did you do that to solve a specific problem? That design is supposed to help with wind noise and give P pop suppression. It does it by restricting large movements of air. In English, it suppress bass notes.

I'm not a fan of doing that unless you're solving a problem. What's the sound difference with and without? Do you have that black tennis racket thing, too?



You do have your Sony MDR-7506 headphones, right? You're flying blind (deaf) without good monitoring. I do not have a pair of those. I don't particularly like them, but Hollywood adores them and they will tell you when you're doing something wrong.



That's them on David Greene's head in NPR West.

Koz