Remember Kelsey Grammer on the show “Frasier”? Of course, he had a rich deep voice that is perfect for radio, but it was always much warmer and deeper when he sat down at the mike for his radio show. This voice sound is common on radio and television, and is more than the natural voice, it is enhanced to sound that way.
Suppose I wanted to add a microphone to my computer to chat with people over the internet. A crappy webcam mike just isn’t going to sound worth a darn, even for Mr. Grammer. Is there a microphone that is designed to enhance the voice to make it warmer and richer, maybe one that has something like an audio equalizer built in to it so the bass can be adjusted?
I’m not talking about an expensive professional setup, but something better than the usual equipment that can help you to sound deeper and warmer instead of the tinny sound you get from a cheap mike?
Shure SM7B. It has a very round, smooth sound. Built in eq doesn’t work the way you seem to think. There are microphones with built in filter options.
Almost all radio studios will have a preset of a real eq for every DJ, and also add a slight reverb to the voice, things you can’t do with just a microphone.
Another thing - when I teach DJs the art, I keep telling them that it’s not the quality of the voice, it’s what you say that’s important. A great voice might get you VO jobs for commercials, but without a personality, that’s just about it. Compare to America’s most famous DJ - Howard Stern - who doesn’t have a good voice, but a multimillion $ contract.
Some of it is the microphone, for sure, but some of it is the presenter. Talking to an invisible audience via a microphone isn’t quite like talking to another person in the same room, or even talking to an audience when they are physically present - and although I’m sure this is something you could be trained to do, it just seems to happen spontaneously after a while, once the situation arises in which it’s needed.
My post is my cite here; I did some work on a community radio station for a week or so on a couple of occasions and I noticed that, by the end of the week on both occasions, my vocal style and tone was distinctly different when I was speaking on air (and this was objectively measurable, as my shows were recorded). At the start of the week, I just sound like myself; nearer the end though, my voice is calmer, smoother and more rounded, my pronunciation is clearer and my voice just seems more resonant.
Of course that doesn’t mean this will be possible using a computer microphone that cost a dollar though.
You might find that a decent quality headset microphone would provide a noticeable increase in fidelity, but I can’t recommend any specific model. If you want to plug in a studio-quality microphone, there might be technical problems, as they don’t necessarily work in the same way as the electret mics that are normally used with computers. Some of them need to be powered, or would need some kind of preamp in order to be usable with your computer.
Also, there are limitations elsewhere to the fidelity; A high-quality sound card (i.e. not just the onboard sound), screened cables, gold plugs and sockets may all help, but it all might be for nothing if it’s for voice communication across the internet, where compression and limited bandpass are in play.
I’d like to add that Howard Stern had the worst vocal sound on radio. It was way too bassy, harsh, and especially too compressed. I always thought it was obnoxious to listen to. I can’t understand why a show with that budget couldn’t make him sound a bit better.
Actually, the microphone in front of him in those scenes is just a prop. His voice in and out of the studio is being recorded by the film crew with the same equipment in either situation. If he sounds different, it’s not because of the microphone.
As Mangetout mentioned in passing, if it’s for chatting over the net you’re probably going to be wasting your money, because the sound is likely to be compressed to smithereens en route. (The internet, after all, is not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes.)
Sounds like you ought to know the answer to this–don’t the acoustics of the studio itself contribute to the sound of the voice? But I don’t know how studios are designed. I sound a lot different talking in my walk-in closet, which is basically an anechoic chamber, vs. the bathroom, which has some pretty noticeable resonant frequencies. I think physical reinforcement of certain frequencies sounds better than just cranking the eq.
This is true. A lot of pros have some sort of voice training that helps them sound great regardless of the microphone. The question is similar to, “My photos suck, what kind of camera should I buy to take really good pictures?”
Former recording engineer here - The idea of a booth is that it doesn’t contribute. That way you have total control of the sound via eq, reverb, etc. What you would hear if you were sitting in the booth with the “talent” is definitely not what you hear being recorded or broadcast. Most voice talent wants to hear what’s being recorded so that’s what you send into their headphones. A few want the hear their “natural” voice. You give 'em whatever they want.
You can get a quality microphone specifically designed for use with a computer such as the Rode “Podcaster” for about $200. A reference quality studio mic is going to be in the $1000 range. YMMV.
Most studios – at least the ones I’ve used – weren’t designed to be studios; that is, they weren’t built with any special kind of acoustical properties at all. They do have soundproofing on the walls, but this is just foam molded with baffles to muffle any echo. In fact, I’m told that radio reporters doing remote stories often use a bathroom or a closet to record their stories. They just use bed linens or towels as impromptu soundproofing. This serves the same purpose as a regular radio studio.
However, it is true that there are studios that were designed to be used as studios. NPR’s Studio 4-A, where musical performances are recorded, is basically a large room that is literally suspended in space to muffle the exterior noise. The floors are wooden, which makes footfalls softer, and there are soffits that are designed with acoustics in mind. The actual recording equipment is in an adjoining room. Of course, it was designed specifically as a musical performance hall, so the acoustics reflect that. Otherwise, you really don’t need a specially-designed studio.
What you’re hearing is called the Proximity Effect (scroll down to “audio”) - when a vocalist gets right up on a microphone, especially a condenser microphone (most often used in radio stations and recording studio vocal booths), there’s an increased bass response.
You don’t think a 57 or 58 (or Beta model referred to above) would do the trick, especially given the absence of any kind of mentionable preamp (as suggested by the OP)?
