Hey audio experts,

Anyone have any pointers about which filters to use on a voice recording to give it that really great sound that you hear in movie trailers?

Expensive audio equipment and years of experience aside (don't have either right now)...what would be the "best shot" at getting "close" using FCP's built-in audio filters?

So far, I've used:

- Expander/Noise Gate to get rid of background hum
- 3 Band Equalizer, pumping up bass, keeping midtones and high pitch at their presets
- Reverberation, set very low (5) at a small room setting.

But it just isn't getting there...

According to my audio guru (and LX co-producer) it is basically
in the voice of the person. You can "amplify" the effect a bit, but
basically only when it is already there. Case of you've got it or
you don't it seems.

That's the problem...this guy I recorded has "got it". Silky smooth radio voice.

Unfortunately, my audio skills ain't got it.

afew things i woud suggest on top of what u have already listed...
One thing to note, is that FCP doesnt have facilities like soundforge or any hardware units, so its really hard to say what would work and what wouldnt, obviously the source is the key factore hear, and working with what u got make it hard when ur only limiting yourself to the one applicaiton.
anywyas

to fatten it, i would suggest a chorus plugin.

Compression - A nice tight comp to keep the freq stable

Aural Exciter - I dunno if these are available as plugs for FCP, but i use a hardware Aphex Aural Exciter which is integrated with 2 of my samplers (A3000mkII and RS7000) but can be bought as standalone rackmount
http://fr.music-hardware.com/item-169-0.html#

Its also available in SW form now http://www.digidesign.com/products/details.cfm?product_id=3820

As mentioned a nice Chorus plugin, such as the DBAudioware plugs, they make some really nice fat verbs too.

Another trick with woudl be to run the effect thru a LP filter and slowly tweak it open as it builds to the ful effect takes hold at teh peak.

theres lots u can do with audio :)

how long does the audio go for?

I woudlnt mind messing around with it.. i need to keep in practice and i havent done any projects like this for a while...

if u like drop me an email and we can go from there

I really appreciate the offer, Peter...but I'm on a mission to get this right myself for once. Audio has been my biggest foe.

Thanks for all the tips above...I'm off to FCP right now to try out what I can.

hehehe no probs, i know the feeling mate...
I been at the audio game for 12 yrs now.. its not easy teaching urself the ins and outs, but when it finally dawns, its THE best feeling!!

hey, if u want a nice strange poltergeist effect, reverse the audio, run a reverb thru it, then reverse it back to normal.
now run another reverb thru it...

:)

I've always thought that it had a lot to do with the mike used.

It's impossible for me to think about this subject without this trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/comedian.html) coming to mind...

I used to design and "direct" Multi Media Computer Based Training and I had to work a lot with radio narrators.. (actually among the bests in my country) and I had to be at the studio when they were recording... and one thing I learned while talking to the audio guy, who by the way used pro-tools..
Is that to get a rich, warm, fat voice TV narration like.. you need 3 things:

1. - A good voice.
2. - A great mic.
3. - An outstanding tube preamp for that mic.. And he´d turn his preamp on and off just to show me the difference.. and it was obvious that there was the key to that sound.

I don´t know if one can recreate some of those tube preams on software plugins... but I guess there has to be something like that out there.

Hi John,
the radio voice or movie trailer voice is a guy making around $800 plus and hour (probably double that too). We hire voice over talent here at my work and the better guys make $700 for walking in, doing a quick read. Thats union for ya.

In order to get the best results- on most mics you are using- have the talent read quieter and closer to the mic. You get better presence that way. Compression will help you from clipping- but use it sparingly. It will be most effective for evening out quieter or louder passages. Too much will cause distortion (crispie sound). I'd stay away from any chorusing or reverb unless it's relevent to the video or piece. I'd always record clean and add that in post.

The place you do the recording in should be as quiet and acoustically "dead" as possible. You can even hang blankets off of ladders, or if you are inclined, build "gobo's" with sound deadening stuff on them and arrange them together into a sort of booth. Thin plywood backing with a hinge, sound stuff glued on the front works. Markertek has material for fairly decent prices.

I use a Neumann A87 mic and an Avalon Tube preamp. MAN do they sound good! Very silky! Course- I couldn't afford it myself.

Hope there's a nugget of helpful info there somewhere.

Good luck!
Jeff Patnaude

Thanks for the link Charles, I had forgotten about it and it is just
too hilarious! You just made my day.

I love that trailer...I've always wondered what his every day speaking voice is like.

"Tube Preamp" eh? Hmm...that's worth a look around to see if a software version exists.

Well Gang, I'm beginning to think I'm getting a SERIOUS handle on getting the best possible sound for video... and fortunately I LOVE to share.

Yes, the right person is important... but as you say, you have a guy who "has the goods".

In that case I'd second the input regarding the tube pre-amp.

You may not have seen my little thread regarding the Rode NTK tube mic (under $500 total INCLUDING TUBE PRE)... Well, rather then just SAY "You won't believe how good it is..." I'm going to show you. Starting with John. Get ready for a quick listen via email.

What you hear is a friend of mine. He is "just a guy" with NO connections to video or broadcasting. I took 1 minute explaining proximity effect to him and how to NOT pop the mic in close range. This friend of mine then donned my 7506's and proceeded to close in on the mic... to about 6".

With a large diaphragm mic in close proximity... especially a tube mic... get ready to be FREAKED OUT.

That's all I have to say for now... let's see what John has to say after my email...

BTW this is with NO processing and NO special room... just NTK straight into my DVX and on to your ears.

"Who's your daddy?" That cracked me up!

Now that IS impressive, Matt! And that's the type of sound I was going for.

Mind sharing details about the preamp? What model is it? How does it work...just as an intermediary device between the mic and your computer?

Hey!!! we also want to hear about this! put it online!

thanks! :)

John... let me make this CLEAR. This is why I've been posting LIKE A NUT over the last week. Maybe a DVX is just that good, but I doubt it.

When I say the audio chain is MIC-DVX-YOUR EARS... I mean JUST that.

I have NO special processors or ancillary equipment. What you heard is a BONE stock Rode NTK that comes with it's own little tube amp... (not little)... anyway, you plug in the amp, plug in the mic and start making magic.

THAT'S IT. Pretty cool huh?

I have TONS of stuff out of this mic that's just simply amazing.

Okay, everyone... with Matt's approval I've uploaded the sound sample for you (http://zchildress.com/jay.wma). It's his friend, Jay...and he sounds as silky as a DJ (Matt mentions that if anyone wants to hire Jay, just contact Matt by e-mail).

Matt,

Here's the link to your mic (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=229103&is=REG&BI=155) at B&H Photo Video. A bit pricey, but the sound is so rich it's going to be hard not to invest in this.

I wonder if there are slightly cheaper models with the same quality output? Worth investigating.

If you click "add to cart" you'll see that the price is $499... If you keep a REAL close eye on Guitar Center they sometimes have a "2-day" sale... When they say this... IT IS NO LIE... DROP everything and go in!

I got that complete mic w/ tube pre and cables for $373. Top that.

Hey I gotta' appologize to you guys for laughing on this clip. If this thread maintains interest then I'll get him back over here to do some clean work.

The reason I broke into laughter is because I have a couple friends that I showed this mic to, and as I explained how to get the best of the mic they acted like I was nuts.

"Oh, I've used a mic before..."

If you could see Jay's face as he heard his voice sound like that you'd be laughing too. He looked up like "Buckwheat" from Saturday Night Live... but then he continued to talk like that.

If you can imagine that then you see why I couldn't stop laughing.

Well, now... that's definitely something to keep an eye out for. Great information, Matt!

John, I gotta' tell ya'...

I thought the NT1a sounded great also. It's $199

For another hundred you can get the NT1000. It's $299

If you want a tube mic with tube pre then it's the NTK. $499

As far as the NTK I already mentioned the GREAT deals possible on this mic and really I expect those deals to get MORE common.

Why?

Rode has an upgrade model from the NTK... now called K2. $599

K2 is STILL a tube mice WITH a tube pre, but it has a fully variable pattern from omni to cardioid to figure eight... and AMAZINGLY enough... ANYTHING INBETWEEN!

If you don't want the tubes in the mic or a tube pre then you would go with the NT2000 for $499.

NT2000 is IDENTICAL design to the K2 in a NON-TUBE version... all else is the same.

I'm a HUGE fan of the tubes for their sound, but honestly I like to be able to take anything and everything with me on some shoots. That tube pre is not something you want to tote around. However the excellent sonic character is sure worth it...

As it turns out I sold the NTK for what I paid and I'm going to try the NT2000. If I don't like that better then I'll buy another NTK when the next sale hits. Even at $499 it's a great deal.

My shotgun cost $30 more then that and it still needed a crap-load more support gear.

That mic is plug and play. Maybe a $49 shockmount if you want, but that's it.

Matt,

Portability was one thing I was considering. Also, I was wondering how just getting a preamp and using it with my existing mics would sound.

Here's one portable unit I just found (http://www.sounddevices.com/products/mm1master.htm) and here's another (http://www.minidisc.org/part_The_Sound_Professionals_Portable_microphone_preamp.html).

The NTK and K2 are TUBE mics with TUBE pre-amps... ALL tube... touch the mic after 10 minutes. It's WARM. That is what gives it the lively and bassy character.

I'm hoping that if I go with the NT2000 that it will APPROACH that.

The main thing you need if you don't get a tube mic is a large 1" diaphragm mic... you can finesse proximity with clarity.

I'll bet if you watch "that trailer guy" that he moves in and out of the mic a very slight bit. Push in for bass, pull back as you articulate crisp endings of words and sentences.

I'm telling you that if you put on a set of 7506's and spend a couple hours with a mic like this you really get to know your own voice.

Before you pop cash on a tube pre, make sure you have a large diaphragm mic.

Mat,

As an engineer from TU Delft I look at tubes this way:

Tubes are known for there harmonic kind of distortions that sound better for the ear. When the tranistor came up the harmonics introduced that typical transistor sound. But that was in the past. The FET transistor improved that. Chips are basically built on transistortechnology.

Nowadays we don't want to hear any distortion, so the difference in harmonic distortion must be lower then what we all can hear.
The feedback technology makes it easily possible to reach that and is widely used.
(Quad was the first to introduce this technics in their mainamplifiers.)

The disadvantage of tubes is that they get warm and get older and change there behaviour. So they have to be refreshed on a regular base. The new tube will never be the same. So tubes sell a dream.
Also they shall not give any character ( bassy or live) to an amplifier at all.

Myself I will never, never buy any tube amplifier.
The idea only that they need to get warm to get on sound gives me headache.

As a result I would think the NT1000 or NT 2000 will sound better on the end as the NTK.

And the sound of those Rodes are the best I ever heard.

there are many tube amp plugins as well as a niftylittle mic plugin called "Antares Microphone Modeller"

this app emualtes pretty much any make or model mike from a list of presets. You first input your source mic (or teh closest t it) then u select ur output "mic" source and your sound is adjsuted according to values of that aprticualr mic.

Quite good really :)

Those plugins don't amplify but colour the signal. So those plugins are used as an effect plugin.

Amplifying means and must mean that the output is x times the input without any colour or distortion. (not audible)

The harmonic distortions of those plugins can be used for special effects for instance 'year 60' effects or in your case simulate different mics. But basically we are talking about soundprocessing.

But this effect will be superimposed on the character and defects of the inputmic. That will constrain the result of the final effect.

I don't think that it will be possible to simulate any mic of 1000 euro, with a mic of 60 euro.
But I think it will be very possible to simulate a mic of euro 60 with a mic of euro 1000.

But I don't think that this plugin and a omnidirectional mic possibly can simulate a (hyper-) cardiode or shortgun mic.

I have seen that plugin. The idea is fun, but I don't think that the goal must be to simulate a mic, but to get the optimal pleasing sound at the end.

Better would be if that plugin was used to normalise the mics behaviour as much as possible for further soundprocessing.
I think that would be an interesting idea!

Peter,

I checked out the Antares "Tube" plugin. It says it requires (RTAS, VST) on Mac OSX. I really don't know what that is...can you shed some light? Does it require something like PeakDV or is it a stand-alone program?

P.S. Jan, here's the description of the "tube" plug-in
In addition to the tube models, Tube includes a unique OmniTube function. Without OmniTube engaged, Tube functions exactly like a tube preamp, i.e., only the regions of the input signal that exceed the clipping level (typically transients) are affected and all other regions are passed with no change. With OmniTube on, a compressor is inserted into the signal path before the tube model. This compressor is set to compress the signal and then apply sufficient makeup gain to ensure that Tube's Drive control can drive the entire signal above the clipping level. After the tube effect is applied to the entire signal, an inverse gain function restores the signal's original dynamics.

- from Anterestech.com (http://www.antarestech.com/products/tube.html)

Have you tried this type plug-in?

Those on a budget might want to look at the Studio Projects line of mics. for voice over. They are inexpensive and have gotten some very good reviews.

On the C1 see:

http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_studio_projects/

I tried the NT1A, the Rode Broadcaster and the NT2000. there is a big difference in the quality between the NT1A and the others at the mid to upper end. The NT1A can sound raspy (to my ears anyway) , the Broadcaster was OK but the NT2000 just blew the other 2 away. I couldn't overload the NT2000 even though I swallowed the mic, that's what gives you the phat sound. The NT2000 is close and i would say much better than the broadcaster. it does a lot more with the switchable patterns and variable low filter

I have clips of the NT1A comparing to an ME66. These were done before we (Matt , Dave and myself ) started doing this in a shorter and more precise manner. I'd get a mic and just play and record.

Now, is the Rode NTK's box a preamp, exactly, or is it just the power supply? It has no volume pot, for example.

Wow. Another blast from the past. Hey guys, I'm sorry I sound like such a dork earlier in this thread. I was pretty excited about the NTK.

I started throwing stuff into this thread within just a couple weeks of Beas and Dave Largent pulling my head out of the sand, regarding DV audio. Hence the raging enthusiasm.

At this point, on March 21, 2004, I'd recommend the nt1000 for rich, deep, trailer-type voices...

The tube mic does help quite a bit with this effect and I still think that's the BEST route, but I got an nt1000 'cause I got tired of dealing with the tube power-supply... sorry if I called it a pre-amp, it's a power-supply.

Anyway, the nt1000 has 85% of the vibrant, bassy quality of the NTK, but without having to deal with the big, dedicated P/S.

I hate to say this, but in the spirit of truth, I found the nt2000 to be very UN-like the NTK or nt1000... I thought the nt2000 was a real disappointment in comparison to the other two mics... The proximity effect was almost non-existant and the vibrant character of the NTK/nt1000 was sanitized out. I was excited about the prospect of having the ultimately detailed sound of a large diaphragm in a variable pattern mic... thinking I could place it at the center of a group and have an "in your face" quality of EVERYONE'S voice, but I couldn't get that. And worse still, even set on cardioid I couldn't get that illusive quality and only ONE speaker either. If you set up the NTK and the nt2000 each at 12" from a person's mouth... when you play it back the nt2000 sounds like the voice was 12" away and the NTK sounds like the voice was nearly ON the mic... Speaking really close to the mic the nt2000 sounds like a voice nearly touching the mic, but the NTK develops a whole new sound with fullness to spare. The nt1000 is lot closer to the NTK then it is to the nt2000. 'Nuff said?

Try using a good shotgun for this. The 897 is great, but the 8035 is even better. Compression and EQ are critical. Dead space is dire as well.
Talent is a big part of getting this right, but if your own voice is weak, try pitching it down 2 steps. Deck will do a good job of this.
Next, try using a harmonizer without harmony to insert just a touch of chorus.
Jeffrey P. Fisher just released a book on doing great VO, should be shipping by NAB. We edited it with him, it's very informative. You could also try the voice over box we built, www.indigipix.com will get you to the URL. I've forgotten the specific one.

Douglas,

My eyes must be failing be, but I didn't see any links to your voice over box. Where on the site would I see this?

Thanks!

Brandt,

I think this is the link Douglas was referring to for the "voice over box"

http://www.indigipix.com/voicebox.htm

Excellent! Thanks, Ryan!

Hi guys!

I find that using the Rode NT-1000 with a DBX 286A for Trailer Voicework is a great solution on the cheap. I recently got a Sennheiser 416 exclusively for Trailers but I'm stummped as to what to pair it off with for that fat trailer sound.
Any suggestions at various price ranges? Many thanks in advance!

Hey audio experts,

Anyone have any pointers about which filters to use on a voice recording to give it that really great sound that you hear in movie trailers?

Expensive audio equipment and years of experience aside (don't have either right now)...what would be the "best shot" at getting "close" using FCP's built-in audio filters?

So far, I've used:

- Expander/Noise Gate to get rid of background hum
- 3 Band Equalizer, pumping up bass, keeping midtones and high pitch at their presets
- Reverberation, set very low (5) at a small room setting.

But it just isn't getting there...



It's not an effect. You're born with it or you're not.

Ty Ford

One trick that I've used is to copy the recording to two tracks, compress the h3ll out of one of the tracks (like 20:1 or 30:1 with a low threshold) and mix to taste. The compressed track fills the space, and the natural track maintains the peaks and dynamics. The natural track alone is generally to "bumpy", and the compressed track will sound too lifeless. Together is the best of both worlds.

Here's another processing post that I made that you might find helpful:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=73903&highlight=compression

afew things i woud suggest on top of what u have already listed...
One thing to note, is that FCP doesnt have facilities like soundforge or any hardware units, so its really hard to say what would work and what wouldnt, obviously the source is the key factore hear, and working with what u got make it hard when ur only limiting yourself to the one applicaiton.
anywyas

to fatten it, i would suggest a chorus plugin.

Compression - A nice tight comp to keep the freq stable

Aural Exciter - I dunno if these are available as plugs for FCP, but i use a hardware Aphex Aural Exciter which is integrated with 2 of my samplers (A3000mkII and RS7000) but can be bought as standalone rackmount
Petites annonces pour musiciens, vente et achat de matériel de musique (http://fr.music-hardware.com/item-169-0.html#)

Its also available in SW form now Avid | Digidesign is now Avid Audio - home of Pro Tools, VENUE, ICON, and Mbox (http://www.digidesign.com/products/details.cfm?product_id=3820)

As mentioned a nice Chorus plugin, such as the DBAudioware plugs, they make some really nice fat verbs too.

Another trick with woudl be to run the effect thru a LP filter and slowly tweak it open as it builds to the ful effect takes hold at teh peak.

theres lots u can do with audio :)

I have a question about your comments regarding SoundForge. I have that program and am having the same problems about getting that movie rich sound. What settings would you use to assist with getting rid of the background hum, fattening up the voice, and making sure you're not making that "cut off" noise between sentences?

Russ.

Getting that Don Lafontaine voice is 99.99% the voice, and their talent in reading.

That being said there is really no set way to achieve it , it all depends on how you recorded and what it sounds like before it is treated with any effects or dynamics, its %100 a need to hear to tell you what to do to it, kinda thing.

but here is some advice in recording voice talent well.

1. use a large diaphragm mic. the better quality the better (not always but usually reflected in price). some of the favorite go-to mics in the VO field are the Neumann U87, EV RE20, Shure SM-7, AKG C-414, bu tnowdays there are plenty of large D condensers out there (yes I know the EV and Shure are dynamic but they are large diaghragm and are teh most common mics used in radio broadcasting).

2. a good pre-amp. this is where the signal goes from mic level to line level and may be built into a computer interface, however most studios will use a separate mic preamp or a console with good mic preamps or a stand alone combination voice processor that includes a great preamp coupled to a nice compressor and eq. BTW.. contrary to some things said in this thread, Tubes are NOT all that and a bag of chips, they do add something nice to the sound but the simple fact that it has tubes doesn't mean much, it is more reflected in the quality of the preamp design or mic , not just that it has a tube.

3. compression, best if applied before a computer interface, or in the software but compression will limit the dynamic range of the signal (the difference between the loudest and the softest level) this is what makes professional recordings sound like there is very little difference in the volume of the speaker no matter how loud or soft their enunciations are, like if they do a scream, you can tell its a scream but its no louder than regular speech. compressors do this.

4. EQ this is totally dependent on how your recording sounds. to roll off rumble you can reduce anythign below 80hz or so, this also varies along with how your recording sounds, as far as the rest of the audio try an exercise i use to explain to people how to learn frequencies , insert a parameteric EQ into the track, then boost the one eq about 6 db on the gain,then take the frequency and slowly sweep it around as the audio plays thru, you will find out what frequencies apply to what part of the audio spectrum, wich lets you make precise eq changes. good way to learn frequencies.

5 . adjust your settings according to what your recording sounds like and make it how you want it to sound.


Sound is an art form in itself, and a completely separate skill set, keep messing with it till you get what you want or employ some one that has been at it longer if you need instant results. there really isn't any formula for getting good sound other than knowing the difference between what you hear and what you want to hear , and knowing how to make the changes to make them both the same.

Good luck

Thank you Gerry for that information. That helps A LOT. I will have to just break down and get a preamp/compressor combo of some sort. Any suggestions that won't break the bank? Also, because I'm a COMPLETE novice at audio, is it best to record off-camera instead of on-camera?

Thank you Gerry for that information. That helps A LOT. I will have to just break down and get a preamp/compressor combo of some sort. Any suggestions that won't break the bank? Also, because I'm a COMPLETE novice at audio, is it best to record off-camera instead of on-camera?

Symmetrix 528e Voice Processor is one candidate and not too exotic (read .. expensive). Absolutely record off camera, directly into your audio workstation. Most consumer and prosumer camera's audio is an afterthought on the part of the designers. Of course I'm assuming you have a quiet location and a proper computer audio setup with a decent audio interface, not just the builtin soundcard.

Voice talent Don Capone has an interesting website, www.nurple.com, that has some excelent demos of various commonly used mics - http://www.nurple.com/voice-talent/voice-talent-microphones.html - and also a range of preamps etc at price points from bargains to the astronomical - http://www.nurple.com/voice-talent/voice-talent-equipment.html

Depends how big your bank is...

for the most part the cheaper stuff will get you by (ART, Presonus and things like that), but you don't really gert to the WOW stuff till you get into Focusrite and Universal audio and things in that range, however Focusrite makes some affordable units as well as some others. it all really depends on your budget, but pretty much most of the "voice processor" type units will be a drastic improvement over just pluggin in directly to your computer.
Again some good quality solid state will run circles around cheap tube stuff.

if its a camera situation it is traditionally best to record to a separate recorder, that is why Hollywood does this, well one of the reasons, a good stand alone recorder beats recording in camera where by design audio is secondary. but if all you can do is record into the camera, well then you have no choice unless you're willing to invest into a nice separate sound rig.but camera is deff not the thing to do for voice over stuff.

Thanks Steve/Gerry. Great information.

I observed the recommendations of tube preamps in the first couple pages. I'm surprised that even as far back - or as recent as - 2004 (depending on which way you look at it) the discussion centred around the use of tube amps. I thought use of such amps were discontinued even before 2004. Are they still in use?

Hello Helen,

Tubes, solid state, all good. here's the deal.

Good tubes are better than bad solid state. Good solid state is better than bad tubes.

Regards,

Ty Ford

In general, a tube preamp will sound smoother than a transistor preamp. The transistor preamp will sound brighter and crisper, yet harsher.

The same might be said about ribbon mics (like tubes) vs. condenser mics (like transistors).

But these are generalizations. One could build a mushy transistor preamp or a condenser mic with a very dull sound. Or an over-hyped ribbon mic and tube preamp. Like Ty says, good beats bad.

But the generalizations can help steer you in the right direction. If you did a test and wanted something crisper, brighter and more clinical, you probably wouldn't first reach for a ribbon mic and a tube preamp.

Interesting. The reason I asked is because my father used to build tube amps. He would wind the transformers on a machine and build the entire amp from scratch. Later on, one of my brothers joined him and one of his last items was a preamp, the last couple they sold were taken to the States for use. This went on probably all up to the year 2000. However, all around that time, a couple of guys were saying to me that tubes were the old way and everything was boards now (or something like that, they must have meant what you're calling 'solid state').

So it totally surprised me to see this thread as recent as 2004 actually recommending tube preamps. Perhaps they are more uncommon now though, as everything is digital or computerized.

Hi Helen

Tubes are still popular with a lot of people. I know a lot of Rock groups really love their tube amps.

When my wife and I were looking for a new CD player we settled on one that had a tube amplification section and that was just a couple of years ago.My wife was a concert pianist and always felt that CD's sounded "cold" and a bit un-musical - she loves the tube CD player.

Tubes are still being made as are tube based amplifiers, pre-amps etc. And there are a number of (usually pricey) microphones around that use tubes in their amplification circuitry.

I know Royer makes a ribbon stereo mic with tube amplification - might be too much of a good thing but I'd like to hear it one of these days.
.

One only has to peruse the music pro-audio equipment to see the popularity of tube pre-amps, mics, ect.

One only has to peruse the music pro-audio equipment to see the popularity of tube pre-amps, mics, ect. That said, I recorded a quite famous actor and renowned VO person with a U47/ Neve mic pre a while back, but in hindsight and constantly hearing it on TV, I wish I had used a (solid state) U87 or possibly 414 for his particular deep resonant voice.