Hello,
I've a lot of books and I need to record them as audio book.
I will record them in my bed room and I need to record them in a professional good high quality.
Thanks a lot :)

Note:- I've zoom H4N, 3 dynamic microphones (sennhieser e835s - samson q8 - samson q2u).
So can I use H4N with any one of them? or I need a better quality ?

The Zoom should be more than adequate as a recorder for audiobooks. If you tell us more about the eventual use and distribution of the books, we can make suggestions for the settings to use on the Zoom. For example, do you plan to "proof-read" and edit the recordings, before they go to their final destination? And do you plan to have the books broadcast on a radio station with a large audience, or will individual people listen to them on something small like an MP3 player?

Let me begin my microphone comments by saying that recording voice is not too demanding if you are concerned only with intelligibility (consider the poor audio quality of a telephone, yet it's perfectly understandable). At the other end of the spectrum, you can easily spend $1,000USD or more if you want the recording to sound accurate, beautiful, and professional... for example the voice of an opera singer. Any of your dynamic mics are adequate for an intelligible voice recording. However, you might want to consider getting a condenser microphone, it might give a little more "life-like" quality to your recordings.

The Q2U is a special case, because it also has a USB connection, so you can record directly to a computer (instead of recording to the Zoom). That might save a step if you plan ultimately to edit the recordings on your computer, before they are a "final product." But the USB connection does not make the basic (and inexpensive) dynamic mic sound any better.

You will also want either a good monitor speaker (with amplifier) or a good pair of headphones, so you can hear your recordings clearly. If you were mixing a more complex soundtrack, headphones would be a bad choice. But if you are recording just one voice, reading audiobooks, you might get away with using a good pair of headphones. (They will give you a rather unrealistic acoustical perspective, but they will make it easy to hear any flaws, background noise, etc.)

Finally, you might want to consider some acoustical treatment to your bedroom. It is surprising how much background noise a microphone will pick up, and, ironically, better mics sometimes seem to pick up more noise than less expensive ones. Also, if the room has a lot of hard walls, ceiling, and floor, it may be too "live" and acoustic reflections within the room might tend to make the voice sound worse and also decrease the intelligibility.

Please give us a better idea of the final use of these recordings, and perhaps describe your room a bit, and probably several people will join in to give helpful suggestions. Meanwhile, why not make some test recordings with your existing equipment, and see how they sound. Perhaps even post a short file here, and get some opinions about what you have now.

The Zoom should be more than adequate as a recorder for audiobooks.That is a good news indeed.

If you tell us more about the eventual use and distribution of the books, we can make suggestions for the settings to use on the Zoom. For example, do you plan to "proof-read" and edit the recordings, before they go to their final destination?Yes I will record on the zoom then export the SD card into my laptop or desktop (windows) to do the edit and save as .mp3

And do you plan to have the books broadcast on a radio station with a large audience, or will individual people listen to them on something small like an MP3 player? I think mostly will be on the internet like iTunes and amazon but not in a real live radio show but maybe an internet radio.

Let me begin my microphone comments by saying that recording voice is not too demanding if you are concerned only with intelligibility (consider the poor audio quality of a telephone, yet it's perfectly understandable). At the other end of the spectrum, you can easily spend $1,000USD or more if you want the recording to sound accurate, beautiful, and professional... for example the voice of an opera singer. Any of your dynamic mics are adequate for an intelligible voice recording. However, you might want to consider getting a condenser microphone, it might give a little more "life-like" quality to your recordings. All recordings will be in .mp3 before uploading to internet so if you asking if I am care about quality, then yes I do and it will not be in any radio startion but I upload and others download to listen to.

The Q2U is a special case, because it also has a USB connection, so you can record directly to a computer (instead of recording to the Zoom). That might save a step if you plan ultimately to edit the recordings on your computer, before they are a "final product." But the USB connection does not make the basic (and inexpensive) dynamic mic sound any better. Actually when I tested all three microphone on zoom for a test for 18 seconds I found all of them almost are the same.
here are the samples but it is in Arabic so please if you may listen to and feed me back with your opinion:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fx10tzjevmx8zl5/STE-000.wav

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g32ln6w0v06gpli/STE-001.wav

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tm5z38282xm1aeq/STE-002.wav

It's possible that you might ultimately want to consider some acoustical treatment to your bedroom. It is surprising how much background noise a microphone will pick up, and, ironically, better mics sometimes seem to pick up more noise than less expensive ones. Also, if the room has a lot of hard walls, ceiling, and floor, it may be too "live" and acoustic reflections within the room might tend to make the voice sound worse and also decrease the intelligibility.The samples above has been recorded in my bedroom with nothing adjusted.

Please give us a better idea of the final use of these recordings, and perhaps describe your room a bit, and probably several people will join in to give helpful suggestions. Meanwhile, why not make some test recordings with your existing equipment, and see how they sound. Perhaps even post a short file here, and get some opinions about what you have now.I record files then edit it with any daw like adobe audition or sound forge and then save .mp3 files then upload to www.archive.org and later on add a picture ad make a video for the picture and recording in a YouTube. Then people download and I will apply them into iTune as well.
And later on I will make an online rado station where I can play all files I uploaded to Archive.org

Sounds not too bad at all, but the level was very low, so I had to tweak the gain. There's also a peak in there that a compressor, or some kind of gain processing will sort for you. STE-000 sounds nicest to me.

Sounds not too bad at all, but the level was very low, so I had to tweak the gain. There's also a peak in there that a compressor, or some kind of gain processing will sort for you. STE-000 sounds nicest to me.and what about my voice? I mean the impression about it? am I any good for podcast and audiobook?
The STE-000 is for the Sennhieser e835s.

To answer the last question first, your voice sounds fine, with a very pleasant tone. It sounds as if you are speaking rather quietly, with a rather "intimate" delivery. The appropriate delivery depends on the material you're reading. If it's a personal type of story, this delivery would be adequate. If it's a scientific or political text, then perhaps something a little more authoritative would be more appropriate. If it's a spy story or a mystery thriller, then you would want even more vocal energy and dramatic delivery. I leave that to your good judgement, based on the material you're reading.

Now, as an example of my comments about monitoring. When I first listened on some "average" speakers here in my office, the recording sounded OK, even when I turned up the gain (to compensate for the low level of your recording). But when I listened on headphones, I could clearly hear a lot of electronic hiss in the recording. This difference illustrates the relative difference between listening on speakers (especially if they are NOT expensive studio speakers) and listening on headphones. I personally like the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro headphones.

So now, let's consider this unwanted hiss. It is probably coming from the microphone preamps in the Zoom. All preamps generate some amount of hiss, and this depends on the quality of the preamp and on the gain settings.

Now let's consider your microphone. All the ones you own have 3-pin XLR connectors. You should be using a cable that has these 3-pin XLR connectors on both ends, to plug the microphone to the recorder. Are you using this type of cable? Or are you perhaps using something different?

Also, in the "INPUT SETTING" menu, do you have the "MONO MIX" mode turned on, or turned off?

Next, when you press the "REC LEVEL" buttons on the right side of the machine, a sort of "gain" number is displayed on the screen, between 0 and 100. Can you please tell us what setting you used when you made these recordings?

And finally, as you speak, you will see the two "bar graph" indicators moving back and forth horizontally. What is the highest reading (furthest to the right) that you see while you're speaking?

Once we know some of these details, I think we will be able to give you some more detailed suggestions.

There's also a peak in there that a compressor, or some kind of gain processing will sort for you. STE-000 sounds nicest to me.

Mr. Johnson, can you please be more descriptive about this "peak"... are you talking about a frequency peak during the entire file (if so, what frequency?), or a bump in level at some point in time (if so, what time?)? I didn't notice anything particularly obvious, except that I see a small narrow peak in the noise level, around 15620 Hz (but it's so low as to be inaudible to me)... a LPF would take care of that, since we don't need to go up that high for audiobooks.

When I normalised it because of the low level, it didn't increase that much because there's a peak about ⅔ through that normalising uses as the max. It sounds like an unintentional move into the mic, that's all - which you could easily sort out.

I thought the voice quality, in terms of sound was quite suitable for a book read, although of course, I have no idea what the delivery was like, as I can;t understand it - but the voice 'tone' worked for me.

Thanks a lot for all your valuable time reading and reply and helping me.

To answer the last question first, your voice sounds fine, with a very pleasant tone. It sounds as if you are speaking rather quietly, with a rather "intimate" delivery. The appropriate delivery depends on the material you're reading. If it's a personal type of story, this delivery would be adequate. If it's a scientific or political text, then perhaps something a little more authoritative would be more appropriate. If it's a spy story or a mystery thriller, then you would want even more vocal energy and dramatic delivery. I leave that to your good judgement, based on the material you're reading. I got your point and agreed 100%. These three samples were recorded using the zoom H4N with its default settings except that I make it in two channels (right and left) instead of the default recording channel (left). Also I recorded it in 5 am and my voice was calm and this is why I am totally agreed with your opinion and also agreed for how it should be in such cases you mentioned.

Now, as an example of my comments about monitoring. When I first listened on some "average" speakers here in my office, the recording sounded OK, even when I turned up the gain (to compensate for the low level of your recording). But when I listened on headphones, I could clearly hear a lot of electronic hiss in the recording. This difference illustrates the relative difference between listening on speakers (especially if they are NOT expensive studio speakers) and listening on headphones. I personally like the Sennheiser HD-280 Pro headphones. and in your opinion why my recording has such electronic hiss in the recording? is it due to the microphone or the zoom? or this is normal and I should accept it and live with it?

So now, let's consider this unwanted hiss. It is probably coming from the microphone preamps in the Zoom. All preamps generate some amount of hiss, and this depends on the quality of the preamp and on the gain settings. Does there is any kind of settings I should adjust in the zoom to avoid it? and is it better to use something else like a mixer of those mentioned here BEHRINGER: Mixers (http://www.behringer.com/EN/Category/Mixers.aspx?s=G100) (but I do not know if the USB model is any good or not in case I want tto connect it to my computer and I am using windows by the way) and an outside separated gain or amplifier like this one ULTRAGAIN PRO MIC2200 Behringer: ULTRAGAIN PRO MIC2200 (http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/MIC2200.aspx) ?

Now let's consider your microphone. All the ones you own have 3-pin XLR connectors. You should be using a cable that has these 3-pin XLR connectors on both ends, to plug the microphone to the recorder. Are you using this type of cable? Or are you perhaps using something different?Yes I've a default samson XLR cable with a male end in one side and a female end in the other side to connect both the microphone and the zoom H4N.

Also, in the "INPUT SETTING" menu, do you have the "MONO MIX" mode turned on, or turned off? Yes one "MONO MIX" is turned on, but honestly I do not know what is the right meaning or the right settings for various parts in the control panel of the input and other sections in H4N.

Next, when you press the "REC LEVEL" buttons on the right side of the machine, a sort of "gain" number is displayed on the screen, between 0 and 100. Can you please tell us what setting you used when you made these recordings?
INPUT SETTINGS:
- lo cut = off
- comp/limit = off
- monitor = on
- 1/2 link = on
- level auto = on
- mono mix = on
- ms matrix = on
- phantom = +48
- plug-in = on

And finally, as you speak, you will see the two "bar graph" indicators moving back and forth horizontally. What is the highest reading (furthest to the right) that you see while you're speaking?Zoom h4n settings during recording with sennhieser e835s - YouTube
I've recorded what on screen with my iPhone but sorry if it not rotated correctly. But I hope that you can see the right top point to the right. Also please ignore the audio quality because I was using the microphone sennhieser and the iphone microphone was far and not the same.

Once we know some of these details, I think we will be able to give you some more detailed suggestions.I am all ears.

Mr. Johnson, can you please be more descriptive about this "peak"... are you talking about a frequency peak during the entire file (if so, what frequency?), or a bump in level at some point in time (if so, what time?)? I didn't notice anything particularly obvious, except that I see a small narrow peak in the noise level, around 15620 Hz (but it's so low as to be inaudible to me)... a LPF would take care of that, since we don't need to go up that high for audiobooks.That will be awesome to know as well.

When I normalised it because of the low level, it didn't increase that much because there's a peak about ⅔ through that normalising uses as the max. It sounds like an unintentional move into the mic, that's all - which you could easily sort out.

I thought the voice quality, in terms of sound was quite suitable for a book read, although of course, I have no idea what the delivery was like, as I can;t understand it - but the voice 'tone' worked for me.I think if non Arabic speakers find the tone suitable, then I think the Arabic speakers will be as well ;)

Thanks a lot,
Mohamed!

and in your opinion why my recording has such electronic hiss in the recording? is it due to the microphone or the zoom? or this is normal and I should accept it and live with it?

If the noise is small and consistent, you can use noise reduction to clean it up. This might be necessary if you can't control the heating and air conditioning.

An inexpensive solution is GoldWave. You can use the demo version many times for free and the cost is reasonable if you choose to purchase it.
GoldWave - Audio Editor, Recorder, Converter, Restoration, & Analysis Software (http://www.goldwave.com/)
Noise Reduction How-To - YouTube

The key to a good result is to record a minute or so of true silence (no paper rustling or mouse clicks) as your reference.

An alternate microphone solution is the Rode NT1-A, which has supremely low noise. You would want a pop screen to use with it. The tone is very good but not exceptional.
RDE Microphones - NT1-A (http://www.rodemic.com/mics/nt1-a)

A great sounding mic is the Electro-Voice RE20. Note that it has a relatively low output though. It needs a great preamp to deliver a low noise result. If any mic will make you sound like a radio announcer, this is it:
Electro-Voice RE20 Broadcast Announcer Microphone w/ Variable-D (http://www.electrovoice.com/product.php?id=91)

A less expensive alternative is the Electro-Voice RE320. The sound is very similar to the RE20 and could be adjusted to match with a bit of EQ. Unless you did a side by side comparison, few would be able to hear the difference between this and theh RE20. The output of the RE320 is a bit higher, so it's not quite as demanding of the preamp.
Electro-Voice RE320 Variable-D dynamic vocal and instrument microphone (http://www.electro-voice.com/product.php?id=1065)

The final tip is equalization. Here are my guidelines:
* Voice resonance - Adjust a smooth curve around 200-300 Hz. Too low and your voice will be thin. Too much and it's boomy. Adjust for a nice balance.
* Consonants - Add a peak at around 1200 Hz. This can help understandability. Don't overdo it or you might hear that tone resonate.
* Nasal Tone - Adjust a smooth curve around 2400 Hz. Boost if the voice needs more "edge". Cut if the voice is nasal or harsh. An expert can add sharp cuts here to dampen especially harsh tones without taking away the overall character. You can also control this with mic placement - target the face or forehead more to add an edge; target the chest more to remove it.
* Air - Add a smooth boost from 5000-15000 Hz to give the voice an open airy sound. Do your EQ after any noise reduction. If you boost too much, you will get excessive noise. If you cut, the voice can sound dead and you can introduce a lisp.

You might play with these EQ tricks a bit to get a feel for them. You can tune things to match the style that you want (more natural or bigger than life). You might adjust each mic differently - especially the 200-300 Hz band - to see which one sound best after you've balanced things. Your favorite out-of-the-box mic might be different than your favorite tuned mic.

Frankly, with your existing equipment, some blankets and bookshelves (pull it a bit from the wall and pull the books away from the back) to treat the room, GoldWave for noise reduction, and a bit of EQ to tune things to taste, you should be able to get a result that exceeds your expectations. If you still want more improvement, work on your room treatment and mic placement first, and upgrade mics and preamps second.

Best of luck with your projects!

Mr. GadAllah,

First of all, I hope we are not confusing you with too much information all at once.

Mr. Fairhurst's comments about equalization are valid if we need to improve the voice quality later. That will depend on what microphone you ultimately use. But we haven't made that choice yet.

Also, while we might later need to remove noise from air conditioning, etc., I do not hear any such noise yet. All I hear is electronic random noise ("hiss") that is generated by the microphone preamplifier in the Zoom recorder. We need to concentrate on solving that problem first.

You say you are not entirely familiar with all the settings on the Zoom. Do you have an owner's manual? If so, please take a few hours to read it and try to understand the details. That will save us a lot of time with various little suggestions. And, by the way, it is a bit unfortunate that you have this particular recorder. It is a very good one, for sure. In fact, it is much more complicated than you need to record audiobooks. So it will be a little more difficult to figure out all the controls and settings. So please, do your homework and read the owner's manual!

For now, so that you have something to try before you finish reading the manual, let's think about the hiss. First of all, do you hear it when you play the recording? What are you using as a monitor speaker, or as headphones? I think we need to be sure you can hear everything clearly, before we proceed very far. So please let us know how you are playing the recordings, when you check them.

Also, the files that you posted are stereo. If your goal is to have audiobooks, those do not need to be in stereo. It is preferable that they are a single channel (monaural), since they will be half as big in size for some given quality level. Or, another way to view it, the quality will be twice as good, for a given file size and bitrate.

Since your files were stereo, I think you may have used the "MONO MIX" mode. Please consult the manual, find the proper menu, and turn this function OFF. After doing this, your resulting recording will have your voice (plus a little hiss) on one channel, and only hiss on the other channel. That's the goal. (Later, we will find out how to make this a proper monaural file for your audiobook.)

By the way, here's why we do not want "mono mix." Every analog amplifier generates some sort of random noise, and it often sounds like this "hiss" in your recording. If we mix both channels together, the final recording will have your voice, plus hiss from the left channel preamplifier, plus hiss from the right channel preamplifier. TWICE as much hiss as necessary. If you do NOT mix the channels, then you will end up with only hiss from only one preamplifier, which will sound somewhat better.

Now, please look at page 50, illustration number 3. Note the two bar-graph style level meters on the display (calibrated from -48 to 0 dB). If you are recording with just one mic, I imagine only one of those will be moving... that's fine. You should adjust your recording level (using the buttons on the side of the recorder) so the meter goes up to about -6 when your voice is at its loudest. Then, make note of the "MIC LEVEL" number at the top of the screen, for future reference.

Two more comments, about what I hope to do in the future. First of all, after we do all of the above, we may still find the hiss is objectionable. A different microphone might make that better. But before choosing a different mic, let's go about this in a logical way, and try to get the recording as quiet as possible.

Second, Mr. Fairhurst recommends Gold Wave as an editing program... it is quite adequate. But in your first post, Mr. GadAllah, you mentioned using Adobe Audition. Do you already have Audition? If so, that will be even better. And if you do not yet have any program, you might also consider Audacity, which is freeware and which should be quite adequate for your audiobook project. So please let us know whether you have Audition, or whether you want to try Audacity for free, or whether you want to purchase Gold Wave.

Give us these new answers (including about your playback system), record a new file with audio on just one channel, post that for us, and then we will take another step or two.

Thanks a lot guys,
Please give me a little time to read the manual as I did not opened it and try the things you mentioned and get back to you.
Really much appreciated and please stay tuned around and do not go fr because I do need your help.

Regards,
Mohamed!

Greg is exactly right on all counts. If you already have Audition, it has a noise reduction feature. Choose one channel, rather than doing a stereo mix. Recording so the peaks are no higher than -6dB is good. (I often try to get the "body" of the voice around -18dB.) You can get higher levels by increasing the gain, getting closer to the mic, or using a more sensitive mic.

The lower the noise in the original recording, the better. By applying noise reduction on an already clean signal, you can get rid of the last touch of noise with minimum harm to the signal. Too much noise reduction on a dirty signal can make the voice sound "underwater" or synthetic. Applying NR to a clean signal can make it pristine.

And if you think about it, that's the real goal: eliminate elements that might distract the listener from the story. If you eliminate noise, avoid unwanted sounds, limit unwanted reverberation, and record a nice tone, all that remains is the story and your performance. :)

Hello,
I've a lot of books and I need to record them as audio book.
I will record them in my bed room and I need to record them in a professional good high quality.
Thanks a lot :)

Note:- I've zoom H4N, 3 dynamic microphones (sennhieser e835s - samson q8 - samson q2u).
So can I use H4N with any one of them? or I need a better quality ?

Quite apart from the technical side ; if these are commercially published books , please make sure that you have all the necessary permissions from the copyright holders before you 'transcribe' to audio book format and distribute on the Internet .

Otherwise , you could run into legal problems .

Apologies if this has already been dealt with , but it is very important .

It is always better to try to reduce or eliminate ambient noise, and to record at a proper level rather than trying to "fix" it after the fact with "noise reduction". For most of us, those "noise reduction" techniques are only a desperate last-resort to saving a recording. Noise reduction should NEVER be used as a regular part of the production process. Remember that proximity to the microphone has a large effect on the overall "signal-to-noise ratio". The closer you are to the microphone, the louder the sound from your voice will be compared to the ambient noise.

+1 on the copyright issue - you do realize this is illegal unless you have gotten permission, worked out licensing details, etc., right???

And of course, the legality has nothing to do with whether it's for profit or not...

I have been hearing a lot more of that "underwater" sound recently from new editors who got too aggressive with frequency-band-based noise reduction. It is fine if you are doing ENG type stuff, but for film it just doesn't sound right to me at all; noise would be much less distracting.

Tom,

Agreed: in reality, except on a sound stage, there is always some background noise, so getting the track entirely noise free is a bit unrealistic.

I always do a spectral analysis first, and look for any noise that is steady frequency and fairly steady level (e.g. motor hum, compressor whine, etc.). I then pull down the offending tone(s) with a sharp (Q~50) notch filter, unless it's in the middle of a very important frequency range. I don't necessarily pull it down to inaudibility, but at least so it's no louder than the other background noises.

After that, some gentle frequency-band NR can generally clean things up pretty well without being too "burbly." Maybe even 3dB of downward expansion as a last step, if the track is still noisy.

At work, I needed to do a voiceover. We have a very large (100' x 200') unused room and I found a place with minimal reverberation. The problem was the HVAC. The fan was fairly loud, but consistent.

Initially, I had included some music. It really helped cover up the noise. Then the "boss" asks to remove the music - to make it appear like it took less time to make the video. Of course, that added time as I had to do NR - or I would need to sample the noise and paint it into all of the dead spots.

Fortunately, one pass of NR did the trick. The key is that the HVAC noise was smooth and predictable. No underwater warble at all. That said, I've done NR with really bad preamp noise and it was a real balance between removal and "blub-blub". I ended up doing moderate NR and going wall to wall on the music.

The worst situation I had was when there was an extension cord near an unbalanced line from a cheap, unbalanced mic. It was unsalvageable. Rather than a smooth 60 Hz tone, it was "sparky". With that one, we had to do ADR.

My conclusion is that it all depends on the noise. The results can range from near perfect to unusable.

BTW, I know some people who sample pianos for MIDI sound libraries. They record each note from super-quiet to super loud. Even with thousands and thousands worth of gear and a top studio environment, they end up using noise reduction. People don't want to hear any noise appear when they play a note.

there was an extension cord near an unbalanced line from a cheap, unbalanced mic. It was unsalvageable. Rather than a smooth 60 Hz tone, it was "sparky".

By "sparky" do you mean multiple harmonics, so it sounded like a "buzz" rather than a "hum"... but still constant? Or do you mean that the nature of the noise was constantly changing, clicking, up and down in level, etc.?

Yes, it was a buzz rather than a hum. And it was changing, probably as the camera moved around and the wire moved relative to the extension cord. I'm not sure as I was doing post only and wasn't on the set.

Come to think of it, that was a battery-powered, long shotgun with a transformer to the single-ended input of the camera. They didn't typically have a hum problem but probably ran a long, unbalanced line on the ground. Or maybe something wasn't plugged in all the way. In any case, it was beyond recovery for sure! By contrast, the HVAC removal I did recently was almost unbelievably good.

Frankly, the "just barely usable" case is the most frustrating. You want it to be better. It isn't. You want to avoid ADR. You do. You spend hours tweaking things and the results will never be very good. And you hate the idea of losing the original performances.

That was with a M-Audio Microtrack II. The preamp is really poor. (Much worse than an h4n.) And I don't think the boom op was nearly aggressive enough in getting the mic close. (Too much room reflection.) Again, I wasn't on set but had to live with the results. It was heartbreaking, really.

I have successfully removed some buzz, using the technique described. It depends on how many harmonics... if they go up only to a few hundred Hz, it's possible, although the more harmonics the more the notch filters will degrade the desired sound.

The worst buzz I ever had was NOT to be from the power mains. It turned out to be demodulated video from a VHF TV transmitter about 1/2 mile away that was bleeding into the system. It was very close to 60 Hz, of course, so I was fooled initially. But the harmonics ran up to the thousands of Hz, and the nature was constantly changing, every time the picture content changed. I never could get a really satisfactory result with the harmonics going up that high, all through the desired audio band. (This was NOT recorded by me, luckily, so I didn't have to own the problem.)

I assume that the buzz was from the mains in my case but I could be wrong. It was sparky - like a Tesla coil - but with a 60Hz base. The harmonics went beyond my hearing.

And this is why one monitors live recordings. It's not so much to set levels as it is to listen for problems - Do you have audio at all? Is there a buzz, hum, or a bad connection? Is the mic being bumped or rumbled? Is there a car approaching or a dog barking? (In my case, the neighbors have roosters...)

Not being a full-time audio engineer, that's my level anyway. I can hear most problems, but I can't listen for levels of "goodness". For instance, it's hard for me to hear if the room has a nice sound or a crummy, cheap set of echoes. I just can't separate out the outside sound from the sound in the headphones. I get the best sense of the room by standing in place and speaking and clapping without the headphones. And unless the dialog gets really loud or quiet compared to the previous line, I don't try to mix levels live. Some can compensate for actors who drop the volume at the end of their lines, but I'd rather leave more headroom and adjust in post. The last thing I want is to turn off automatic gain control only to add my personal really-bad AGC! :)

BTW, I know some people who sample pianos for MIDI sound libraries. They record each note from super-quiet to super loud. Even with thousands and thousands worth of gear and a top studio environment, they end up using noise reduction. People don't want to hear any noise appear when they play a note.

It is TRIVIAL to do even extreme noise reduction when what you are recording is a SINGLE NOTE. But recording even a speaking voice is a VERY DIFFERENT matter.

I strongly disagree that it is common to just go ahead and record in a noisy environment and then apply artificial noise reduction after the fact. "Noise reduction" is NOT to be used as a "normal" part of production. It is a damage-control emergency measure when you can't do it properly in the first place.

There is no excuse for sloppy recording in your own bedroom. Even a cheap microphone can be used properly to get good signal-to-noise ratio by experimenting with various placement, speaking styles, room locations, acoustic treatments (temporary or permanent), time of day, etc etc. etc.

Having worked on a few of these projects over the years, I would recommend skipping the step of recording to the Zoom H4n, and record directly into a computer based workstation, as there is going to be more editing than you realize.

I strongly disagree that it is common to just go ahead and record in a noisy environment and then apply artificial noise reduction after the fact. "Noise reduction" is NOT to be used as a "normal" part of production. It is a damage-control emergency measure when you can't do it properly in the first place.

I'm not sure how common noise reduction is; it really depends on the job. In my recent project, it didn't seem like an "emergency measure" whatsoever. I had an available location, a tight schedule, and no requirement for pristine audio. I took a couple of minutes to apply NR, the result was improved, and the client was pleased. NR was just another tool in the toolkit.

Another solution would have been to record room tone and fill the gaps with it. Schedule was king, so this wasn't an option.

I had two possible recording areas: one was quiet with harsh reflections. The other was dry but had HVAC. The dry recording with NR was far superior to the quiet reflective recording.

Of course, it all depends on the job requirements, schedule, and available locations. Ironically, on this job I was told to *not* make it too polished. It was a corporate job and they were concerned that some might think we spent too much time and money on it. My solution? Do good (not pristine) audio and shoot the video with a handheld rig. It wouldn't have taken me another minute to use a tripod but handheld looks "cheaper". :) In any case, I wasn't willing to make "bad", annoying, or difficult to understand audio. People can look at ugly video and choose to look away or close their eyes. Ugly audio is more difficult to shut out and can really harm a project. I could have designed some "pleasingly bad" audio, but that would take more time than doing something that sounds reasonably clean. :)

Clearly, a feature film or television drama has very different requirements.

This might be a bit outside the square but... Try and find a lip ribbon mic, they give very constant results even from very unfriendly locations.
Occasionally you see them on eBay.

Hello every one :)

Sorry for late reply but got a lot of things to go through because I am totally newbie to audio world.
1st of all I would like to tell about copyrighted issue you mentioned in your replies => I am reading old local books in Arabic which were released before 1930s and being old and free is the main reason to reproduce it for the good of all of us, so the short answer is no copy right violation here :) plus that Egypt is not restricted such as Europe and USA when it comes to such things as copy righted materials :)

I've spent the time since last posting here goggling a lot and read and learn as possible because I do not know any friends in real life who know a lot or any about audio.

Because I am interested in audio a lot (honestly I was not realizing that I am too much interested) and considering making a podcast and audiobook , so I've considered starting like professional and on a small scale.

I've bought the following hardware (as a long term investment):-

1) Shure SM57-LC Cardioid Dynamic Microphone
Amazon.com : Shure SM57-LC Cardioid Dynamic Microphone : Instrument Dynamic Microphones : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AQRST/)
1.4 pounds
$99.00
--
2) Shure SM58-LC Cardioid Vocal Microphone without Cable
Amazon.com : Shure SM58-LC Cardioid Vocal Microphone without Cable : Vocal Dynamic Microphones : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CZ0R42/)
5 pounds
$99.00
--
3) Shure A55M - Shock Stopper for SM58, SM87, SM87A, BETA87A, BETA87C and all

other 3/4 Inch and Larger Handles
Amazon.com : Shure A55M - Shock Stopper for SM58, SM87, SM87A, BETA87A, BETA87C and all other 3/4 Inch and Larger Handles : Microphone Phantom Power Supplies : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002GZOSA/)
3.2 ounces
$25.00
--
4) Audio-Technica ATR2100-USB Cardioid Dynamic USB/XLR Microphone
Amazon.com : Audio-Technica ATR2100-USB Cardioid Dynamic USB/XLR Microphone : Vocal Dynamic Microphones : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004QJOZS4/)
1.8 pounds
$59.99
--
5) JZ Microphones JZ|PF is universal pop filter
Amazon.com : JZ Microphones JZ|PF is universal pop filter : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004O9F65C/)
1 pounds
$119
--
6) Pocket Sound Booth PSB-Oval
Pocket Sound Booth PSB-Oval Microphone Ambience and Echo Reducer | Performance Audio (http://www.performanceaudio.com/buy/Pocket_Sound_Booth/PSB_Oval/28021)
$42.99
--
7) RODE PSA1 Swivel Mount Studio Microphone Boom Arm
Amazon.com : RODE PSA1 Swivel Mount Studio Microphone Boom Arm : Microphone Stands : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001D7UYBO/)
5 pounds
$99.00
--
8) Behringer QX1204USB 12-Channel Mixer
Amazon.com : Behringer QX1204USB 12-Channel Mixer : Unpowered Audio Mixers : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CTKI5WO/)
9 pounds
$229.99
--
9) Behringer Ultra Gain Pro MIC2200 Component Rack
Amazon.com : Behringer MIC2200 Component Rack : Microphone Preamps : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CZ0RHY/)
7.6 pounds
$99.99
--
10) Behringer Multicom Pro XL - MDX4600 4-Channel Expander/Gate/Compressor/

Peak Limiter
Amazon.com : Behringer MDX4600 4-Channel Expander/Gate/Compressor/ Peak Limiter : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CCIVI4/)
8 pounds
$149.99
--
11) Behringer Sonic Exciter SX3040 Stereo Sound Enhancement Processor
Amazon.com : Behringer SX3040 Stereo Sound Enhancement Processor : Multi Effects Processors : Musical Instruments (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000VTFQCM/)
7.2 pounds
$99.99
It was a very expensive for me especially shipping to Egypt but I thought if I want to make it the right way then I should make it like professional does.
Actually I was about to buy the Heil PR-40 or Shure SM7b or EV RE-20 but after listening to test from recording hacks website as shown here:-
Ultimate Podcast Microphone Shootout | recording hacks (http://recordinghacks.com/2011/06/02/ultimate-podcast-mic-shootout/)
I thought to save some money in the microphone and buy Shure SM57 - 58 and invest instead in the hardware that may improve the sound quality and reduce the noise as possible.

I've just received the hardware few days ago :) (really feel excited as a little kid).

Now I would like to know the right way to connect all of the together ... :-
- XLR cable from the microphone (shure sm58) to MultiGain Pro MIC2200 input channel 1.
- XLR cable from the MultiGain Pro MIC2200 output channel 1 to Multicom Pro XL - MDX4600 XLR input 1.

Now I do not know how can I connect the Sonic Exciter SX3040 !?

Shall I connect the Multicom Pro XL - MDX4600 directly into the mixer? and which inputs in the mixer?

or I should connect the Multicom Pro XL MDX4600 to the Sonic Exciter S3040?

Then connect the Sonic Exciter S3040 to the QX1204 mixer? and which inputs of the mixer? and which outputs of the Sonic Exciter ?

Finally regarding the H4N .. I will keep using it as a recording backup in case I've got any issues on computer software.

Thanks a lot for your valuable time and totally appreciated your help :)

Based on your equipment list, my first choice would be:
Microphone -> XLR -> MIC2200 assuming you want to use the MIC2200 as your mic preamp
MIC2200 -> XLR or TRS -> SX3040 processor
SX3040 processor -> XLR or TRS -> MDX4600 Exp/Lim
MDX4600 Exp/Lim -> TRS -> QX1204USB Mixer (Line In)
QX1204USB Mixer -> USB -> computer (for recording)
QX1204USB Mixer -> XLR -> H4n (for recording)

Wow, you really went for a giant stack of gear!
There are probably many professional voice artists who don't use that much gear.

Do you have a GOOD pair of headphones? How will you monitor your recording?

Here in the US, we have a joke about politicians, that they speak out of both sides of their mouth.
THEY might need two or three microphones for full coverage. :-)

The SM57 and SM58 are essentially the same microphone, but the 58 has a built-in blast filter. Not clear why you needed both?

Thanks for your reply.
Based on your equipment list, my first choice would be:
Microphone -> XLR -> MIC2200 assuming you want to use the MIC2200 as your mic preampYes I will use it as my microphone preamp. The reason for using it is that when i watched a lot of video tutorials on YouTube there was a common problem for most people regarding a suitable gain and enough phantom power and this is the main reason for me to get a dedicated microphone preamp.

MIC2200 -> XLR or TRS -> SX3040 processorWhat is the TSR? may you provide any link or image so I can get a better understanding?

SX3040 processor -> XLR or TRS -> MDX4600 Exp/Lim
So the MDX4600 comes 2nd after the SX3040 and not before it?
Please may you tell me (for my on information) what is the differences in between to connect it before or after the MDX4600?

MDX4600 Exp/Lim -> TRS -> QX1204USB Mixer (Line In)Why the line in and not a mic xlr input in the mixer? and does the sound quality is differ if connected using XLR or Line In?

QX1204USB Mixer -> USB -> computer (for recording)You mea recording using any software on computer, right?

QX1204USB Mixer -> XLR -> H4n (for recording)That is a nice tip to use it as a backup recording :)

Wow, you really went for a giant stack of gear!
There are probably many professional voice artists who don't use that much gear.I was about to only buy only one usb microphone and use it but I've too many recommendations to start like professional in case you got the money for the right suitable equipment, so I thought to do so as a long term investment for what I am doing and in case I may need it later on for any kind of expansion.
But yes I paid some good money plus the shipment and custom to Egypt were really high.

Do you have a GOOD pair of headphones? How will you monitor your recording?I've an old samson monitoring headphone but this is the only headphone I used so I do not know if it is good or not.

The SM57 and SM58 are essentially the same microphone, but the 58 has a built-in blast filter. Not clear why you needed both?I will use SM57 myself but in case I've a company during recording (and it is probably will happen. so I've got the SM58 for that particular need.

Thanks a lot :)

I hate to say this, but in my opinion you have bought a huge amount of unnecessary equipment. Given that you are entirely new to recording, and are going to want help at every single step of the process, I think you have caused youself a huge amount of needless pain.

I would have suggested that you start with one good microphone, one good recorder, one good set of headphones, and make your recordings. (And remember, even your existing recorder was too complex for you... you asked numerous questions without really understanding its operation.) Those would have been more than adequate for home-quality or hobby-quality audiobooks. And you could have easily performed any needed editing or "sweetening" on a PC.

Now you have numerous pieces of rather complex gear, which are not necessary for entry-level recording, and which will require skilled adjustment to get good results... therefore a great deal of dialog on this forum in hopes of keeping you on the right path.

If I had more money than I could reasonably use in my lifetime, and wanted to impress the neighbors, I might be tempted to buy a Boeing 747. But since I only need to go to the corner grocery to buy some milk, my Pontiac is more than adequate, and has a significantly faster learning curve. I will be done with the trip, and drinking the milk, long before I'd be finished with the first chapter in the 747 owner's manual.

I wish you luck, but personally wish you had asked for input before making all those excessive purchases. I think you could have found a much simpler and more reliable way to achieve your goal.

By "TRS" I mean a 1/4 inch balanced (Tip-Ring-Sleeve) plug. See the photo below....

As Mr. Miller said. You have enormously complicated your situation with all that gear. Even with decades of experience, I would NOT start by using all that gear. I would plug the microphone directly into the mixer and get that part working before adding ANY other processing or outboard gadgets.

It may make some slight difference whether you use the SX3040 processor before or after the MDX4600 Exp/Lim. But you will have try it for yourself to make the final decision.You may find that you don't need either of them. (or the MIC2200 either).

I hate to say it, but I would have bought none of the items on that list. I would have bought one good mic (for example an RE-20 if you want to use a dynamic, or else a good condenser announce mic). I would have plugged it into the Zoom H4 (which the original poster already owns). I would have bought and used a set of Sennheiser HD-280 Pro headphones to monitor the recording process. I would have recorded the track, cleaned and sweetened as necessary using Audacity (free software), and that would have been the end of the job.

If you chose a dynamic mic (RE-20 preferably) then a good preamp might be helpful. That's because dynamic mics have lower output than condenser mics, and if you turn up the gain on the H4, in order to get good levels with a dynamic mic, you might start to hear noise from the H4's internal preamps. But if you use a good condenser mic, you probably would not even need an external preamp... just plug the mic directly into the H4.

Admittedly, the above is a minimalistic approach. I believe in "K.I.S.S." ("Keep It Simple, Sir.") But since the recording will be done in a bedroom (not a real studio with ideal acoustics), and the material is amateur solo voice reading audiobooks (not a symphony orchestra or a $1,000.00/hour professional voice artist), I think this is a much more reasonable starting point. If, and only if, the results are not up to expectations, then you can determine what is needed to obtain the specific improvement desired.

A little extra money could also be invested in a small amplified monitor speaker, to evaluate the sound upon playback. That, and the headphones, would have been much more useful than all the needless gadgets on the above list.

But hey, that's just me...

Hi,
It has been a long while since last time I was here.
I've stopped my voice over work for a while due to emergency injured operations that stayed for several months.
1st of all I've to say that you were right regarding what I've bought and only a one good dynamic microphone with zoom h4n is more then enough for voice over.
1) Now I've got 3 microphones to test to choose one of them:-
EV RE-20
Heil PR-40
Shure SM7b
So please recommend the best one to go for it.
2) Please what is the right settings I should use with zoom h4n for voice over as I am not able to determine the right suitable settings and keep doing a lot of trials and errors.
Thanks for your valuable time.

Those are probably three of the top 5 mics for announce/narration work for most people.
If you actually HAVE all three of those mics, then nobody in the universe is in a better position than YOU are to try all three of them and pick the one you like best.

What "settings" are you asking about? The only "setting" I know of is the recording level control. When recording audio, we avoid peak sounds ever reaching full-scale at the top because in digital recording, that will cause clipping. And conversely, we keep the audio recording level high enough so that it doesn't drift down so low that it is obscured by the noise floor.

If you have no experience with this, run your own experiment to demonstrate how this works. Pick a paragraph or a couple of sentences to read several times. Record the same paragraph at different levels on the H4n and then import the recording into your computer and view the results. You will see that when you are recording too low, the signal is "down in the mud" of the noise floor. And conversely, when you are recording at a level too high, you will see that the audio peaks "clip" at the top where they are limited by the maximum recording level of the digital process.

You want to pick a recording level that allows your audio to peak at somewhere between -15dBFS and -10dB. Depending on your voice and how you are reading the text, and even the nature of the text. If you have a very even voice and ordinary material, you may be able to record at higher peaks (like -10dbFS). But if you have an uneven voice and/or very dramatic text, you may need to set the average peaks down closer to -15dBFS or even lower if you are shouting, etc. Again, you must keep the maximum peaks from hitting full-scale 0dBFS where they will clip and produce bad distortion.

I tried to find a decent straightfoward video on YouTube about setting recording levels, but YouTube is a horrible mess of terrible videos and I couldn't find anything I could recommend. Set aside a few hours to experiment with your microphones and listen critically to them to see which one works best with your voice. And also experiment with recording at various levels to see for yourself how to select the "sweet spot" between the "mud" of noise at the bottom and clipping and distortion at the top.

ok.
Is it acceptable to use 2 different microphones to record voice over?
I mean zoom h4n has 2 inputs for XLR.
So is it acceptable or it is not professional?

Why would you want to do that? It will be difficult enough to get ONE microphone set up properly. Nobody runs TWO microphones. It is just much more complicated and without ANY benefit. Try not to become obsessive over gear. Start actually recording and solve problems as they are identified

Two microphones would 'create' problems.. especially in this VO scenario.

Are you pulling our legs?

There is no need to use two mics, and if you did, then as you turn your head, the sound will change.

Pick the one you like the best, record it, and tweak the eq a little - when it sounds good, it is good.

You are making a very simple job into something far too complicated, and I don't know of any audio professional who would attempt to use two mics, and two channels.

I'd probably pick the Shure, but using the the other two wouldn't cause me any worries. One mic, hit record, edit and away you go.

If you want to sound like real audio books - then you need a producer. Somebody who has the script, and listens very hard, marking up the script where you made small errors, or accidentally made a noise. They will then stop you, you go back a paragraph and do it again, and again, and again.

This is where audio books spend the time. It is almost impossible to concentrate on performing AND listening.

All very good mics for your purpose. To me, the weak link in your chain is the Zoom. It is almost famous for having noisy preamps. If you actually own all three mics, I would sell two of them and the Zoom, and get a decent quality USB audio interface with preamps, and record straight to your computer.

I have always had good results from Focusrite interfaces (the Scarlett 2i2 would suit your needs fine - the Forte may sound slightly better), but there are many others. Definitely keep it simple.

Editing and a little post-processing (compression, eq if you want it) can be done for free in Audacity (open source, free audio editing software).

I would start with that.

I concur with Christian , the H4n (and most other budget recorders) are notorious for sub-grade noisy preamps/converters ect.. While all those mics can sound very good, (w/ VO talent), dynamic mics inherently have low output, so high quantity pre-amplification and A/D converters would be wanted.... along with a quiet, acoustically dead recording environment.

Hi,
Please I would like to ask for something to make it a little bit clear for me.
What are the differences between the AUX and the INSERT in the mixer?
For example, the mixer I've now is the Behringer QX1204USB (http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/QX1204USB.aspx) 12-Channel Mixer, which does not includes any INSERT wholes.
The next Behringer model that has INSERT is the BEHRINGER XENYX X1222USB (http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/X1222USB.aspx).
So please may someone tell me the main differences?
Also do I need to upgrade the mixer to this XENYX X1222USB because of this INSERT whole or not needed or there is any work around?
I am only on podcasting and audio book.

The "AUX" connectors on the QX1204 are separate INPUTs (RETURNs) and OUPUTs. (SENDs)
Note that the INSERT connectors on the XENYX X1222USB is also labeled "I/O" because it is BOTH an INPUT, AND an OUTPUT.

An AUX input is used where you need to send some LINE-LEVEL signal (from some other piece of gear) into the mixer.
An AUX output is used where you need to send a LINE-LEVEL signal from the mixer to some other piece of gear.

An INSERT is used where you need to INTERRUPT or DIVERT the signal OUT of the mixer, through some external piece of gear (perhaps a limiter or compressor, etc.) and then RETURN the signal back IN to the mixer.

You can also do that with the AUX SEND and RETURN connectors but it is somewhat more complex.

If you anticipate needing some external processing gear, then an INSERT connector is more useful than an AUX connector. But if you are doing simple audio production, then it doesn't really make any difference.

As our friend Richard stated, for instance:
You have individual microphones on a drum set; Kick, snare, three tom-toms, two overheads and a hi-hat... and you wish to equalize (EQ) only the kick drum. In that case, an external graphic equalizer could be inserted on the kick drum channel's insert. In the same scenario, you wish to add reverb to just the snare drum, whilst leaving the other drums 'dry'.. the (Alt.) alternate send would be brought up on just that channel.
Typically the Alt send would be patched to the reverb's input, the reverb's output(s) would be connected to the mixer's return.. (or... an unused channel's line input could be used as a return if so desired). Alternately, another Alt. send could be used the feed the drummer's headphone amp (monitor) with just the drums or other instruments he/she wants to hear. For instance the drummer says: "I want to hear just myself, the guitar and vocals, with no bass and keys"

Hi,
Please I would like to know your feedback for which sound quality you are recommending.
These samples are recorded directly from microphone to zoom H4N (default settings).
Please tell everything in order to make it better as possible.
What are your recommendations for which microphone that fits my sound more?
EV-RE20_000 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/08ielox4vmzmyzv/EV-RE20_000.wav?dl=0)
Shure-SM7B_001 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyzkzzvrgib32vp/Shure-SM7B_001.wav?dl=0)
Heil-PR-40_002 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/hz1yznapnvxjl1f/Heil-PR-40_002.wav?dl=0)
Shure-SM57_003 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0uwg6hikti6zzw/Shure-SM57_003.wav?dl=0)
AT-ATR2100_004 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/m551m3eo0g43zvm/AT-ATR2100_004.wav?dl=0)
Sennhieser-E835s_005 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/uexns5aho7vvkrv/Sennhieser-E835s_005.wav?dl=0)

The SM57 sounds "best" to me, because it is the only one that does NOT sound "boomy".

The better frequency response of the other, more expensive, mics seems like a disadvantage in your examples because of your voice and/or the resonance of the room.

Thanks for your feed back.
mics seems like a disadvantage in your examples because of your voice and/or the resonance of the room.
Please may you clear this point more?

All of the samples (except the SM57) sound "BOOMY" to me.
They sound like they were recorded inside a barrel with a strong resonance in the low range.
That resonance reduces the intelligibility of the speech.

You could use equalization to filter out the "boom", but that seems silly.
Why use an expensive microphone and then filter everything when you get a better signal without filtering from an inexpensive microphone?

Or you could modify the acoustics of your room so that it does not resonate like that (perhaps with absorbing materials and/or bass traps).

I was talking while I was about 2 inches away from the microphone in each sample, do I need to be in a far position ?

I was talking while I was about 2 inches away from the microphone in each sample, do I need to be in a far position ?

Most cardioid mic's have a proximity effect that increases the bass response the closer you get, 2 inches is fine to get the best signal to noise ratio but I would suggest a high pass filter 80-100hz to cut down the proximity lift.

Personally I would be using a condenser mic to do voice over work and they would allow more control and a mic such as the SE X1 would allow you to add a -10db pad at the mic end and an 80hz high pass filter.

Have you considered a package like this as it would also allow some room isolation: sE Electronics X1 Condenser Microphone + Shock Mount + Pop Filter + Reflexion Filter + 3m XLR Cable at Juno Records (http://www.juno.co.uk/products/se-electronics-x1-condenser-microphone-shock-mount-pop-filter-reflexion-filter-3m-xlr-cable/473808-01/?currency=GBP&flt=1&gclid=CKGl_5zoncYCFQLLtAod2CMH6w)