Voice Over Technical Evaluations

Sample Written Report

(Below is a sample of one of our written reports after a complete technical voice over evaluation – and what one can expect as far as the thoroughness of the analysis, the types of content covered, and recommended remedies for acoustic, audio and performance related issues.
This information is of strategic importance to any voice over talent looking to elevate their game – and the quality of the product they hope to ultimately provide to clients.)

Studio and Audio Evaluation –

Initial observations:

There are significant low frequency absorption and reflection issues in the recording space. Looking beyond the isolation characteristics of the booth for a moment – as those are structural issues beyond the scope of this evaluation – we must turn our attention to how to deal with noise once it has already entered the space.

(Above) – Low frequency buildup in recording space – open mic inside booth – room tone.

(Below) – Low frequency buildup during performance – talent speaking.

Note the level of sub-100Hz frequencies in the signal – as well as the level between 100Hz and 300Hz.

There are a few things going on here:

Outside noise across the frequency spectrum is entering the recording space. There is very little that can be done about this. Then we have reflections and buildup of audio generated inside the recording space – in this case voice over performance. This noise is quite a bit more focused – and easier to manage than audio signals coming from outside – such as automotive traffic – also present in the recordings.

What we can – and should turn our attention to – is how to attenuate these noises once they have already entered the space. We can achieve this with the addition of more broadband absorption in the recording environment.

Current audible and subsequent visual observations – have confirmed why the interior of the booth has acoustic issues, mostly related to the lack of absorption of low,  mid-low and mid-range frequencies. It’s a fairly broad reflection issue – but not one that’s completely impossible to manage. 

As far as absorptive materials already added to the space – the material necessary to manage these issues appears to be entirely absent. Lack of treatment on the ceiling of the booth is not helping the situation.

Usage of the 416 is probably the best overall choice – given its characteristics and ability to reject rear reflections. The standing wave and reflection issues, along with the microphones proximity to the computer monitors behind it and walls immediately beside it, have stretched it to the end of its benefit range as far as noise cancellation and rejection. As it stands, I wouldn’t recommend the use of any large diaphragm condenser microphones – which would most likely exacerbate the situation. 

• The buildup of the problem frequencies, particularly low and low-mid frequencies, is blending with the noise floor and the desired voice signal. 
• At several points in the evaluation recordings, there is significant masking of desired portions of the voice signal. 
• This situation makes the removal or filtering of unwanted noise or low end rumble that much more complicated – if not impossible. 
• Given the broadband nature of the frequency buildup, noise floor, and untamed reflections, unwanted frequencies can not be removed or attenuated without considerable degradation of the vocal signal.
• Current noise reduction methods are stripping significant amounts of clarity from the vocal signal.
• Signal processing – particularly noise reduction processes applied to 44.1k audio have an almost immediate effect on the overall clarity of the vocal signal. This issue is compounded when applied to too broad of a selection of the audio spectrum. 
• The monitoring equipment – as well as the surrounding monitoring environment – are inadequate for recognizing low or sub frequency issues. The environment itself lacks adequate acoustic treatment in the problem range, and the monitor’s low-end frequency response stops, or rolls off at 80Hz – leaving everything from 80Hz down – out of the referenced signal. Even with better treatment, the low end in the audio would never be heard given the current monitoring equipment. 

Recommendations and strategies for improvement of audio quality.

Acoustic treatment of the recording environment:

The environment requires more absorption and attenuation of audio signals between 3000Hz and 60Hz – with a focus on the 1000Hz to 60Hz range – and a specialized focus on the 200Hz to 50Hz range. Attenuating those frequency ranges may inadvertently expose other problem areas later, the primary issue exists in the ranges provided.

Acoustic material is prohibitively expensive. We get it. But it works, and is usually worth every penny. In your case – the best overall kit for taming your specific reflection issues – one that doesn’t “over-buy” material that you don’t require – is the Auralex StudioFoam – Studio Starter Kit.

While it won’t do a whole lot for unwanted audio coming into the space – it will go a long way toward minifying the impact of those signals once they arrive – or are generated during any performance. The addition of one of their “B-Stock” StudioFoam Royale kits – along with the starter kit – would transform the booth into a completely new environment.

Audio capture and processing:

• Record all audio at 48k – 24/32 bit prior to performing any processing. Destructive processes – those which target and remove frequencies from an audio signal such as noise reduction – should be applied to audio captured at no less than 48k – at the highest bit depth possible. 44.1k is an export baseline – a final export sample rate for audio AFTER it has gone through any type of signal processing. Processing should not be applied to 44.1 audio.
• Noise reduction processing should be more surgically applied. In the evaluation audio there are obvious signs the processing is being applied to too broad of a signal. Much of this is due to issues that we have already covered. But – if it must be used – it will need to be done less destructively. Given the current acoustic environment – that is going to be a tough proposition – as there are many elements in the signal that shouldn’t be there. Much of the noise is commingled with the signal we’d like to keep.

Mic placement, proximity and positioning:

• While the boom microphone mount isn’t inherently a bad thing – it can make certain acoustic issues more impactful than they need to be. Flat reflective surfaces directly behind, or in close proximity to the microphone can accentuate reflection and absorption issues, and make standing wave issues more apparent. The only way to determine the impact of the current placement is to move the mic around the space and do A/B tests. In general – the further the microphone is from directly reflective surfaces, particularly those that are poorly treated, the better the result will be. 
• Microphone proximity can help mitigate certain noise floor and acoustic issues by creating a greater noise to signal ratio. Sometimes, moving just a few inches closer to the mic can help by increasing the desired signal, while overwhelming and in some cases blocking early or late reflections from entering the signal so easily. It is not a “cure-all” for poor acoustics – but is a free adjustment that can bring about immediate results. It certainly helps when it comes time to make distinctions between what noise is – versus the signal we wish to keep. This recommendation is specific to the 416 – and would have less positive results with anything other than a shotgun mic. 
• If the microphone is to remain on the boom – setting a slight 15 to 30 degree angle to the mic and moving a little closer to it when you read can nullify some immediate reflection issues. The issues will still exist – but might not show up so strongly in the recorded signal.

Performance notes:

While we don’t focus specifically on performance – there are general, high-level areas we like to touch on where it concerns the overall quality of any production.

As a whole – the edited and raw files were very clean – as far as the most common issues (clicks, pops, nose sounds, mouth sounds) they were more clean than most of the audio we receive from various talent – so good job there. I don’t see any overarching editing issues – or issues with signal level – or talent specific issues that would be a cause for major concern.

Most of my performance notes are the same across the board. The copy should always be formatted into something as “humanly readable” as possible – to give the talent the best opportunity to deliver it without confusion or hesitancy showing up in the voice.

Most of the reads needed more warmth and human connection to the copy – but – as should be obvious – the copy isn’t necessarily all warm and fuzzy. I did like the separate takes of “Hi” at the beginning of the “Medical study – kidney” copy – and would like to see more of that warmth throughout all of the pieces. It’s a very nice tone.

Lung Cancer Script – specifically

If we were recording this script – more work would have gone into formatting. In its current form, it is too jumbled to be read at a more balanced pace. Copy should be formatted to give you, the talent, the best opportunity to interpret each scene or element its own space in time. Please see the returned, formatted copy for an example of how we would have broken it down prior to production.

Partly due to the copy formatting – and some structural approaches to the read, the delivery is a bit flat and un-animated, and lacks enough importance in certain elements. Medical copy can be stuffy – so can some of the buyers – but – most of it still requires a natural, approachable, conversational delivery. One that is instructive, but not overly scholastic, with a keen eye and ear for who the target audience is. 

Overall – the pace is too fast for the content. We will address this and the marks made during the session. The “cleanliness” of both the raw and edited files was good. Hardly any clicks, smacks or nose noises in either.

Please take these notes – and review the marks made in the audio files – and compile your questions for the session on Friday. Nothing is out of bounds – so don’t hesitate to ask.

In general – I think the most pressing issues are:

Booth acoustics issues – followed by some performance approaches and review of editing notes. Your editing is otherwise very clean – and aside from the pressing audio related issues and finding some different approaches to handling some of the copy – I think you’ve got a lot of other stuff out of the way. 

Looking forward to talking later.

Michael