Music producer and amateur audio engineer here! I picked 2 for the proper file to send off. Plenty headroom, and minimal processing, if any. The first one sounded really bright and compressed. 3rd was just LOUD lol
First pass: #1 struck me as the sound style like a typical ad, but then #3 sounded similarly evened out (compressed), but “fuller” in tone-so I was leaning toward #3 Second pass: I stayed with #3; I saw sort of what I heard in the waveforms. Still not certain of my answer; I really feel like the industry standard may be #1, but my gut tells me it may be a bit over-processed (I’m paused mid-video as I type! I haven’t heard your reveal yet!)
Hi James, I would chose #1 for radio, knowing that it is a voice already processed, #2 as flat, for an engineer to work with but wont use the #3 as seems that is too loud and maybe clicking?? Great video!!!
Great video James! I’m not a voice actor but I would imagine that for voice acting in general, most actors should stay away from EQ because like you said, the engineer can’t undo it, and add very slight compression just to tame some of those peaks.
Believer it or not, you wouldn't even want to compress it at all if it was a booked job. However, you could definitely do some light processing if it was an audition.
I'd say the "correct" way to process would be between #2 (sounded raw) and #3 (just a little too compressed, but best of the bunch). #1 was way too compressed. What did I win? 😁
No no! In #3 I literally just put a limiter on the audio and cranked the loudness which is VERY much like over compression. So for you to think #3 was over processed was very accurate because technically it was. You're not wrong!
I actually just limited the piss out of #3, which ends up sounding like over compressions because it basically is. I did add a little deessing as well just because I didn't want to destroy anyone's ears :)
![The Wall Song ร้องข้ามกำแพง | EP.215 | พาเวล นเรศ - พูห์ กฤติน | 17 ต.ค. 67 [1/5]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IUzrjuf60P4/mqdefault.jpg)
Your so good. Keep up
Thank you so much!
Music producer and amateur audio engineer here! I picked 2 for the proper file to send off. Plenty headroom, and minimal processing, if any. The first one sounded really bright and compressed. 3rd was just LOUD lol
Nailed it!! 😎
Yay! I asked about this on a previous video and you totally answered AND made a video for it. Amazing, thank you so much for clarifying all this.
Absolutely! Sorry it took so long!
Another banger by James !
Thank you so much!
First pass: #1 struck me as the sound style like a typical ad, but then #3 sounded similarly evened out (compressed), but “fuller” in tone-so I was leaning toward #3
Second pass: I stayed with #3; I saw sort of what I heard in the waveforms. Still not certain of my answer; I really feel like the industry standard may be #1, but my gut tells me it may be a bit over-processed (I’m paused mid-video as I type! I haven’t heard your reveal yet!)
You're awesome! Thank you for your honesty! I think a lot of people would have edited their answer after seeing the rest of the video! Good on ya! :)
Hi James, I would chose #1 for radio, knowing that it is a voice already processed, #2 as flat, for an engineer to work with but wont use the #3 as seems that is too loud and maybe clicking??
Great video!!!
Pretty much spot on! :)
Great video James! I’m not a voice actor but I would imagine that for voice acting in general, most actors should stay away from EQ because like you said, the engineer can’t undo it, and add very slight compression just to tame some of those peaks.
Believer it or not, you wouldn't even want to compress it at all if it was a booked job. However, you could definitely do some light processing if it was an audition.
I'd say the "correct" way to process would be between #2 (sounded raw) and #3 (just a little too compressed, but best of the bunch). #1 was way too compressed. What did I win? 😁
The wave forms on Audition didn't change my answer but I was pissed that I mistook the loudness of #3 for being over processed.
No no! In #3 I literally just put a limiter on the audio and cranked the loudness which is VERY much like over compression. So for you to think #3 was over processed was very accurate because technically it was. You're not wrong!
@@JamesYounger Thanks! I can keep trusting my ears.
hmmmm....2 sounded the most "natural", but I like 3 due to the loudness wars ;)
(watches more of the video) yea yea...#2 is more normal sounding👍
Other than the loudness of #1 (-3dB) and #3 (-0.1dB??)...what processing was different? the EQ? The waveform isn't as "even" in #3.
I actually just limited the piss out of #3, which ends up sounding like over compressions because it basically is. I did add a little deessing as well just because I didn't want to destroy anyone's ears :)