Login / Register
 
Sennheiser 416 or Neumann U87 for VO+?
New Reply
Subscribe
#61
22nd May 2010
Old 22nd May 2010
  #61
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 182

Stephen.S.C is offline
u87

Quote:
Originally Posted by yraziel View Post
Don used a Manley tube mic.

Although Ben Patrick Johnson uses the 416.

IMHO the 416 is a fine mic in a situation when you don't want ANY room to be recognized (as said above).

I even know some very good vo guys that uses it on the roads and recording spots from the bck seat of their car...

BUT

I think the u87 is the best sounding microphone in the field of vo's for one reason:
YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING WITH IT.
U87 gets an eq colloring better then any "pre-defined" mic.
it lets YOU decide how it will sound... a thing that is hard to do with other mics.
Would this include the U87ai?

Thanks.
#62
31st May 2010
Old 31st May 2010
  #62
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 406

postman56 is offline
How are you positioning the Sen 416 to get the best sound for VO's? I've always found it worked the best and captured the chest cavity ,slightly off to the side like a cigar, and pointed slightly down to the nose.
Any other suggestions
#63
31st May 2010
Old 31st May 2010
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Jfriah's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: C,Eh,N,Eh,D,Eh? "Sorry!"
Posts: 1,677

Jfriah is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennie Cook View Post
AT4055? You'll find you end up having to intervene with a bit more EQ etc when you're using a 4055 than you would with a U87 but it's still a great mic and very versatile for voice work.
I'm a fan of the AT4050. Use it 90% of the time over my Rode NT2000. Could be familiarity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
It is important to consider that there is never a perfect solution that will work for all situations. You can't just blindly rely on one mic or one "anything" that will work every time. You have to analyze the nature of the voice and delivery and the context in which the recording will be used. Then you make an informed decision as to what combination of tools will accomplish the intended goal. Sometimes you need to emphasize certain natural characteristics of the talent and sometimes you need to de-emphasize things in order to fit the context. The same talent may need a different mic or placement depending on the nature of the project. This is where technical knowledge and experience meets artistic intent.
thumbsup
When I was doing ADR 100% of my days, I had two particular actresses I simply could not use a certain Schoeps mic with but that was our 'indoor scene' go-to mic. A client thought I was crazy and insisted I used the same old microphone that we used for the other actors. I tried to explain but got overruled. On the mix stage, her lines stuck out, had too much sibilance, upper-freq distortion. Became an "I told you so" situation.

As to where to place a 416 when using. (shrug)--play with placement based on YOUR actor and when it sounds good, leave it? Proximity effect, extra sibilance, POPS from breath. And we're talking VO here, right?

I can't comment since I don't, and wouldn't personally, use a 416 (but I'm not one who does a LOT of VOs, so I defer). Others will have better tips than myself (who would start about 4" away, slight angle above and to the side with a pop filter in place).

Jeff
__________________
"I'm not saving lives, I'm helping to put something up there on a screen for people to glance at between text messages."
- Me.

Partials: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0358864/
#64
2nd June 2010
Old 2nd June 2010
  #64
Gear maniac
 
audiobob's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 288

audiobob is offline
Was doing an isdn session last week with a VO talent. His voice was sounding good and, as always at the end of the session, I asked him what mic he was using. He says a Shure SM5B. I said...a foottball?? (that's what I called them back in my radio days).

Great old dynamic mic and it was holding up well. In radio I remember the smell coming from the foam from smoke, perfume and the bad breath of 20 years of jocks before me.
But you could work that mic from anywhere. Also remember jocks calling me and wondering why their voice was sounding like it was coming from the other side of the room. I said.....turn the mic around Einstein.

And to keep on topic...I'm using the 416 for pretty much anything and love it.
Attached Thumbnails
Sennheiser 416 or Neumann U87 for VO+?-shure-sm5b.jpg  
#65
10th June 2010
Old 10th June 2010
  #65
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 504

BeK$ is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by postman56 View Post
How are you positioning the Sen 416 to get the best sound for VO's? I've always found it worked the best and captured the chest cavity ,slightly off to the side like a cigar, and pointed slightly down to the nose.
Any other suggestions
Thumbs up!
#66
10th June 2010
Old 10th June 2010
  #66
Gear addict
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 361

Big Andy is offline
There are a lot of good mics out there. There are also a lot of different sounding talent. You best bet might be to find some place near you that rents mics... get several for the weekend and try them out with a few friends all with different timbre voices.

My 2c ~ Tube mic's will destroy your thought process of what a voice should sound like. They are amazing. They don't have the proximity effect that some dynamics and cardioids can have, but they are silky, warm and smooth. The coloring is very pleasing.
__________________
Beetus
#67
10th September 2010
Old 10th September 2010
  #67
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Beverly Hills
Posts: 178

SDDP is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennie Cook View Post
I have to admit a U87 would always be my initial choice for a voice over but how about this possible compromise...

Why don't you get a 416 *and* a cheaper U87 clone like at AT4055? You'll find you end up having to intervene with a bit more EQ etc when you're using a 4055 than you would with a U87 but it's still a great mic and very versatile for voice work.

If your budget would stretch that far you could *almost* have the best of both worlds?

Bennie

Thought the TLM 102 would be a cheaper clonse of the U87?
#68
15th September 2010
Old 15th September 2010
  #68
Gear interested
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 7

teamyoung012 is offline
u87

I would go with the Neumann u87. I have one and it is so straightforward and upfront. The sound is in your face and for doing VO's you want your words to grab the listeners attention. It is very clean and very powerful. Just how you want your type of work to be!!
#69
16th September 2010
Old 16th September 2010
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,177

Brent Hahn is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamyoung012 View Post
I would go with the Neumann u87. I have one and it is so straightforward and upfront. The sound is in your face and for doing VO's you want your words to grab the listeners attention. It is very clean and very powerful. Just how you want your type of work to be!!
Guess that settles it.
#70
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #70
Gear maniac
 
voiceaddict's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: New York / Los Angeles
Posts: 155

Send a message via AIM to voiceaddict
voiceaddict is offline


Enough of you mentioned his name and the positioning questions, it reminded me of this clip on YouTube someone was kind enough to post. I'm assuming the Peter was Peter Cutler?

As a child only ABC promos voiced by a certain person grabbed my attention. It was like getting a visit from the tooth fairy because you knew when you heard that one voice, something good was coming on and it was time to work on your parents so you could stay up to watch one of the three channels. Heck, I still have recordings from 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade mimicking his ABC promos because figured, maybe one day. So, thank you Mr. Ernie Anderson.

"and now, get ready, for Jaws."

Kevin
__________________
Kevin Genus
#71
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #71
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,889

charles maynes is offline
If anyone is looking at the 416, you should check out the RODE NTG3- I am a recent conversion to these. And I adore the 416. It is worth giving a look at.
__________________
Charles Maynes credits
Charles' webpage



“Judging others makes us blind, whereas love is illuminating. By judging others we blind ourselves to our own evil and to the grace which others are just as entitled to as we are.”
? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
#72
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,177

Brent Hahn is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
If anyone is looking at the 416, you should check out the RODE NTG3- I am a recent conversion to these. And I adore the 416. It is worth giving a look at.
I found this Youtube comparison...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbzNgmrCBQs

... and you're right, the Rode sounds great -- a little more heft than the 416. And half the price!

For VO, I'm betting those extra lo-mids would be flattering to women, especially the young 'uns. But you probably woudn't want to work it like Ernie's working the 416 in the video, though, (not that most people do). And it might not be as good as the 416 is at negating the low-end issues in your typical small/home-brew VO booth.
#73
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #73
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,889

charles maynes is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
I found this Youtube comparison...

YouTube - Sennheiser MKH 416 vs. RODE NTG-3

... and you're right, the Rode sounds great -- a little more heft than the 416. And half the price!

For VO, I'm betting those extra lo-mids would be flattering to women, especially the young 'uns. But you probably woudn't want to work it like Ernie's working the 416 in the video, though, (not that most people do). And it might not be as good as the 416 is at negating the low-end issues in your typical small/home-brew VO booth.

Positioning can help on that (the proximity effect) , but the RODE's noise floor is quieter than the 416, which has a lot of benefit-

Its a good mic, actually, for the money a great mic.
#74
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #74
Lives for gear
 
santacore's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 622

santacore is offline
I'm with you Charles. I picked up one about 6 months ago and agree it sounds as good or better then a 416. Good job Rode!! The only problem I've had is I've gotten a bit of RF noise at one facility. Granted they are near a radio station, so that was likely the source of the problem.
__________________
John Sanacore, CAS
www.core-post.com
#75
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #75
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,889

charles maynes is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by santacore View Post
I'm with you Charles. I picked up one about 6 months ago and agree it sounds as good or better then a 416. Good job Rode!! The only problem I've had is I've gotten a bit of RF noise at one facility. Granted they are near a radio station, so that was likely the source of the problem.
I had the RODE- the 416 and a Schoeps CMIT out on a shoot a week ago, and found that the CMIT is HYPER sensitive to low end, in a bad way, and that the RODE is quite excellent compared to the 416.... They all are great mics, but they have strengths and weaknesses
#76
7th October 2010
Old 7th October 2010
  #76
Gear addict
 
andivax's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Kiev/Ukraine
Posts: 497

Send a message via ICQ to andivax Send a message via MSN to andivax
andivax is offline
needs flat sound - u87.
needs hyped sound - gefell m990.
#77
8th October 2010
Old 8th October 2010
  #77
Gear maniac
 
danno812's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 216

danno812 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
I found this Youtube comparison...

YouTube - Sennheiser MKH 416 vs. RODE NTG-3

... and you're right, the Rode sounds great -- a little more heft than the 416. And half the price!

For VO, I'm betting those extra lo-mids would be flattering to women, especially the young 'uns. But you probably woudn't want to work it like Ernie's working the 416 in the video, though, (not that most people do). And it might not be as good as the 416 is at negating the low-end issues in your typical small/home-brew VO booth.
Thanks for linking to that. I'd like to hear it in the studio to be sure, but this could very well be the first and only RODE microphone that sounds good for VO (to my ears).


Voice Talent | ProCommVoices - Find Top Voice Over Professionals

Book Details
#78
9th October 2010
Old 9th October 2010
  #78
Gear nut
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Posts: 87

swirlyd is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
If anyone is looking at the 416, you should check out the RODE NTG3- I am a recent conversion to these. And I adore the 416. It is worth giving a look at.
I don't know - I A/B'd the NTG3 with a 416 a few weeks back and the NTG didn't even come close to sounding as nice as the 416 for VO type work (at least, on my voice) - the 416 was much clearer, solid and direct. Maybe for location sound, it's more comparable? Having said that, in the past I have used a Rode NT3 and found it sounds very nice for those looking for a budget mic. Of course, pre's/converters and the voice involved make a big difference...
#79
9th October 2010
Old 9th October 2010
  #79
Lives for experience
 
minister's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: minneapolis, mn
Posts: 2,282
My Recordings/Credits

minister is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
I had the RODE- the 416 and a Schoeps CMIT out on a shoot a week ago, and found that the CMIT is HYPER sensitive to low end, in a bad way, ....
Did you try the onboard filters? There are 2 of them. One 18dB/oct and one 6 (though it is rather high, but a gentle slope).

The CMIT was developed for dialogue and not SFX.
#80
9th October 2010
Old 9th October 2010
  #80
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,889

charles maynes is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
Did you try the onboard filters? There are 2 of them. One 18dB/oct and one 6 (though it is rather high, but a gentle slope).

The CMIT was developed for dialogue and not SFX.
I did Tom- it suffered from rumble EVERYWHERE- It si probably awesome inside, but for exteriors you have to lose a lot of low-end for it to make sense...

It "seems" to be a good mic, but outside, it frankly didnt live up to the performance expectation I have for Schoeps mics- and I did have a CMC / Mk4 pair out as well.
#81
9th October 2010
Old 9th October 2010
  #81
Lives for experience
 
minister's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: minneapolis, mn
Posts: 2,282
My Recordings/Credits

minister is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
I did Tom- it suffered from rumble EVERYWHERE- It si probably awesome inside, but for exteriors you have to lose a lot of low-end for it to make sense...

It "seems" to be a good mic, but outside, it frankly didnt live up to the performance expectation I have for Schoeps mics- and I did have a CMC / Mk4 pair out as well.
Interesting... Was this for FX collection? With InVision mount and Zep I have not had that problem. I believe you....just curious. They are very sensitive to handling noise. For interior dialogue I like the CMC/Mk41 and even use it for Foley and FX collection. Boom movement is something and OP has to learn with any mic, though. I would only use the CMIT in certain situations for interiors, but I do use it for Foley and some interior FX collection.

RODE definitely makes good mics at a great price. Looks like something I will have to keep in mind when I can afford an alternate. I have friend who uses one for VO and she has a very sibilant voice, but her voice sounds pretty great on the RODE shotgun. The 416 would be the last thing I would recommend she use on her voice.
#82
9th October 2010
Old 9th October 2010
  #82
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,889

charles maynes is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by minister View Post
Interesting... Was this for FX collection? With InVision mount and Zep I have not had that problem. I believe you....just curious. They are very sensitive to handling noise. For interior dialogue I like the CMC/Mk41 and even use it for Foley and FX collection. Boom movement is something and OP has to learn with any mic, though. I would only use the CMIT in certain situations for interiors, but I do use it for Foley and some interior FX collection.

RODE definitely makes good mics at a great price. Looks like something I will have to keep in mind when I can afford an alternate. I have friend who uses one for VO and she has a very sibilant voice, but her voice sounds pretty great on the RODE shotgun. The 416 would be the last thing I would recommend she use on her voice.
I rented it for a gunshoot I was doing, but tested it out in the backyard to see how it compared with the 416 and the NTG3 for off axis rejection- (it was crazy hot, so the air conditioner was running- it was a great test) anyway, I was handholding it with a Rycote Zeppelin and a windjammer and it was unusable as far as the handling noise was concerned- It may have even required service, it was so bad- using the filters helped a little bit, but there was no Schoeps magic there for me....
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
kitstern / So much gear, so little time!
37

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.