Originally Posted by Bennie Cook
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.
Originally Posted by ggegan
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.
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).