help on TV vocal processing

[lightsource]

This is my first new topic so bear with me, I own a PA and Lighting Hire company, and I am very impressed by the vocal transmission quality of various TV shows, such as the X factor and How do you solve a problem like Maria ( Pleased Connie won, picked her from the 1st episode), or just simple 'spoken' audio. The question to all you TV experts out there, is basically what audio processing gear do you use to get broadcast quality speech or musical vocals. I find in live vocals, there is a lot of energy (B's, P's sibalence etc), yet this appears to be absent upon TV transmission. How do you guys do it?

[Rob_Beech]

I tend to use various compression techniques, along with minimal eq, the correct HPF settings for a particular vocalist.

 

Although I dont work with TV I work with live stuff, and I dont get the B's P's and what not.

 

I'm not aware of anything different done on tv when something is live. obviously prerecorded material can be thrown about and hacke up as much as necessary but there is always a limit to what can be done live. thats what I like about it.

 

Rob

[Shez]

Good mics & good mic technique always help - get that bit right & you won't have to deal with popping & sibilance. Garbage in => garbage out.

 

On the odd occasions I've had the misfortune of catching a bit of the X factor, the sound didn't strike me as being all that great - compressed to within an inch of its life, too much crowd noise & vocals mixed too low seem rather too common for my liking.

[StevieR]

Firstly, the equipment is usually the best - from the mic right through to the final output stage - to guarantee the cleanest, most accurate sound reproduction possible. Often the mic will be a lavalier or a cheek mic which should not suffer from pops. In the case of X-factor and the like, the performers using the handheld mics will probably have had some vocal training which should help eliminate some of the nasties. Sibilance can often be reduced by having a good EQ on the channel - preferably parametric.

 

Oh - and lets not forget the rather large amount of compression that is used to keep the levels suitable to TV use!

[Bobbsy]

I've stayed quiet for a short while because, although I've done a LOT of TV work, it's almost all been speech related. My forays into music have almost all been theatre/live related.

 

I'll join the bandwagon and say that, in fact, there's relatively little processig done at the production end. As a matter of course, speech was routed through some light compression/limiting to reduce the dynamic range a bit (viewers don't like things going quiet-loud-quiet-loud and sometimes a little bit of EQ was used, but typically far less than for live band/theatre work.

 

As mentioned, the reason we can get away with relatively little processing is equipment and location. First off, drama aside, it's pretty rare to have to hide the mic like we may do in theatre. Lavs are designed to be clipped to a tie or lapel (or similar) and that's pretty much where they go. Desk or floor mics are good ones and positioned where they need to be. The studio we're in (at least in my day) has been soundproofed and acoustically treated to provide a pretty dead atmosphere so echo and room effect aren't really an issue. There's no foldback to the studio (usually) so feedback isn't an issue and, even if there IS an audience, the TV sound takes precedence. In short, we have it pretty easy compared to live...which is one of the reasons I enjoyed (and still do) the challenge of live theatre work outside of the day job.

 

However, back to TV. After the signal leaves the studio, lots of things can happen at the transmitter. At very least, a lot more compression tends to be added: TV channels succomb to the same "loudness contest" that we find on CDs and radio.

 

Bob

[lightsource]

Thanks all, for your comments. What started me off, was while watching 'How do you solve a problem like Maria?'

 

Considering the Mic's they used (I don't know the manufacturer , but they were cheek mics) I was suprised at the vocal quality, considering there was an orchestra at the side of the stage, some kind of FOH or monitoring system for the studio audience and the judges, pure noise from the audience themselves, and just thought there must be a lot of overspill entering these mics, yet the quality was good.

 

Bobbsy - If you're ever in the North East, around November, let me know, and I'll show you a night of pure hell, 5 live bands, venue the size of a small living room and its upstairs , more back line gear on stage than you'd find in a large music shop, 15 mins between bands, no soundcheck, and about 20 square cm's of free space on the stage.......... and it's for charity!

 

;)

[Bobbsy]

I only watched a little of the series, but by memory I believe the mics they were using were DPAs. I won't venture to guess the model because they have several almost identical ones, generally 406-something. They're lovely, but expensive mics. I drove my family mad by commenting "I don't reckon the singer, but I'll take the mics please!".

 

As for the rest, the in-studio levels would have all be kept rather lower than you'd be used to at a full blown concert...as I said, the TV audio comes first.

 

And, I'll bear your kind offer of a night of hell in mind! (Although I'm HOPING to be in sunny Aus around that time, though with my knee op it might not be until after Xmas.)

 

Bob

[ghance]

was it a DPA or countryman? ...not been watching the maria thing, but saw a short clip.. couldn't make out if it was a DPA 4065/4088 or a countryman isomax E6. was gonna buy the DPA 'cos its easier to cross hire than the countryman. but the countryman is a bit warmer and a bit cheaper.

[Bobbsy]

I didn't watch much of the series either, but from the clips I saw, I thought DPA. Both are good mics and, without a close look, not easy to tell apart.

 

Bob