Limited Options

Jason Bishop · Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008, 22:38 (GMT) Post subject: Limited Options

Hello all...

Long-time no chat, but something has reared its' head several times in the last 2 weeks that forced me to rethink the way I submit auditions.

Do any of you use a limiter on your auditions?

I ask because a certain voice company has started emailing out the winning auditions to its members so they can hear what's winning the work and perhaps adjust their efforts accordingly.
(Technically, I'm NOT a listed talent on their site, but they've had me auditioning for stuff for 2 months now for evaluation purposes)

Anyway, I've received 2 of those "winning auditions" and both were limited to either -3db or -1db but even the so called quiet parts were pulled up to 4-6db.

The winning auditions didn't sound like they were "compressed" in the classical sense, although I know that limiting IS a form of compression.

Also, in the "Give a Sample of your Mic/Equipment" thread in the Geek section, I see lots of guys with lots of limiting applied.

Obviously, a limited audio file sounds louder than a file that is recorded around -9db and then "normalized" to -3db.
And as we know, to an undeducated seekers ear, a louder file can be interpreted as better file.

Because of all this, this week I'm submitting all auditions with only software limiting applied to my tracks. No hardware compression or EQ.

They sound great so far...but just askin, is it a common practice?

I know it is for lots of Imaging talent, because I've seen plenty of audio files that were supplied by a couple of Imaging guys I've worked with.

Later & thanks

Claire Dodin · Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008, 22:52 (GMT) Post subject:

hmmm....maybe you should have posted this in the geek section!
I don't know what limiting is.
I normalize my auditions at -3db and that's all the processing I do.
Would you care to explain what limiting is?
thanks!

Diane Havens · Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008, 23:39 (GMT) Post subject:

Well, I think Claire is right -- you'll get a more informed answer in the geek section. But I will say, since I use ProTools LE7 and have that neat Audiosuite, I have used limiting when I want something to really pop. That and a little EQ seems to do the trick. But normally, I only will normalize and leave the sound engineering to the sound engineers.

Jacob Ekstroem · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 00:49 (GMT) Post subject:

Claire, may I? (Jason, I'll get back to you shortly...)

First of all, this may be a "Geeky" post, but I have a feeling Jason deliberately put it here, and I agree. Now...

Limiting, contra compression, is a "no mercy, no compromise" way of dynamic processing. With compression, you have the option of controlling just how much dynamic reduction you want. You use the ratio setting for this. But with limiting, the ratio option is gone.

When you limit, you have a "threshold", a preset level the sound can't go above - period. If your sound hits the threshold, it is supressed accordingly. So if you have a threshold of, say 0 db, and your peaks are under the threshold at say - 1 db, nothing happens, but if you raise the overall level of the recording, which would force the peak levels above the threshold, the limiter will supress only the peaks, but leave everything else untouched.

Let's imagine a normalized recording, with peak levels at 0 db, and average levels at -6 db. Now we raise the overall level 6 db, ok?
The peaks are now +6db, and average levels are 0 db.
If we limit this recorded file to 0 db, all the peaks are "squashed" down to 0 db, but everything below 0 db is untouched.
The result is a rise in the overall loudness of the sound.

The reason you use limiting contra compression is simply because limiting is more agressive, and gives the highest RMS-levels. RMS is loudness. Loudness is good. Sometimes.

Which leads me back to Jason:

To limit or not to limit for auditions.... that is the question. And a tough one.

I absolutely understand your frustration. "If they do it, why should I not???" And yes, you're absolutely right, some seekers may be tricked this way. But... I don't think it is common practice, or rather: it shouldn't be.
I for one think your auditions should reflect the way your actual recordings would sound. But I totally understand the urge to "spice" the auditions up just a bit. To me, it's kinda like cheating... I mean, you wouldn't limit an actual recording for a client, if you're a true pro anyway... so why do it in your auditions?
Ah, yes... to stand out for the others. (This reminds me of the "NY OnAir Loudness War" between WQHT, WPLJ and WHTZ in the early 90's... Rolling Eyes

)

Anyways! I sincerely hope it's not common practice... it's not very professional, and someday, it will kick back.

Jason Bishop · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 02:22 (GMT) Post subject:

Hey all,

Thanks for thoughts and comments.

Jacob, you are right in that I put this thread in the Pros category for two reasons...first, is it a Pro thing to do?...and second, the subheading for the category description refers to it being the place to talk about tips, tricks, techniques, etc.

As for not limiting for a client...no, unless they don't have the means and want it LOUD.
I always ask, and if I have the time, submit a dry version and a wet version so seekers (especially those unfamiliar with audio production) can hear the difference.

Anyone who goes through a production house or agency always wants it dry.
But often, those marrying the audio to a flash animation or some stills or other graphics want some compression and/or limiting.
Also, as I have said in the past, some TV station production departments just want to be able to drop it into a timeline, add the video and swoosh effects and be done with it.

As always, I say trust your ears (but make sure you have good monitors first!)

Sid Whatley · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 02:27 (GMT) Post subject:

It IS common practice for "Pros". I compress every read I do whether it's for broadcast or audition...now for 30yrs. My discontinued, hard to find and very rare compressor is part of my sound and what my voice is. I use it for my National spots as well as regional and local ads. I am a full-time artist (no day job, no part time, nothing else) and I do very well. The most important part is having the knowledge and experience as an engineer/producer to know how to use limiting/compression. As for producing auditions, I'm 50/50 and have landed just as many that I produced as I have from dry reads. But that's me.

Lee Kanne · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 06:11 (GMT) Post subject:

Since limiting is dynamic reduction, one of the dangers of limiting is reducing the dynamic range of a signal...

this can be particularly destructive when limiting a full mix of a recording that contains a wide range of frequencies, such as, an orchestra, a choir, a jazz quartet, piano concerto, or even a rock band
with multi instrumentation...

you are literally putting a damper on the "life" of the recordings of this nature..

with voice however, the frequency range is not spread out over the full spectrum, so the danger of significant reduction in dynamic range is less imminent..

limiting and compression can be very useful for VO...compression can even out the volume levels, (moving away from and toward the mic), and limiting can act as sort of a "glue" when doing production, (mixing VO and background, foley, etc) where there are a wide range of volumes and peaks present..

Jacob Ekstroem · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 09:38 (GMT) Post subject:

Sid,

I'm surpriced! Shocked

Lee,

so, do you limit your auditions?

Sid Whatley · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 12:43 (GMT) Post subject:

Very well said Lee.

Claire Dodin · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 12:44 (GMT) Post subject:

Jason Bishop · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 16:32 (GMT) Post subject:

At the risk of making this a GEEK entry....

For the record, in my experiment to use limiting on auditions this week, I'm NOT talking about Brick Wall Limiting with 10-12db of extra gain which produces that wide/thick/phat looking waveform. (ALTHOUGH on the winning auditions sent to me by BF, they WERE brick walled!)

For your edification, I put pics of the "Winning Audition" waveform from the other service below followed by a "Less Limited" audition I did yesterday (not the same copy of course)

Since I typically record with the "meat" of my audio in the -9db area with peaks going no higher than -6db...I've set the limit at -2 with anywhere from 4-6db of gain with the goal of maintaining dynamic range, but getting a fuller and undistorted sound.

To me, for my voice & mic & pre, the low to moderate limiting on my dry voice is providing a more fuller sound than my previously"normalized" files which went into the computer with slight compression.(2.5:1)

Anyway, It's just an experiment for me this week.
Some may see it as "cheating", others won't and I get that.

For those thinking of the same experimenting, know limiting WILL make any sound quality issues in your studio even uglier, along with any mouth noises, etc., so you still have to practice good tradecraft!

Best,
Jason

Lee Gordon · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 16:56 (GMT) Post subject:

I'll take Door Number One.

If the producer of the finished product wants to add compression, EQ, or pigs oinking in the background, that's his creative choice. I'm submitting a demo that looks like the first example.

Greg Houser · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 17:06 (GMT) Post subject:

I'm with Lee. I've tossed a lot of auditions where the talent went out of their way to use EQ, compression and other forms of dynamic processing to make their stuff stand out.

If you need all that to stand out, then I wouldn't want you as a talent. Your voice ought to be able to do that on it's own.

While most of my auditions aren't done from home (shame really, as my studio is nicer than their's and we all agree to it; rules are rules), when I have the opportunity, I send two auditions to the client/agent. One clean read with minor editing (breaths, etc. taken out), and one with processing. Some folks like receiving auditions that have been tinkered with, but most don't (at least in my neck of the woods).

Jason Bishop · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 17:57 (GMT) Post subject:

...and THAT'S why I started the thread!
(he says with all humor, not jerkily!)

The overall goal of my questions and "experimenting" this week is to use LESS, not more and still be within the norms of professional practice.

Greg, as I mentioned earlier, it is also my practice to provide both a dry and wet version of an audition. Even the wet one is more damp than anything.

Also, let me restate that the pic labeled "WinningAudition" is not my audition. It is an audition that an agency sent out to inform its other talent what is getting the jobs.

I agree, it SHOULD BE talent voice to a seekers ear with NO or as little tweaking as possible.

However, there's also debate on how"normalizing" an audio file recorded at the -9db level up to -3db is is an act of "processing" and that recording input levels should be boosted instead.
That of course leads to the debate about where to record in the digital realm.

UGH...it's all so mind numbing.

And therein lies the rub...
Is it best to "normalize" only, getting the added volume boost, but still maintaining the ratios between waveform peaks/valleys?

OR, is low to moderate "limiting" better, holding the peaks in check, but boosting the valleys for a sound that stands out a bit more for a seeker who in all likelihood (sp?) is listening on normal computer speakers, not proper reference monitors?

And finally to Lee who would submit an audition that looks like the first pic.....that is a limited file.....just not as limited as the 2nd pic.

Not looking for fights, just enlightment!

(and in his best Chandler Bing inner voice...)
Can ya tell it's a slow day since I have time to write all this?
Jeeesh....

Best,
Jason

Sid Whatley · Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008, 18:24 (GMT) Post subject: