Editing / Mastering with Audacity

[ranalanricard]

Hi Colin,

I just finished my second audio book contract. I'm using Audacity as my editing platform and have turned out some pretty clean audio with it (enough so that I've been asked to record another book anyway)

Anyhow, I was wondering if you have any experience with audacity? When I compare my finished tracks with those I might hear on audible.com and other places, there is still a quality difference I can't quite seem to get a handle on. I know Audacity is a freebie and consequently I won't get the same quality I would from the high dollar editors, but I would like to try to get the absolute best I can get from it anyway.

Got any advice? Do you know of any tutorials on mastering with audacity I can get my hands on? I've googled and yahoo'd til my fingers ache and haven't been able to find anything about how to 'master' a voice track with audacity.

Thanks .............


Ran Alan Ricard
Voice Talent
www.voices.com/people/ranalanricard
941-564-6581
'Don't Just Get Voice Over ... Get Ran Over!'

[Paul Plack]

Ran,

Your software should have absolutely no effect on your audio quality. Once your audio interface turns your analog audio into a string of ones and zeros, all the software does is display the pretty waveforms, organize the controls you need to stop, play, return to the start, etc., and provide a visual interface for cutting it.

The only two exceptions to that would be (1) if your software is not capable of recording in high enough resolution to take full advantage of your interface, and (2) if you're using "plug-ins," or software-based virtual audio processing tools. Otherwise, no difference.

If you're hearing other performers whose sound you think is better than yours, they're more likely using better mic technique, better gear, working in a better room, or all of the above. As for editors, if you get the sound right and the analog-to-digital conversion done cleanly, Audacity will sound exactly like ProTools at any given data rate.

[ranalanricard]

Thanks Paul ... I appreciate your feedback. As with many others that are relatively new to VO work, my home studio and equipment is an ongoing and ever changing situation.

At the moment, I'm using an Electro Voice RE 20 with M audio interface, ART preamp and have turned my walk in closet into my recording studio. A whisper room is somewhere in my future, but might need a few more 'paying' gigs to get me there.

I like my EV RE20, but am wondering if there is a better one for audio book application???

Any suggestions? Anybody????

Thanks again,


Ran Alan Ricard
Voice Talent
www.voices.com/people/ranalanricard
941-564-6581
'Don't Just Get Voice Over ... Get Ran Over!'

[EdGambill]

A word about DAW software and that word is Algorithm.

Algorithm is the differences between most DAW software. The top line software have their own take on how “Audio Algorithms” are use in there product.

While on first look it would seem that all software for sound would record and play back the 1/0s that the digitizer supplies in true faithfulness that it not the case.

There are acoustical variances in the perceived quality of recoding and play back between the products on the market. The algorithm use by any particular brand of software decides how those 1/0s will be recorded and played back.

It has been reported that many studios that specialize in recording acoustical instruments (Bluegrass for instance) are moving away from ProTools in favor of Nuendo because they feel that Nuendo Algorithm is more faithful to the original sound recorded.

I know that many of my acquaintances that record Bluegrass sessions are using Nuendo/Cubase more and more. When I am doing a Jazz or Bluegrass session I rely on Nuendo or Cubase because I can tell a difference in the playback.

I use Audacity for some tracking, it’s a good program. I also have and use as needed ProTools, Sound Forge, WaveLab and Vegas. I can tell a substantial difference between ProTools and Nuendo/Cubase. I edit with Sound Forge, mix with Nuendo/Cubase master with Sound Forge or WaveLab and burn with CD Architect. I always prefer the play back using Nuendo/Cubase.

Ran if you are making money in VO and post production of audio, I recommend Sound Forge, if you are using a PC. If you are using a Mac then Bias Peak is a good way to go.


Compared to other Editor/Mastering products Sound Forge has a lower price point. Also it comes with several plug-ins for mastering. While several multi-track DAW products can edit, Sound Forge is a dedicated editor that is fast, easy to learn and full of quality features.

[captain54]

I use Audacity for some tracking, it’s a good program. I also have and use as needed ProTools, Sound Forge, WaveLab and Vegas. I can tell a substantial difference between ProTools and Nuendo/Cubase.

I have recorded with ProTools, Sound Forge, Acid Pro, Logic, Cubase, Soundtrack Pro, Amadeus, Twisted Wave, Audition, Audacity, Reaper, Tracktion, Sonar/Cakewalk, Digital Performer and Garageband...I have done side by side comparisons with all of them..For simple one track mono VO, I cannot tell the difference between raw tracks created on each of those programs, including Audition @ 32 bit....no difference, at all, to my ears...

Now if you are talking about the differences between mulitrack programs that are summed and mixed "in the box", and VO tracks that are ultimately processed in each of the programs, I would say there is a lot of validity to the"substantial difference" theory....I have mixed and produced in Logic, ProTools, and Audition and Acid and I would say that to my ears, Logic sounds much more three dimensional that all of the others...

But for recording one unprocessed mono audio track, in my experience, it doesn't matter....

[ranalanricard]

thanks Cap' .. I appreciate the input.

Ran

[Paul Plack]

There are acoustical variances in the perceived quality of recoding and play back between the products on the market. The algorithm use by any particular brand of software decides how those 1/0s will be recorded and played back...

Ed, color me skeptical. You've intrigued me enough to try and research this, but also used that word "perceived." Lots of things are perceived that are not real, especially when the things compared come at widely varying price points or evoke emotional comparisons.

Your sound card or external interface (using "CD quality" as an example) samples a varying analog voltage, assigns it a number with 16-bit resolution, repeats the process 44,100 times per second, ("pulse code modulation," or "PCM,") and outputs that string of wholly-formed numbers into the software. There is no "algorithm" to PCM...it's a simple hardware conveyor belt acquiring, but not processing, the data.

Unless you're using some form of audio leveling or other plug-in, or mixing multiple tracks together, the software has no role in altering those numbers. Even Microsoft "wave" format and Apple's "AIFF" format are identical in how they code uncompressed sound, simply putting their own proprietary headers on what otherwise is a raw PCM file.

Playback is simply the inverse, a string of 16-bit numbers fed to the sound cardr or interface, which converts them back into a varying voltage, applies some "smoothing" on high frequencies to make the jagged stair-step voltage changes into a smooth rise or fall, and sends them off to be amplified in the analog domain. But that's all hardware, and would happen the same with any software.

As for engineers saying they can hear a difference, I can only chalk that up to the same effect that allows placebos to cure doctors.

More to the point, I've heard Ran's demos, and I definitely hear the room and mic technique as more productive places to focus for now.

[ranalanricard]

Thank you Ed, that's good information.

Ran

[TrugsBug]

Driving from New York City up to Toronto. Is it possible to do it in one day?

[EdGambill]

What matters to one person and doesn’t matter to another is all about “Personal Preference” “no difference, at all, to my ears...” that what Captain said.

I have my hearing tested to know what my range of hearing is, currently it’s 30Hz to 14,000 Hz I’m over 60 and most folks at that age have lost much more hi end than me. I have always been careful to avoid high sound energy levels.

From time to time I master music CD’s for others. It requires a keen attention to the file in a space with a noise floor lower than 20db. It required full range monitors. I use the Mackie HTX near fields, Altec Voice of the Theater studio monitors and good old JBL and Bose book shelf for final.

Captain54 is perfectly right in his statement because that the way he hears it. I am perfectly right in my assessment be cause that’s the way I hear it. The only thing that matters is how you hear it.

I still recommend the Sound Forge software because it will do so much more for you than Audacity will. If you can find a left over Sound Forge 9.0 as a supper discount get that. It will do a lot, it comes with many useful plug-ins and you will have an upgrade path to 10.0 or better when you feel like you want to upgrade.

One last thing about differences in record and playback between various Audio/DAW software programs. Recording engineers at top flight studios, who get goodly fees for their work, seem to hear differences between various software packages. I guess there might just be something to consider there.