Are MP3 sound files good enough?

I'm working with a voice talent from another town. He wants to e-mail me the narration for my corporate video as MP3 files, but I am wondering whether the quality would be good enough? Aren't those files compressed a whole lot? I've never done MP3s before.

Alternatively, if I paid him to burn me something onto CD, but he can't do QT files, what should I pick for best quality and easy import into FCP? Are .wav files any good? What about AIFF?

Thanks,

Simone

Mp3's are very compressed. For voice it wouldn't be that noticable but I would ask him to burn some AIFF files, at 48khz/16bit, to a CD as data files (NOT an audio CD). That way you can drop them straight into FCP without having to render.

I get files from my announcer in New York (I'm in LA) as MP3 files. That's the "most common denominator" file for our broadcast group. I then use a droplet in compressor to make them .aiff for final cut. They sound great.
Of course, it depends on how well the clips are recorded in the first place, but assuming your voice talent has a decent setup you should be fine.
J

Hi Simone,

The answer to your question, like so many others is "It depends."

I'm a full time voice-talent. The path which took me to my current career included time spent as a broadcast engineer, video/film director, recording engineer and studio owner.

The Internet has changed the way most voiceovers are delivered. Today, many voice talents have their own studios and they perform their own "engineering" with varying levels equipment qualty, expertise and skill. (I'm probably one of the most technically skilled VO Talent around, and I consider my work to be MUCH better when I work at an outside studio with a real engineer to press the record button.) Most simply email their audio to their clients, which usually limits file size to under 10 Mb. If you need narration tracks over 2-minutes, your are pretty much stuck with .mp3 compression, because .aiff files are much larger - 48kHz mono aiff files are about 5.25 Mb per minute.

The "Standard" .mp3 for voice-over delivery is 128kbps 44.1/48kHz 16-bit mono. This is considered the "Standard" rate becuase that's what has become the "standard" ISDN audio protocall used when recording live from remote studios. Most people can't hear any difference between a voiceover recorded at 44.1 16-bit 128kbps and a 48kHz .aiff file.

So most voicetalent are used to sending 128kbps 44.1 .mp3 files to clients - it works just fine for most applications.

Since I have a fast DSL connection and a large ftp upload site, I've been recommending to clients that I provide them 48kHz .aiff or .wav files. Though upload/download times are increased, it makes the job much easier for editors - there's no need to convert .mp3 to uncompressed - and it does sound slightly better.

Also, while .mp3 does sound fine, remember, most video and audio gets re-encoded before final delivery - It's been said that 128kbps .mp3 is limited to 5 re-encodes before EVERYONE can hear "artifacts" in the audio. I can hear the difference on the first encoding - anytime we can keep the audio uncompressed, I'm much happier - I simply sound better!

So, the answer is yeah, .mp3 is fine, but uncompressed is better. A few of my clients have been requesting 192kbps and 384 kbps, so that's another option - the higher the .mp3 bit-rate, the better the audio sounds.

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

just as a point of discussion -

every time ive used "remote" vo situations, ive been disappointed. you simply cant beat sitting with the talent in a studio and directing the performance. just like screen actors, many (id say even MOST) of even the best vo talent out there just flail about randomly without a good director to coax out the right performance.

i even tried cutting my own scratch track and giving that to them as a performance go-by. and still never quite right. just cant beat the person to person of the old-school.

MP3 isn't One Thing. It's a tool that has a lot of handles on it depending on what you want to do. Some handles have become standard, See: Travis. You can create MP3 files that are very small in filesize, but don't sound so hot. I have an answering machine that works like that. You can also create large MP3 files that cannot be distinguished from the original performance.

MP3 is the JPEG of the audio world. You can make JPEG pictures that look like trash and you can make them perfect. It's a slider.

I did the Live Capture for a small performance here and delivered the clips as WAV files. They drop right into Windows and Macs with no great trouble.

You need to be clear that MP3 files do not drop right into Final Cut. That is, they do, and they *seem* to work, but they damage the show much later when it's very difficult to fix.

Koz

Good point. That's something I'm wondering about as well. On the other hand, our Dollar goes so much further up in Canada, it is very tempting. I wonder if a savvy audio person could hook the director up with a feed into the phoneline, so one can at least listen while it's being recorded and scream if it isn't right.

<<<I wonder if a savvy audio person could hook the director up with a feed into the phoneline, so one can at least listen while it's being recorded and scream if it isn't right.>>>

How 1900s.

Plug your PowerBook with the camera in and do a 2-way video and audio iChat AV link during the performance.

You can't wave your hands over the phone.

Koz

yeah, simone. weve done that to. there is hardware that will patch the monitor out into a phone connection so various remote folk can hear whats going on. and that IS way better than nothing.
but you still cant beat being there. ive foun dthat you can give physical real time feedback that can really bring out the right vibe...

Why don't you get him to send you a sample of the mp3 quality he works in, so you can toss it into FCP and see how it works out for you? Just ten seconds worth should do it - he might even have a showreel lying about that he can send immediately.

If it's for something like a TVC I think you can get away with a short amount of mp3, if the quality is good, but if it was for a long form, like a documentary, I would consider converting all the audio to 48k 16bit AIFF once it was received and using that in FCP.

<<<2-way video and audio iChat AV link >>>

You don't need the "Extra Hardware" with iChat. Any audio house will have the ability to plug a monitor feed right into the high-level audio connector of the PowerBook. Just change the Sound Preferences from built-in microphone to Line In.

For best results you at the far end should be wearing headphones as that makes fewer demands on the echo cancellation, but it should be just like standing there.


It doesn't escape me that the PC/Linux guy is telling the Mac people how to run their Macs.

Koz

Hi Wayne...

Quote
Wayne
...every time ive used "remote" vo situations, ive been disappointed. you simply cant beat sitting with the talent in a studio and directing the performance. just like screen actors, many (id say even MOST) of even the best vo talent out there just flail about randomly without a good director to coax out the right performance

It scares me, but Wayne and I actually agree on something.

I like recording at my own studio - It's always a short drive or walk from home, I'm comfortable there - the pressure's off - I can relax while I work. If I'm simply recording a script that was emailed to me, I can take a break whenever I want - I don't have to concern myself with the client's bill for studio time. ...and I can grumble about the #@#!&#$ script as much as I want... and I know the audio quality will be up to my standards. The problem is -- my best work is seldom done there!

It seems I need the pressure of a drive to the "bigtime" studio - where there's a grumpy, but capable engineer, who knows how to make me sound good - and how to achieve that special "sound" the producer is looking for, a nervous director who hopes this project will make him the next "Speilberg", who's also worried he'll never have another job after this one.... And sometimes the writer, who's there to make sure my read will somehow attain the same creative level as his "vision" -even though the director and I never seem to "get" just what that "vision" is.

Often, I'll give a particular read to a paragraph - the director will say "That's fine, let's move on." but when I look at the director's face, I can sense that there's something not quite right - I'll ask for another read, even though I have no idea what's causing the reaction... I'll redo the same paragraph, and the director will say something like "Oh. I see what you mean, that's much better." If I had been working through a remote studio, I would never have sensed that there was problem.

Most of us who have our own studios do have phone patches and/or ISDN hookups. I find that those do no good whatsoever - the hookup serves more as a distraction from my concentration - I'd rather record without it.

When I'm working on a video production, my best work is when I can work with picture with music/sfx and time code at a full-on sweetening facility-with the ability to watch the director's reaction. Then we have a full "team" operation, where the director, audio engineer and I can discuss each take, make adjustments, and see and hear fully, how the narration along with the rest of the production elements will likely affect the audience.

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

It's similar to directing actors for film...the best voice-overs I've gotten are ones where it's a combination of good directing and the actor's own input. The worst voice-overs I've gotten are ones where the director, agency reps etc. are in the studio trying to get a line reading they have in their heads, and they force the voice talent to do 30 takes of something just because the sound the actor is making is, oh, a semitone off from the pitch in their imagination. Then the actor eventually freezes up and gets flatter and flatter. So supervision is a double-edged sword. On the other hand, I also worked with a Spanish-speaking agency rep who did a really nice, lively voice-over for a commercial I was editing for them, and nailed it in three takes, just for speed. To keep that spontaneity and energy, you really have to know how to direct, or you'll just direct an actor into a stiff performance.


www.derekmok.com

its funny, just last week i used an industry renowned vo guy for a remote read. i assumed by his rep that he could hear a scratch read and ape it. so i did a performance in my office into my protools rig. i sent that to him as an example of how i wanted it performed.

what i got back was nothing like what id read. when i asked him if he'd even listened to my scratch track, he replied "oh, i didnt know what that file was for?" he then went back and re recorded it and even then it was NOTHING like id read...

it was that day that i decided that if at all possible - NO MORE REMOTE VO on projects that i direct. if the project budget cant accomodate a plane tic for one of us, then we'll just find someone local

hey travis - just as a test case, id love to send you my scratch track to see if you could (for better or worse) ape it. we could post it here as a case study... its very short, just over a minute with lots of air

Here is a listen live sample of a voiceover done in my partner's home studio, captured into Logic Pro, sent via Pando to me ( [www.pando.com]) and then converted by me to an mp3 for internet play with Sorenson Squeeze Pro. Final file size is about 1.6 megs for 1:41 seconds
Pando is a great tool for sending/receiving large files, FREE for Mac or PC.
This was done by Mike Schmidt, Hall of Fame 3rd baseman in ONE TAKE!!!

[www.mikeschmidtevents.com]

Matt Murray
Lineside Productions
[www.edgesportfishing.com]
Fishing videos, DVD Production, Websites and more.

Hi Wayne...

Quote
wayne granzin
hey travis - just as a test case, id love to send you my scratch track to see if you could (for better or worse) ape it. we could post it here as a case study...

I'm always ready to work on some sort of weird project. -Especially if we could structure the process as an instructional post..."How to produce an effective voice-over/narration track.", "How to get effective reads from your VO talent." or some such.

Many of us in the VO profession are frustrated by directors who, with a few simple changes in their approach to the voiceover, could create much more effective productions -without adding a dime to the budget - in many cases reducing the cost substantially.

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

Quote

you simply cant beat sitting with the talent in a studio and directing the performance.

I'll disagree with that 1000%. If you think about it, every studio VO session is a "remote" session. Even though you are sitting in the studio, you are still sitting in a different sound-proof room with an intercom between the Director & Talent (sometimes you can't even see the talent). I have sat in on patch sessions where the talent was in Ft. Lauderdale & the Director & client was in NY. The Director was able to "Direct" just fine without sitting in the same studio. That's antiquated thinking. This is a telecommuting society (Voice Over). Most of our Ad Agency voice talent records from their ISDN studio in their house (sitting in their undies) somewhere in Arizona while we Directed them in the Ft. Lauderdale Studio. It works out much better than waiting for talent to show up at the studio.

As far as the mp3...I never use them in projects. I convert them to AIFF's (uncompressed) for use.

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I disagree with Joe on this one. Just because you can direct actors remotely without being in the same location doesn't mean it's better or even the same. Just look at Francis Ford Coppola and The Godfather, Part III...sure, you can direct actors from within a trailer, speaking through a megaphone, but rest assured the actors won't feel nearly as good about it, or give as good a performance as they could otherwise.

Can you get usable, even good results by directing remotely? You can...it depends on who the voice talent/actor is, how complicated the job is. Most voice-overs are presentations of a product, a story, etc. But I can wager it's never better than doing it in person. Try directing an emotional performance by remote and my money will be on the face-to-face director every single time.


www.derekmok.com

I agree that the "mode" is to have the talent Some Where Else (See: Doctor Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Art Bell, etc, etc.) I also agree that it's best to be there if possible. All those people show up in the studio if there is a Special Circumstance.

Has *anybody* used videoconferencing for this? Am I the only one who thinks this is a no-brainer? Am I onto something? Should I be seeing my patent lawyer?

Koz

there is this one particular studio i work with where the "audience" sits behind the engineer on an elevated platform and you have eye to eye contact with the talent. there is a little talk back foot pedal that you can use to interject at wil. ive had great results there, even with the most cantankerous talent.

i agree with joe, that you indeed CAN get great results remotely if all things line up well. but id always choose face to face where i had the option... and i prefer a handshake to an email as well, but sometimes you do what you gotta do to suit the situation.

in planning my studio build-out i was indeed considering using cameras and flat screen monitors as our building is listed as a historic landmark and cutting a hole in the wall for a glass window was a no-go... and im sure that would have worked swimmingly as long as there was no audible sound from the camera/monitor... and in that scenario, it wouldnt matter if you were down the hall, down the road or across the pond.

but then i decided to scrap the whole effort and just keep using the 3rd party studio ive been using.