Numerous rejections from a single QA
I have received numerous rejections to projects due to "boxiness" in my recording, all of which come from a single person in QA. Never, in all the time that I have been here, have I been rejected for "boxiness" before.
The first recording was accepted after the revision was sent out, despite the fact that it was recorded in the exact same recording space as before.
The second was rejected earlier tonight; the revision email said there was too much "boominess," which I took to mean that there was a proximity effect problem. Upon recording again further from my microphone, the rejection email stated that "there is still boxiness in your recording," which implies that the first email mentioned anything about boxiness in the first place when it did not.
Here is the first recording, for which I was requested to do a revision (the one with "boominess"):
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Y9Itwnl18pLFTszVH0Lf9DT9AWWKZAOJ
This is the revision, which was rejected for "still" having "boxiness:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1odac4NRubGhS2aKvGKfNiiLeoo8TvlJi
I want to mention again that I have never, ever been rejected due to issues of "boxiness" or "boominess," I have recorded in the exact same space for all of my work without issue. The inconsistency in the QA evaluations is maddening.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Hello Justin! Thank you for participating in this Community! :-)
These indeed sound quite boxy :-((( ... It sounds like you have recorded these in a cardboard box.
Could it be because of the FFT-based noise cancellation plugin? It sounds awfully hollow... This is especially noticeable now that more and more VO pros submit cleaner, more natural-sounding audio w/ no plugin applied.
Could we know what software you are using? Any noise-cancellation plugins in the effects chain?
Best regards,
Oki
No, but you can tell me why this was never a problem with any of my other paid, fulfilled projects and why 4 out of the most recent 6 posts on this board, at the time of this writing, are all asking about the same "boxiness" rejections they keep receiving.
Whether or not other VB pros sound better is not my concern, some of them have $1000 microphones, I'm not competing with them. At this point, I seem to be competing with the QA team, whose standards seemingly change on a whim.
Could it be because the audio quality is on the borderline? If so, that means it's time to start improving the audio quality.
... and I believe it has less to do with the type of microphone you may be using. You can deploy a Sony C-800G, and still turn out sounding "boxy" if you continue to rely on those plug-ins.
Best regards,
Oki
If I needed to "improve audio quality" then I wouldn't have multiple successfully-fulfilled projects.
If you're not going to answer any of my questions or continue to offer such illustrious advice as saying that I sound like I'm recording in a cardboard box, then I'd prefer a response from someone who's actually helpful or to have this thread deleted entirely.
Hi Justin,
I understand how frustrating this can be, but after reviewing your audio, it seems like there are some acoustics issues that we can approve.
As you know, our Quality Control team is constantly improving their standards, that's why it might seem like a surprise that they did approve something before but now they are asking for revision on those issues.
How about you consider Oki's suggestions for a minute, if it's not an issue with your recording space, could it be due to some plugins you might be using?
Hey Justin, I'm a fellow VB artist here.
In audio I often see boominess and boxiness used as synonyms describing the same issues used interchangeably so I wouldn't worry about semantics too much as typically they both come from the same issue.
QA inconsistency has come up before within the community but with that said VB standards are higher now than they have ever been, especially when compared back to back say during a contest.
Your audio to my ears sounds as though its almost being spoken into a tube lacking body and presence. I would guess that we have a mixture of a tight space lacking complete acoustic treatment and limited physical space around the mic itself. Those two factors (if accurate) will absolutely cause trouble for you moving forward as a pro regardless of past success.
So to focus your audio I definitely recommend adding more acoustic treatment to your space or finding a larger more suitable area and sufficiently treating that.
Recording area pictures / signal chain+fx description would greatly help the VB team assist you properly,
Good luck!
Hello, Gents!
First of all, thank you for reaching out, Justin. The will to improve should always prevail over our natural tendency to set things in stone.
As James and Johnny point out: our standards are evolving, adapting, and toughening not just from year-to-year, but with some clients, this can be a requirement that changes on a day-to-day basis. Hence the need for us as Pros to remain flexible, adaptable and open to critique. Rejection is a constant in our business for we can't always be perfect for every project.
Now: let's keep open minds and open ears. Audio assessment is a tough trade. Even tougher than producing because like you, Oki, Johnny and myself are Pros subject to evaluation here and in other platforms, with other clients, etc. It's also made more difficult because words can only relay so much of what we perceive.
This is the case with your submissions: from file 1 to file 2 you can hear a difference, but as the other three participants in this conversation, I also hear this boxy/boomy quality in your recording. Having a thousand dollar mic makes no difference except that in some cases, that tool may make your job easier or more difficult. I know this because even though I work with a 1K Sennheiser 416 as my daily driver, it's not the easiest mic to work with because of its sensitivity lobes. It also takes a long time to figure ideal settings for one's usual space, or my case, every new room I step in because I've been mobile to semi-mobile for the past 3 years.
Onto this boomy/boxy quality, I think both Oki and James expressed the sound signature in simple, yet personal terms. The tough technical explanation is that you have harmonics and frequency lingering in the 2400 Hz and relative frequencies, with a noise floor that's not doing any favors to your quality either. It's really tough to say this with clinical precision though because we don't know what your voice sounds like in person, nor have we performed measurements in your room. There are no other frames of reference for our assessment than your recordings and those of other Pros. It's not a personal issue with you nor is it that we want to compare, but in QC we must do this as the clients outline their quality requirements and we're obligated to enforce them.
Can this be a bother? Of course! But this is all within the rules we have chosen to follow and play with as Pros in the platform. It's also what drives our learnings and growth. I'm a much better Pro and engineer thanks to Bunny even after spending 20+ years in Radio and TV and I can tell you in all honesty, that we're here to help you out in being better too, but that's your choice to make.
Here's a sample of what File 1 sounds like with some very fancy processing to bring it up to standards, just barely. Please listen attentively to the differences between your files and this one. I didn't correct mouth noises and didn't apply the $1,500 dollars forensics tools because you wouldn't be able to use them either. This was done with inexpensive plugins, about an hour's worth of post-production and many years of listening. Hit us up again so that we can help your setup and make those pipes shine. Your voice deserves it.
Kindest Regards,
Héctor Adolfo Ituarte (BunnyStudio QC Agent)
I was once again rejected for "boxy" audio. This was after further treating my recording space to deal with any sort of reverb. This is the file that was rejected:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hl4gSHXCtQ7fzwX0S-pqBnHlLKQxTDha
This is honestly baffling, I don't know what else to do short of recording in an anechoic chamber. I cannot hear any room noise in this at all.
And, no, I don't use plugins of any kind. My audio is recorded raw, normalized to -3 db, then any undesirable sounds (ie, mouth clicks) are selected/deleted/crossfaded or (in the case of breaths) selected then de-amplified to -50 db (rather than -60 db since that sounds processed and inorganic).
Also my comment about the $1000 microphone was not serious, I'm not suggesting that such a mic would have fixed these problems. My problem fundamentally is that I am being rejected for reasons that I was not being rejected for before, and the response of "constantly improving" is just another way of saying "constantly changing without notice."
The only other thing I can think of that might be causing issues is the laptop screen I look at to read and deliver lines. I know that would cause reflections, but I'm surrounded on all sides by absorbent material. Wouldn't that kill any possible echo?
Hello, Justin - Thank you for re-posting your audio! :-)
Laptop screen ... That may be one of the culprits.
Could you please take various photographic snapshots of the room in which you record your audio, and post them here? Please also include photos right above & below the microphone, to help us identify the issues.
Thank you!! :-)
Best regards,
Oki
Hi, Justin!
That sound signature is more boomy than boxy to me. You could resolve that by applying simple EQ, but the issue is that you have frequency lingering, which means that the nasty peaks around 2400 Hz may no longer be as much of an issue thanks to your acoustic treatment, but at the same time it is causing your space to suffer from bass buildup. This is very usual in spaces with parallel walls/surfaces and results in a spike on the bass/sub-bass frequencies. In your booth's current state, I'd recommend cutting everything under 60 Hz and carefully cutting the 70 to 100 Hz so that you don't completely neuter your vocals (which already has a nice baritone richness).
Physically, you could address the buildup with bass traps and mic positioning. This will take some experimenting, though.
The one big issue still left unresolved for me is the white noise audible throughout your recording:
As you can see, this reading and spectral analysis of your waveform indicate that the white noise level is almost double our current quality standard of -90 dB. This could be a consequence of tracking gain levels and of course, the inherent noise of your mic/interface.
When applying high-pass filters, the amplitude of your waveform drops by 2 dB and the noise floor improves by 10 dB. This is just from cutting those boomy, muddy frequencies that serve no purpose in most VO work: wasted energy in the low-frequency range.
Also, be aware of mouth noises. I understand that right now you can't mute those noises to the theoretical -96 dB of digital silence, since your noise floor is elevated and that even with fades, the cuts will not be seamless and natural, hence the importance of addressing the white noise issue too. These tongue flicks and mouth clicks are present as documented in the following screenshots:
As Oki says, having access to images of your setup can help us clarify a lot and aid in our mission to help you quash all of these sonic imperfections.
Cheers!
I hadn't thought to look into the waveform below -60 db since I was under the impression that was the noise floor VB is looking for. I'll try out some high-pass filtering in the future since that seems to help, but I was loathe to do it before since I know VB prefers audio as close to raw as possible. Thanks for the in-depth look, I'll look into making some changes.
Hey, Justin!
I feel you, man. I also have to apply filtering and gating and I'm constantly trying to improve my "natural" sound, which kinda sounds like an oxymoron when one realizes that such sound can only be achieved by padding, insulating and treating one's room... and yes, sometimes processing our signal too. The thing is we don't live in studios (although I'd move into any room in Blackbird at the drop of a hat) so it's difficult for us to adequate living spaces and shape them into the ideal recording booth for VO: which is also extra hard, as we don't have the use for coloration, reverb or any of the other qualities many singing booths are designed to achieve.
This is the real challenge of the self-produced VO Pro: to jump from just a talent who can sit in front of anyone's pro setup and deliver great readings, such as many of us were used to back when only radio stations and big studios had the access to gear and clients. Now, we must grow daily into the shoes of an engineer, producer and still keep on our VO artist hat on so that our sensibilities don't go out the window in the endless pursuit of 'perfect' audio quality. Which is another thing to keep in mind: perfectible is possible, perfect is always to be attained.
Let us know more about your setup, maybe we can squeeze every bit of quality out of it or in the worst case, refer you to low-cost alternatives that will suit your space and voice better. We can always trade our gear: but moving, building or changing our voices are kind of harder to do.
Looking forward to hearing those improvements, for real! Keep us in the loop and we'll try our best to help out.
Cheers, mate!