Media Music Blog

On hold music and voice-over needs to be mixed correctly, otherwise it can become needlessly irritating. It never ceases to amaze me that some very large companies get this so wrong.

I have just been on hold for about 20 minutes and as a producer of on-hold packages I am very aware of the issues. My experience today with a very large mobile phone company highlights some do’s and don’ts for companies considering a custom on-hold package.

Consistency – I have just listened to a variety of male and female voices all at different volume levels. I believe the voice-over should be the same person throughout and there is no excuse for the voice to change in volume from message to message. The only exception to this is in advert style sound bites during an on-hold section.

Don’t stop the music – I strongly believe that voice-over during an on-hold section should be mixed with the music. My experience just today played 10 seconds of music, before a voice-over thanked me for continuing to hold. At each stage the music stopped whilst the voice thanked me for holding.

Two things are wrong here.
Firstly, the music should duck, or lower in volume whilst the voice-over is present. Stopping the music lulls the caller into a false sense of security. Every time the music stops you think you are through… then you realise you aren’t!

Secondly, don’t thank the caller every 10 seconds for holding. By all means thank them periodically but it is always best to mix in a variety of voice-over elements to keep the caller attentive. Product related tips or facts, anything other than the same sentence over and over.
The spacing of these messages depends on the music speed and the length of the voice-over section. As a producer of on-hold packages I find it is best to determine the spacing based on how it feels and how it fits with the music bed.

Communicate - The on-hold section can be an ideal communication channel for you, directly to your target market. Tell them about little known services, latest deals, and practical information. Making your on-hold a positive experience requires a little forethought but will make a huge difference to your callers.

Like this blog? Subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Hopefully by now you have had chance to read my previous post in this series and are considering a condenser microphone type to produce quality recordings. With this in mind this article covers connectivity and the means of actually getting your microphone to work with various equipment.

The Audio Chain

It is important to understand the audio chain and how it may effect the quality of your recordings. For instance, purchasing a £1000 top of the range microphone and plugging it into your basic sound card in your office / home PC is not going to get you the best result. For this reason it is important to consider your recording needs and to think about the path your audio will take.

A Guided Tour

To help you consider your audio chain and decide on your equipment needs I will describe my kit and the thought process I went through before purchasing it. Please keep in mind this setup accommodates my needs as a professional sound engineer and may be more than the DIY podcaster actually needs or wishes to spend.

Microphones – as you know the best microphones for voice recording are condensers. (See previous article in this series ) For my recording needs I use a pair of AKG C1000S. I chose these as they are industry standard studio microphones that I had used previously so I knew they were good. Also, I wanted the ability to be able to use them independently of my podcasting kit. I have recorded bands with these in recording studios, they have been used in conjunction with other sound engineers to record live shows and I have used them for interviews on the move at exhibitions. I wanted a pair of microphones so that I could record in stereo, or record one or two podcasters without using additional equipment.

Soundcard - Being able to connect these microphones directly with my PC was not a concern and therefore my soundcard did not need any consideration. My intention from the outset was to record the source material on an external recorder before importing it to my PC for editing / production. If direct PC connectivity was a priority I would have needed to consider the best method of getting a professional microphone into my PC (More on this later)

Hardware Recorder – For my needs I decided that the Zoom H4 would be ideal for capturing my raw audio. I chose this as it records to SD Memory and has no moving parts, unlike hard disk recorders. It was also light and therefore portability would not be an issue for field recordings. Another big factor was that I could plug my 2 AKGC1000S microphones into it using standard XLR microphone cables and the unit also has built in 48v phantom power.

Finishing the kit… A pair of DT100 headphones provide monitoring and the whole kit cost in the region of £500GBP. It provides a flexible, yet professional solution for quality podcast recording on the move or at a fixed location.

Getting a professional microphone into your PC

This is where the process can get a little bit noisy if you are not careful. Every audio recording will have some element of noise. This can get into the audio chain at any point. The trick is to keep the noise to a minimum and providing it is not too audible it should not pose a problem.

Sound cards

Most office/home PC’s come fitted with very basic sound cards. Although these are fine for playing back music and audio they often suffer when it comes to audio inputs.

They tend to have poorer quality analogue to digital converters which means a certain level of unwanted noise will be recorded with the audio. The input connector usually require a 3.5mm mini jack.

Also, they have no power for a condenser microphone which means you are restricted to using a condenser microphone that will run from a battery, such as the AKG1000S.

• Click here to listen to a test recording >

Mixing Desk / Pre-amp

A small mixing desk with phantom power a line level output will greatly improve the result that you basic PC soundcard can achieve. There are many in expensive mixers on the market that will provide this.

An alternative to this is a pre-amp. This is similar to a mixing desk as it has a line level output and the ability to power a pro microphone. With either of these options you can use microphones without the need for a battery.

• Click here to listen to a test recording >
• An example of a small nixeing desk -Yamaha MG 8-2 FX Mixing Desk
• An example low cost pre-amp - Art Tube Mp Original - Valve Mic Preamp With 48V Phantom Power

USB Audio Device

This device does not require a sound card. It simply converts your audio into digital code that is then input directly to your PC/Mac thorough a USB port.

• Click here to listen to a test recording >
• An example USB interface - Behringer UCA202 U-Control USB Audio Interface

P.S. The low level hum in mixing desk / pre-amp & USB device recording tests is vibration picked up by the microphone due to incorrect placement! A subject I will cover soon.

A Digital Microphone

Digital microphones are relatively new. They basically contain an the USB device within the microphone casing. This negates the need for any other equipment, just plug straight into your PC/Mac via a USB port.

• An example of a digital mic - Samson C-O1U USB Condenser Mic

Finally,

Choosing the right setup is not always easy. It can require much thought and review reading to come up with your best solution. Consumer reviews are always a great starting point however, ultimately the decision is yours.

In general you get what you pay for, as you can see there a numerous options and not all of them are hugely expensive.

Once you have your recording kit it can last for many years and it is unlikely that microphone technology will change much. Many of the pro-mics have been around for decades and are still sold and used in pro recording studios. What I expect will change in coming years is the software we use, audio interfaces and the mics with digital outputs.

Which ever route you go for, try and think it though carefully, research it, and if at all possible try before you buy.

Click here to read a review on the Zoom H4 >

Like this blog? Subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This short article contains the notes for a screencast - click here to view it.

The screencast and accompanied notes is aimed at beginners in digital audio.

Free Audio Editing Software

Professional audio recording is reliant on a number of factors. Generally speaking it comes down to the quality of the software / equipment and your sound engineering skills.

Audacity is freely available as open source software for audio recording and editing. As a professional sound engineer I would not use it to produce work for my clients, however, I think it is ideal for achieving good quality audio recording and production for the home / small business DIY podcaster / videocaster.

The software is available at http://audacity.sourceforge.net/. There is also a plugin pack that is worth the download and the lame encoder for creating mp3 formats.

After installation

Installing the software was very quick and painless on my machine. Upon opening the program, it is very easy to use and has a nice simple layout. Clicking the record button in the transport bar at the top of the screen starts it recording instantly. Providing your microphone / soundcard is setup correctly you should have no problem getting many takes recorded.

Audio Recording / Editing

The test was recorded on my Zoom H4 digital audio recorder and imported to audacity for editing. The import went very smoothly. I did the recording remotely and although the record function in audacity is very good, the quality will be dependant on your sound card. In this case, I knew the sound card on my office machine would give an inferior result and I did not want the built in soundcard influencing the quality of the audacity test.

The audio seemed quite low once imported which is quite usual for digital recording.

Removal of unwanted sections

Removing unwanted sections of audio is really easy. Hover over the area you want to remove with your cursor, left click and drag to highlight the area you wish to remove and click delete. This deletes the section and closes the gap.

Normalize

The normalize function makes the recording as loud as possible without causing a clip (distortion). To use this, simply select the area you wish to normalize by pressing Ctrl+A for the whole track or use the mouse to select a portion of the track.

Once you have highlighted the area, go the effect menu and select the normalize function. Applying the default setting will do the trick. When you play it back it should sound much louder.

Equalization

Equalisation or EQ alters the tonal qualities of the audio to make it sound clearer. From the effect menu, select the Equalization option. Start with a flat line and by clicking on the line you can create a node that you can drag in all directions. Use nodes to reduce the bass at below 100Hz and boost the high frequencies around 5000Hz. This should make the audio sound clearer and brighter. Don’t be afraid to experiment with the EQ setting, it is not an exact science.

Compression

Audio compression is a widely used process by radio stations to make their output seem as loud as possible. Without getting too technical, it basically brings the quietest points in the audio closer to the loudest points that gives an overall perceived loudness. Again, this is in the effect menu, under compressor. For the purpose of the demonstration I have used the default settings, however, you can experiment with the settings.

Finally…

Here is the before and after comparison in mp3

 

 The raw file [0:18m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 The editied version [0:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
 Audacity Screencast #1 [6:51m]: Download

If you have any related comments or questions please feel free to leave a comment. I will be open to the possibility of producing additional screencasts about Audacity / audio recording and production.

Links

Software used

• Audacity

Hardware Used

• Zoom H4 Audio recorder - Read My Review >
• AKG C1000s Microphone

—

High quality royalty free background music, audio editing services and podcast recording / production at Media Music Now

Like this blog? Subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Having been involved with professional sound production for a number of years I did a fair amount of researching before purchasing this piece of recording hardware. Having used the device for a number of professional recordings I feel that my review is fair and considered.

First impressions

When you first get this device out of the box you could be forgiven for thinking it is some kind of police issue stun gun as it has a pair of fixed microphones made of metal which are surrounded by a metal protection cage. Other than the microphones the rest of the device is made completely of plastic.

Initially, I thought that the built in microphones would be a poor substitute for using quality external microphones - how wrong I was. There was also a copy of Steinberg Cubase LE, a 48 track digital audio and midi sequencer software included.

Using the Zoom H4

The Zoom H4 uses SD memory cards to store the audio recordings. The one I purchased came with a 512mb card that I upgraded to a 2GB card giving over 6 hours of 16-bit CD Quality recording and over 30 hours in MP3 stereo mode.

Recording is possible in 2-track stereo and four-track mode. The two combination XLR connectors offer microphone, line and instrument input which means that the Zoom H4 can be used for quality stereo recording in WAV 44.1kHz or 96kHz and in mp3 in 2 or 4 track mode.

In principle the 4-track mode is ideal for the instrumentalist or composer who want to capture musical ideas or performances that will be edited later using software. Personally, I don’t think it would be easy for a band/group to use this solely for the purpose of creating a demo but incorporating it with the included audio editing software could facilitate this.

Additionally, there are numerous built in effects, amp and mic modelling presets and compressors onboard that I can only think would be aimed at the musician. Personally, I would find the user interface too fiddly to be bothered with these, I would just use the H4 to record the raw audio and use the effects / processors in Cubase software provided.

The small backlit screen, the centre input menu and side jog wheel provide navigation around the menu driven functionality. I find this system ample for recording raw audio but would lose the will to live if I tried to carry out any processing using this method. I think any serious multitrack recording would be made a lot easier if Zoom had included a software interface for your pc/mac. The ability to use the H4 as a soundcard via a USB connection leaves me wondering why such an option was never created.

Annoyance

Despite this being a field recorder / multitrack recorder the headphone socket is the 3.5 minijack variety which means I have to use a special adapter for using professional headphones with it. Also, as it is small and made of plastic a fitted bag or harness and shoulder strap would have made portability much easier.

Microphones

The two built in condenser microphones are fixed in an XY configuration for true stereo recording and are very high quality. I bought the device thinking that I would never use the built in mics as I have a matched pair of AKG C1000s microphones. However, the built in mics are excellent capturing sound as you hear it. The addition of theses built in mics make the device excellent for ambient recordings and even live gigs. Other reviews suggest that high SPL environments may not be good for these mics, however, I have not found this to be a problem when recording bands rehearsing.

Using my AKG C1000s for close mic’ing situations offer complete versatility for the field recording. The H4 has 48v phantom power and ample gain for most interviewing situations.

Conclusion

Given that the recording quality of the H4 is excellent, the device is lightweight and two AA batteries can keep it running for 4 hours, I think the Zoom H4 is a fantastic piece of kit for the serious podcaster or songwriter wanting to capture ideas or record instrumental parts. For the price, the device is reliable, adequately well built and delivers stunning and accurate recordings in a variety of environments. I am not sure that I recommend this as a multitrack solution for bands though.

Despite a couple of little niggles I think this was a great purchase and would highly recommend it.

The Zoom H4 can be purchased from Amazon

Like this blog? Subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Today, I had a call from a lady who owns a beauty salon. She had just received a letter from a performance royalty collecting society stating that she had to make annual payments to them in order to play music in her business venue. Many people do not even realise they need a license to play music in their public venue and are shocked when they get such letters.

This is not the first time I have received such a call and imagine it won’t be the last!

Although the lady did not agree with having to pay the license for playing music, she, as many do, paid it rather than face the aggravation and possible consequences.

A question that comes up often in this conversation is, who gets the license money that I am paying?

Well, the official answer is, the artist / composer who’s music you are playing - if only this was true. The fact is, the logistics involved in knowing who is being played when and where is so vast and random that the majority of the money collected goes to the mainstream artists and major record labels. Good for them, but not good for the independent artist or composer who ends up as a statistical minority and gets nothing or close to it (if they are lucky).

An independent artist only gets a worthwhile performance royalty payment when their music is broadcast on a major TV or Radio station. Big stations have to produce detailed data in the form of playlists / cue sheets from which accurate royalty payments can be awarded. Smaller stations’ playlists are randomly checked to collate statistical based payments. As an independent composer, the odds of receiving any money are stacked against you unless you get your music played on a heavily monitored broadcast.

The conversation I had today about this took my mind back to a case in Spain where a bar owner played music that he acquired online under the Creative Commons license. He won a case against the Spanish performance royalty collecting society (SGAE). (see links at the end for more info on this)

With SGAE, a composer assigns their performance royalty to the collecting society and can no longer give consent for their music to be played in public or broadcast. This permission can only be licensed through SGAE from this point forward. The SGAE composer can’t even put their own music on their own website, or play it in their own business venue without paying a licence to SGAE - Bizarre but true!

Globally, there are a number of PRO’s (Performance Rights Organisations) who collect license fees on behalf of composers / artists, some that require the composer to assign their performance rights exclusively to them, meaning that only the PRO can allow use of that music. I don’t claim to be a legal expert on all PRO’s T&C’s, but I do know that some performance royalty collectors allow you to enter into a non-exclusive agreement with them which gives you added flexibility. I believe ASCAP and BMI are examples of ones that operate non-exclusively.

At this point in Internet history, I personally don’t think it is a great idea for a composer/artist to assign exclusive rights to a performance royalty collecting society. My opinion is that you should be able to let your PRO collect for you, and you should be able to collect your own royalties directly if you wish. This can only work if you sign non-exclusively. Seasoned composers may shout me down and say that they earn a good royalty cheque from their PRO. Fair enough, it works well for many, however, there are other new ways of distributing and creating an income from music. I believe the option should be a choice, but this will only be possible if ALL PRO’s begin to offer non-exclusive agreements. This would allow composers to make their own decision whether to collect license money themselves, leave the PRO to do it all or do a combination of both.

It would also let composers decide whether to allow Creative Commons licensing of their music and would also let them play it on websites and in public venues of their choice without complications. I know many composers that would favour this and would use an opt in / opt out system to allow PRO’s to collect for broadcast on TV, Radio etc, whilst dealing with the rest directly or through the numerous online distributors.

Many PRO fans may say that things like creative commons are allowing music to be devalued to the point of distorting the market. I say leave the choice with the composer and make PRO assignment non-exclusive accross the board. The majors won’t loose out, but the independents could leverage the new order of digital distribution whilst retaining potentially lucrative broadcast royalties collected by established entities.

Further reading:

The Spanish case http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7154

Creative Commons website http://creativecommons.org/

Creative Commons FAQ regarding collecting societies click here

Like this blog? Subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!