Advice / comments needed for live broadcasting setup

[Matti K]

Hello all,

I have a small home studio from which I broadcast sport events and stream them to YouTube, Twitch and other streaming platforms. Everything is happening live, so there is no post-processing etc. I'm looking for advice how to make my voice sound best possible, so that it would be most pleasant for the viewers.

Some history and current state

What I have had for the past year is Yamaha MG10XU mixer, into which I have plugged Audio-Technica BPHS1 headset. From the mixer I have added some compression and on the computer side I have used ReaPlug filters ReaGate and ReaFIR for gate operations and for some background noise isolation. I have tried couple different headsets and also larger condenser microphones, but headsets that I have tried have not produced the sound I have been looking for. Larger microphones I have found to be a bit difficult to work with, as I do follow multiple monitors and also do some production related tasks, so my head is not aligned all the time with the microphone and ths causes unwanted variation to the sound.

Current setup has worked quite well and people has been saying that I sound just perfect, but as always, I'm not 100% pleased myself.

What I have been missing from the setup is a simple cough button, essentially a clean mute switch. This hasn't really been a problem as I have just muted the input from the computer when needed, but cough can come quite fast and in these cases a simple switch or button will do the job a lot better. Last weekend I got a bit of an flu, but I still had some broadcasts that I had agreed to do, so I started to look for a quick solution from local stores (I live in Helsinki, Finland). What I came up with was DBX GoRack, which features a mute switch along with other features. I didn't cost much, but does the job.

So now my signal chain is BPHS1 -> GoRack -> Yamaha MG10XU -> PC. I did some testing and all works just fine and I was able to do my broadcasts just fine and I actually even did have some use for the cough button, so I was pleased with the result.

Now after couple days I started to dig deeper into features of GoRack. When I bought the unit I had already the idea in my head, that as there might be other usable features, I will explore them later. I moved compression from the mixer to GoRack as it features DBX 163 software, which I think sounds a bit better than mixer's implementation. Also I explored some EQ presets to see how they work and ended up using it's voice preset (12). After these changes I noticed that on the computer side ReaFIR plugin is not needed anymore, as there was no unwanted noise coming from the surroundings anymore. So I removed that and just have the gate in operation as a plugin / filter anymore.

Actual issue into which I'm looking for advice

But exploring GoRack features, reading about compression levels etc just opened the pandora's box for me and I'm just starting to realize how much difference can be made with preamps, EQs and channel strip processors.

I did read quite a lot about DBX 286S which seems to have a lot of features and seems to be recommended by many. As I listen my broadcasts, I do notice issues with sibilants that are quite often mentioned in discussions with DBX 286S, that it could provide a solution for improving their presentation.

So sibilants and voice clarity in general is one issue that I would be interested to improve and now for me it seems that DBX 286S might be able to help? I know that it requires tuning, testing etc and finding the proper settings, and that it's not any plug and play solution. But sure I'm willing to explore this path.

Also I would like to have more warmness in my sound, so this I understood might be possible with tube preamplifier. Would it make sense to buy separate tube amplifier like Art Tube MP Studio V3 and place that to the signal chain or is there devices on the market that would combine features of these devices? I did look a bit and found devices like DBX 386, but for me it seems it is missing some key features of 286S even tho it has the tubes built in?

If I would buy both these devices (DBX 286S + Art Tube MP Studio V3) and place them into my signal chain, what would be the proper order? I still would like to keep GoRack as mute swich in this case until I upgrade my mixer to one that actually has channel mute buttons. DBX 286S or Art Tube MP Studio V3 do not feature a mute button unfortunately.

Would proper order be Art Tube MP Studio V3 -> DBX 286S -> DBX GoRack -> Yamaha MG10XU? GoRack would naturally have all effects disabled and gate would be moved from PC to DBX 286S and compressor from GoRack to DBX 286S. This would also give me a solution in which I would not need to use any plugins in the PC, which definitely would be a plus. Or should the tube amp be added to the chain after DBX 286S, so that it could work better and tube effect would be added to already processed signal?

DBX 286S seems like a solid choice, but I also have some issues with space and I don't have a rack, so that would also require some arrangements. Buying Art Tube MP Studio V3 at first and trying it with current setup could also be an option. If this would be the case, which one should come first, tube amp or GoRack (comporession)?

I'm not looking to spend huge money here, but I can spare some hundreds. DBX 286S + Art Tube MP Studio V3 are ~ 240 EUR in total from the local store, so that seems still quite reasonable.

Is this a crazy plan? All comments are welcome.

Thankd from reading all this and I appreciate all the comments!

--
Best regards,
Matti K

[Mike Stranks]

Hi Matti and welcome!

It seems that you're seeking to add more and more items into your system to get the required result. That will make things overly-complicated in my opinion. That said, I do understand what you're suggesting and why. Your logic is good.

Now might be a good time to have a fresh think about what equipment you need.

I'd suggest looking at the Rode Rodecaster Pro. It's a versatile piece of kit and is getting excellent reviews. If I was still broadcasting I'd be getting one as soon as possible!

Details:

Rode's website: https://www.rode.com/rodecasterpro

There's a general review in the April SoS

A detailed review from a colleague who's opinion I trust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMfsjXASlgQ

You might also like to think about Rode's companion microphone, the PodMic: http://www.rode.com/microphones/podmic

Hope that helps.

Mike

[Watchmaker]

I don't know Art Tube MP Studio V3 specifically, but I had an ART valve pre for a little while that was very noisy, even after putting a good tube in it so I sold it on. I have learned through years of over spending that there are a million wonderful bright shiny toys I don't need to get good results. It can be very easy to suffer GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) for extended periods leading to penury, distraction and sometime, as in my case, lower quality and quantity of creative output.

Mike's point is good, stay focused on the objective and use as few toys as possible to achieve it. fwiw, I still buy and fiddle rather than concentrate and produce, but that's where I'm at!

[Wonks]

I'd consider Mike's suggestion very carefully. The mic is probably not what you want operationally, but would probbaly help add a more bass to your voice compared to a headset microphone.

Just having a valve in the chain doesn't automatically make your voice 'warmer' Good valve pres are barely noticeable until you start to push them hard - which will raise noise levels and by the point your voice sounds noticeably thicker, your're also adding distortion thats noticeable. especially on a solo voice. Mix it in with music and a lot of that gets hidden, but on its own, it can sound a bit ragged. And cheap valve pre's normally don't do anything a solid state pre can do, but don't do it as quietly.

[The Elf]

Also I would like to have more warmness in my sound...

There's that old 'W' word again. Don't fall for the valves/tubes = 'warmth' nonsense. A bit of EQ is likely all you need.

Mike Stranks is the man here - take any advice he gives you as pure gold!

[Matti K]

First of all, thanks from all the replies!

I'll take a look into RØDECaster Pro and see if that would fill my purposes from all the aspects. There are some external connections (line in and out) which I didn't describe in my initial posting, as they are not related to my voice recording chain. This is actually one of the reasons why I'm looking to replace my mixer as mentioned. Zoom LiveTrak L-12 has been on my shopping list for a while as I'm looking to get MTK capable mixer with presets. This is about the same price range as RØDECaster Pro, so this definitely could be an option. I'll take a look into linked videos and reviews and consider from all the aspects.

It is clear to me now, that getting Art Tube MP Studio V3 is probably a bad idea, so I will not look improvements from that direction for now. There are other products like PreSonus TubePre V2 in the market, which are a bit more expensive and maybe a bit more better quality too. But based on your comments I should disband the whole idea of having a tube in the chain, not just the product I mentioned earlier?

As said I will take a closer look on RØDECaster Pro, but I would also appreciate comments regarding DBX 286S to be used with my current mixer (or maybe with L-12 later). What I have read about the unit it seems that almost always when there is discussion regarding radio broadcasting or voice acting, it is mentioned one way of another.

I know you are going to hate as I just keep bringing new devices to this discussion, but then I also discovered Presonus Studio Channel, which seems to have mix of features that have been brought up in this discussion. Tube preamp, VCA compressor and also parametric EQ. Compressor and EQ can be bypassed. It was mentioned that there is no point to just add devices to the chain to make it too complicated, so would this kind of combination of features in one unit make sense to replace everything between microphone and mixer?

Regarding my choice of microphone. I could try again without the headset at the studio, but I do work at the events too where using a headset is a must. Last microphone I worked with was RØDE NT1-A which wasn't dynamic, so maybe this could have one of the factors that caused unwanted variation to the sound. This might also require some changes to my table layout that I need to think about carefully, as I do have 5 screens in 2 rows and 3 keyboards to work with at the studio.

As some guess already, I'm one of those guys who like to have new toys. But in the end I just want the best result, so target is definitely most important issue still. I'll try to be reasonable this time and not just to rush into store with some idea that I would like to try out, without asking about it first.

I truly appreciate your feedback and comments.

[Brian M Rose]

If listeners are happy, then you are doing it right. Otherwise, possibly some voice coaching may help.

[Tim Gillett]

If you're after a really good professional result on YT etc, it's good you're not just satisfied with user comments. YT audio uploads vary greatly in quality and one person's upload may be better than many others but that may not be saying much. Many are absolutely dreadful, sometimes even presentations of internationally known speakers at large public events.

If you need to move around a lot and room noise is an issue, a headset mic might still be the best all round solution. I used to repair and test quality headset mics for a pro muso and was impressed by them when set up on the head and face properly. No surprise many pro sporting commentators use these on national and international broadcasts.

[Matti K]

I don't need to move with my feet while broadcasting, but as I do follow multiple screens, I quite often need to align myself differently while speaking. This means that one more or less static position for the microphone is difficult, as I need to keep my mouth in the same direction and distance from the microphone so that viewers do not notice a change while I'm doing this. This is the reason why I chose headset microphone to work with.

Background noise is an issue at the events, but not at the studio. When I'm present on-site, this is not really a problem as the broadcast as a whole also indicates that I'm there and viewers naturally understand that there are noises from the environment.

I started doing studio broadcasts ~ 1½ years ago. I started with M-Audio Uber microphone, from which I moved to Rode NT1-A. Then at some point I noticed this dilemma with static microphone position, so I bought Superlux HMC 660 X headset for testing purposes. I upgraded to Audio-Technica BPHS-1 quite soon aften I realized that headset is easier to work with in my environment.

Just FYI to understand the situation better..

I don't have previous experience from studio environment, so this is a learning experience for me and I'm trying to improve all the time. I do compare myself to others naturally to see how I'm doing. I think myself that quality that I'm putting is good (=same or better than others) when compared to others who are working in the similar field of expertise, but when I compare myself to good commercial radio broadcaster, I see that there is room for improvement. Not just in equipment, but also in voice management etc. I have also been trying to train that area by reading books from the topic, but haven't (yet) taken any courses. I also understand that comparing intensive sports broadcast to radio show might not be a fair comparison, but it keeps me motivated to improve.

This is not my main profession, but I do broadcast ~ 5 days a week, evenings and weekends and total ~ 20 hours a week in average, so this is nothing that I do just randomly. I have separate isolated ~ 10m2 space for the studio, so it's not really directly connected to my home, but located at the same courtyard. I have done sports broadcasts on-site at the events for a longer time (10+ years), sometimes in very challenging environments (motorsports for example). So I'm not new to broadcasting, but new to doing the production from my own studio.

[CS70]

But exploring GoRack features, reading about compression levels etc just opened the pandora's box for me and I'm just starting to realize how much difference can be made with preamps, EQs and channel strip processors.

Well yes and no. You've gone from nothing to something, and that's the biggest and most noticeable step. From now on, it's smaller steps, which tend to cost progressively more.

I did read quite a lot about DBX 286S which seems to have a lot of features and seems to be recommended by many. As I listen my broadcasts, I do notice issues with sibilants that are quite often mentioned in discussions with DBX 286S, that it could provide a solution for improving their presentation.

That's a channel strip, which essentially duplicates what you have. Would be odd to buy only for the de-esser. If you really feel that sibilance is a problem, an easy way to control it in realtime is fast-acting plugin in the PC, like the FabFilter DS (but sure there's many). You just leave it on and it's instant de-essing on the setup you have.

Also I would like to have more warmness in my sound, so this I understood might be possible with tube preamplifier.

Hm, not in the sense I think you imply. Sure, coloring the sound by adding warmth (let's say, more lower harmonics) it's something a tube circuit may do when pushed, but not all tube circuits do that (and the preamps that color nicely tend to be pretty expensive) and when used normally, they don't.. engineers spent decades getting the cleanest signal paths in tube-based circuits and they managed pretty well.

If you feel you're lacking bass (everyone does on their own voice btw, it's a result of hearing only it with ears (when recorded) as opposite to also registering the vibration thru your facial bones), your first port of call is EQ, which can go a long way.

Again, before spending a dollop on misguided outboard attempt, use your pc power: try a good EQ plugin, or if you want to get some nice coloring, the great BootEQ VST from Variety Of Sound has exactly that trick and it's free (it's 32bits tough so you may want to have a bitbridge). Again, once you've found the settings it's only a preset that you leave always on, so you don't need hardware at all (like your mute button, hardware is better for real-time fiddling).

Would it make sense to buy separate tube amplifier like Art Tube MP Studio V3 and place that to the signal chain or is there devices on the market that would combine features of these devices? I did look a bit and found devices like DBX 386, but for me it seems it is missing some key features of 286S even tho it has the tubes built in?

Not really. Once you discover signal processing it's a big temptation to buy boxes, but generally one can afford the less expensive ones, which almost invariably give far less good results than software plugins. And even the really good ones - you've got to know how to use and for what to get results. The Art Tube does the job of pre-amping just fine, but the trick is that all preamps do, including the ones you already have. That "something tube" is a marketing ploy to trick inexperienced people in thinking they can get a magic bullet. Like in any other field, there's no magic bullet. And you may notice that say the Fairchild 660 never had "tube" in its name (and yet it uses a few.. )

If you really want a "classic sound" signal path (not sure it will be appreciated by your Twitch listeners tough), best is to sell the lot and buy one good channel strip which does preamping, compression and maybe good EQ (but if you add this latter the cost is gonna skyrocket, good hardware EQs are expensive): the UAD 6176 for example, or the LA 610 (it's one of my preamps, and it definitely works).. or stuff like the Manley VoiceBox.

Less than that, you're just as well using plugins.

Would proper order be Art Tube MP Studio V3 -> DBX 286S -> DBX GoRack -> Yamaha MG10XU?

Yes I'd start with that. But as above, it makes little sense.

This would also give me a solution in which I would not need to use any plugins in the PC, which definitely would be a plus. ...

But why? You can do exactly the same things with a couple plugins for a fraction of the cost and no space at all.

Is this a crazy plan? All comments are welcome.

Not crazy, only a bit overenthusiastic on the shiny box bit.. we're all have been there. 20 years ago, you wouldn't have had a simpler and better solution than buying a bunch of boxes (but you would have not had podcasting either), but today you do. If I were you, I would get rid even of the mixer...

[Mike Stranks]

Study the specification and watch the video I linked to about the Rode unit. It has, built-in, all the things that the dbx would give you.

Most broadcasters are very poor at judging how their voice is coming across to the listener. I am terrible at this and hate the sound of my voice whereas listeners regularly thanked me for my clarity and intelligibility. If your listeners are happy and there are no technical issues such as hissing, distortion or mic-pop sounds leave well alone. For sports broadcasts you need vocal clarity above all. People will be listening on various systems - often with poor loudspeakers or earbuds. What you think of as 'warmth' will be heard by them as muffled or 'muddy'.

The Rode NT1A is not a mic I would consider for voice work. It has a very 'bright' sound and a tendency to emphasis sibilance.

Your headset system seems OK. If you want to change then check-out the next model in the Audio-Technica range - the BPHS2 - or one of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POr6oWjYZVk

[Hugh Robjohns]

Most broadcasters are very poor at judging how their voice is coming across to the listener. I am terrible at this and hate the sound of my voice whereas listeners regularly thanked me for my clarity and intelligibility.

In fact most people dislike the sound of their own recorded voice, but as long as the listener can understand what you're saying it's just something that has to be accepted.
I find the more difficult problem is when someone imagines they should or need to sound like their favoured, established professional broadcaster. Our voice is a product of our physiology (tonality) and upbringing (accent and diction), and while its possible to change the latter with training, it's almost impossible to do anything convincing about the former.

At the end of the day, professional voice artists are professional voice artists because of the innate sound of their voice. It's about biology, not technology. Same as not everyone can be a professional figure skater or power weight lifter...

So make the best of what you've got, but be realistic about what is achievable and what is actually required.

The Rode NT1A is not a mic I would consider for voice work. It has a very 'bright' sound and a tendency to emphasis sibilance.

Agreed! And from the OP's descriptions, a headset mic is definitely the correct solution. Placement of the mic boom will have a more significant affect on sound quality than the actual model.

[Matti K]

Thanks again from all the replies. This definitely gives me good pointers into which direction I should look into. My target is not to sound like the others or to have huge amount of effects, but small tweaking to more professional quality is what I'm looking for. I might already be there, but I guess I'm still trying to chase that ghost..

Idea of first using software plugins to see the results and then obtain hardware if the result is something that I see investing into - it sounds like a good idea too. As mentioned I have played a bit with VST plugins and do use them at the moment too in my broadcasting software, but this I have found to cause some unwanted delay. Management of VST plugin configurations has been quite messy, as I have several profiles in my broadcasting setup with different overlays, sources etc and this means that when I change something in my VST setup, I need to make the change to each profile as they all store VST settings individually. There has been couple times an issue, that I have not made the change to some profile from whatever reason and after doing the broadcast or in middle of it I have realized that everything is not how they should be.

Probably I should try to look for better VST Host program, which I could run separately from the broadcasting software so then I could just use the software virtual output as input and not to have any VST configurations in profiles. Getting all effects to hardware also would make things simplier on the broadcasting software side, but maybe moving plugins from profiles to general VST Host program would do the job. Any recommendations for a good VST Host? I have tried this approach in the past with VSTHost and Virtual Audio Stream, but with both of these I had issues with delay.