Take the 2-minute tour ×
Sound Design Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for sound engineers, producers, editors, and enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have an idea and I wanted to see if it has been done before or if it's worthless to try:

What if I recorded an actor at 192K and dropped than into a 96K session so it's pitched down naturally (varispeeded, essentially) and had the actor speak twice as fast so it doesn't sound slow when it's pitched but sounds like a natural pacing.

Has anyone tried doing this with a real project? Was it successful?

I've only done it at 104% on the Big Ben for some larger alien-type voices for a film I ADRed.

Would it be ridiculous if I asked the director to try this method out with an actor? Thanks for your replies.

share|improve this question
    
I've only tried kind of the opposite, recording at half speed talking with a normal pitch, so it goes chipmunk but kind of in a natural way –  Filipe Chagas Oct 13 '10 at 1:51
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

You'd find yourself having some timing issues with having your talent speak quickly.

The best way I've found to achieve this is to record it with the Talent speaking normally at 96k or whatever really, then play it back twice the speed (while maintaining the pitch) while recording it at 192k. That way, when you bring it back down to 96, it will maintain the same timing as the original recording, but it will be pitched down.

Similar to the "worldizing" concept with a slight twist to it.

It's very useful when doing creature vocalizations. I've used it fairly often.

share|improve this answer
    
Wow. Awesome - thank you so much! –  Utopia Oct 13 '10 at 5:15
    
@Colin Ok so how do I play it back twice the speed while maintaining the pitch? I guess that still requires pitch algorithms from Time Shift etc, right? –  Utopia Oct 13 '10 at 5:44
    
This might be an obvious question, but how does that method differ to simply pitching it down an octave, while maintaining the length? Are the algorithms (ie. maintaining pitch as opposed to maintaining duration) used in your method just better? –  Roger Middenway Oct 13 '10 at 16:18
add comment

Woa, wait, you run 96k sessions?

Cool idea, but i think the actor would be the weakest link there. It'd be hard maintaining relative sync in such an unnatural tempo and they'd require extra time to get used to it. And you'd have to think about how you'll deal with "p"s and "t"s (percussive sounds that seem to have a pretty fixed length), or whether you'd have to deal with them at all. It might sound cool with elongated plosives, who knows. Try it out yourself!

Also, voices an octave lower make me think of devo and hip hop.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks - I'll try it out. I wonder if it would work better if I did the same thing but at a sample rate like 120K instead of 192. I don't know how to set my Big Ben clock to that rate. Wonder if it's possible. –  Utopia Oct 13 '10 at 2:18
add comment

Hey Ryan, you may be interested in this: http://boingboing.net/2010/03/25/dawn-chorus.html

share|improve this answer
    
Wow! That is wild! –  Utopia Oct 13 '10 at 3:03
    
If that's real... then that's pretty amazing! –  Roger Middenway Oct 13 '10 at 3:56
add comment

Why a whole octave btw?

Pitch has drastic impact on voice. Can you not use less of it and still have it work?

share|improve this answer
    
I basically needed a voice of an island god who is 75 feet tall (described as taller than the tallest palm trees) - the project has since been finished, but wanted to be ready in case I come across something like that again. –  Utopia Oct 13 '10 at 16:38
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.