How to bring up quieter parts of spoken dialog

not to be obtuse,
but couldn't you simply ride the fader volume with automation, and just mix it higher?
 
maybe that, and a combination of a limiter used as an upwards compander?
 

When voice overs are recorded elsewhere and they vary a bit in their levels and dynamics what I usually do is make a copy of the voice over and open it in a separate editing program.  eg Adobe Audition.  Then I put a VU over the voice over and watch what the meter is doing on the louder passages or the most normal sections.
 
I adjust the gain of the overall track so the VU reads 0 dB VU in the normal sections.  Then I go in and edit softer areas.  By adding gain here and there as needed.  You do have to be slightly careful because bringing a soft section right up to the same level as a normal section can sound unnatural and you want to avoid that if you can.  Level variations are there for a reason as they add to the overall effect.  So a really soft phrase might only hit -10 dB VU compared to the 0 dB VU for other parts.  I might add enough gain to make this maybe reach -4 to -5 dB instead.  Noise can come up I agree.  But that depends on what is happening also at the time in your final mix.  Any increase in noise may be masked if you are lucky.
 
I prefer to get a vocal track ie either sung or read pretty right first in the editor before dragging that edited version out into your session.  The reason is once you have done this you basically don't need any automation and especially putting processes over the vocal track eg such as expanders etc.  These will most like just ruin stuff and make it worse.
 
All that is often required when you edit properly is some EQ to add some tone and some very light compression performing only light conditioning to the overall sound.  I get the best result doing it this way.

For parts that are too loud or quiet on a track I like to do gain adjustments as needed from the menu option when possible.  It's time consuming and tedious but very precise and "clean" in my view.  I also use it for transients on recorded instruments that are off the chart so that compressor doesn't get crushed for that short time.

smallstonefan
Absolutely - I could do some volume automation. I guess I was looking for a quicker fix, but that is the fallback plan! :)

Waves Vocal Rider

JohanSebatianGremlin
My workflow for this sort of thing is as follows.

1. Compression. Use a good compressor to automatically roll off the louder bits thus allowing you to set the basic level higher which makes the quieter parts not so quiet while keeping the loud bits from getting out of hand.
2. Brick wall limiting. If compression isn't enough to get it done, I add a limiter. This prevents the loudest bits from being any louder than most of the much quieter bits. Used with compression, you can effectively control the volume of most source material while still achieving a relatively natural sounding result.
3. If compression and limiting don't get it done, I bring up the rear with fader automation for the worst bits. Sometimes the fader I automate is the volume fader. Sometimes its one or more eq bands. Whatever it takes to get it done in a natural sounding way.

If you do the editing approach as I suggested in my post you don't need any of this.  It will sound better and not use a single plug-in.  No automation needed most often.  Hitting a compressor with varying levels from soft to loud is not getting the best out of the compressor.  It is working over a higher range.  When you do light conditioning over a well edited track like this the compressor has an easy time of it and sounds good in the process.  In voice over work it is not even a bad thing to bring quieter parts up to close to the ref level.  So it does not get lost.  When a shift in level is wrong though it sounds unnatural and quite easy to detect.  You just back off the gain changes a little and it will end up perfect.
 
If a voice over is happening over music and effects it needs everything it can get for a nice even and clearly audible level.
 
 

Waves vocal Rider.

For perfection I automate, but when there is a huge time crunch, there's not much better than vocal rider.

JohanSebatianGremlin
Meh, to each his own. My standard workflow is as I've described it and its my standard because it works for me and gets me results that sound exactly as I want them to as quickly as easily as possible. I didn't say it was the only method, I said it was my method. Trying to argue that one will sound better than the other is like trying to argue that tacos taste better than pizza IMO.

There is no argument here.  One sounds better than the other.  Period.  FACT!
 
Read this too:
 
http://therecordingrevolu...ompression-for-vocals/
 
The editing approach sounds the same as the approach used in this article. Getting the compressor to do it alone is not the way to go.
 
Vocal Rider while fast will never be anywhere as accurate as manually doing it.  If you are serious about vocals you just don't do it fast either.  It is about the same as sending a pre mastered track to one of those mastering services on line that does it automatically compared to a skilled mastering engineer making all the right decisions based on the material at hand.  No comparison.
 
 
 
 
 
 

I started out using a compressor myself. (like many) And then got into the concept of using two compressors in series. The first one being set for limiting and just jumping on the louder bits followed by a compressor with a much lower ratio for overall conditioning. This is not bad by the way and sort of works OK.
 
I don't know what got me into editing vocals in a more precise way either except that I am keen on VU rms levels being constant on tracks before a mix for most instruments. So I started checking individual tracks for rms levels and making them more consistent.
 
Then that followed onto doing something similar for vocals but now getting in and being more precise and detailed about it.  Immediately I noticed how much nicer the vocals started to sound.  How much less the compressor has to do over the final track.
 
It's like anything I guess, the more time you put into something the better it starts to sound.
 
I don't doubt that something like vocal rider will work too.  But it is still making decisions based on technical considerations such as what peak and rms levels may be at any point.  Like anything it is going to make certain assumptions (and adjustments) that may in the end not be accurate.  Like automatic mastering for example.  Whereas when you get in there and edit to great precision and use your ears instead the result will always be better.
 
Of course this also applies to lower level singing vocals as well as lower level spoken dialogue which is the topic of this thread. There is also another thread about lower level vocals but it is essentially the same thing as we are talking here.

There are no right or wrong ways.
If you want something that sounds effected, then use effects (compress/limit).
If you want more natural use envelopes.
Then of course, my favorite, a little of each.
 
I use to do a lot of editing voice over work. At the time, late 90's early 00's, I smashed the bageeses out of it cause that's the way I heard it in my head (and on radio). And that's after careful detailed envelope editing:) Nowadays, I'd be a lot lighter. Same with vocals. Different styles/songs dictate different approaches. 
 
In general though, I tend to be surgical on most any part.

You can try the gate - comp - comp approach.
 
You can do it with the sonitus stuff - 
 
Insert the sonitus gate.  Then you can set the frequency band to only be triggered by the high end of the voice.. so whenever he sheaps the gate opens.  Set it to look ahead 20 ms, with a long decay time..  so it sounds intentional.  This will help pull the noise floor down.
 
Now compress it with something like this    http://forum.cakewalk.com...074655-p3.aspx#3324433