Danny's Mixing Desk

Oh Dear. Is That What I Think It Is?

2008-07-06T17:50:00.003-06:00

Prepare for "The Return."

Of what?

New Song Underground

For some reason, what I've got stuck in my head just now is, "Remember, we're sitting on 100,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder."

Wow

2008-06-27T11:31:00.001-06:00

That was a lot of posts in one day, yeah?

This is what happens when I have nothing better to do...

Regarding "Budget" PA Systems And Rock Bands

2008-06-27T11:24:00.003-06:00

06-07-2008, 05:37 PM

The guitar player's amplifier only has to do one thing. Guitar. It doesn't have to necessarily sound clean (in fact, that's usually exactly the opposite of what one wants, right?), and feedback (unless it's really nasty) is actually a welcome addition. Along with the frequency range of the sound being produced and less pronounced dynamics than some other instruments, this adds up to some pretty large objective (and subjective) SPL.

I could attempt the rest of this in some succinct fashion, but that wouldn't be my style.

Let's say that a small PA has been acquired to only do one thing, namely vocals. Essentially, it's a "singer amp" instead of a "guitar amp." Let's also say that the power amp section is rated to produce a continuous 100 watts with reasonably imperceptible distortion.

Hold on while I access my inner Slipperman (the originator of this style - the living legend)...please note that this is not meant to assume anything specifically about the OP, this is a generalization only. This is NOT meant to harass, harangue, browbeat, or otherwise abuse the OP or anyone else. This is for informational purposes only. If itching or burning develop, stop reading immediately and call your doctor. Etc, etc, etc.

Kay?

Basically, you're SCREWED.

See, you've got that 100 watt guitar amp over on stage left. You've also got ANOTHER similar guitar amp on stage right. Both are being wielded by dudes who have bought into the idea that the audience is there to appreciate the nuances of how their amps and cabs react at high volume. ("Dude, if I turn it down too far, it starts to sound like solid state and not Led Zepplunds!") The audience doesn't really care, of course, especially since the acoustics of the venue are smearing whatever nuance may actually be present into a giant wall of midrange blast. It's EPIC dude. LEGENDARY.

Wait! We're not done here.

Now, to compete with the raging wall of guitars, the drummer starts smacking the kit. He's not amplified, but the acoustic output is pretty g-freaking-inormous. He's even a little louder than the guitar amps, which is fantastic, because anything you could hear in the guitar amp area is periodically ANNIHILATED by his hammering on the snare (the one in the Musicians Friend catalog with the description: "Guaranteed to slice through the densest of mixes! Louder than the forces of evil after lunch has been canceled!"), as well as his constant use of the loudest and most sustaining cymbals mounted on the kit. (In the cymbals area, he has somewhere in the neighborhood of seven to choose from at any given moment, you know, for versatility in "bringing a different flavor to the song." That is to say, obliterating pretty much everything between 1 kHz and 20 kHz in a stream of white noise).

Sounds loud, right? Ah, but we have one instrumentalist left. The bass player.

To keep up with the guitar players, Mr. Bass has his rig (probably several hundred watts) dialed into the "space shuttle launch" range. Both onstage and in the house, the bass is not just audible - its downright TACTILE. Everything not bolted down is rattling across the floor. He's so loud that the kick drum is completely inaudible. There are birds experiencing mild incontinence several thousand feet above the venue.

Did you think I forgot the PA? I haven't.

Here's the problem. You've got a hurricane of SPL going on from just the backline. If your eardrums weren't rattling from overexcursion, you'd actually be able to hear your spleen pulsing with the rhythm. It's LOUD.

Now, that 100 watt PA might actually produce some respectable level. On paper, it might be able to get to 110 or 115 dB SPLC. Here's the thing, though. Unlike the guitars, bass, and drums, feedback is both much more possible, and UN-FREAKIN-ACCEPTABLE. Similarly, audible distortion is to be filed in the "bad things" category (or at least, it is for me. I'm an old fuddy duddy in comparison to some. I've never been able to get into the screaming, distorted vocal "thing." I must not be fully in touch with my "inner RAYGE" dude. Or something.)

Anyway.

There's also the little problem of the fact that pretty much the ENTIRE audible spectrum, is, to broaden our language horizons, OCUPADO. Especially the vocal "meat" range, which is located smack dab in the region of the earth shattering guitars (and the occasional snare hit), and the "intelligibility" range, which lives precisely in the area of the brain shattering cymbals and guitar "presence" zone.

Now, we're going to add that the singer simply cannot vocalize like a guitar. That is, the poor vocalist simply cannot sing at the top of his lungs all the time. Plus, the singer may have bad mic technique, and be a bit quiet (because they can never get vocal training, you know? It isn't "RAWK DUDE" to get vocal training).

The bottom line?

The vocals are not audible, but the PA is rated at the same output as a guitar amp. The PA is unlikely to have flexible enough EQ to really get its gain before feedback maximized "to the UBER," and it can't be run into the red zone because it sounds like one of those "Metal Zone" pedals. The vocals have nowhere to "sit" in the mix, because all the frequency real estate has been used, and so the only option is to push them over the SPL mountain - which AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN - because the PA can only THEORETICALLY make as much SPL as just ONE guitar amp is making IN PRACTICE.

A real question might be if there is ever a way to make a small PA adequate for a rock band.

There absolutely IS. However, it does not involve technological fixes. Here's the secret. Gurus study on top of mountains for decades to learn what you will hear now, in these few moments.

Relish this.

Make the band quieter.

Make the band quieter.

You're wondering if I'm going to say it again? I am.

Make the band quieter.

If you get the band's level to match what the PA is capable of giving to you, you will be GOLDEN. Not only can you save money (so that, for the huge gigs, you can hire a big PA and competent Live Sound Reinforcement human - thank you, Dave Rat), but you will HEAR EACH OTHER. The band will probably play better. You will go deaf much more slowly (if at all - you are wearing earplugs, right? No, I don't give a crap that they're not AWESOME - wear them anyway.) You will have a greater range of gigs available to you. People may actually get a chance to hear the actual SONGS. (Those exposed to the unbridled hilarity of hearing a well balanced band are ruined for life, though. Everything else will fall short. I am warning you right now.)

This is, of course, all just the opinion of one dude. Your mileage may vary.

Regarding A Show That Went Badly

2008-06-27T11:22:00.000-06:00

05-25-2008, 10:42 PM

I'll start by saying that I have about 14 years of experience in audio, it being a mixture of live and studio situations. Whether that's actually 14 years of experience, or 1 year of experience 14 times over is not for me to decide. You would think, though, that not being a bonehead would come a bit more easily as time passes, regardless of the quality of the experience.

Maybe not.

So, the opening band for a show brings in an upright bass.

(All the experienced guys know where this is going. An upright bass is potentially one of the best tests of whether or not you have your excrement collated. My test score for the night was EPIC FAIL, DUDE.)

Yours truly decides to just slap a mic on that sucker and go, so I grab one of the mics that was originally slated to be grabbing some crowd noise for the live recording that night. (I was told that the opener was going to be using only the equipment provided by the headliner, but that wasn't actually the case.)

Now, I'm not going to discuss mic makes and models, because I'm going for general applicability here. I will say that the mic was inexpensive, and chosen for use because of its low profile, integrated stand mount, and the fact that it "basically sounds like a vocal mic" (because you can point it at something and it will sound reasonably like that something). Also, it was handy, whereas the equipment room was difficult to get to with all the gear on stage.

(Did I say that all the experienced guys know where this is going? They do, you know.)

Hindsight tells me that what I needed was a mic with good "selectivity" and feedback rejection, and that I should have probably mic'ed more at the bridge area than trying to jam that stupid mic right up to the bass's soundhole. Of course, that's hindsight. What I did was exactly the opposite of that, combined with a stubborn belief that EQ was going to fix my problems.

Should I have known better? Yep.

DID I know better. Yep.

Did I still manage to become totally inflexible and idiotic in the heat of the moment? HELL YES!

To cut to the chase, we could not get anywhere near the needed amount of bass in the monitors. There was an enormous amount of drum bleed making it into the mic (both directly, and I suspect, indirectly from the reflections off the bass body), and there was one very specific angle where the interactions of the mic, bass, and monitor set off some of the most sudden, earsplitting, and out of control HF feedback I've heard in ages.

The HF feedback happened three our four times. The vocalist had her hands over her ears and a very distraught look on her face. (As an engineer, if you ever create a situation where ANYONE puts their hands over their ears, you have failed. FAILED. Insert another quarter. Painfully loud != good. EVER.)

The band and I eventually give up trying to get sufficient monitor level, and hunker down for the set. With the HF feedback problem fixed, my new problem was the LF feedback I was getting (constantly) while trying to just make the upright audible in the house. The band's set was basically ruined - but they were very nice about it. (Hooray for gentle people!)

The point of posting this is to point out some generalizations that, if I would have had my way, my own self from 10 years in the future would have been screaming at me:

1)Engineering occurs about 75% on stage and 25% at the console. If you get your setup wrong, you are screwed. SCREWED. All the knob twisting in the world CANNOT SAVE YOU.

2)Corollary to #1: If you get behind the console and the EQ can't fix your problem quickly and easily, the EQ will never fix your problem at all. If it's taking you more than a few seconds to "dial out a problem," the problem needs to be fixed at the point where it is. Which is on the STAGE.

3)Use the correct mic. NOT the convenient mic. The two minutes you think you've just saved may cost you an ENTIRE SET in the end. Effort at the gig is saved by preparation, not by cutting corners. Not EVER.

4)Effort can neither be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred from one part of the execution of a production to another. If you haven't spent most of your effort in an aspect of preparation (like mic choice and placement) - WATCH OUT!

5)The instant you get complacent about "knowing the room and the rig," you are moments from getting FLATTENED. Depend on it.

The worst part about the whole thing is that I actually knew all this going in, but failed to ACT on it effectively. The results were flat out disastrous. It does not matter that the headliner's set went extremely well, because an entire band's prep was completely blown by one person.

Be very careful when the suck knob is between your fingers, 'kay?

Regarding The Use Of Real Time Analysis On PA Systems

2008-06-27T11:19:00.001-06:00

05-01-2008, 11:50 PM

A real, honest to goodness FFT based system like SMAART is the only thing I would really rely on to help me analyze a system in a room, though it's been so long since I've used SMAART that I probably wouldn't be able to do anything intelligent.

A regular RTA is "deaf" as to whether a problem is rooted in a phase relationship or not - this limits their usefulness in my view.

The other problem, though, is just being confident in having taken a good set of measurements. Even with a good FFT analysis system, you can still do all kinds of wrong by just measuring the wrong way. (You can go look on The LAB forum for discussions about this.)

Tuning in the empty room to get a starting point is always useful, in my opinion. Of course, if the audience comes in and my ears tell me that something isn't right, then I act to fix it. For me, it's the Mk1 Human Ear all the way. This isn't to say that a good measurement system isn't helpful, but it isn't a cure all. It either sounds good or it doesn't - and no amount of making something look good on a display matters if the end result sounds bad or "wrong."

My case in point for this would be a band I worked for a little while back. They used one of those AutoEQ systems to get their system "flat." (I know that that's not really what we're talking about here, but still.) I have no idea of the circumstances behind how they ran the AutoEQ, but I'll be danged if the result was not one of the thinnest, most nasal, over hyped high end messes I've ever encountered. Pressing bypass on the main EQ was an enormous improvement, and I think my only baseline tweak was to put a 3 dB cut at 400Hz into the rig by way of a parametric.

The apparent result was that, when they ran their own sound (on days I was unavailable), they no longer had as many feedback problems, and felt a lot more confident about running their own mix in general. They didn't trust their own hearing to tell them that something was very "not right" about what the very sophisticated measurement and correction system had done to the PA, and had suffered for it.

This is not to say that I'm some kind of super-eared demigod - it's just to say that, ultimately, the analysis system tied directly to your own brain should win the day. (Again, only in my opinion.) Any of the big guys around here could beat the tar out of me with an analysis rig, but that's why they're the big guys - they have the rigs and the experience to make those measurements useful and helpful.

Regarding The Basic Principles Of Live Audio

2008-06-27T11:16:00.001-06:00

03-13-2008, 03:40 PM

I'm a live sound reinforcement and recording engineer, at the bottom level of the industry. I might be called (affectionately or not) an "anklebiter." A reasonable summation of this position might be that one has enough equipment to get something done, but not necessarily with great finesse or otherwise superior quality.

1. The basic principle of mixing a live show, to me, is being able to hear everything clearly without excessive SPL (sound pressure level). Sometimes this isn't possible to achieve, at which point the goal changes to prioritizing the relative importance of different sources, and focusing one's effort on making the most important sources clearly audible.

2. Great live sound starts with great sources. A source that sounds bad without reinforcement can only be helped so much by the application of technology. After that, an engineer that makes good choices is critical, followed by having enough power and coverage for what one wants to accomplish. A step beyond that is to have truly superior loudspeakers. However, I must emphasize that the very best equipment can be made to sound truly awful if the humans involved are unskilled, or make poor decisions.

3. Live VS Studio is an enormous discussion, but from my experience, one might boil it down to studio work having many more safety nets in terms of ability to go back and get things as close to perfection as possible. Live audio, on the other hand, is much more immediate, and mistakes at the time of presentation to an audience can not be fixed (though you can react to them so that they are not made again.)

Regarding Digital Mixing Consoles

2008-06-27T11:14:00.001-06:00

03-06-2008, 10:43 PM

I may get reamed for this, but I don't think any of this is the way of the future. It's the way of right the heck now...for certain applications.

For certain applications, devices that are essentially computers with control surfaces don't have the reliability required. (Now, if you've got the uber neat systems that can reboot the audio enginer and the control surface engine separately, you're telling a different story.) However, for little ankle nipping annoyances like yours truly, the small digital mixing console is no less than miraculous. So much so that going back to the "traditional" way makes me desire my own workflow that much more.

Case in point: I'm mixing the farewell show for a favorite band of mine, and I'm using a house system with a Soundcraft...oh what was it...a GB4, I think. My normal console (when I'm in my own house or carrying my little PA somewhere) is a DM24. Just to start, the house rig had been being rewired and retweaked all day long, and the console was anything but zeroed. Having to get everything back to a zero state by hand is time consuming and frustrating when, on my own rig, I reset the mic pres, scroll down to my "Zero Split Monitor" preset, and hit recall. Done. Five seconds. Ready to go.

Further, while contending with an unzeroed console, I had none of my usual goodies. With the GB4, I was stuck with an EQ comprising four bands of what the manufacturer thought would fit most needs...and it was okay. However, just tweaking one channel of vocals was making me miss MY EQ's, which are configured the way that I WANT them (ALL fully parametric filters, by default), with the Q's that I WANT, and sweepability from 20 - 20 on ALL bands. For whatever reason, the manufacturer configuration of the GB4's EQ just didn't feel like it could quite do enough to get exactly what I wanted - and it bugged the crap out of me. Also, on the DM24, I have dynamics processors on every channel, right at my fingertips. No patching, no cabling, and I can choose where I want the compressor to be in the signal path - not so with the GB4 (at least, not on the fly, as far as I could tell).

Of course, this is only a single case, on a single "other" console, but I think it illustrates my point - the point being functionality and flexibility. Years ago, back in school, when I saw a TMD4000, I knew it was the way I wanted to go. Similarly to the functionality of the SSL G series in the studio next door, the TMD was packing flexible EQ and dynamics processing right into the frame of the console - and that immediately set my mouth to watering. (Obviously, the sonics of the TMD weren't the same as the SSL. Still, who wants to lug an SSL to a club gig?)

I can definitely understand why some people don't like the digital workflow, even when steps have been taken to get more knobs on the control surface, but I like what digital does for me. On the subject of getting to feedback quickly, I've never experienced a problem with navigating the DM24's interface swiftly. The console wasn't designed with live sound in mind, but you can make things happen very fast - if you're already familiar with the interface.

...and if that Presonus is reasonable priced (and they keep making them), I just might purchase one when my personal DM24 decides to expire. Hopefully that won't happen for quite a while.

Regarding The Business End of Production

2008-06-27T11:11:00.001-06:00

02-26-2008, 04:18 AM

Seriously - I wish I had known this years ago. Nothing teaches like failure, though! I guess that I would probably say that you have to try to get a sense of whether or not there is enough work to go around. I'll bet that talking to other folks trying to get a foothold (before one starts onesself) would be a good bet. If all the startups are struggling because XYZ gets all the work, then it's probably a bad idea to get into that market. However, if various startups are doing well, each with their own clients, then I would be an advocate of either doing something similar, or trying to fill wherever a gap exists.

That's the planning element. There's also having the good business sense to bail out of something that's not working, instead of throwing money at it in the hopes that it will eventually work. At some point, you chase yourself into a corner. You can also spread your investment too thinly by chasing too many markets, vainly hoping that they will all support each other.

If I had the chance to do everything over again, I would have forgotten about the recording end of things years ago, and put money into more PA and the transport to move it. I would also have put money into aggressive promotion (or partnering with the right people). Having not done that, I can tell you that I am very worried about how things are going to turn out long term...all I ever wanted to do was inconvenience electrons and air molecules - and that's about all I can do in a competent manner.

Well, there was a tangent.

Actually, there's another business plan element. Make sure that there is someone intimately involved with the company who is knock down excellent at PR. The ability of some folks to just be able to shake hands and sell a product to other people dazzles me. It's both skill and talent - and it's critical to a business succeeding.

Regarding More Amplifier Wattage For A Given System

2008-06-27T11:05:00.001-06:00

01-24-2008, 04:42 PM

If you're putting the same voltage into a lower impedance, the current provided by the amp has to increase. It's true that the opposition to the flow of current is less, but the amplifier has to spit out more electrons to keep the "pressure" (voltage) at the same place. There is no free lunch.

I'm sure that a well designed amp putting 100 W into 8 ohms is likely to sound as good as a well designed amp putting 100 W into 4 ohms. Also, if that output is at the same distortion figure (and all other things are equal) there shouldn't be any perceptible difference. Now, if one amp is running at 0.1% THD, and the other is at 1%, that's a different story. (Maybe - I've never done any empirical testing on such a thing. It may be that even that difference is hair splitting.)

Rant engaged:

Personally, (and this isn't to get on anyone's case in particular) I think the whole "headroom" thing is the new "myth with a kernel of truth that sounds plausible" in SR. Sure, you ought to have enough power for your boxes, but the discussion seems to be centered almost entirely around bigger amps into the same configuration of boxes, rather than adding more of the same amps AND boxes. (That's how you really get more PA.) If I had "2 over 2, with 400 watts per box," I'm sure the results of going to "4 over 4 with 400 watts per box" would be better than keeping the 2 over 2 and upping the power to 800 watts per box. I'd be less likely to blow something to bits, and I would be able to move a greater volume of air. I would have more headroom in the whole PA, instead of just a single component.

Rant disengaged.

I guess my whole point boils down to "Does the rig sound bad?" If so, then is it really because the amp is running close to rated power? If the rig really is disappointing, my bet is that there multiple factors in play, with much more to do with the issue than how close to rated continuous power the amp is running.

As always, just my opinion.

Regarding Sonic Maximizers

2008-06-27T11:01:00.000-06:00

01-17-2008, 01:10 AM

I think that the main beef with them is that they just aren't the "magic for free" that some folks think they are. If the top or bottom end of a PA system's frequency response is lacking, or there are clarity problems overall, then a sonic maximizer is just a band aid. It can help a little bit, but one is far better off fixing the real problem.

You can fake "big boom" to a point - but it really comes from more PA.

You can fake "extended HF response" to a point - but it really comes from better HF drivers and horn designs.

You can phase shift various frequency ranges to make transients sound bigger - but bigger transients really come from more PA.

That's my opinion.

I've never felt that I needed a sonic maximizer. I've always felt that a PA was either designed to do something (or not do it), and that applying more signal processing wasn't actually going to make the PA go outside of its design limits (thought it might fool me and others for a while, to be sure.)

Regarding The Use of "Modeling" Guitar Processors Live

2008-06-27T10:59:00.000-06:00

12-01-2007, 06:33 AM

I have heard amps that sounded great, modelers/ sims that sounded great, amps that sounded flat awful, and modelers that made me want to shutdown and go home.

My point?

Live guitar using modelers absolutely can be done, and done well, but it helps to have a few things:

1. Patches made so that they actually have some midrange in them. The guys who disappear in the mix have a strong tendency to write patches with all kinds of frequencies appropriate to bass guitars and cymbals, while killing any frequencies that are actually in the guitar range. They then complain about not being able to hear the guitar when the rest of the band starts playing. :rolls eyes:

2. A mixing console with flexible channel EQ. If you can get one with a sweepable low pass (not just high pass), you can really kill some of the uber-high sizzle that's both useless and annoying. The rest of the EQ is good for judiciously taming problem spots.

3. Don't pile on the effects unless that's the sound you're actually attempting to achieve.

4. Make the apparent volume levels from patch to patch as close as possible. Not the volume setting! The APPARENT level.

When I mixed for Puddlestone, I eventually got the guitar player to go entirely direct. I never received a single complaint about the guitar sounds that came through the PA (although JP did take a little while to be convinced that he liked the whole idea).

In Regards To Live Sound Reinforcement Being A Service Industry

2008-06-21T10:23:00.001-06:00

11-24-2007, 03:48 PM

Let me try to be diplomatic here, even though I only speak for myself.

I agree with you [JRL] entirely that this is a service industry. We are indeed here to help the artist, and to do our darndest to give them an excellent show.

However, I have found it to be true in my experience that, when discussing show production, everybody is at the mercy of everyone else. I can make the artist have a really awful show by neglecting my job in various ways. In precisely the same way, the artist can make my job impossible if they do their job poorly, or simply neglect it.

I too have sometimes given thanks for Myspace, because it has given me an idea of a band's needs when the band themselves never let me know. This happened about a week ago for me - the bands didn't advance the show at all, and it was a good thing that I'd dealt with a couple of them before, as they definitely have some "non standard" elements.

There is a point where I would say that "I am paid enough to do an excellent job on your show, to the extent that I am able. I am not paid enough to babysit." I think that's the point in this thread. I will always do what I'm able to do, but if everything has been set up one way, and then a band shows up that wants something totally different (plus, I need four more channels to mic up the talking llama), and they didn't advance the show in any way, they obviously don't know what they're doing - and need to learn. As arrogant as that may sound, I simply find myself with less and less patience for idiots and lamers as I get older.

...and the other thing in my mind is, at least implicitly, that a band that doesn't take any sort of trouble to advance their show can't really care that much. I'll try to take care of them as I'm able, but I'm not going to try for any miracles. I will definitely bend over backwards for someone who's actually trying to work with me, though.

I'm just sayin.'

Regarding An Issue of "Drum Bleed"

2008-06-19T20:27:00.001-06:00

11-05-2007, 05:35 AM

...the sensitivity of the mics isn't any problem in and of itself. Mics with high sensitivity just put out more electricity for a given sound pressure. Mics can't distinguish between sound pressure that you want, and sound pressure you don't want. A creature with a brain is required for that particular feat. (Mics can be more or less "selective" by having tighter or wider polar patterns, but if your unwanted sound is within the polar pattern, the mic itself is not going to reject it.)

the bigger issue is that the FOH rig is not the only thing "making noise in the room." The instruments and monitor rig are making sounds that are audible in the room as well, and the louder the monitors and instruments are, the more they are going to color the FOH mix. If the drummer's monitor is so loud that the monitor mix is louder than his drums are (at the mics), then the monitor mix is too loud.

Bleed is as big of a problem with vocal mics as it is with anything else. Especially in a small room, a big problem can be a lot of drums (and other backline, in certain cases) arriving at the vocal mics within the sensitive part of their polar patterns. (I have this problem a lot when a singer needs to be cranked - the drums come way up, along with the singer. Especially the cymbals - they're a great way to obliterate all vocal intelligibility.)

A gate can help with bleed, but only until it opens. If its open (to allow the singer to be heard), anything bleeding into that mic is coming through (although the singer is, hopefully, loud enough to help mask the bleed). Again, a gate isn't intelligent. Even if you can do all kinds of magic with the gate key input, filtering out as much spurious "triggering" signal as possible, the gate is still going to pass everything arriving at its inputs when it does open - whether it's "signal" or "bleed" is not something the gate can know. In a similar vein, gates can only help with feedback if they are closing off a signal before feedback can build up to the threshold. If the feedback is in the range allowed by any filtering on the key input, and is high enough, the gate is just going to let it on through like any other signal.

There are ways to get extremely high levels with incredible clarity and no feedback. Most of these ways center around high performance FOH loudspeakers, monitor loudspeakers, and excellent mics. These ways are very expensive, and still can cause permanent damage to the listener's hearing.

It's a lot cheaper, and easier on your ears, to fix bleed and feedback problems by turning things down until the problems go away. If nothing else in this post is intelligible (it's late), at least this should be.

Fighting battles by turning things up is hard. Fighting them by turning things down is easy.

Regarding Whether Or Not A Live Sound Technician Is An Artist

2008-06-18T18:26:00.002-06:00

09-18-2007, 03:47 AM

"Perhaps you could list some of the things make a soundman an artist?"

In no particular order:

Interacting directly with the performance, and by so doing meet the needs of the performers, all the while doing whatever is necessary to make that performance enjoyable by the widest cross section possible of the audience. (This is even more of an artform when the musicians participate as little as possible in the attempt - usually by all being as loud as they please.)

Carefully choosing what goes (or does not go) into the cramped phone booth (thank you, Slipperman) commonly called a "mix bus," so that the above is achieved without going beyond the design limits of any and all tools at the engineer's disposal.

Having a working knowledge of music and the instruments being reinforced so as to do the above as successfully as possible.

Wielding (or not wielding) a channel's parametric (or whatever) EQ with style and appropriateness.

Doing the above with a system EQ of any kind.

Being an engineer, diplomat, businessman, and psychologist at any time as needed. Add psychic to the list when the band is very loud, playing complex material, and seems entirely intent that the engineer must know exactly what is going to happen without ever having heard a note of the band's music.

Maintaining a personable attitude when the show totally stinks and is paying worse than flipping burgers. (That IS showbusiness, that is, acting, and acting is still considered an artform in most of the western world.)

Packing x lbs of PA into .9x lbs of cargo space. (MC Escher was an artist, right?)

In Regards To Aux Fed Subs

2008-06-17T21:31:00.000-06:00

03-11-2007, 09:50 PM

Being a fan of the "subs on a knob" idea, I think I have a theory that fits why I like it, and might fit for other people as well. It essentially boils down to having very direct control of a "boom!" channel. (This is not necessarily "stupidly over the top boom.") It's not that you couldn't get the same overall results out of a classical setup and some half-decent channel EQ - it's just that it's direct and instantaneous.

I might also theorize that, for little guys working in little rooms (like me), that the ability to just hit the subs harder (with no effect on the tops) is a big help - I don't need any more kick drum in the tops, because I'd need to get insanely loud to hear the "click" anyway. Going right back to the above idea, the "subs on a knob" means that this can happen very directly, with no EQ work required.

In other words, maybe part of the "super noticeable effect" is the change in workflow, and effectively having to manage fewer things to get a desired result.

Maybe.

It's just a theory. I could be full of it. I often am.

Just anecdotally, I once mixed an artist (Cary Judd) who would pound his guitar to get a "boom" for his looper. This was on my install, which is a "subs on a knob" variation. We got a fun boom. It was cool. Good times had by all.

The next time I mixed him, it was at a different venue, on a different install that was "classic." Music sounded good through the system, etc, etc. It was all basically comparable to the install I had used for him the last time, except for the "classic" sub configuration. For some reason, I just could not get the same, ever so satisfying "boom" from the guitar. I can't remember if it was "unreachable," or just "muddy," or whatever - I just couldn't make it happen. (Of course, I was really having a bad first hour or three of what was going to be a 14-hour mini festival, so that might have been part of the equation as well.)

In my case, subs on a knob gets me the results I want in a way that I like, so I just go with it. Maybe it is more workflow than anything else - but I like it.

Regarding Live Sound Techs Wanting Control

2008-06-16T15:39:00.002-06:00

08-09-2006, 09:43 PM

The more control available to FOH (and monitors), the better. It's not about being a control freak per se, but rather about the fact that controlling the sound is my job. When a show sounds like month-old moose muck, the guy who gets blamed is the dude standing behind the FOH console - and it's not always his fault!

Just a few days ago, I heard a metal band dialing in their stage sound at a level that (had the FOH engineer not said anything) would have made it impossible for what looked and sounded like a decently set-up and powered Dynacord something-or-other rig to blast over. (Maybe it might have been able to blast over it, but at an insane volume with the vocal mic feeding back all the time.)

The bottom line is that gain isn't infinite, nor do microphones possess any intelligence of their own. The best tuned system in the world still has a gain before feedback wall, and an upper limit to its output power. No matter what mic you use, if the "wash" is still very loud compared to the "source" (at the mic's vantage point), the mic is going to reproduce a signal with lots of wash.

Control is important.

Addendum: (Since this post was originally submitted, I've decided that I am indeed a control freak, and I'm very proud of it - because that's how I get my job done.)

In Regards To "Feeling" Music

2008-06-15T15:40:00.000-06:00

11-01-2005, 10:47 PM

This just made me think of an observation I keep making, and then forgetting about.

A moderately played kick drum seems to have a lot more of that wonderfully satisfying "boom" than one that's being thwacked mercilessly.

Outside of that, some of the coolest "subwoofer" moments I've had are when there was enough space in the music to get a clear, upper-chest-feelable "thud." It wasn't loud all by itself, it's just that everything else was small enough for it to be bigger. Contrast is huge - without it, everything turns into a white/ pink-noisy mash. (...and that's what white noise is anyway, equal power at all frequencies.)

Another Long Silence

2008-06-14T15:38:00.002-06:00

I haven't posted much, because my motivation has been completely sapped by the latest goings on. I'll probably talk about it later, if I can get myself in the mood to do so.

Since I'm unmotivated to produce new content, I'm going to post some forum missives that I've written over the last few years. I will warn you now that the audio-nerd content will be quite heavy.

So there ya go. (Haven't used that one in a while.)

=====

09-01-2005, 07:52 PM

In Regards To Loud Guitar Amps

Just some quick observations as an FOH engineer in mostly smaller rooms:

1) The uber-loud stacks sound fine on stage, but by the time you're in the middle of the audience you've got a roaring, low-mid roar with screeching high-mids.

2) If the PA is to compensate for this tonal problem, it has to be drowning out the amp. This leads to stuipdly-high SPL levels.

3) As was said before, the usefulness of your monitors can decrease significantly. Your amp can almost certainly drown out any monitoring system that is at a safe level, and do so quite easily.

4) Even in the situation where the FOH engineer lets your amps carry the sound, and only uses the PA for, say, vocals and kick drum, those amps are producing a ton of energy in the frequencies where the vocals sit. Thus, the engineer is forced to push the vocals higher and higher to make them audible. At some point, they start feeding back (usually in the high mid and high frequencies) forcing the engineer to either leave them be, or EQ them for more gain-before-feedback. This can often result in the muddying of the vocals. The result is a massive roar with vocals that may or may not be understandable. It sounds anywhere from mediocre to awful, but it's really, really loud! :rolls eyes:

Please note that 4) has been reported not only by small-time guys like me, but also by the midsize guys in clubs with 14000 watt PA systems.

I love big-rock guitar, and I play a bit myself, so I can sit at FOH and sympathize with the desire for a specific tone and feel. However, at FOH my job is to care very deeply about the sound hitting the audience, and when it's not all that you feel it could be it's frustrating. As an FOH engineer, I want the show to sound good, which to many of us has become quite exclusive from the SPL level of the show. One of the mixes that I have been the most pleased with had a maximum peak of 100 dBA. People liked the music a lot (as far as I could tell; I got no complaints that night.) Yes, the show was rock (some of it quite heavy).

Music Nouveau

2008-05-01T17:20:00.002-06:00

Six Ways To Sunday has a new song, and it's a good one.

Hearing new music is one of the benefits of showing up at the occasional rehearsal. :)

Legal Department

2008-04-30T15:05:00.002-06:00

Remember how I hinted that there might be changes in store for Rising Artists? I'm thinking that I should potentially get some work done by writing a contractual document or two.

How's that for vague?

:D

Renderman

2008-04-28T17:35:00.002-06:00

I wonder.

Why is it that inclusion of Renderman compliant shading is not found in every 3d application? It would make it so much easier to exchange models between 3d artists.

Not that I know a ton about Renderman compliance, or even the system as a whole - but some kind of (at least de facto) standard for shaders (that is as prevalent as, say, OBJ or 3DS) strikes me as something that would be super handy.

Not that I expect anyone reading this blog to have the faintest idea as to what I'm talking about.

Rummage - I Dare Ya

2008-04-26T16:09:00.002-06:00

Well, the sale has come and gone, and I was glad that a number of folks came (and a number of things were sold.)

It's a little odd that I'm as pleased as I am that the church's closets got cleaned. It doesn't really effect me that much, now that I think about it. Maybe I'm just glad that things otherwise in the business of gathering dust are potentially doing something in some other place.

Or at least gathering dust in some other place.

Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War - Dark Crusade

2008-04-25T20:38:00.001-06:00

This game is a one trick pony all the way, and they punted a bit on the presentation of the storyline.

Yet, it's incredibly addictive.

Just thought I'd let ya folks know. :)

Finising Records

2008-04-24T13:58:00.002-06:00

I finished Randy's CD yesterday, and handed it off to him. I actually enjoyed making the record sound a little "classic," and I hope the listeners will like the result.

New Toys Are The Best Toys

2008-04-22T15:33:00.002-06:00

A while back, I stumbled on a little piece of software that procedurally creates space nebula backgrounds. It was love at first sight for me, and I finally got around to buying a license.

The icing is how cheap the software is.

As much as I like the flexibility of creating a background from scratch, so as to get something exact, I also love the idea of being able to spend effort selectively. In most cases, I would rather spend more time getting the lighting and angle of foreground objects to be pleasing without having to contend with manually creating a background as well.