Article

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Choosing Reference Music: Source Data To Organize The Assets Of A Sound System

The Steely Dan cut can make any old sound system sound OK, which is why it is used by so many loudspeaker manufacturers for client presentations. The Jackson cut has a lot of snap in the LF – also useful for generating good feelings about the performance of a sound system. Reference discs reveal system performance.

Reference. Funny word, that. It implies a higher reality – a benchmark. Truth, reality, purity.

Before I descend further into the metaphysical, we will, as those snooty academics say, contextualize.

For the purposes of this discussion, “reference” refers to source data used to organize the assets of a live sound system in such a way that the operator stays employed. Not the highest, or purest truth – truth-ish (Stephen Colbert already grabbed “truth-iness”) if you will.

In the audiophile world (tubes, panel loudspeakers, fancy isolators, pricey cables – and, oh yeah, far better sound) equipment tagged as “reference” will usually make you poor, but happy. Not always, as some vendors slap the “R” word on schlock equipment that has the price tag but not the performance.

Audiophile equipment and media reviewers often refer to their favorite discs as “reference.” The better reviewers will tell you the limits of the disc within that construct.

Some discs (or files) help you sort out main loudspeaker positioning, tilt, cabling, isolation or listening angle. Some are good for subwoofer positioning, polarity (usually variable polarity, not just plus/minus), and high-pass adjustment.

Reference discs with enormous bandwidth, dynamic range, and textural complexity (Michael Tilson-Thomas’ disc with the San Francisco Symphony of the Mahler 2 is my current favorite) will reveal what’s really going on with your preamps and power amplification.

If my main left/right (MTT’s Mahler 2 is a multi-layer SACD – it also has a monster multi-channel mix, but that is a different discussion) folds up on the peaks of that disc (doesn’t resolve the enormous bass, gets harsh on the big brass hits, compresses and sounds small on the really loud moments), something ain’t right.

Maybe the amp is too small for the loudspeakers, or the loudspeakers are too inefficient, or the preamp power supply is a toy and not up to it, etc.

However, if I just want to assess my system with respect to low frequency tonality (low-pass 125 Hz), I go to Duke Ellington’s “Jazz Party” or Art Pepper’s “+ 11.” The string basses on those albums will tell me a ton about the LF resolving power of my system. Not just how loud, or how extended the LF is, but how real, how musical.

Yet those discs will not tell the whole low frequency tale – they miss the animal part, the grunt needed to resolve more aggressive musical forms. The AC/DC remaster “Who Made Who,” specifically cut 9, “For Those About to Rock (We Salute You),” is the current champ of that.

For voice – Sinatra (“What Is This Thing Called Love”), the Allison Krause/Robert Plant disc “Raising Sand,” or Lyle Lovett’s “Joshua Judges Ruth “(props to Angelo Arcuri for that one). My various reference discs change from time to time – after a while you get sick of playing the same thing over and over.

When we move from the living room to the job site, things get more complex.

For me, the real reference, as I have noted before, is my voice through an open mic. Anything less than that is a compromise.

But live sound is about compromise – a full voice tweak does not always fall within logistical (or political) reality. Also, most voices don’t reveal much low-pass 125 Hz. For that we must go to “reference” discs.

My ideal FOH tweak is a full voice tweak above 125 Hz, and a sequence of reference discs to organize the rest. Which mic – that’s the next article, though there are several that have proven themselves over the years.

The only time I might use a disc in a monitor situation is in class, where students must get a vocal mic to cut over something like AC/DC’s “Highway to Hell” run at an insane volume.

In optimum FOH situations, where I have done a voice tweak high-pass 125 Hz, I will run reference LF discs to sort out everything low-pass 125 Hz. Though not all things audiophile translate to live situations, the series of LF tweak discs I have identified for home use also works live.

Back in the sound company years it was “Highway to Hell,” Peter Gabriel’s “Solsbury Hill,” and the Tubes’ “She’s A Beauty.”

Later on, for the loudspeaker demos, AC/DC still worked, but not for all the clientele. Robbie Robertson’s “Storyville” (cut three) was great for getting the LF tight without scaring or offending the locals.

These days it is the aforementioned AC/DC “Who Made Who” disc, and either Art Pepper “+ 11” or Duke Ellington “Jazz Party.”

Even that combination won’t answer everything – in dance club or hip-hop situations I need something from that genre to make sure those LF frequency spectra are resolved. Like many geezers, I ain’t a great fan of most of the content in those styles, though there are some exceptions.

As I deal (constantly) with 20-year-olds, I have been made aware of what is considered cool in that corner of the music industry, i.e., The Roots, and they were OK, but the sound wasn’t good enough to help me resolve issues low-pass 125 Hz.

When I found something, and played it for the students, it definitely gave me what I needed to sort out hip-hop LF issues, but I caught hell for presuming that the Black Eyed Peas were real hip-hop. Too bad – the Peas stuff is incredibly well-produced and provides a wealth of LF information that may not have the street cred of the Roots or other similar acts, but has the tech cred that allows me to finalize the LF tweak.

When I deal with orchestral situations, once the voice tweak is done, I do not use specialized LF discs to finish below 125 Hz, as I go easy with subs (or avoid them altogether) when doing classical.

I prefer to use full-range systems with a gradual roll-off around 70 Hz or so for this kind of work, as too much boom-boom can sound phony and hyped in these situations.

Add in all the headaches with wind (I usually do this stuff outdoors) and stage noise, and you come to the conclusion that a little bit of sub goes a long way in orchestral.

Before someone emails me about the LF content of the contra bassoon, concert bass drum, tuba, bass trombone, tympani, etc., I said a “gradual roll-off at 70 Hz” – the low stuff will be there, but it won’t be in your face, which is the way it should be for that form.

To finalize the orchestral tweak, I just play a little Heifetz with the Chicago Symphony (Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto). There’s enough stuff there with the brass and the celli to verify the presence of the natural LF I need, and the bonus is his fiddle tone and the hall ambience, as a means to confirm the orchestral relevance of the voice tweak.

Many people use the Michael Jackson cut “Billie Jean” to sort the low end in their FOH systems. Even more use Steely Dan’s “Aja.” I’ve tried both, and neither has the bandwidth or detail I need for an LF tweak disc.

How do I know? That Steely Dan cut can make any old sound system sound OK, which is why it is used by so many loudspeaker manufacturers for client presentations. The Jackson cut has a lot of snap in the LF – also useful for generating good feelings about the performance of a sound system. Reference discs reveal system performance.

If your rig is confirmed by a real reference disc, then the LF from a wide spectrum of material will generate those good feelings, not just ‘Aja” or “Billie Jean.”

Everyone tends to play material that confirms rather than reveals the system. Audiophiles are the worst – those with small loudspeakers tend not to play hard rock, hip-hop or Mahler, preferring to listen to acoustic music, voice, and small group jazz.

Big rig audiophiles do play wide bandwidth high SPL material, while avoiding the more revealing small scale acoustical forms that don’t work so hot with muscle amps and enormo-loudspeakers that excite too many lower mid and LF room modes.

If I pop in that Art Pepper disc and there is any flub or doubling in the LF, I re-cut the system arrangements until it’s gone. If “Who Made Who” does not result in utter annihilation LF, that means I overdid it with the Art Pepper, and more adjustment is needed.

Those fast kick drum hits in the remastered Foreigner Greatest Hits (especially “At War With The World”) instantly reveal excess at 63, 80, and 100 Hz, and the Black Eyed Peas stuff can reveal deficits or excess at the same spots.

To summarize, think Pepper and Ellington for fidelity, AC/DC for genre specific horsepower, Foreigner to minimize standing waves, and the Peas to make sure the LF works for what is happening now.

My students did a tweak on our big (lotsa subs, lotsa horsepower) rig recently with (ugh) “Billie Jean”. It sounded OK until I got out the aforementioned LF reference discs. Foreigner sounded like total mud, you couldn’t hear both heads of the kick on “Who Made Who,” the jazz stuff had weird notes popping out (like at 100 Hz) - the Peas sounded like a disco band on a ’70s system – you get the idea.

They re-did the thing (using Audiocore running on XTA DP226s and 224s) with the real reference discs and it passed all the tests with no problems, beyond the lovely contribution of our HVAC ducts, which seems to have a problem with eight double-18 Martin subs and a zillion watts of Lab.gruppen power.

There is one disc that qualifies (for me) as an infallible full bandwidth reference. Remember – I hate being forced into non-voiced tweaks, but it happens. Sometimes there is no time for the full LF tweak sequence. Also, more sensitive clients would be upset by some of those tracks. You need one multi-purpose disc for all those occasions.

The next time I hear it will be one time too many, yet Janis Ian’s “Breaking Silence” remains the champ. Recorded with minimal (the audiophiles say none, but I don’t buy that) processing, it is a female folksinger/pop singer with a small group. For some reason it was mastered at a low volume – you need to turn it up more than most discs.

Go to the last cut, crank it (careful though – it starts with a whisper, and then ramps up significantly) and prepare for the mother of kick/snare/bass grooves. Her voice is totally neutral – any 1K6 is you, not her. You can finalize the whole system with that cut, though the whole disc is a wealth of useable information. It will translate to all genres – not as well as a voice tweak with the reference LF disc sequence, but close enough to get you through the night.

It is not as familiar as “Aja,” or as danceable as “Billie Jean,” and it doesn’t come with a screen and a measuring mic, but “Breaking Silence” reveals the performance of a live system faster than any tool outside the human voice presented through an open mic.

If you’re looking for something more than positive reinforcement (ha-ha) of your reinforcement system – something that reveals rather than mindlessly confirms, you might want to check it out.

And it will help keep you employed.

Jack Alexander designed and supervises the live sound reinforcement program in the Department of Audio Arts & Acoustics at Columbia College in Chicago.

{extended}

Friday, May 13, 2011

Jaco & The Orange Trees: Great Times With A Bassisto Maestro

Hanging with a legend-to-be at a unique time in south Florida

Picture Miami/Fort Lauderdale in the ‘70s: small and quiet, lots of birds, flowers and trees. Lots of artists too.

There were loads of clubs and hotels to gig at, and the whole area was an inexpensive place to live with a great climate.

As a community of players, we shared ideas and band gigs, and had a great time musically and socially.

Three natives of Fort Lauderdale had a trio called “Woodchuck” who played Hammond B3, guitar and drums. They were bad to the bone: somewhere between Jimmy Smith, The Band, Mahuvishnu, Mountain and Hendrix.

A lot of this potpourri/original styling was growing in south Florida, but these guys were exceptional. They really rocked, were impossibly loud, and drew an enthusiastic young crowd.

And they were kids—17, 18 years old!

The drummer, the youngest, was eventually to become a unique and genuine legend in his own right: Jaco Pastorius.

Jaco was a drummer before he was a bassisto maestro, and he never stopped playing the tubs.

By 1970 he was locally established, doing some commercial club gigs and jazz gigs while still underage. He was also doing some session work with yours truly, perhaps his first. We did some jazzy jingles for pop-jingle legend Bob Swanson (“See the USA in your Chevrolet”).

Other session work was some bizarre, hippie/Bowie/Zeppelin tunes done in Miami at Criteria Studio. Just one studio, four tracks at the time.

Jaco and I became good friends. We gabbed incessantly about music and the technology of recording and all sorts of other things.

Jaco wasn’t your typical late teen—he seemed like he’d been around forever. He had a wry mumbling deadpan style of speaking that sounded somewhat cynical and pessimistic. But he always had a lilting happiness with a matching quirk in his eyes and smile. 

One day, I was practicing in my back porch with jalousie windows—like glass Venetian blinds, opening up onto a back yard with a few orange, coconut and banana trees.

I was playing on my silent set with metronome a clickin’, and saw a lanky figure open the garden shed door, get out a pair of hedge clippers, and wander around.

If you lived in south Florida in the 1960s/70s you wouldn’t think a thing of it!  Back to the paradiddles ‘tween hands and feet… “Why is this metronome dragging?”

Shortly I heard a knock on the back door. Jaco would never interrupt practice! But I opened the door and there he stood, clippers in hand and several long green branches from the orange trees.

So in one long, drawn-out monotone sentence he says…”Heey Kremer, not bad on the singles, doubles, triples 6/8, 12/8 rule, sonics man—expression! Ratamacues suck though man, more practice—you’ll get ‘em, I know ya. Hey, I showed ya this before, ya need to prune these freakin’ things regular. Practice clipping in 2/4 er sumpin’. I mean really—these ain’t part of the tree branches! They’re friggin’ parasites man! I keep tellin ya, they’ll suck all the oranges and vibes virtually away! Jus’ think. No more wine coolers! What’s doin’!? Saw ya last week, Hal Blaine City. So I know you changed yer heads by now. Sure can use ‘em. I keep breakin ‘em once in awhile.” 

Jaco often borrowed my drum heads for his own set. I was happy to pass them along. (I keep my drums tuned wet, near the low end of the tom-tom resonance. When the heads stretch where they won’t project at this tuning, they are far from dead and can be used if tuned up higher.)

His welcome visits occurred every few weeks. This from a time when you never kept your doors or gates locked.

Jaco, of course, went on to uniquely influence every bassist to follow. He became quite famous, literally overnight, but he never forgot his old friends. We won’t forget him either.

Find out more about Jaco Pastorius here.
And, check out this video of Jaco performing live.

Ward Lionel Kremer is a lifelong musician, producer, and recording engineer, who cut his first hit at age 17. In the 1960’s he recorded and performed in the New York pop/R&B music scene with The Four Seasons, The Chiffons, Joey Dee, The Temptations, and Ike & Tina Turner. In the ‘70s he worked in the Miami music scene with TK records, KC & The Sunshine Band, George McRae, and The Ritchie Family. Ward also recorded and produced soca, reggae, and jazz festivals in Italy, USA, and Mexico. He did live sound and recording for Randy Bernsen and Ken Basman. As Ward says, “There’s no music I can’t appreciate if it’s performed with soul, sincerity and love!”

.

More articles by Ward Lionel Kramer on PSW:
Record Great-Sounding Drums Using Only Four Tracks

{extended}

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Recording Quality: Let’s Keep Moving Forward, Please

When are the musicians so bad, and the recording equipment so poor, that you simply can’t make a good recording?

It seems to me that over the course of many years and many technological “advances,” we have once again come to an age-old question: where is the line of acceptability?

As recording techniques, and production ethics change as quickly as we receive DAW updates and debug programs, I think we need to pause for a bit of reflection.

It is, of course, a well-accepted theory that you can’t properly embrace the future until you understand the past. So, let’s take a look at our own history, apply it to our present, and hopefully, re-adjust our future.

As we all know (or probably should know), the recording world got its start (and most of its early equipment) from telephone technology. However, recorded voice would happen very closely to the telephones invention, in the form of a popular nursery rhyme.

In 1877, Edison recorded “Mary Had a Little Lamb” on a tinfoil cylinder built by John Kruesi from a sketch that Edison had given him. Upon hearing the recording that Edison made, Kruesi exclaimed, “Gott in Himmel!” which means, “God in Heaven”, thus becoming the first person to experience the “magic” of hearing a recording.

This event is easy to mark as the beginning of recording, and the beginning of the intoxicating bliss of hearing playback.

From 1881 to 1885, Charles Tainter and Chichester Bell invented and perfected the process of incising wax cylinders with vertical-cut grooves. They called this machine “Graphophone.”

Shortly after the wax cylinder, what would turn out to be the longest lasting invention to this point in audio recording and playback came to be.

In 1888, Emile Berliner introduced what he called the “Gramophone.” Using a non-wax disc, photo-engraved with a lateral-cut groove, he quite simply started something he could have hardly dreamed.

Later that year, he demonstrated an improved version at the Franklin Institute using a flat 7-inch disk with lateral cut grooves on one side only, hand cranked to 30 rpm with a 2-minute capacity.

Berliner would go on to be the first to ever mass-produce hard rubber vulcanite copies from a zinc master disk. Now all you vinyl record lovers can praise the man who invented the “prehistoric” version of your precious turntables and racks of black vinyl.

It wouldn’t be until 1948 that we would see 33-1/3 rpm created, and then 10 years after that, vinyl capable of providing stereo music.

Let’s get moving a little faster here. From 1889 to 1905 (give or take a year) we primarily saw improvements being made to the cylinders and disks being sold.

However, the next major innovation in recording finds it’s way to the history books in 1898. The steel string recorder, based on magnetics, is premiered in Paris two years after its invention, not to be confused with a wire recorder.

We see gramophones being improved, primarily motors as well as needles, which were made lighter weight and less noisy.

Since this column has a point, and it’s not some historical over view of the machines used to record and playback, I’ll start getting to the point.

The year 1908 marks a huge event in recording, at least for those of us who are interested in recording music.

To back track a slight bit, up until 1908, the only major things being put on cylinders and discs were symphonies and operas, made possible by the invention of the double-sided record that came to be around 1902.

In 1908, John Lomax would record a barkeeper singing “Home on the Range” on his Edison Cylinder recorder, and proceeded to publish the song and its lyrics in 1910 in a book called “Cowboy Songs and Frontier Ballads.”

This marked not only the beginning of non-classical recordings, but it would also mark the beginning of what we know as the modern-day music business.

From this point on, companies were established that entered into a contractual agreement with artists to exclusively record and sell songs.

Most notably, the Victor Company began to sign artists in conjunction with their business of manufacturing the “Victrola.”

Other Milestones

—- 1914, ASCAP is founded to enforce the 1909 copyright act.

—- 1917, “Livery Stable Blues” is recorded and labeled as “jazz” music. In 1919, Gennett Record Company begins to produce laterally cut records and gets sued by Victor. Joined by other small labels, such as Okeh, Vocalian, and Compo, Gennett defeated Victor in 1921 on the basis that producing a laterally cut record was public domain. They defended their triumph again in 1922 when Victor appealed the earlier decision. All of you independent record label fans out there better raise up that fist and give proper respect to the four labels the laid the ground work for independents everywhere.

—- 1917 through 1925 saw the inception of radio as a form of entertainment and the beginning of marketing a band and selling records in a manner we think of as common today. In 1925, electrically recorded discs go on sale. The new recording process makes it possible to record an entire symphony piece instead of just a few minutes at a time. Motion pictures now have sound as well.

—- 1926, 16-inch shellac discs come to be, at the new speed of 33-1/3 rpm. Later that year, Charles Brush sells the first piezo-electric featherweight stylus.

—- 1928, Georg Neumann starts his own company in Berlin. Their only product is the CMV3 “Neumann Bottle” valve condenser microphone. That same year John Baird develops an early form of mechanical television and successfully records moving images and sound to a “Phonovision Wax Disc”.

—-1931, EMI studios hires Alan Blumlein to install its very own electrical recording system, eliminating EMI’s need to pay a royalty to Western Electric. Blumlein will go on to patent binaural recording. Tchad Blake, head to England now to pay your respects! In Germany, Fritz Pfleumer begins building the first magnetic tape recorder. Just two years earlier he applied for a patent for applying magnetic powders to stripe paper or film (this is the same year Neumann is created, 1928).

—- 1935, the first public demonstration of the “Magnetophone” using plastic based tape. A four years later, 1939, the wire recorder is invented and sold to the military.

—- 1941, magnetic recording makes a huge leap in quality with the invention of high frequency biasing.

—- 1944, 3M begins tape coating experiments in the U.S.

—- 1948, the very first two Ampex model 200 tape machines are delivered to the Bing Crosby Show, along with 3M Scotch 111 gamma ferric oxide coated acetate tape.

Notice how much faster things start to happen…

—- 1949, RCA Victor release the 7-inch 45 rpm record and player, while Columbia introduces the 12-inch 33-1/3 rpm record. Columbia will be the first manufacturer and record label to support all three formats (speeds) - 33-1/3, 45, 78. Magnacord adds a second head to their PT-6 tape recorder, changing it from a mono to a stereo unit.

Willi Studer makes his very first tape machine, Dynavox, which later becomes a Revox. Frank McIntosh sells the first 50w1 Unity Coupled Amplifier that produces 50 watts at less then 1 percent distortion from 20 Hz – 20 kHz. This is easily noted as the year audio went “hi-fi.”

—- 1950, Muddy Waters records “Rollin Stone” in Chicago. In 1951, Sam Phillips records an Ike Turner song on an Ampex 350, sells the recording to Aristocrat Records, and starts Sun Records with the profit.

—- In 1953, Elvis begins work with Phillips at Sun Studios in Memphis, and a year later, records “That’s All Right” with Phillips using two Ampex 350 machines to create a slap back effect that will revolutionize rock ‘n roll recording and give Sun Studio a defining sound.

—- 1958, headphones are released to the world. Can we isolate instruments in the studio yet? (SHEESH!)

—- 1959, Sony shows first prototype of Helical scan machine.

—- 1963, Philips Company releases the compact audio cassette on 1/8-inch tape running at 1 7/8 ips.

—- 1969, Dolby noise reduction.

The research on this is becoming exhausting, and I’ve finally hit the era that most of us know the history of, to the current time. So let’s get to the point here. Since the inception of recorded audio, the inventors, builders and yes, users of the equipment have dedicated their lives to improving the equipment’s ability to record and reproduce audio.

For over 100 years, this community single-handedly shaped not only our culture, but more specifically, our lives as audio professionals. The line of acceptability used to be firmly defined.

Only in the last 20 years have we seen this trend roll off. It seems that as soon as we were able to “punch in” and fix mistakes made by the artist, technology quickly swooped in to remove the art and replace it with a new and improved “auto-fix-a-bad-take machines.”

As more and more studios started popping up, so did more and more gear manufacturers. Where once gear was custom-built for a studio, now it’s mass-assembled in places like Taiwan. We spend hours of our time discussing the best sounding microphones for the cheapest possible prices.

My simple question: When are the musicians so bad, and the recording equipment so poor, that you simply can’t make a good recording?

A few years ago, I would snicker every time I read Mercenary Audio’s ads that said, “Life’s too short to suck.” I regularly find myself typing, in an e-mail or on a forum, “You get what you pay for.”

A friend e-mailed me in the midst of a gear purchase and commented on how much time and frustration he could have saved himself if he would have just saved up the money for “good” gear to begin with.

As far as musicianship goes, I’m mixing a project right now that only the drummer should be playing on. The bass player is so off I thought the band might be coming off the sync head while the bass player was coming off the repro head. Both guitar players can’t hit a down beat to save their lives.

Can we please stop moving backward?

j. hall moderates the “Indie rock, in practice and in theory” forum in RE/P here at ProSoundWeb.

{extended}

Thursday, April 14, 2011

The Old Soundman: Earplug Wearin’ Musicians, Monitor Levels, & An Insolent Newbie

Our amigo nuevo is reaching the boiling point with the knuckleheads who wear earplugs to save their ears but insist upon insane monitor levels.

Old Sound Man

Yes, SPA1! Were your parents named SPA.09?

I have enjoyed reading your comments for some time now.

See, even though you have named yourself after a decadent outdoor love tub, you’re okay!

I wonder if you might give us your insight regarding musicians who use earplugs (sometimes very sophisticated ear plugs,) but then require ridiculous monitor levels on stage.

There was a lack of love in these people’s lives when they were children.

I run into more problems with drummers that wear ear plugs than I’d like to.

Best,
SPA1

I’ll bet you do! Back in the seventies, rock musicians weren’t a bunch of soy latte sipping sissies!

They turned up their big old amps and beat the hell out of their clear plastic drums, and we gave them as much sidefill as we could and then they did a show, dammit!

You, like me, are probably sick of these shaven-headed suburbanites, these tame domesticated animals with their dumb-ass “tribal” tattoos, their click tracks and their carefully assembled multi-layer loops and their $10,000 kits with the fifteen cymbals.

Don’t even get me started on the dyed black hair!

Kick, snare, hat, Little Lord Fauntleroy!

A rack, a floor, a crash and a ride, Trust Fund Jimmy!

If these kids played music that made any sense, they wouldn’t have so much trouble following each other!

The devil was working overtime when he came up with his masterpiece, the drum machine!

Bands that paid their dues in the old days, that played in bars night after stinking night, they understood how to strip it down:

“She’s got legs!”

“Round and round!”

“All she wants to do is dance!”

Every one of Sheryl Crow’s big hits! Boom bap! Boom boom bap! Huey Lewis, you know what I’m saying, you were just workin’ for a livin’, and you wanted a new drug!

Stevie Ray Vaughn, much love to Stevie Ray!

But noooo! These loco children of today are forced to go along with their idiotically effete keyboardist’s asymmetrical programming!

Some white guy who thinks he’s Prince, or Jimmy Jam, but really is just confused!

It burns me up, SPA1!

Speaking of which, check out the nerve of this little creep Rik! He really knows how to push my buttons!

Yo there old guy,

You got some kind of problem? Why I oughta…

How did you get into the industry, and how did you get so disillusioned? (beats me)

I am a young budding 19 yr old trying to do a physics degree, (hahaha) and I would love to do live sound (no kid, get a good job).

I believe in moderation in life, (don’t we all, Mr. Bush, don’t we all) as in not busting the guts out of some speaker (ooh goody) if we may savour a little respect for a love of music (so young, so innocent).

I have had a fair bit of experience, but I can never find anything past offering my services to people I know (what’s new?).

I love your humour, and have provided anticipated responses in () parentheses.

Thanks, Rik

Rik, let’s explore the inner workings of your mind (if there’s anything there).

See? I can use parentheses, too.

I deduce by your use of some anglicized spellings that you are either across the pond in merrie olde redcoat land, playing your penny-whistle, or else down in oz, happily making crazed guttural noises into your culturally appropriated (stolen) didgeridoo.

You seem to think that the “me” that exists in your brain is actually who I am. You think your perceptions of me, that virtual voodoo doll that you call the Old Soundman, is the entirety of my existence.

On top of that, you have defied my repeated admonishments to you pilgrims - that I handle the funny stuff.

Your role is to just politely ask the audio questions, and then shut up and step back so you don’t get any on ya.

I spray humor like a tribe called quest spits rhymes!

More people read me than read the New York Times!

Everybody applauds when my bell chimes!

I’m a master perpetrator who never gets punished for my crimes!

You’ve never had to suffer any really hard times!

If you don’t shape up, I’ll bust your grill with a roll of dimes!

And these are the breaks, Rik!

Luv,
The Old Rappin’ Soundman

There’s simply no denying the love from The Old Soundman. Check out more from OSM here.

{extended}

Friday, April 08, 2011

Coverage & Feedback: More About Factors Of A “Good” Sound Reinforcement System

The key problem is the lack of understanding of the relationship between objective and subjective factors

A continuation of the discussion of factors of a “good” sound reinforcement system that begins here.

A common complaint of audience members who have become familiar with a particular sound system, typically in a venue with a permanently installed system and which they visit repeatedly (such as a church) is that there are locations where sound is obviously better than at others.

In other words, sound is not uniform throughout the audience area. In fact, this is a common problem with all systems, but in many cases, such as a one-time concert, the audience has no opportunity to compare the sound quality at different locations.

The only evidence of the problem may be that various audience members disagree significantly on how good or bad the sound was.

It’s remarkably difficult to provide uniform sound coverage throughout an audience area from a configuration of loudspeakers. The audience layout is often irregular and complex, and just as often, the dispersion from the loudspeakers is poorly delineated and frequency-dependent.

Add the necessity for multiple loudspeakers and physical restrictions on their locations and orientations, and it’s surprising that reasonably uniform coverage can ever be achieved!

Another Dimension
These facts of life beg some questions: How uniform does coverage need to be? What variation limits are acceptable and what are desirable?

Variations with frequency add another dimension of complexity.

Program material may add another variable; perhaps the coverage uniformity requirements for speech are different from those for music. Almost no research has been carried out on these important questions.

As with other performance characteristics, there is no accepted method for measuring coverage uniformity.

Worse, it’s not clear how it even might be measured subjectively. One fairly obvious possibility for an objective technique is to feed a constant-level broadband signal over the system and sample it in many audience locations, or record it via microphone traverses through the audience area.

Such samples can then be analyzed for uniformity in various frequency bands.

Let’s have a look at Figure 1, where broadband pink noise was played through a system, with the resulting sound recorded on a traverse through the audience area.

The recording was fed through filters centered at various frequencies and plotted on chart paper, so that the x-axis indicates the location within the traverse in every frequency band.

Again in Figure 1, we can see that there are significant level variations within each frequency band at different locations, and that these variations are different at each frequency.

Thus, not only is the level different at each location, but so is the frequency balance.

It should further be noted that these measurements were made on a system that was carefully designed, installed, and adjusted to produce the best possible results in this situation.

Further, the room was rather reverberant, which might have reduced the level variations.

The subjective impression was that the coverage was quite uniform, which suggests that this measurement technique might be sensitive enough to reveal any audible variations.

Feedback & Suppression
When a system’s microphone can pick up any sound from the system’s loudspeakers, which is almost always the case, feedback is possible.

The characteristics of this phenomenon - and ways to suppress it - are fairly well understood, if only modestly effective.

However, note that some audible effects of the typical suppression techniques have not been well studied.

Feedback frequencies are typically suppressed by means of narrow band-reject (notch) filters added to the system electronics, with each filter tuned to a primary feedback frequency.

Such filters ring measurably, with the decay time of this ring varying according to the filter characteristics.

Some listeners claim that this ringing is audible and objectionable, even though the ring decay time is almost always much shorter than that of the system feedback which the filter suppresses.

Others observe that wisely used notch filters can suppress the apparent room reverberation as excited by the system, thus improving its sound quality.

In many cases, feedback suppression can allow the system level to be turned up enough to make a very desirable improvement in performance.

But always keep in mind the key portion to this approach: notch filters must be wisely used or they can have a highly negative impact.

Challenges Ahead
In my previous article,  we began the discussion that has continued here, regarding factors that define a “good” system.

Note that with regard to all of them, as a group, the professional audio industry has a long way to go before reaching many concrete solutions.

Why is that?

Our problems are interdisciplinary, and require “in-situ” measurements of many factors in both subjective and objective domains. This requires proficiency in several rather complex disciplines.

To this point, very few in our industry possess these specialized skills, and further, as a group we’re not prepared to fully understand this information.

Don’t get me wrong - we’re not stupid, it’s just that the issues are highly complex. Multiple variables can be involved, but not readily apparent.

A major problem is simply isolating the variables from one another. At this point in time, it’s a huge challenge.

Further, the parameters involved are poorly defined. In fact, a major goal of research in this area is simply to isolate, identify, and define the significant parameters. It would seem that this is the obvious starting point, but many issues are so poorly understood that such is not yet possible.

Plus, we’re all human, with significant opinions and prejudices. This is always a danger in any type of scientific investigation, but it may be even more significant here because of widespread prior experiences, good and bad, with sound systems.

Finally, sound reinforcement professionals often respond to the research results that do exist with skepticism or outright rejection.

It seems that many of us like to feel that our knowledge and understanding of the craft is more than adequate, and to be honest, we can feel threatened by any challenge to our competence.

And now we’ve come full circle!

The key problem is the lack of understanding of the relationship between objective and subjective factors.

Until we reach some sort of consensus, real progress on the true definition of a good system, let alone the application of what we learn, still seems a long time coming.

Bob Thurmond is principal consultant with G. R. Thurmond and Associates of Austin, Texas.  This paper was originally presented at the 146th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Session 4aAAa.

 

{extended}

Thursday, April 07, 2011

Can You Do Justice With The Mix Of A Song If You Don’t Know It’s Meaning?

You can’t mix a song until you learn to honor the song. You can’t honor a song until you leave your agenda at the door and really, honestly listen to it. j. hall talks about finding the meaning of a song as being one of the keys to great mixing.

A few years ago, while bouncing around from studio to studio mixing various projects, I noticed something with the various other people working in the other rooms of these facilities: some mix engineers just don’t listen anymore.

I’m not talking about listening to the client, I’m talking about listening to the song.

There was a point in my life where music had to fit a certain criteria for it to be “good”.  The criteria were hardly anything artistic, other then loud, aggressive, and discordant.

As I grew older and became an engineer, I never gave much thought to other genres or styles of music. I was basically a close-minded Ebenezer Scrooge about music.

Looking back on this time period of my life, I can now see that I even lacked the skill or desire to listen to a song appropriately.

Not caring about such trivial matters as “the meaning of a song”, I set out on my path to become an engineer. Along the way I landed a gig working for a once-famous band. 

Being young and naïve, I thought little of the band’s musical statement and more about just doing the work. I completed the project, a cover song for a small film’s soundtrack, with speed and ease. 

Little did I know that I was soon to embark on a life changing adventure. 

A few days after, the guitar player calls me and wants to get a few beers and hang out. So there I sit, young, stupid, and across the table from the local hero. We put down a few beers and I proceed to get another gig. (“Hey, this guy likes me, and I’m about to mix a full-length record.”)

I showed up at the studio the next day to begin the project, and over the course of the next week, I proceeded to ruin a man’s dream. It wasn’t until months later that I really realized how badly I had destroyed that record.

The strange thing is that we became best friends (I’ll call this guy Rick). We were practically inseparable. This relationship is what would change my life forever.

Rick is a truly inspired musician, with an ability to connect to music in a way I had never seen before. He can truly communicate an emotion through music, and he could pick up on one in an instant.

This was something I thought I was good at - but nope. 

Rick and I would spend hours in the studio listening to all sorts of music. He would force me to verbally break a song down. Explain the core idea, discuss what would motivate a person to write a song like that, and so on.

I became a sponge, and couldn’t wait to get to the studio so we could talk about music. I had always thought my high school years were going to be the best musical exploration time in my life, but this was like a drug. I was a slave to it.

All of the sudden there was someone else who felt the same way about music that I did. However, Rick was far more open-minded about it. 

I began to identify with certain songs that I’d always considered garbage. I found myself loving songs that I’d never listened to before because they were “too mainstream.”

Looking back on all this, I could easily call it Mr. Miyagi’s school of “How to Listen to Music”. I can only assume that everything Rick did was intentional, and he genuinely wanted to “save” me from being a terrible engineer.

One afternoon he asked me if I would be interested in mixing an E.P. of his main band’s songs. I jumped at the chance, but was a bit nervous considering our last outing wasn’t so good.

We discussed it and I confessed to having doubts about doing the songs justice. He just laughed and said, “let’s get to work.” 

I think every engineer has one session that is a major turning point in their life, where things start to fall into place, where your confidence of running a session, as opposed to it running you, emerged.

This session was my turning point.

I had never heard the seven songs I was about to mix. As each came up for the first time I found myself sitting back and listening, taking in every drum hit, every guitar note, every vocal articulation. I listened to each a few times, moving the faders around and getting a feel for the tracks.

After I felt like I had the idea I would turn to Rick and discuss my thoughts with him.  We would talk about the song and how we thought the mix could help it. Only after we figured out direction would we begin.

When the E.P. was finished, we sat around the studio, drinking a beer, and Rick said something to me that has forever changed my attitude toward artists and bands:

“As an engineer, you hold an artist’s hopes a dreams in your hand. Everything they have ever wished for, everything they have ever wanted to be is right there. No matter how great the band really is doesn’t matter a bit. What does matter is that true feelings and emotions can be found inside every song. It’s your job to serve the song and the band.  You are a music lover, not a specific genre promoter. Love the music for everything it is, for everything it isn’t, and everything it can be.”

Next time you hear two bars of a song you don’t like, stop for a minute, open your mind, put your opinions aside and just listen.

Let it hit you in the chest before you pass judgment. Let it bounce off of you and then take a look at what is right in front of you. Pick through the surface value of what you just heard to find its motivation.

Art, by design, is meant to speak to us in various different ways. We have to be willing to listen.

You can’t mix a song until you learn to honor the song. You can’t honor a song until you leave your agenda at the door and listen.

j. hall is a veteran audio professional and the moderator of Indie Rock In Practice & Theory in the ProSoundWeb RE/P Forums

{extended}

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

Old Soundman: Dealing With Getting Walked On

The wise one provides perspective on dealing with the "local sound hero"

“Getting ahead without being a jerk” is actually what our young friend said he wanted to discuss. I will use the pseudonym “Oz Man” for him due to the volatile nature of his dilemma!

Notice that he is so distraught that he offers no salutation!

At the age of 17, I entered my journey of wanting to be a sound professional. At age 27…

… that makes it a decade later, right?

… I have gone to “rock and roll U” and have been spat back into the land of Oz.

Who spat you back there, Oz Man? Was it the wizard? How many times did I tell you – pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! But you are like my son, the young soundman – you just won’t listen!

I have worked in three other states as a sound guy/recording engineer.

Sounds like you’re a pretty rockin’ guy!

So, what’s the problem? Do you want to be bad, do you want to be nationwide? I should have guessed…

While fairly confident of my skills, so far I have come to ruin by letting myself get walked on by the other guy so as not be branded an a**hole.

Don’t be so hard on yourself, Oz Man! There is no XLR cable so tangled that it cannot untangled again! Preferably by the young soundman rather than by myself… But I digress!

Look for the path that does not yearn to tread upon your soundman neighbor’s face, in sweet retaliation for him trampling you.

To be safe on a karmic level, you can only wish that he stop steppin’ on you! Once you are picking up the fat paychecks, this guy will be a tiny half-forgotten blip on your internal radar screen.

Some guy wrote in and was bugging me a couple years ago about branding - I can’t quite remember now what he was so bugged about. But listen – we are not cows! When they try to hold you down and put that hot iron on you, snatch it out of their hands, and brandish it up in their faces!

Buddha never said that it wasn’t okay to threaten them until they wet their trousers, he just said you will only complicate matters if you do in fact brand the assailants!

Now, back in my home town once again, I am finding myself in the same spot.

Do you mean “the mystery spot?” Because that is a famous place.

If you lived there, you would not need to be a soundman, you could probably survive off all those fives that tourists pay to see it.

Instead of advancing my career, I am bowing down to the local hero, who is so revered by all, that i don’t seem to have a chance, i.e., “when we need a sound guy, we use ‘Joe’.”

Ah, the local hero.

He is a problem, indeed, and you probably would rather I didn’t tell you that it is hopeless - he has got a lock on it.

He wants you to believe that this “spot” is his world, and you are just a squirrel trying to get a nut, doesn’t he?

Do you have any suggestions on how to get ahead, without being the guy who is trying to horn in on ‘so and so’s’ territory?

Thanks,
Oz Man

It will seem shallow, what I am going to tell you, Oz Man. It will seem “easy for me to say,” but in my youth, I actually went through some similar situations. And, believe it or not, a decade from now you will look back on this and not even believe you could have been as bugged as you are right now.

Because old mister Darwin had a handle on it. Things shake out over time. So, guess what? The people who I was engaged in so many struggles with ten years ago are not a part of my world any more.

They work with people they get along with. I work with people that I get along with!

The world of audio (like the world of the different musics we amplify) is so huge, Oz Man! Right now it does not seem that you and the local hero can exist in the same spot.

And maybe you can’t. Which means that one of you will relocate and thrive elsewhere. Or get hit by a truck.

Just kidding, Oz Man!

I am serious – in the year 2021, think back to now, and you will see that I was right. One or both of you may have left the profession, even.

For now – eat healthy, get plenty of rest, work out, take martial arts, which is good for reducing stress. Make yourself into a mighty sound stud, and you will do well in this world, irrespective of what the local hero does.

It’s not about him. It’s about you, and the horizon, and your personal search for excellence.

Take the long view - you’ll be glad you did!

Luv,
The Old Soundman

There’s simply no denying the love from The Old Soundman. Check out more from OSM here.

{extended}

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Who Defines “Good” Sound? The Sound Tech As An Equal Worship Team Member

To do an effective job the sound technician needs control over every detail related to the craft of developing a great sound

For speech, the job of the sound technician is simple - to see to it that every word is heard clearly, preferably at a comfortable listening volume.

On the other hand, the music mix is very much left to the taste and discretion of the sound technician and the music minister, and in general, it should sound like a professional recording.

That is to say, a musically pleasing blend of the instruments and voices, enhanced with the tasteful use of effects devices to produce an overall sound that is very close to what one would expect to hear from a polished recording of that same music.

The sound technician and the music minister should hopefully come to an agreement as to what that finished mix should sound like, with the sound mixer should deferring to the taste of the music minister - and yet in the same breath - the music minister learning to trust the sound technician to do his/her job during the service.

These two comments can’t be separated - they must be considered together! 

In most churches, only the sound technician is in a position to make decisions during the actual performance, and in effect, also becomes the producer. 

If you’re the music pastor and will be on the platform during the worship service, then the responsibility of the music mix must be delegated.

To delegate something means that you give it to someone. The word is a verb! It requires action. 

Consider these definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for the word delegate:
- To entrust to another
- To appoint as one’s representative
- To assign responsibility or authority

It doesn’t mean relinquishing total control, but letting go of the mix in order for the sound technician to take it.

I can tell you that I’ll let you borrow my car, and I can even hold my keys out to you, but until I let go of those keys and put them in your hand, you can’t go drive my car. 

Hopefully two things will surface: the sound technician and music minister will find that they have very similar tastes in music and what a good mix sounds like; also, the sound technician’s creative input will be valued highly and considered an objective and positive force toward a pleasing end product. 

The craft of sound mixing is to shape all of the musical elements into a polished, finished product, in much the same way that the music minister shapes the sound of the choir, for example, into a polished, finished product.

Each does the best he/she can with the tools provided. And neither is a miracle-worker. 

Every Detail
Most sound technicians want ownership of the mix. They want to make the decisions about which microphones are chosen and how they’re placed.

To do an effective job the sound technician needs control over every detail related to the craft of developing a great sound. 

This includes having some measure of control over where and how instruments are placed on the stage. Even though it might look cool, the sound technician doesn’t want the acoustic drum set sitting in the choir’s lap! 

If it is, place $3,000 worth of mics on the choir and all they’ll amount to is a $3,000 hi-hat mic!

It’s also a personal issue - just as personal as the way a musician grabs the chords on the keyboard or guitar, the choice of notes that a bass guitarist or soloist makes, or the subtle nuances in performance so important to a drummer, percussionist, or even worship leader. 

A friend of mine, Dale Alexander, is a musician and highly regarded church sound consultant. Dale has created the term “mix musician” to describe what it is that the sound technician does at the sound console. 

When he first mentioned this to me, I didn’t get it. It didn’t feel quite right. Maybe it’s because I made my living for several years as a professional musician, and over time had changed my career to being a recording engineer and live sound engineer. 

For some reason I didn’t equate the two roles. When I sat at the console, I didn’t feel like I was playing music.

But lately I’ve come to better understand it, and have to agree with Dale’s description.

When I’m at the console mixing a service, I feel basically the same emotions as I used to feel when I was playing keyboards in the band. 

Looking back on my years of mixing, I realize that I have felt those same “player” emotions since the day I mixed my first song. The title fits. 

Emotions & Attitude
Now when I mix a worship service, I’m quite literally worshipping just as much as any other musician on the stage. I can’t exactly close my eyes or throw my head back or even raise my hands, but the emotions and attitude of worship are still there. 

Accepting the “mix musician” as an equal member of the worship team, means affording the same right to freedom of expression that musicians and singers are regularly enjoy. We could have a similar discussion when it comes to stage lighting or video graphics. 

Someone needs to make the final say, and I’m not about to tell you who that person should be. It can be different for every church, so you need to figure out what works best for you. 

But please embrace the tech team as equal members of your worship team.  You’ll be greatly blessed by the end result. 

Curt Taipale heads up Church Soundcheck, a thriving community dedicated to helping technical worship personnel, and he also provides expert systems design and consulting services with Taipale Media Systems.

More articles by Curt Taipale on PSW:
Install Your Own Church Sound System? Here Are Some Cautionary Tales
Humor Files: Unintended Amendments To The Laws Of Physics

{extended}

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Be Careful Where You Point That Thing…

A venue experiences horrendous sound one night and exemplary sound the next. What ever was the cause?

Cue the dramatic, scary music, something Bernard Herrman-esque.

Add a voiceover from Rod Serling: “Imagine, if you will, a full venue, a hot new band, an energized audience, the latest technology everywhere - and - something unusual is about to happen.”

On two nights, two different mixers work the same show.

On the first night, sound is appalling. The mix is edgy, way too loud (cruising above 110 dB), muddled with no clarity defining vocals and instruments, and no musical separation.

All circuits are set to “stun” and the warp drive is at 11, the dilithium crystals are glowing like the surface of a supernova, there isn’t a peak or clip light that isn’t flashing, the drive racks are lit up like a 4th of July fireworks show.

And nobody with the sound crew or on stage seems to think anything is wrong.

Meanwhile, the audience is fleeing the scene in ever-increasing numbers, holding their ears.

They’d complain if they thought anyone could even hear them. And they’ll all remember this experience….

On the second night, things are dramatically different. As if by magic, the hard brittle edge is gone, vocal intelligibility is right on, maximum SPL rides up and down in the 90 dB-100 dB range, taking advantage of the natural dynamics of the music.

Having enjoyed the full show, the audience walks contentedly to their cars, talking about the great performance. And they’ll all remember this experience….

From one show to the next, did some alien life form beam down to the venue and change the system set-up? Was a whole new rig put into place overnight?

Nope. It’s exactly the same.

What did change is the individual responsible for the house sound mix. The hardware doesn’t decide on it’s own to go to maximum output power.

It can’t make the decision to drive every input to the edge of disaster and force all the warning indicators to illuminate.

Rather, it takes a set of hands and a pair of ears to make this happen, involving conscious choices to move the knobs and slide the faders, push the buttons and set the dials.

An Abused Term
If the term “mixer” is to be applied to individuals who produce the type of sound on the first show, then that term is being seriously abused.

Generating the loudest wall of sound feasible given the technology is not the goal of performance audio.

Yes, some “artists” want very loud sound, but what does that really mean?

Simply, it means the mixer acts as a professional to attain the desired result for the artist and the audience.

It takes commitment to do the job correctly.

Not only must the mixer learn the technology, but also understand things like balance, layering, separation, positioning - and in general, understand how it is supposed to sound.

This is not an instantly conferred skill. Would you prefer an intern performing surgery on your brain, or a 20-year veteran who has done similar procedures hundreds of times?

The vast - and I mean vast - majority of today’s audio gear makes it really easy to produce stunningly loud sound with very low distortion.

With these tools working like never before, the focus then is firmly on the people side of the equation.

Mixing is many things, much of it artistic and creative expression.

It is not simply pushing up the next set of faders in relation to the last, and then the next, and then the next until what is produced is so loud and indistinguishable that it sounds like a crowd roaring when the home team scores the winning touchdown.

Every musical performance must have space. so that each part is a contributing factor to overall sound. Without this space, it’s like looking at a fine painting in low-resolution black and white.

Over the past year to two, unfortunately, my list of shows at which both satisfactory levels and separation were attained is woefully short.

Yet the few good ones prove that the goal is attainable. The question then becomes why it’s not attained more often.

None of this requires Detective Colombo to do an in-depth investigation. So often, it’s not the hardware.

Rather, look in the mirror, and notice what happens when you point a finger. It points right back at the real culprit.

After all, have you ever known technology to make a choice of its own? That’s what I thought…

Fred Ampel has been involved in the A/V industry for 35 years, working with sound reinforcement, studio, A/V system design, installations and equipment development.

{extended}

Friday, March 18, 2011

A Range Of Views On The Use Of Compression While Tracking

Editor's Note: This is a discussion of a few years ago in Harvey Gerst's recording forum here on ProSoundWeb that's full of interesting points and references, and we're happy to present it to you here in article form.

Question posed by laptoppop
How often do you use compression while tracking, especially on an inexperienced vocalist? I have avoided it so far - because I want to keep it clean and add it later, if needed - but I’m wondering about putting something like the RNC (Really Nice Compressor from FMR Audio) in super-nice mode set only to kick in if the singer goes way beyond what they did while we were setting the initial levels.

Seems like most singers get a good bit louder for the “real” take - that’s no problem, I can compensate. But when they move back and forth while singing, etc….

What do you guys do? Do you put a compressor in the chain, or do you just record at a low enough level to handle it?

Reply by hargerst
We record a lot of heavy metal and rock here. Compression is a must with most of those singers, since they can go from a whisper to a scream in one song.

For those singers, I’ll use the RNC in normal mode, sometimes as much as 10:1 ratio. For pop singers (if they’re pretty even), I still might go anywhere from 2:1 all the way up to 6:1. I have to use it because most of the singers I get in here just don’t have the experience of how to properly work a mic.

If they’re good singers, I might try to work with them a little, but the RNC is simply my safety net - just in case.

Reply by green1
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. I think if you’re still learning the basics of getting sounds, its better to be careful. But once you’re confident in what you’re doing, then if you know you want a certain sound that is created by using a certain compressor, then go for it.

If I want the sound of my distressor on an electric guitar, then I’d rather track through it than go through another conversion process to add it later.

Reply by floodstage
I use compression during tracking all the time, and I almost always compress them some more during mixing.

Just be cautious with compression during tracking. If you kill the signal during tracking, it will take a near miracle to bring it back to life.

Reply by cmez
I’ve been having some issues with exactly this subject…

Big voiced female, lots of dynamics - by the time I get the quiet sections dialed in and get a good signal to noise ratio, the loud sections just peg out. So I compress, but then it adds noise (RNC on SN mode), and then when it’s mix time and I would like to compress some more, the noise floor is VERY noticeable. (I’m on analog tape, by the way.)

This girl’s like a young Loretta Lynn in tone, but on steroids as far as volume.

Think I ought to do something like set the RNC all the way at 1 and set the threshold at like +6, quickest attack possible, medium release on supernice with no make-up gain?

That might help my noise floor situation, correct? Since the compressor won’t kick in except for the loud sections, it would be hidden?

Reply by delta9
We compress vocals going in and during mix. Maybe more than once. Compress-a-here, compress-a-there, everywhere a compress-a.

Apply compression like coats of paint. Many light adjustments sound better than one heavy-handed one.

Reply by cmez
I understand that it’d be best to not have to compress much at each stage, but that’s not an option. She peaks out the console preamp, she peaks out the tape, I swear originally she was peaking out the Shure KSM 44 that she was singing into!

I’ve got to find a way to mellow out those peaks or else. Thus my thought of attempting the limiting mode for loud sections only.

We’re going to try some mic technique things as well; such as having her turn her head when she gets loud, etc.

Reply by bitrot
A timely subject for me, since I’ve recently been working on my singer/songwriter material with my RNP/RNC combo, using light compression while tracking vocals and guitar.

In my limited experience, I’ve found it depends on what you’re trying to do:

Control dynamics on the way in:

- If you’re a DAW user, if you record at 24-bit, you don’t necessarily need a limiter or compressor on the way in… 24 bits gives plenty of headroom to compress later with your plugs. The downside to this approach is that there just aren’t many software compressors out there that add good flavor as well as the compression.

- If you’re not a DAW user, you can run into “speed” issues, where you’ll be looking for a limiter while tracking drums. The RNC just isn’t fast enough to be used as a limiter on really fast transients, but it can work wonders on vocals and other “slower” material. And good limiters are expensive.

Add flavor, beef it up.

This is where I live: The RNP (Really Nice Preamp, also from FMR Audio) definitely naturally beefs up a track just by doing what it does, but more often or not I find myself wanting to rely less on my lower-end software compressors on my DAW, and “get that sound” up front. Enter the RNC in super-nice mode with under 2-3 dB of limiting.

So I completely agree that great outboardish-like tracks can be had by compressing lightly here and there from tracking to mixdown. More layers of paint add to the complexity.

I can’t emphasize enough how much better my tracks seem to work with really light compression from my RNC once they’re in the mix… even if I’ve recorded at 24 bits already. Slap some digital fishphones compression on the track and it starts to have beef, especially when I don’t want to be mixing forever and I’m just cutting a rough demo guitar/vocal track.

Experiment. I say for rock and folk styles, very light compression on the way in can save some work and add complexity later on during mixdown.

Reply by hargerst
I wouldn’t use the Supernice mode for that. I’d set all the RNC controls about straight up, then dial in the threshhold to where she’s lighting up the first two lights on the loudest parts of the quiet sections. Let the really loud sections take care of themselves. If the difference is still too great, go from the knob straight up ratio (about 6:1) to about 10:1.

Reply by cmez
Think the layering of compression circuits in the super-nice mode is adding noise too? Would that be why you might just use it on the regular setting?

Reply by hargerst
No, it’s because the SN circuit is a lot slower and you’re probably having to crank it way higher to get the results, bringing up the noise with it.

Reply by bitrot
Hmmm… Sure the SN mode is slower, and you have to push it harder to get the levels, but I haven’t noticed any increase in noise. Although I haven’t done an exhaustive comparison between SN and regular mode.

If I have a really quiet room, pretty quiet gear and I’m close-miking, what noise am I raising, just the noise floor? If the SN ratio is good enough on the way in, and barring any real quiet passages, I don’t understand how the noise is a problem in SN mode.

I’ve also read that others prefer SN mode while tracking, but who knows what that’s worth…

Any other reasons SN is not OK when tracking?

Reply by hargerst
It’s more of an averaging compressor in that mode, rather than a quick response compressor. It wouldn’t be the mode of choice if I had to tame a singer with wildly varying dynamics.

Reply by bitrot
Yeah I agree… the original post was about taming dynamics on the way in. SN isn’t the way to go for that.

Harvey Gerst is a long-time recording engineer and owner of Indian Trail Studios in Texas, and he formerly moderated a popular REP Forum here on ProSoundWeb.

{extended}

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Industry Insight: The Problem Or The Solution?

Keeping up with ever-more complex technology

Professional audio equipment keeps getting better, as clearly evidenced by enhanced loudspeaker systems, high-resolution digital mixing consoles, ever-more-robust low distortion power amplifiers and digital signal processing “wonder boxes.”

Further, with the advent of new interconnect options, sound systems are beginning to gain immunity from ground loops that can serve up dreaded hum and buzz.

Suffice to say that the improved list goes on and on, with a lot more new equipment coming out soon!

At the same time, the public is ever more aware of sound quality, and this has certainly raised the bar when it comes to expectation. Whether it’s a church, theatrical production, concert or whatever – folks now have a higher expectation when it comes to what they hear.

So we’ve established that both equipment quality and public expectation have escalated.

My question: why isn’t sound quality at live shows/events getting better? (Or is it?)

It would be interesting to go through reviews of concerts over the past 10 years and see if there is any indication that audio at these events has improved at the same increment as the quality of the gear.

Based upon my own experiences, as well as those shared with me by numerous friends and colleagues, and also what I’ve read – I suspect not.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that the issue of actual, definable sonic improvement remains murky at best.

As we know, sound quality in any venue can vary considerably during the same event at different locations in the coverage area. Even with this acknowledgement, it only seems logical that the overall average should be improving to a notable degree.

Someone Else?
What gives? The answer might lie a little closer than we think. Could it be… us? System operators, mix engineers, whatever we like to call ourselves – are we part of the problem?

You’re probably thinking, “It’s not me! I know what I’m doing. He must be talking about someone else.” Perhaps. But the facts are the facts.

My point is not to accuse anyone of incompetence, but rather, to suggest that we all focus on proper training.

The role of sound mixer/engineer/technician has never been tougher. The wonderful new tools make for a mind-boggling amount of information to learn and implement correctly.

Anyone doing live sound must be up to speed on the total functionality of the console, digital loudspeaker drive system, amplifier diagnostic and control systems, programmable outboard gear, measurement and analysis tools… (It makes me tired just listing it out!)

And this doesn’t even take into account staples of the trade such as coverage and acoustical issues, safe and reliable power, basic electronics, microphone placement, wireless usage, and so on.

The staggering amount of new technology, some of it quite complex, requires dedicated training. Further, very little of this new breed of gear even existed a decade ago.

Consider for a moment that a typical, well-rounded mix engineer now needs to understand how to operate a litany of equipment:

Digital consoles as well as analog offerings, digital processing (with software!); countless power amplifiers; digital effects; measurement and analysis software; wireless microphone systems (don’t forget the wired varieties, too); and every line array series currently and previously on the market…

The broad list was compiled off the top of my head, and it’s barely a start! I started to add up all of the pages of the owners/operators manuals and technical guides for the products I typically encounter, and they total well over 2,000 pages! No one can simply pick up this amount of technical detail on the fly.

Educational Options
Thus, it’s well past time for more structured training programs. Manufacturers need to understand they have an obligation to provide a well-defined training curriculum on complex products; and customers need to understand that they will have to budget for the training, and then show up and pay attention.

Perhaps some new form of training center is called for, one that provides this type of educational service for more than one manufacturer in the industry.

Certainly “trade schools” like Full Sail and SAE do provide sophisticated training, but the courses are more designed to lead to a degree rather than offering practical, immediate instruction.

It might be a good idea for these institutions to consider “clinic style” training programs that last several days and thoroughly cover the kinds of complex devices and technologies noted above. Imagine a three-day “executive-style seminar” on digital console operation and application. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Thankfully, many manufacturers have begun their own equipment specific training courses, accomplishing just that.

Clearly, it takes a lot more knowledge and skill to run a live sound system today than just a few years ago.

Regardless of the exact form, it’s incumbent upon working professionals to make the commitment to training. Things are likely only going to get more – not less – complicated from this point forward.

It’s time to take full advantage of what can be achieved with the new tools of our trade. We need to get up to speed, now, or operate in a vacuum where untapped potential goes largely unmet. As professionals, let’s be sure to be the solution rather than the problem.

Michael MacDonald has been involved in the professional audio industry for more than 20 years. Beginning as a freelance mixer/engineer in the 1970s, he transitioned to working for manufacturers and has been employed by, developed products for, and consulted with major companies such as JBL Professional.

{extended}

Improve Your Church Sound Without Spending A Dime

Understanding that while the laws of physics don't compromise, many other things do.

Sound quality can be drastically improved by incorporating one thing: compromise.

No, it’s not a dirty word. Without it marriages fall apart, friendships fade, churches split and wars are waged.

Of course some things are not open to compromise, but in most cases we can’t live without it.

One of the biggest challenges to getting quality sound in a church is getting the sound department and music staff to compromise.

Some sound people are unwilling to change and feel they have nothing new to learn. You may hear them say, “I’ve done it this way for 20 years and never had a problem until ‘so and so’ showed up.”

Too often, musicians and singers have similar feelings: “I’ve held the microphone this way since I was 5 years old and I’m not about to change now.”

There is one factor that will not compromise: the laws of physics. The laws of physics are inflexible and do not respond to flattery. They don’t care. The laws of physics just are.

Unfortunately, we will never have perfect acoustics, perfect sound systems, perfect worship teams or sound departments. So compromise must come from somewhere else, and whether we like it or not - it’s up to us.

Respecting the laws of physics, we - sound team, worship team, musicians - all must compromise to produce the results we desire.

Singers might have to do with a little less monitor from time to time, and they might - gasp - even have to re-learn how to hold a microphone.

The keyboardist might need to use a different sound that fits better with the rest of the instruments.

The choir director might need to arrange the choir’s positioning behind the microphones differently to get additional (and necessary) volume in the sound system.

And the sound operator might need to compromise with all of these individuals and elements and more, in addition to also compromising on things like volume levels in consideration of the congregation.

Let’s remember our purpose. When we diminish our own preferences and keep our focus on God, good things happen!

Keep that in mind and it’s a lot easier to compromise, making it far more possible to dramatically improve the sound quality in our churches.

Without spending a dime.

Jeff Lange has assisted many churches internationally in designing audio/visual systems that are tailored to the needs a church worship service. A consultant and trainer for Sonic Art, LLC, he is frequently called upon to assist in identifying and resolving audio/visual problems due to system and/or acoustic challenges, and he also serves as a consultant liaison and training manager for Aviom.

{extended}

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Tascam Announces The DR-07mkII Portable With Revamped Mics & New Features

The new DR-07mkII is ideal for remote or board recordings when footprint is an issue.

Tascam has updated their best-selling portable recorder to the DR-07mkII, a new handheld recorder with adjustable microphones and high-resolution audio quality that’s simple to use.

The stereo recorder features a pair of adjustable condenser microphones.

The built-in mics can be moved from an XY position, for tight imaging, to an AB position, for a wider ambient sound.

A dedicated power supply for the codec enables the full capabilities of the A/D and D/A converter, and separate analog & digital circuit boards and low impedance circuit design reduce noise in the design.

The DR-05 records to microSD or microSDHC media, recording in MP3 or WAV (BWF) file format at up to 96kHz/24-bit resolution.

Sharing some features with the new DR-05, the DR-07mkII makes recording simple enough for any musician. The Peak reduction function sets the optimum recording level even in recording to avoid the over level.

Quick Menu selects commonly used parameters in playback or record like auto level setting or limiting, while deeper settings are available through a full-featured setup menu. The 1/8” mic/line input can supply power for microphones.

A Level Align function prevents uneven volume levels during playback through the 1/8” headphone output or built-in speaker.

Variable-Speed Audition – which changes playback speed without affecting pitch – and looping are also available during playback for transcription or learning new music. 17.5 hours of longer battery life at 44.1kHz/16-bit, WAV (BWF) is long enough for any recording situation.

Some DR-07mkII features that aren’t found on the DR-05 include Overdub mode, which records over your previous take but keeps a copy of the original.

The portable recorder also includes Auto Record and Auto Mark settings for hands-off operation. A reverb effect is also available to give your recordings a mastered polish.

Features:
• Handheld Portable Recorder
• Adjustable Stereo Condenser Omnidirectional Microphones (XY or AB)
• Up to 96kHz/24-bit WAV (BWF) linear PCM recording
• Stereo MP3 recording from 32-320 kbps bit rate
• Reverb effect
• Overdub recording mode
• Auto Record and Auto Mark functions
• Peak Reduction function to set the optimum recording level automatically even in recording
• Limiter and low-cut filter to help prevent distortion
• Automatic or manual level setting
• Self timer recording starts recording 5 or 10 sec. after pressing the record button for waiting until you are ready
• Auto and manual track increment
• Variable speed playback (50%-150%) without changing the pitch
• Loop and repeat playback
• Level Align feature prevents uneven volume levels during playback
• Playback EQ setting
• Editing function (Divide and delete)
• Up to 99 mark points on each file
• Chromatic tuner
• 1/8” stereo mic/line input
• USB 2.0 port for transfer to PC and external power
• Up to 2-second pre recording buffer
• Jump back function returns to previous point with one action (1-10, 20, 30 sec.)
• 1/8” headphone/line output
• Built-in speaker
• microSD (64MB – 2GB)/microSDHC (4GB – 32GB) card slot (2GB card included)
• Powered by 2 AA batteries, AC adapter (optional: PS-P515U), or USB bus power
• Tripod socket hole
• Dimensions: 2.2” W x 5.5” H x 1” D (55mm x 141mm x 26mm)

Tascam Website

{extended}

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Making The Best Of Subpar Systems & Gear On The Live Club Circuit

If you find yourself in this position, all is not lost. Here are some tricks that have come in quite handy

As a long-time engineer who has mixed everywhere from small clubs to television to arenas and amphitheaters, I’ve picked up some invaluable insight over the years.

One of the toughest gigs for a sound person has to be going on tour with a band playing smaller clubs, where sound systems and related equipment can range from less than stellar to downright scary.

If you find yourself in this position, all is not lost. Here are some tricks I’ve learned that have come in quite handy.

Before the tour even begins, make things easy for yourself and your act by doing these small things and believe me, your life will be much easier in the long run.

1) Buy several microphone cables and make yourself a drum loom (snake) and label both ends (i.e., kick, snare, hats, rack, rack 2, floor, overhead L, overhead R).

Even if you’re in a venue that has a limited amount of channels, at least you know that YOUR mic cables work, and it also takes the guesswork out of the clubs’ mic cables working or not.

It also saves you time by not having to run individual cables for each channel. Everything is already loomed up and ready to go and the in-house engineer will love you for this because it’s less work and cabling for him.

Plus he gets to go home a little earlier at the end of the show instead of wrapping up all of those mic cables!

2) Rack mount as many direct boxes as you can to keep your stage clean, and already have mic cables run and labeled for these as well. On my current tour, the only thing I need from the venue is one direct box, two Shure SM57 mics for guitar amps and three condenser mics for my hats and overheads for the drums.

3) Carry your own drum and vocal mics if at all possible! With these, at least you know from night to night what your drums and vocals are SUPPOSED to sound like. A little consistency is always a great thing.

Sharing germs with all of the other acts who may have come in contact with the in-house mics is not a good thing. If you have to use the in-house mics, I strongly advise carrying a small bottle of Listerine to clean these mics before your act takes the stage.

4) Carry drum claws for your drum kit. Along with your own drum mics, you can cut your setup and tear-down time in half by not having to position mic stands (and many clubs don’t have a lot of stands).

5) If at all possible, carry your own house (and/or monitor) rack. Many clubs don’t have enough compressors or gates, so by carrying your own, you can be one step ahead of the game. Carrying a reverb and/or delay unit will also help you bring consistency to each show.

6) If you know of a particular club that is particularly notorious for bad sound, arrive earlier than usual and spend an extra hour or so tweaking the system, filtering out bad cables, bad channels on the console, while also pre-wiring the stage before the band shows up. This little bit of extra time can mean the difference between a REALLY bad sounding show and a show where people will compliment you on what a great job you did with the sound.

7) Send each venue’s in-house engineer - well in advance - your CURRENT stageplot and input chart. If at all possible, get that person on the phone and inquire about the sound system and ask about bad channels on the console, are all of the monitors working, etc. You’ll walk in knowing what to expect, and save a lot of headaches.

8) NEVER complain about a lousy system you’re mixing on. Nine times out of 10, the in-house engineer has heard it all before and it’s usually out of his control as to making fixes or being able to purchase equipment for the system’s upgrade.

9) If you see problems with a system, by all means jump in and fix those problems if you have time. The in-house person will love you for it, and the next time that you roll through, he’ll remember you…  and your day will go MUCH smoother!

David Norman has served as tour/production manager and/or mixed such acts as Matchbox 20, Roger Daltrey, The British Rock Symphony, Ani DiFranco, The Newport Folk Festival Tour, The Neville Brothers, Arrested Development, Peabo Bryson, Michael Hedges, They Might Be Giants, and Susanna Hoffs.

{extended}

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Church Sound Files: Eliminating Sound System & Operator Distractions That Detract From Worship

As people who work with sound, we focus first on features and technology. On the other hand, pastors often consider aspects that can have a negative impact on a service, which ultimately detracts from worship...

When working with sound at church, we all know just how many things can go wrong.

The kicker is usually when they go wrong, which invariably seems to be at the worst possible moment.

The church I belong to, like most, doesn’t have a great sound system. We sure would like to have one, but like many, we’ve chosen to “make do” over the years.

One day, I asked the senior pastor what his primary goal would be if we could get a new system. His reply? “We need something that would cause no distractions.”

Hmmm…
 
Of course, I was expecting him to mention things like audio quality, ease of use, uniform volume levels at every seat, wireless features, and so on. So his answer surprised me at first.

But after thinking it over, I realized he was exactly right. As people who work with sound, we focus first on features and technology.

On the other hand, pastors often consider aspects that can have a negative impact on a service, which ultimately detracts from worship – and that’s why we’re all there in the first place! Everything else comes second.

I’ve always thought of the church sound operator as a referee at a sporting event.  Most of the time, when either does their job well, no one notices. That’s the way it should be - no distraction.

But when something goes wrong, everyone takes note – distraction.

My train of thought continued. Can a well-designed modern sound system, with simplified controls and intuitive applications, lead to fewer problems and therefore less distractions?

The majority of modern audio components perform far better than their predecessors, due to superior design and manufacture. Not to mention they’re newer and thus less susceptible to problems.

As to the issue of whether they’re “easier” to operate, I believe that’s a subjective opinion of each system operator.

But this did lead me to consider another potential source of distractions, and where they often originate when it comes to sound: the training (and lack thereof) of system operators.

Beyond training, how well are most churches equipped to schedule and manage volunteer (or even paid) system operators?

Now, let’s backtrack for a moment.

As noted, the church I belong to doesn’t have a “whiz-bang” sound system, but it does get the job done, and we work very hard to make sure it causes as few distractions as possible. This is because we invested in quality components, which were installed by a qualified A/V systems contractor.

Not only did we choose to go this direction with the system when it was new, but we also rely on this professional to handle any upgrades of components, to fix problems that come up, and to assist with “check-ups” on a regular basis. A little preventative maintenance goes a long way.

I understand the temptation to try to purchase new systems and products in the least expensive manner possible, and to “self-install” them. This is natural – we all, churches included, want the best bang for our buck.

But if there’s one absolute fact I’ve learned after working in audio for nearly 30 years, it’s this: one of the best ways to eliminate potential distractions is to have a system designed and installed by trained professionals.

Installation mistakes such as poor grounding, sloppy wiring and terminations, improper cable selection and a host of other little things, can all add up to one gigantic mess. And these types of mistakes tend to be fruitful and multiply!

Worse yet, I’ve walked into churches and have seen loudspeakers that are not designed to be suspended being hung by eyebolts screwed into the side of their particleboard cabinets. I just hope that these “accident waiting to happen” distractions don’t occur during a service.

Here’s a checklist for evaluating distraction potential:

1) Was your sound system designed by a reputable audio consultant who understands the needs of the church, the acoustical properties of the sanctuary, and the capabilities of those who operate the system?
2) Was your sound system installed by a certified individual employed by a reputable systems contracting firm?
3) Is the company that installed the system still in business, and involved in your additions and changes?
4) Has your system been installed in phases or added to over time?
5) Are system operators well trained and knowledgeable?
6) Does your sanctuary’s physical layout require a lot of audio equipment to be moved around and re-connected between services? 
7) Does your church struggle to find trained, motivated people to run the system?
8) Does your system produce random hums and buzzes, level changes, dropouts, crackles, distortions, pops, feedback or other noises that seem to go unexplained?
9) Do you own and consult instruction manuals and documentation on your equipment and system?
10) Is your system subject to regular maintenance inspections?

If you answered “yes” to checklist items 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 – and no to the rest – then your system is probably in good shape.

If not, it’s time to consider taking the proper steps in making sure your church is a distraction-free place to worship.

Chuck Wilson works with sound at his church, was a sound contractor for more than 20 years, and is now the director of the National Systems Contractors Association (NSCA).

{extended}