A thought about live sound

[ganttmann]

I don't do live sound. I like working in the studio where I have a
little control. But I love to criticize live sound guys. I should
probably keep my thoughts to myself because it's a tough gig, I know.
But I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.
And then all the important stuff becomes hard to hear distinctly. My
thought is this: What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
bass drum up LAST? At some point in a studio mix I always take the
bass and the kick out completely to see how everything fits together.
Then I bring the low end up until I feel and hear it. I NEVER start
with the kick drum. But I see live sound guys do it all the time.

Just a small thought.

Gantt

[Arny Krueger]

"ganttmann" > wrote in message

> I don't do live sound. I like working in the studio
> where I have a little control. But I love to criticize
> live sound guys. I should probably keep my thoughts to
> myself because it's a tough gig, I know. But I had a
> small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
> sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always
> too loud. And then all the important stuff becomes hard
> to hear distinctly. My thought is this: What if, when
> setting up a live mix, you bring the bass drum up LAST?
> At some point in a studio mix I always take the bass and
> the kick out completely to see how everything fits
> together. Then I bring the low end up until I feel and
> hear it. I NEVER start with the kick drum. But I see
> live sound guys do it all the time.

Bringing up the drums first last or someplace in the middle has no
necessary bearing on the balance of the final mix. It's all about the
judgement of the mixer, his ability to mix to an ideal that is in his mind,
and whether or not he actually controls the loudness of the drums. Most
drum kits are acoustic instruments. If the drummer wants to play them very
loud, what stops him? You may see a drum kit miced, but the purpose may not
be to make the whole kit louder but rather to correct natural imbalances,
some of which may be under the control of the drummer. You can't make a car
handle better than the nut behind the wheel!

The most common cause of excess drums against the better judgement of the
live sound guy is the drummer and his instrument. Some drummers like to
beat the living $#!% out of their instrument. The sound guy has nothing but
diplomacy (and perhaps some assistance from Smith and Wesson ;-) ) to get
the drummer to cut back.

Playing drums quietly but well is a learned skill that can be enhanced with
a proper choice of sticks and treatments for the drums.

[Scott Dorsey]

ganttmann > wrote:
>I don't do live sound. I like working in the studio where I have a
>little control. But I love to criticize live sound guys. I should
>probably keep my thoughts to myself because it's a tough gig, I know.
>But I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
>sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.
>And then all the important stuff becomes hard to hear distinctly. My
>thought is this: What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
>bass drum up LAST? At some point in a studio mix I always take the
>bass and the kick out completely to see how everything fits together.
>Then I bring the low end up until I feel and hear it. I NEVER start
>with the kick drum. But I see live sound guys do it all the time.

The guys I know who do this seem to be doing "cookbook" mixes. They bring
the kick up, then they bring the snare up so it's 12 dB above the kick, then
they bring the toms up to match the snare, then they bring the guitar up, etc.
So everything always sounds the same every time. I think this is bad.

I think it's best to start a mix with the thing in that mix that is most
important. That could be the vocals, it could be the guitar, it could be
something else. Maybe it even _is_ the kick drum in some kind of music.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mark]

On Jul 7, 12:29*pm, ganttmann > wrote:
> I don't do live sound. *I like working in the studio where I have a
> little control. *But I love to criticize live sound guys. *I should
> probably keep my thoughts to myself because it's a tough gig, I know.
> But I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
> sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.
> And then all the important stuff becomes hard to hear distinctly. *My
> thought is this: *What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
> bass drum up LAST? *At some point in a studio mix I always take the
> bass and the kick out completely to see how everything fits together.
> Then I bring the low end up until I feel and hear it. *I NEVER start
> with the kick drum. But I see live sound guys do it all the time.
>
> Just a small thought.
>
> Gantt

I have just a small edit to your thoughts...

.... one of my pet peeves in most live sound mixes, which is that
___everything___ is almost always too loud.

Mark

[ganttmann]

Yeah, I get that crowds need the THUMP these days. I still maintain
that getting serious about the kick last helps to keep the rest of the
mix clear. If I bring the kick up too soon I find myself EQ-ing and
placing it differently than when I save it for last. But I really do
understand that live sound is about pleasing the crowd. I just think
many guys are too heavy-handed with the kick.

Gantt

On Jul 7, 2:00*pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:

>
> Gantt,
> * * I agree with you in personal taste. But in defense of the live sound
> guys, most of them know what to do to please a crowd. I think that folks who
> go to live events are there more for an emotional experience than accuracy.
> And, unlike a studio, a live sound venue, by the very nature, has no "what
> it really sounds like" sound to preserve. Turn off the reinforcement in a
> stadium and there's nothing. Home theater pieces that do DSP frequently have
> a "live sound simulation" setting that bloats the bass and provides levels
> of reverb verging on slap-echo.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

[ganttmann]

Absolutely true. The a good mixer can probably start anywhere he
likes. The problem seems to be that precious few good mixers have
been at the concerts I've heard in recent years. On the other hand, I
do think that knowing when to focus on which element of a mix makes a
big difference in the final sound. Do this experiment: Start a mix
with the drums first, season to taste and run it. Walk away for a
while and try the same mix starting with a quick drum mix ('cause you
have to have the drums!) but don't dwell on the kick. Lower the kick
drum and bass (maybe take them out altogether) and get all the other
parts where you want them. Then begin fine-tuning the drums, then the
bass THEN find the right EQ and level for the kick drum. It'd be
interesting to hear the differences some of us come up with.

Gantt
On Jul 7, 1:03*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> *Bringing up the drums first last or someplace in the middle has no
> necessary bearing on the balance of the final mix. It's all about the
> judgement of the mixer, his ability to mix to an ideal that is in his mind,
> and whether or not he actually controls the loudness of the drums. *Most
> drum kits are acoustic instruments. If the drummer wants to play them very
> loud, what stops him? *You may see a drum kit miced, but the purpose may not
> be to make the whole kit louder but rather to correct natural imbalances,
> some of which may be under the control of the drummer. *You can't make a car
> handle better than the nut behind the wheel!
>
> The most common cause of excess drums against the better judgement of the
> live sound guy is the drummer and his instrument. *Some drummers like to
> beat the living $#!% out of their instrument. The sound guy has nothing but
> diplomacy (and perhaps some assistance from Smith and Wesson ;-) ) to get
> the drummer to cut back.
>
> Playing drums quietly but well is a learned skill that can be enhanced with
> a proper choice of sticks and treatments for the drums.

[ganttmann]

Absolutely true. A good mixer can probably start anywhere he or she
likes. The problem seems to be that precious few good mixers have
been at the concerts I've heard in recent years. On the other hand,
I
do think that knowing when to focus on which element of a mix makes a
big difference in the final sound. Do this experiment: Start a mix
with the drums first, season to taste and run it. Walk away for a
while and try the same mix starting with a quick drum mix ('cause you
have to have the drums!) but don't dwell on the kick. Lower the kick
drum and bass (maybe take them out altogether) and get all the other
parts where you want them. Then begin fine-tuning the drums, then
the
bass THEN find the right EQ and level for the kick drum. It'd be
interesting to hear the differences some of us come up with.

Gantt

On Jul 7, 1:03 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Bringing up the drums first last or someplace in the middle has no
> necessary bearing on the balance of the final mix. It's all about the
> judgement of the mixer, his ability to mix to an ideal that is in his mind,
> and whether or not he actually controls the loudness of the drums. Most
> drum kits are acoustic instruments. If the drummer wants to play them very
> loud, what stops him? You may see a drum kit miced, but the purpose may not
> be to make the whole kit louder but rather to correct natural imbalances,
> some of which may be under the control of the drummer. You can't make a car
> handle better than the nut behind the wheel!
> The most common cause of excess drums against the better judgement of the
> live sound guy is the drummer and his instrument. Some drummers like to
> beat the living $#!% out of their instrument. The sound guy h

[Mike Rivers]

ganttmann wrote:

> I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
> sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.

I usually find that the snare drum is too loud, and next to
that, the bass guitar is too loud. The vocals are rarely
just right.

> What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
> bass drum up LAST?

The system would probably run out of headroom when you
brought it up.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

ganttmann > wrote:
>Yeah, I get that crowds need the THUMP these days. I still maintain
>that getting serious about the kick last helps to keep the rest of the
>mix clear. If I bring the kick up too soon I find myself EQ-ing and
>placing it differently than when I save it for last. But I really do
>understand that live sound is about pleasing the crowd. I just think
>many guys are too heavy-handed with the kick.

You're missing the point. The kids of today _demand_ loud and distorted
sound. They've all ruined their hearing listening to their ipods at eleven,
so all they can hear is the kick drum anyway. And the customer is always
right...
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

ganttmann wrote:
> Absolutely true. The a good mixer can probably start anywhere he
> likes. The problem seems to be that precious few good mixers have
> been at the concerts I've heard in recent years.

The sad thing is that so many of the big touring acts with
the drums too loud and the vocals buried have had weeks of
rehearsal with the sound system and mixing engineer. Unless
there's a really bad problem in the hall, what you hear is
what they've decided that they want.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Flying V]

On 7/7/2010 11:29 AM, ganttmann wrote:
> I don't do live sound. I like working in the studio where I have a
> little control. But I love to criticize live sound guys. I should
> probably keep my thoughts to myself because it's a tough gig, I know.
> But I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
> sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.
> And then all the important stuff becomes hard to hear distinctly. My
> thought is this: What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
> bass drum up LAST? At some point in a studio mix I always take the
> bass and the kick out completely to see how everything fits together.
> Then I bring the low end up until I feel and hear it. I NEVER start
> with the kick drum. But I see live sound guys do it all the time.
>
> Just a small thought.
>
> Gantt


I do both live and studio stuff....and will plead "guilty" to typically
starting live mixes with the drums....and that means the kick drum.
But, I do have my reasons for doing it that way.

First, most of the live shows I mix are rock & roll, which does mean the
kick drum has to have some punch. I start with the drums, to help me
tweak the system EQ, adding or cutting where necessary, to achieve the
correct thump--in that particular room. It's never the same, from show
to show.

Once I'm happy with it, I'll move on to the other instruments & vocals.
But, I will almost always end up cutting some low end from the kick,
because it sounds different when you add everything else.

I've been to some really decent sounding shows, featuring some of
today's younger bands....but one of my own observation-based
theories...so many of today's CD's and/or downloadable tracks are so
freakin' over-processed, that even full .wav files sound like a crummy
MP3!! The only way to make the live show sound similar, is to crank up
the volume and compress it. You know....make it sound as "bad" as the
CD sounds!

(grin)

Mike

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-07 (ScottDorsey) said:
<snip>

>The guys I know who do this seem to be doing "cookbook" mixes.
>They bring the kick up, then they bring the snare up so it's 12 dB
>above the kick, then they bring the toms up to match the snare,
>then they bring the guitar up, etc. So everything always sounds the
>same every time. I think this is bad.
>I think it's best to start a mix with the thing in that mix that is
>most important. That could be the vocals, it could be the guitar,
>it could be something else. Maybe it even _is_ the kick drum in
>some kind of music.
I would agree, and have said over the years that these "kick
drum is the featured instrument" clowns shouldn't be allowed
anywhere near a live mix.

Yes there are reasons to start with drums, but the important
thing is to understand what you're doing. Another poster
said it well, he'll start out with drums to get the sstem
tuning down, but often ends up further tweaking them,
especially kick, once everything else is added in.
TOo many of the "cookbook" guys don't do this though.
THey're comon in the club band world.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[RD Jones]

On Jul 7, 11:29*am, ganttmann > wrote:
> I don't do live sound. *I like working in the studio where I have a
> little control. *But I love to criticize live sound guys. *I should
> probably keep my thoughts to myself because it's a tough gig, I know.
> But I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
> sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.
> And then all the important stuff becomes hard to hear distinctly. *My
> thought is this: *What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
> bass drum up LAST? *At some point in a studio mix I always take the
> bass and the kick out completely to see how everything fits together.
> Then I bring the low end up until I feel and hear it. *I NEVER start
> with the kick drum. But I see live sound guys do it all the time.

I think what started in the mid '80s as a fad has become the standard.

Around the time that increases low frequency speaker efficiency and
power handling ability became widespread, coupled with the newly
available levels of amplifier power (Carver be damned), there was also
quite a bit of popular music that was kick drum heavy in the genres of
hard rock and heavy metal.
Metal has fallen from favor in large part but we're left with a legacy
of
it's rider requirements.

"You can never go back..."

Touring systems at the time had specific design requirements:
The ability to "rattle the rafters".

rd

[RD Jones]

On Jul 7, 1:51*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

> I usually find that the snare drum is too loud, and next to
> that, the bass guitar is too loud. The vocals are rarely
> just right.

I used to have the philosophy that the bass guitar can never be too
loud.
I was a huge fan of The Who. Then I heard Lemmy.

rd

[RD Jones]

On Jul 7, 1:53*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:

> The sad thing is that so many of the big touring acts with
> the drums too loud and the vocals buried have had weeks of
> rehearsal with the sound system and mixing engineer. Unless
> there's a really bad problem in the hall, what you hear is
> what they've decided that they want.

Just a thought that has now ocurred to me.
Lack of low end, and the isolation of, IEMs may contribute
to acts wanting higher levels of drums than would otherwise
be prudent. (?)

rd

[ganttmann]

On Jul 7, 7:13*pm, RD Jones > wrote:
> Just a thought that has now ocurred to me.
> Lack of low end, and the isolation of, IEMs may contribute
> to acts wanting higher levels of drums than would otherwise
> be prudent. (?)

Could also just be that people are generally deafer than they used to
be due to general noise pollution. Which could explain why MP3's
sound fine to them.

[Mike Rivers]

RD Jones wrote:

> Just a thought that has now ocurred to me.
> Lack of low end, and the isolation of, IEMs may contribute
> to acts wanting higher levels of drums than would otherwise
> be prudent. (?)

You can get plenty of low end with a decent in-ear monitor.
And the better engineered systems mix some live stage mics
in with the direct monitor feeds so the musicians get a
sense that there are other musicians actually playing
together with them.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Dan Mills]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:22:30 -0500, Flying V wrote:

>
> I do both live and studio stuff....and will plead "guilty" to typically
> starting live mixes with the drums....and that means the kick drum. But,
> I do have my reasons for doing it that way.

Tip for checking the drums:

Do the kick LAST (after the rest of the kit), this is helpful as the kick
tends to bleed into all the open mics so by doing it last you do the EQ
on it with all the other mics you will need already open.

If you start with the kick then you almost have to come back to it once
you add the mics for the other drums.

Small things, but they all help make the process faster.

Regards, Dan.

[ganttmann]

On Jul 7, 8:33*pm, Dan Mills > wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:22:30 -0500, Flying V wrote:
>
> > I do both live and studio stuff....and will plead "guilty" to typically
> > starting live mixes with the drums....and that means the kick drum. But,
> > I do have my reasons for doing it that way.
>
> Tip for checking the drums:
>
> Do the kick LAST (after the rest of the kit), this is helpful as the kick
> tends to bleed into all the open mics so by doing it last you do the EQ
> on it with all the other mics you will need already open.
>
> If you start with the kick then you almost have to come back to it once
> you add the mics for the other drums. *
>
> Small things, but they all help make the process faster.
>
> Regards, Dan.

Right! Also because low freq info masks high freq info and will
confuse and muddle your choices. If the music calls for lots of kick
that's where it'll end up but everything else will be better mixed.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Jul 7, 2:24*pm, ganttmann > wrote:
> Yeah, I get that crowds need the THUMP these days. *I still maintain
> that getting serious about the kick last helps to keep the rest of the
> mix clear. *If I bring the kick up too soon I find myself EQ-ing and
> placing it differently than when I save it for last. But I really do
> understand that live sound is about pleasing the crowd. *I just think
> many guys are too heavy-handed with the kick.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually a heavy kick and bottom are a good thing - at low to moderate
volume levels. Remember "equal-loudness"? Alas, too many engs drive
the kick at 90+dB volume levels where it isn't necessary. It ends up
sounding like an Iowa-class battleship firing a 16" Mark 7 on every
one-count - LOL!

It dulls the senses, and then when an engineer with an ear for MUSIC
comes along and mics and mixes that kick properly it doesn't *sound
right* to the half-deaf audience.

-CC

[Nono]

On 7 jul, 18:29, ganttmann > wrote:
> I don't do live sound. *I like working in the studio where I have a
> little control. *But I love to criticize live sound guys. *I should
> probably keep my thoughts to myself because it's a tough gig, I know.
> But I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
> sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.
> And then all the important stuff becomes hard to hear distinctly. *My
> thought is this: *What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
> bass drum up LAST? *At some point in a studio mix I always take the
> bass and the kick out completely to see how everything fits together.
> Then I bring the low end up until I feel and hear it. *I NEVER start
> with the kick drum. But I see live sound guys do it all the time.
>
> Just a small thought.
>
> Gantt

It might have something to do with what I frequently read in mixing
articles/tips; that getting a good kick and bass sound will make for a
good mix.
But this doesn't necesarily mean that those instruments have to
overdominate the mix, there's a thing called musical balance.
I think that those bad mixing engineers are those who started in the
business because of their technical background and knowledge as
opposed to their musical ears and understanding of music.
That you can build a guitar doesn't mean that you can play it well,
neither does being able to produce sound out of an instrument make you
a musician.
Knowing your way around a console and being a wizard with the EQ means
nothing if you do not understand the MUSIC.
For example a drummer playing a pulsating rythm on the hihats with a
kick on the quarter notes will loose all of its flow if you put the
kick too loud, no matter how beautiful the kick sound may be.
Good mixing engineers are more music oriented than sound/level
oriented; in fact they ARE musicians with a console and sound
equipment as their instrument. A mixing engineer is a technical
engineer with musical insight, but some think that being a technical
engineer is sufficient to be a mixing engineer.

I furthermore do not believe that these bad mixes (or music for that
matter) is what the audience want; that's the excuse for not being
able to do it right. I'm sure that given the choice people will choose
the better balanced mix, with a margin for personal preferences of
course.
If you have a child that doesn't want to eat fruit and vegetables, you
can say that that's what he wants and feed him sweets or you can find
a way to prepare the vegetables to appeal to him.
I'm not saying that we have to treat people like children, but that it
is the professional (in any field) that gives the general public the
choices to pick from.
For example: most of us wouldn't have a clue how to come up with an
original design for a building and if we tried we would come up with
something that already exists, that we've seen somewhere. What we do
is just choose among the the designs that a professional, an architect
in this case, has conceived. And it is him that presents us these
original designs that make our mouth fall open.
If architects would have this "this is what people want" attitude,
then we'd all still be living in caves.


"This is what people want" is mostly an excuse used by those that are
unable to do a good job.

The general public (and that includes all of us when outside our field
of expertise) only knows what it wants when presented with choices,
and the real professional is the one presenting the alternatives to
choose from.
So, if there's good or bad music / mixes, then it's because of good
and bad professionals.

One other thing frequently heard is:"The audience is always right",
but so is a good professional. This means that if the audience chooses
something totally different than we suggest as professionals, than we
may not be as good professionals afterall.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

Regards,
Norman.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"ganttmann" > wrote in message
...
>I don't do live sound. I like working in the studio where I have a
> little control. But I love to criticize live sound guys. I should
> probably keep my thoughts to myself because it's a tough gig, I know.
> But I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
> sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.
> And then all the important stuff becomes hard to hear distinctly. My
> thought is this: What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
> bass drum up LAST? At some point in a studio mix I always take the
> bass and the kick out completely to see how everything fits together.
> Then I bring the low end up until I feel and hear it. I NEVER start
> with the kick drum. But I see live sound guys do it all the time.
>
> Just a small thought.
>
> Gantt

the kick is just up first cause it is usually on channel one
it is not what the rest of the mix is established around
the mix at least my mix is established around the vocals
George

[Arny Krueger]

"Nono" > wrote in message


> It might have something to do with what I frequently read
> in mixing articles/tips; that getting a good kick and
> bass sound will make for a good mix.

A good foundation is key to building a good house, but just a good
foundation doesn't make the house good.

> I think that those bad mixing engineers are those who
> started in the business because of their technical
> background and knowledge as opposed to their musical ears
> and understanding of music.

IME that's exactly reversed. Most of the people I know or have heard
speaking of such thing started out as musicans and got into mixing when they
became part of a group and nobody else in it would/could mix.

> That you can build a guitar doesn't mean that you can
> play it well, neither does being able to produce sound
> out of an instrument make you a musician.

Being able to play all the right notes at the right time and nothing else
makes you a hack.

> Knowing your way around a console and being a wizard with
> the EQ means nothing if you do not understand the MUSIC.

Understand can mean a lot of different things. The key to mixing is knowing
the desired outcome and knowing how to obtain it from the raw signals that
come into the mixing board. Recording and live sound go beyond mixing
because you are also in charge of the mics. Live sound goes beyond recording
because you are also in charge of the speakers.

> For example a drummer playing a pulsating rythm on the
> hihats with a kick on the quarter notes will loose all of
> its flow if you put the kick too loud, no matter how
> beautiful the kick sound may be.

However, within the realm of varying tastes, genres, and practical
situations, there is a large range of acceptable ratios of kick to hi hats.
For example, most of the work I do relates to worship music. In the context
of the kind of worship music that I do, it is paramount that the words the
vocalists ennounciate are heard by the audience as clearly as possible. If
you come from the heavy metal tradition, my mixes at church are all wrong.

Taste is an amazing thing. At church I often mix with an acoustic organ as
part of the mix. I obviously have no control over how loud the organ plays,
and I can't amplify the other acoustic sources volumes so that they
predominate because of inherent problems with feedback that remain after a
lot of micing and electronic things are done to optimize things. For one
thing, the organ is often the loudest sound in any mic channel despite the
fact that we're talking a headset mic that is less than an inch from the
singer's mouth. That organ is just so pervasive. To my ear, I never make a
good mix when the organ is playing, and the music team and director agree
with me. The other day we did some rehearsing with the part of the organ
being done on a synth. I set its levels to my liking and we all agreed that
it was really nice having an organ that was a team player and not the hog of
the center of the stage. However, the organ lovers at church disagree, and
fairly vocally. It is all about taste.

> Good mixing engineers are more music oriented than
> sound/level oriented; in fact they ARE musicians with a
> console and sound equipment as their instrument.

Very many exceptions exist in that there are a huge number of also-musicans
mixing whose mixes are wildly out of balance. Some musicans can't get past
the abstraction of mixing. For example we have an Aviom system which means
that every musican using it has a 16 channel digital mixer at their
disposal. We've got musicans who must depend on other musicans to adjust
their Aviom mixer because mixing makes no sense to them. We have musicans
who can't listen with headphones or earphones.

It's a balance. I got ripped a new one on a live sound forum because I said
that I find it helpful to be able (at some minimal level) to read music and
follow a score well enough to make my mixing match the performance instead
of following it.

> A mixing
> engineer is a technical engineer with musical insight,
> but some think that being a technical engineer is
> sufficient to be a mixing engineer.

I have no argument with your assertion that mixing is just about technology.
Step back a bit, and note that the whole of audio is not just about
technology. It is generally agreed that audio is both an art and a science.
Speaking out and saying that audio is not just a science is old news.

> I furthermore do not believe that these bad mixes (or
> music for that matter) is what the audience want;

It is true at least part of the time.

> that's the excuse for not being able to do it right.

If you look at mixing in the narrow sense, it is about making the mix sound
like some well-thought out goal. The goal is at least partially a matter of
taste. Tastes vary.

Face it, you may not like the mix but if the guy paying the bills likes it,
you have *no* leg to stand on as you criticize the skills or tastes of the
mixer. To make everything suit you, who are just one person in the audience,
at the expense of everybody else is a possibility and it makes no sense.
Pleasing just one loudmouth in the audience is unprofessional. If the mix
is really bad, people will vote with their feet.


> I'm sure
> that given the choice people will choose the better
> balanced mix, with a margin for personal preferences of
> course.

What is "better balanced"? Where is the formula for that that written in
stone in six decimal places? Who says that everybody agrees with you besides
perhaps you? Do you agree with yourself a week from now?

> If you have a child that doesn't want to eat fruit and
> vegetables, you can say that that's what he wants and
> feed him sweets or you can find a way to prepare the
> vegetables to appeal to him.

We're mostly dealing with adults here. Our opportunities to re-educate them
is highly limited.

> I'm not saying that we have to treat people like
> children, but that it is the professional (in any field)
> that gives the general public the choices to pick from.

There's typically only one choice of mix to listen to at a live performance
unless you give everybody their own Aviom or something like it and force
them to listen with headphones. I can see a big market for that! (NOT).

If you have a room with bad acoustics you can tell people that if they like
bass sit over there, and if they don't like bass sit in this other place.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-08 said:
<snipped original post quoted material, we've all read it by
now.>

>It might have something to do with what I frequently read in mixing
>articles/tips; that getting a good kick and bass sound will make
>for a good mix.
>But this doesn't necesarily mean that those instruments have to
>overdominate the mix, there's a thing called musical balance.
>I think that those bad mixing engineers are those who started in the
>business because of their technical background and knowledge as
>opposed to their musical ears and understanding of music.
EIther that or they found their way to a position behind the
console as their musical chops weren't up to par. Hence
they have to "paint by numbers" because they don't
understand the subtleties of music.

YEs I'm critical of such folk oftentimes, imho with good
reason. THere *is* no excuse for bad sound, and one reason
live music is given such short respect these days is too
much bad sound out there. HIring a live club band for your
special event means the battles with too much volume,
complaints, unprofessional attitudes. THe musicians also
feel disrespected by the pay which hasn't kept pace with the
costs of providing live entertainment. GOod musicians
especially feel disrespected and unappreciated. I know, I
resemble that statement <grin>.

<snip>

>I furthermore do not believe that these bad mixes (or music for that
>matter) is what the audience want; that's the excuse for not being
>able to do it right. I'm sure that given the choice people will
>choose the better balanced mix, with a margin for personal
>preferences of course.
>If you have a child that doesn't want to eat fruit and vegetables,
>you can say that that's what he wants and feed him sweets or you
>can find a way to prepare the vegetables to appeal to him.
THis is part of professionalism, striking that balance
between everybody's needs. But, we've got too much sound
provided by the drummer's buddy or the guitar player's
girlfriend who are painting by numbers and wouldn't
understand what good sound really is, or how to achieve it.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Flying V]

On 7/7/2010 7:33 PM, Dan Mills wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:22:30 -0500, Flying V wrote:
>
>>
>> I do both live and studio stuff....and will plead "guilty" to typically
>> starting live mixes with the drums....and that means the kick drum. But,
>> I do have my reasons for doing it that way.
>
> Tip for checking the drums:
>
> Do the kick LAST (after the rest of the kit), this is helpful as the kick
> tends to bleed into all the open mics so by doing it last you do the EQ
> on it with all the other mics you will need already open.
>
> If you start with the kick then you almost have to come back to it once
> you add the mics for the other drums.
>
> Small things, but they all help make the process faster.
>
> Regards, Dan.


Dan,

Thanks for the tip! I will certainly give it a try at my next
opportunity.

Regards,

Mike

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

>http://www.arcamax.com/religionandspiritualityOn Thu, 8 Jul 2010 08:10:50 -0400, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> That you can build a guitar doesn't mean that you can
>> play it well, neither does being able to produce sound
>> out of an instrument make you a musician.
>
>Being able to play all the right notes at the right time and nothing else
>makes you a hack.

It's a pretty good start though!

[Nono]

On 8 jul, 14:10, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Nono" > wrote in message
>
>



> IME that's exactly reversed. Most of the people I know or have heard
> speaking of such thing started out as musicans and got into mixing when they
> became part of a group and nobody else in it would/could mix.

True, but they were allowed to go into mixing because of their
technical abilities were better than their musical input.
Would that happen if they were the best guitarist in the band?


> > Good mixing engineers are more music oriented than
> > sound/level oriented; in fact they ARE musicians with a
> > console and sound equipment as their instrument.
>
> Very many exceptions exist in that there are a huge number of also-musicans
> mixing whose mixes are wildly out of balance. Some musicans can't get past
> the abstraction of mixing.

That's why I say "music oriented" and not "musicians".
Music oriented is not the same as instrument oriented.
In general an instrumentalist listens to music differently than for
example a music arranger.
Most musicians are instrumentalist and are more interested in their
own instrument or one instrument in particular than the music as a
whole. Those mostly don't do


> > A mixing
> > engineer is a technical engineer with musical insight,
> > but some think that being a technical engineer is
> > sufficient to be a mixing engineer.
>
> I have no argument with your assertion that mixing is just about technology.
> Step back a bit, and note that the whole of audio is not just about
> technology. It is generally agreed that audio is both an art and a science.
> Speaking out and saying that audio is not just a science is old news.

Maybe I didn't explain well, but that's exaclty what I meant to say;
that mixing IS more than technology.
It is both science and art.
That's what I meant by:"A mixing engineer is a technical engineer with
musical insight."

> Face it, you may not like the mix but if the guy paying the bills likes it,
> you have *no* leg to stand on as you criticize the skills or tastes of the
> mixer. To make everything suit you, who are just one person in the audience,
> at the expense of everybody else is a possibility and it makes no sense.
> Pleasing just one loudmouth in the audience is unprofessional. If the mix
> is really bad, people will vote with their feet.

That's what I meant with my remark:"....... if the audience chooses
something totally different than we suggest as professionals, than we
may not be as good professionals afterall."



>
> > I'm sure
> > that given the choice people will choose the better
> > balanced mix, with a margin for personal preferences of
> > course.
>
> What is "better balanced"? Where is the formula for that that written in
> stone in six decimal places? Who says that everybody agrees with you besides
> perhaps you? Do you agree with yourself a week from now?

"Where did I say anything about everybody agreeing with me or not, I
did not state any personal taste and never referred to MY preferences
whatsoever; it is not about ME, so please don't make it about me.
I don't recall saying or pretending that I know what the better
balance is either.
What I'm saying is that, whatever the better balance may be, people
will pick the better one.
But to do so, people must have OPTIONS. And it is the professional
that supply the choices, so if the people make a choice that might be
wrong according to a commandment written in stone somewhere, then it
is the fault of the professional (or not professional).
Whenever someone uses the phrase;"that's what people want" it's always
when there's something wrong and they cannot justify it. It is
basically a lame excuse. If everyone is satisfied with something you
just say "it is GOOD."

But, are you the only one that can talk about well balanced?
I hereby copy what you yourself wrote in this same post:
> Very many exceptions exist in that there are a huge number of also-musicans
> mixing whose mixes are wildly out of balance. Some musicans can't get past
> the abstraction of mixing.
So, you can talk about mixes widly out fo balance and I get a
wristslap from you just for using the words "well balanced?"


> > If you have a child that doesn't want to eat fruit and
> > vegetables, you can say that that's what he wants and
> > feed him sweets or you can find a way to prepare the
> > vegetables to appeal to him.
>
> We're mostly dealing with adults here. Our opportunities to re-educate them
> is highly limited.

I didn't mention re-educating anybody.
If you do not take the text out of its context, you'll see that I'm
just sayng that instead of saying; "that's what they want" one should
give people GOOD alternatives. THAT is also the ART in mixing or any
other craft!
To take you own example at church with the organ; it was someone that
once, maybe long ago introduced it as a better alternative to what was
there before, right?
Well, if you want to change that, it is your challenge as a
professional to come with a more appealing alternative.
Even though this organ issue is not really relevant, because it has
not to do with the music/mix/balance, but with the visual, traditional
or even spiritual aspect of the thing.


Anyway, what I'm saying is NOT written in stone in decimal places, but
it is clear and all there for those that want to see it.
So, once again just my thoughts on the matter, with no pretence of
knowing what is good or bad, tasteful or distasteful.


Regards,
Norman.

[Mark]

>*THe musicians also
> feel disrespected by the pay which hasn't kept pace with the
> costs of providing live entertainment.

Unfortunatly that is true for the majority of working men and women
who are not politicians or corporate executives.. i.e. "the little
people"

Mark

[Sean Conolly]

"ganttmann" > wrote in message
...
> I
> do think that knowing when to focus on which element of a mix makes a
> big difference in the final sound. Do this experiment: Start a mix
> with the drums first, season to taste and run it. Walk away for a
> while and try the same mix starting with a quick drum mix ('cause you
> have to have the drums!) but don't dwell on the kick. Lower the kick
> drum and bass (maybe take them out altogether) and get all the other
> parts where you want them. Then begin fine-tuning the drums, then
> the
> bass THEN find the right EQ and level for the kick drum. It'd be
> interesting to hear the differences some of us come up with.
>
> Gantt


With live sound I start with the drums because they take a while to check
and I want to get them out of the way. I'm probably not going to make a lot
changes to the EQ or trims once the playing starts, just the faders to blend
as needed.

In a recording context, I'm not terribly well organized and tend to wander
from my game plan too easily. I've learned that there's not a lot to gain
from doing too much with the drums early on, because I'm probably just going
to change my mid as the mix progresses.

Sean

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 14:43:17 -0400, "Sean Conolly"
> wrote:

>With live sound I start with the drums because they take a while to check
>and I want to get them out of the way. I'm probably not going to make a lot
>changes to the EQ or trims once the playing starts, just the faders to blend
>as needed.

I used to MD a musical show in a particular theatre once a year. The
resident technician would hire in a huge console, mic up every item on
the drum kit and spend ages listening to single hits on bass drum,
snare etc. When it came to the show it was rarely necessary to turn
the drum mics on at all.

One time we had a major problem with muddy sound, intelligibility etc.
He just couldn't make it sound good. When I looked at the main
graphic EQs I wasn't surprised. He'd "rung out" the system
exhaustively, until it sounded like a bass-heavy transistor radio from
three rooms away.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message


> One time we had a major problem with muddy sound,
> intelligibility etc. He just couldn't make it sound good.
> When I looked at the main graphic EQs I wasn't surprised.
> He'd "rung out" the system exhaustively, until it sounded
> like a bass-heavy transistor radio from three rooms away.

Addressing feedback with a graphic eq is a half-step to disaster all by
itself.

Ringing out should only progress to the point where there is an adequate
stability margin.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:25:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>> One time we had a major problem with muddy sound,
>> intelligibility etc. He just couldn't make it sound good.
>> When I looked at the main graphic EQs I wasn't surprised.
>> He'd "rung out" the system exhaustively, until it sounded
>> like a bass-heavy transistor radio from three rooms away.
>
>Addressing feedback with a graphic eq is a half-step to disaster all by
>itself.
>
>Ringing out should only progress to the point where there is an adequate
>stability margin.
>


I don't think he was even addressing a feedback problem. He just
thought that was what you had to do when setting up a system.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:25:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>> One time we had a major problem with muddy sound,
>>> intelligibility etc. He just couldn't make it sound
>>> good. When I looked at the main graphic EQs I wasn't
>>> surprised. He'd "rung out" the system exhaustively,
>>> until it sounded like a bass-heavy transistor radio
>>> from three rooms away.
>>
>> Addressing feedback with a graphic eq is a half-step to
>> disaster all by itself.
>>
>> Ringing out should only progress to the point where
>> there is an adequate stability margin.

> I don't think he was even addressing a feedback problem.
> He just thought that was what you had to do when setting
> up a system.

IOW, weak on the concept...

Oh, well!

[Frank Stearns]

"Arny Krueger" > writes:

>"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:25:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> One time we had a major problem with muddy sound,
>>>> intelligibility etc. He just couldn't make it sound
>>>> good. When I looked at the main graphic EQs I wasn't
>>>> surprised. He'd "rung out" the system exhaustively,
>>>> until it sounded like a bass-heavy transistor radio
>>>> from three rooms away.
>>>
>>> Addressing feedback with a graphic eq is a half-step to
>>> disaster all by itself.
>>>
>>> Ringing out should only progress to the point where
>>> there is an adequate stability margin.

>> I don't think he was even addressing a feedback problem.
>> He just thought that was what you had to do when setting
>> up a system.

>IOW, weak on the concept...

No kidding! :)

My secrets for good PA (even with modest gear):

- spend a lot of time dialing in the system so that recorded music that you know
sounds really good... Not hyped, but engaging and really *good*, just like it
sounded in the mix room (assuming you have a reasonably good mix room).

- these next three tricks are perhaps the most important...

turn it down
turn it down
turn it down

Many good things will happen:

- you'll reduce or eliminate that awful comb filtering that starts to happen just
before feedback. Remember, it's not a contest to see how much SPL you can get before
overt feedback. It's a contest to make it sound good.

- you'll drop the system back into a comfortable linear region, reducing distortion,
perceptions of mechanical resonances excited by high SPL, etc.

- you might get lucky and have less excitation of bad room elements.

You can't always do this in all settings, but wow, can things sound good when you
can.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[yrret]

The kick drum is what a crowd responds to most. The current and profitable
Techno generation is built around the worship of the kick drum. Kids spend
hundreds of dollars to equip their rides to boom with a woofer in the trunk.
Kick is King. Woe to the club dance or rock that does not bow to the king.

"ganttmann" > wrote in message
...
>I don't do live sound. I like working in the studio where I have a
> little control. But I love to criticize live sound guys. I should
> probably keep my thoughts to myself because it's a tough gig, I know.
> But I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
> sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.
> And then all the important stuff becomes hard to hear distinctly. My
> thought is this: What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
> bass drum up LAST? At some point in a studio mix I always take the
> bass and the kick out completely to see how everything fits together.
> Then I bring the low end up until I feel and hear it. I NEVER start
> with the kick drum. But I see live sound guys do it all the time.
>
> Just a small thought.
>
> Gantt

[yrret]

Absolutely agreed.

>
> Gantt

I have just a small edit to your thoughts...

.... one of my pet peeves in most live sound mixes, which is that
___everything___ is almost always too loud.

Mark

[Les Cargill[_3_]]

yrret wrote:
> The kick drum is what a crowd responds to most. The current and profitable
> Techno generation is built around the worship of the kick drum. Kids spend
> hundreds of dollars to equip their rides to boom with a woofer in the trunk.
> Kick is King. Woe to the club dance or rock that does not bow to the king.
>

I really don't hear cars with flatulent subs in traffic like I used to.
Maybe this has passed.

> > wrote in message
> ...
>> I don't do live sound. I like working in the studio where I have a
>> little control. But I love to criticize live sound guys. I should
>> probably keep my thoughts to myself because it's a tough gig, I know.
>> But I had a small thought about one of my pet peeves in most live
>> sound mixes, which is that the bass drum is almost always too loud.
>> And then all the important stuff becomes hard to hear distinctly. My
>> thought is this: What if, when setting up a live mix, you bring the
>> bass drum up LAST? At some point in a studio mix I always take the
>> bass and the kick out completely to see how everything fits together.
>> Then I bring the low end up until I feel and hear it. I NEVER start
>> with the kick drum. But I see live sound guys do it all the time.
>>
>> Just a small thought.
>>
>> Gantt
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message

> yrret wrote:
>> The kick drum is what a crowd responds to most. The
>> current and profitable Techno generation is built around
>> the worship of the kick drum. Kids spend hundreds of
>> dollars to equip their rides to boom with a woofer in
>> the trunk. Kick is King. Woe to the club dance or rock
>> that does not bow to the king.

> I really don't hear cars with flatulent subs in traffic
> like I used to. Maybe this has passed.

That's a happy thought that happens to agree with my experiences. ;-)

[Flying V]

On 7/9/2010 9:10 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
> yrret wrote:
>> The kick drum is what a crowd responds to most. The current and
>> profitable
>> Techno generation is built around the worship of the kick drum. Kids
>> spend
>> hundreds of dollars to equip their rides to boom with a woofer in the
>> trunk.
>> Kick is King. Woe to the club dance or rock that does not bow to the
>> king.
>>
>
> I really don't hear cars with flatulent subs in traffic like I used to.
> Maybe this has passed.
>
>>
>
> --
> Les Cargill
>


You know, it does seem to be less of a thing, these days. I like your
term "flatulent", too---as it's often very accurate! I suppose one
reason such idiots love their booming cars, is that they feel all that
noise makes them "cool" or something like that.

If only they could hear how "cool" their car really sounds--from the
outside!!

In my opinion, a *FARTING* car, is NOT very cool!! Rather, it's
actually quite funny!

I recall one day a couple years ago....I walked out of the local
supermarket, just in time to see a low riding sedan drive by slowly.
Honestly, it sounded like the whole trunk area was just about to fly
apart! Metal was rattling so loud, that's about all you heard. I'm
sure you've seen/heard something similar....but this was EXTREME. I've
never seen anything like it, since.

There were several other folks, coming and going from the store....we
all just stopped, watched the idiot drive by...and almost everyone broke
into laughter!!

Yeah, buddy.....now I want to be *that* cool!

(big grin)

Mike

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, Flying V > wrote:
>On 7/9/2010 9:10 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> yrret wrote:
>>> The kick drum is what a crowd responds to most. The current and
>>> profitable
>>> Techno generation is built around the worship of the kick drum. Kids
>>> spend
>>> hundreds of dollars to equip their rides to boom with a woofer in the
>>> trunk.
>>> Kick is King. Woe to the club dance or rock that does not bow to the
>>> king.
>>>
>>
>> I really don't hear cars with flatulent subs in traffic like I used to.
>> Maybe this has passed.
>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>>
>
>
>You know, it does seem to be less of a thing, these days. I like your
>term "flatulent", too---as it's often very accurate! I suppose one
>reason such idiots love their booming cars, is that they feel all that
>noise makes them "cool" or something like that.
>
>If only they could hear how "cool" their car really sounds--from the
>outside!!
>
>In my opinion, a *FARTING* car, is NOT very cool!! Rather, it's
>actually quite funny!
>
>I recall one day a couple years ago....I walked out of the local
>supermarket, just in time to see a low riding sedan drive by slowly.
>Honestly, it sounded like the whole trunk area was just about to fly
>apart! Metal was rattling so loud, that's about all you heard. I'm
>sure you've seen/heard something similar....but this was EXTREME. I've
>never seen anything like it, since.
>
>There were several other folks, coming and going from the store....we
>all just stopped, watched the idiot drive by...and almost everyone broke
>into laughter!!
>
>Yeah, buddy.....now I want to be *that* cool!
>

I don't too much a problem with the sounds, but its the **** music they play
99% of the time.

And the guy across the street with the bike, then quad and truck boomer
He would turn the stereo up full blast and go inside his home.

I recall the time probably around 1985, I heard my first boom boom
on the beach at Daytona beach. I thought, boy that is some cheap boomy
bass. i got my first boomer in about 1989 with an 8 inch in my truck. "driver"

My current booming stereo has been busted for a few years, bwa bwa

greg

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, (GregS) wrote:
>In article >, Flying V
> > wrote:
>>On 7/9/2010 9:10 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> yrret wrote:
>>>> The kick drum is what a crowd responds to most. The current and
>>>> profitable
>>>> Techno generation is built around the worship of the kick drum. Kids
>>>> spend
>>>> hundreds of dollars to equip their rides to boom with a woofer in the
>>>> trunk.
>>>> Kick is King. Woe to the club dance or rock that does not bow to the
>>>> king.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I really don't hear cars with flatulent subs in traffic like I used to.
>>> Maybe this has passed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Les Cargill
>>>
>>
>>
>>You know, it does seem to be less of a thing, these days. I like your
>>term "flatulent", too---as it's often very accurate! I suppose one
>>reason such idiots love their booming cars, is that they feel all that
>>noise makes them "cool" or something like that.
>>
>>If only they could hear how "cool" their car really sounds--from the
>>outside!!
>>
>>In my opinion, a *FARTING* car, is NOT very cool!! Rather, it's
>>actually quite funny!
>>
>>I recall one day a couple years ago....I walked out of the local
>>supermarket, just in time to see a low riding sedan drive by slowly.
>>Honestly, it sounded like the whole trunk area was just about to fly
>>apart! Metal was rattling so loud, that's about all you heard. I'm
>>sure you've seen/heard something similar....but this was EXTREME. I've
>>never seen anything like it, since.
>>
>>There were several other folks, coming and going from the store....we
>>all just stopped, watched the idiot drive by...and almost everyone broke
>>into laughter!!
>>
>>Yeah, buddy.....now I want to be *that* cool!
>>
>
>I don't too much a problem with the sounds, but its the **** music they play
>99% of the time.
>
>And the guy across the street with the bike, then quad and truck boomer
>He would turn the stereo up full blast and go inside his home.
>
>I recall the time probably around 1985, I heard my first boom boom
>on the beach at Daytona beach. I thought, boy that is some cheap boomy
>bass. i got my first boomer in about 1989 with an 8 inch in my truck. "driver"
>
>My current booming stereo has been busted for a few years, bwa bwa


The year was about 1980. I was going to Daytona and I would bring my little
radio cassette unit to the pool. Everybody was playing their own music trying to compete.
I said, next year i'm going to build a boom box and drown out all these
suckers. Darn thin was 50 lbs and i was not going to carry in onboard the plane.
8 speakers, one gel cell, and lots of plywood.

greg

[Arkansan Raider]

Nono wrote:
> On 8 jul, 14:10, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>> We're mostly dealing with adults here. Our opportunities to re-educate them
>> is highly limited.
>
> I didn't mention re-educating anybody.

Your peypersss pleasssssse. Ve sent you to re-education camp, ja?

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

---Jeff