Where to put the mixer?

[Davy]

At the weekend I attended a small jazz festival which was very enjoyable.
But the sound system very much took second place. The 'stage' was a 8mx4m
gazebo with open front and sides direct on grass. The audio system supplied
to the groups was basic: powered speakers at either end of the gazebo,
couple of mics and a mixer. The mixer was banished to the floor towards
the rear of the stage and hence largely ignored.
Consequently each band had a bit of a twiddle with the mixer but the
overall sound spread and mic quality was poor.

I understand that ideally the mixer should have been in a front-of-house
position but this was not possible for such a simple setup on grass in a
garden of a house. Where would you have put the mixer such that a person
not part of the band could have done the mix?

DAvy

[Mike Rivers]

Davy wrote:
> At the weekend I attended a small jazz festival which was very enjoyable.
> But the sound system very much took second place. The 'stage' was a 8mx4m
> gazebo with open front and sides direct on grass. The audio system supplied
> to the groups was basic: powered speakers at either end of the gazebo,
> couple of mics and a mixer. The mixer was banished to the floor towards
> the rear of the stage and hence largely ignored.

> I understand that ideally the mixer should have been in a front-of-house
> position but this was not possible for such a simple setup on grass in a
> garden of a house. Where would you have put the mixer such that a person
> not part of the band could have done the mix?

Probably in the basement. It sounds like the area was small
enough so that no sound system was really needed, other than
perhaps for announcements, and maybe a singer. If you have
multiple microphones and the mixer out front, then you need
someone to operate the mixer who knows what he's doing and
perhaps such a person wasn't available.

Your comment was about the system. What about the music?
Most jazz groups, particularly ones that could fit in a
small performance space as you describe are reasonably well
balanced without any sound reinforcement, and are loud
enough to be heard by the size of audience that would gather
around that little gazebo. If there was one mic and the
bands understood that it was for talking and for a singer if
there was one, and the system was set up properly, there
would not likely be a need for an operator, and the mic
would only be "heard" when needed, but basically the music
would be strictly acoustic.

I've run into this sort of thing with folk festivals,
however, where there's no budget for sound, but someone
volunteers to bring his band's system for others to use. Or
where the musicians see microphones and just expect there to
be "sound." Or they don't understand that the expectation
is that they play without amplification. One folk festoval I
worked with tried an experiment one year. They had one
"acoustic" stage, small, in a small area, where there was
room for an audience of maybe 30 or 40. The music programmed
for that stage was all appropriate for that size audience
with no amplification. There was one mic at the stage, with
the intention that it would be used by the MC to introduce
the performers, and the group's spokesperson could step up
to the mic to talk about the music.

But nobody ever explained that to the performers. A singer
with a guitar would grab the mic and use it for his voice,
making that too loud for the area and making his instrument
difficult to hear. The puppet theater was passing the mic
around as different members spoke. The acapella quartet
passed the mic around at random. That was THEIR microphone
and by golly they were going to use it. The folklorist MC
was having fits and asking the sound crew to get more mics
for that stage. The next day, there were no mics, things
went smoothly, and everyone could be heard just fine.


--
"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

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> Davy wrote:
>> At the weekend I attended a small jazz festival which was very enjoyable.
>> But the sound system very much took second place. The 'stage' was a 8mx4m
>> gazebo with open front and sides direct on grass. The audio system
>> supplied to the groups was basic: powered speakers at either end of the
>> gazebo, couple of mics and a mixer. The mixer was banished to the floor
>> towards the rear of the stage and hence largely ignored.
>
>> I understand that ideally the mixer should have been in a front-of-house
>> position but this was not possible for such a simple setup on grass in a
>> garden of a house. Where would you have put the mixer such that a person
>> not part of the band could have done the mix?
>
> Probably in the basement. It sounds like the area was small enough so that
> no sound system was really needed, other than perhaps for announcements,
> and maybe a singer. If you have multiple microphones and the mixer out
> front, then you need someone to operate the mixer who knows what he's
> doing and perhaps such a person wasn't available.
>
> Your comment was about the system. What about the music? Most jazz groups,
> particularly ones that could fit in a small performance space as you
> describe are reasonably well balanced without any sound reinforcement, and
> are loud enough to be heard by the size of audience that would gather
> around that little gazebo. If there was one mic and the bands understood
> that it was for talking and for a singer if there was one, and the system
> was set up properly, there would not likely be a need for an operator, and
> the mic would only be "heard" when needed, but basically the music would
> be strictly acoustic.
>
> I've run into this sort of thing with folk festivals, however, where
> there's no budget for sound, but someone volunteers to bring his band's
> system for others to use. Or where the musicians see microphones and just
> expect there to be "sound." Or they don't understand that the expectation
> is that they play without amplification. One folk festoval I worked with
> tried an experiment one year. They had one "acoustic" stage, small, in a
> small area, where there was room for an audience of maybe 30 or 40. The
> music programmed for that stage was all appropriate for that size audience
> with no amplification. There was one mic at the stage, with the intention
> that it would be used by the MC to introduce the performers, and the
> group's spokesperson could step up to the mic to talk about the music.
>
> But nobody ever explained that to the performers. A singer with a guitar
> would grab the mic and use it for his voice, making that too loud for the
> area and making his instrument difficult to hear. The puppet theater was
> passing the mic around as different members spoke. The acapella quartet
> passed the mic around at random. That was THEIR microphone and by golly
> they were going to use it. The folklorist MC was having fits and asking
> the sound crew to get more mics for that stage. The next day, there were
> no mics, things went smoothly, and everyone could be heard just fine.
>
I am about to run into this very thing at a big city wide festival
I was told'this is what we want" I tried to tell them that it would
negitivly impact the performance and cause "issues" they final insisted"we
need what we are asking for"
so they will get it for better or worse
George

[Davy]

Mike Rivers > wrote in

> It sounds like the area was small
> enough so that no sound system was really needed, other than
> perhaps for announcements, and maybe a singer.
>
Mike, youre right in that the sax, trumpet and drums needed no
amplification. And the electric blues and bass guitarists turned up with
their own amps.

But it couldn't be entirely acoustic because the inhouse electronic piano
and the singers needed to use the inhouse sound system.

>If you have multiple microphones and the mixer out front, then you need
> someone to operate the mixer who knows what he's doing and
> perhaps such a person wasn't available.

Well, I have a little but sufficient experience and was on the point of
volunteering but could see no way of doing the mix from the back of the
gazebo and could not think of where would be more practical. Hence my
question to this forum.

DAvy

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Davy" > wrote in message
. 109.145...
> Mike Rivers > wrote in
>
>> It sounds like the area was small
>> enough so that no sound system was really needed, other than
>> perhaps for announcements, and maybe a singer.
>>
> Mike, youre right in that the sax, trumpet and drums needed no
> amplification. And the electric blues and bass guitarists turned up with
> their own amps.
>
> But it couldn't be entirely acoustic because the inhouse electronic piano
> and the singers needed to use the inhouse sound system.
>
>>If you have multiple microphones and the mixer out front, then you need
>> someone to operate the mixer who knows what he's doing and
>> perhaps such a person wasn't available.
>
> Well, I have a little but sufficient experience and was on the point of
> volunteering but could see no way of doing the mix from the back of the
> gazebo and could not think of where would be more practical. Hence my
> question to this forum.
>
> DAvy

you learn how to listen to a pa for any point in the room after a while
alo you can take the mic out into the audience area, use it, walk back and
adjust it, go out and listen to it again
all before the audience is there
you can turn a speaker around during sound check so it plays back twards you
the only thing you can't do effectivly is mix while performing, regardless
of where the mixer is

when I can not mix for some reason and have to depend on voulenteers with no
mix experiance I go with default setting that seem to work with my systems
a bit of low cut at around 160, a bit of presence added at around 4K and the
20 and 20K at full cut
I just show them volume faders or knobs then turn them loose
and put my faith in the fact that it will be what it is
George

[Mike Rivers]

Davy wrote:

> Mike, youre right in that the sax, trumpet and drums needed no
> amplification. And the electric blues and bass guitarists turned up with
> their own amps.
>
> But it couldn't be entirely acoustic because the inhouse electronic piano
> and the singers needed to use the inhouse sound system.

OK, so a mic for the singer, and either a direct input or
(preferable, so the player can hear it) an amplifier for the
electronic piano. It won't sound any worse plugged into a
guitar amplifier than going through an inadequate PA system,
and at least the players can make adjustments on stage to
balance themselves.

> Well, I have a little but sufficient experience and was on the point of
> volunteering but could see no way of doing the mix from the back of the
> gazebo

We've all been there. You take a guess, walk around to the
front, listen a bit, and then go back and make an adjustment
if necessary. You might need to ask the bass player to turn
down a little, or turn up the piano. If there's just one mic
for the singer, there's rarely a need to continuously attend
the mix.


--
"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

[Davy]

From the replies I've had so far it
seems that there is not much that can
be done about the location of the
mixer; and I suspect that the same
probably goes for gigs on stage in
other small venues such as pubs.

I've done the sound system for a
couple of live sessions in small
venues and in each case the musicians
were very reluctant to do any kind of
sound check. The expectation was that
I should adjust the mix in flight
during the first 'song'. The
performers I've met were very laid
back and not much fussed about the
mix. Maybe cos they have come to
expect a lousy sound system or maybe
cos they can't hear the mix anyway
(they are happy if they can hear their
instrument!).

At small gigs neither the band nor the
audience would probably appreciate
someone coming on stage mid
performance to twiddle - unless
something was seriously wrong.

thanks

DAvy

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Davy wrote:

> At the weekend I attended a small jazz festival which was very
> enjoyable. But the sound system very much took second place.

That is usually a budget choice rather than a musical or technical choice.

> The
> 'stage' was a 8mx4m gazebo with open front and sides direct on grass.
> The audio system supplied to the groups was basic: powered speakers
> at either end of the gazebo,

Behind the ensemble had possibly been a better choice, that is how a small
jazz band I know used to operate their pa. Saved them setting up stage
monitors and helped keep levels down.

> couple of mics and a mixer. The mixer
> was banished to the floor towards the rear of the stage and hence
> largely ignored.

Set and forget is oftentimes an excellent strategy.

> Consequently each band had a bit of a twiddle with the mixer but the
> overall sound spread and mic quality was poor.

> I understand that ideally the mixer should have been in a
> front-of-house position but this was not possible for such a simple
> setup on grass in a garden of a house.

Of course it was possible, the problem was that the budget did not allow for
an operator.

> Where would you have put the
> mixer such that a person not part of the band could have done the mix?

Your question comes with the pre-supposition that it is required to tweak
faders all the time, it isn't. The setup per se is excellent for a band that
knows it and has learned how to set it up, in the real world it might well
work to tape all faders but the master fader into a fixed position as long
as it is one ensemble only .... what is broken about the concept as
described by you is that it is a multiple bands type of event, a dedicated
mixer operator would be preferable. You do however need to appreciate that
such an event does not require a lot of musical production, it is all about
adding "carry".

> Davy

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

I wrote:
>INdeed, I've gone to more than one gig with a large system
>where the productions were such that not many microphones
>were required, and not a lot of work other than "set it and
>forget it" for each presentation or act. the only problem
>I'd have at those shows was that there's enough equipment at stake
>that leaving it unattended to go get a snack or pee
>might mean some fool decides to have "a bit of a twiddle."
>with it.
>I used to have a little sign for such events. It read:
>"I'm perfectly adjusted, so don't mess with my knobs."

IN fact, in some of those situations I might prefer any
mixer to be on stage, especially if I were doing the event
gratis, i.e. providing gear but not being paid. IN those
cases, I preferred to drift about the space listening,
adjust as needed and let the performers know they didn't
need to bother with the mixer. SOmebody wanting to have
aforementioned "bit of a twiddle" might have a more
difficult time getting there to do same. Because, chances
are if I were volunteering my equipment for such I was
wanting to enjoy being there and wasn't paying a helper.




Richard webb,

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 03:27:33 -0500, Davy
> wrote:

>Well, I have a little but sufficient experience and was on the point of
>volunteering but could see no way of doing the mix from the back of the
>gazebo and could not think of where would be more practical. Hence my
>question to this forum.

You're making a lot of fuss over this! I've often been in situations
- schools, clubs, community halls etc - where there was a rudimentary
sound system with the controls in a completely unhelpful position. You
can make it work. Use your legs to go out front and check the balance
then leave it alone.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:46:06 -0500, Davy
> wrote:

> The
>performers I've met were very laid
>back and not much fussed about the
>mix. Maybe cos they have come to
>expect a lousy sound system or maybe
>cos they can't hear the mix anyway
>(they are happy if they can hear their
>instrument!).

As a performer, I've had to learn not to fuss. You're stuck with the
sound guy you're given. He usually thinks he knows best. Life's too
short. The only battle I continue to fight is "not so loud, please!"

[Arny Krueger]

"Davy" > wrote in
message
. 109.145

> At the weekend I attended a small jazz festival which was
> very enjoyable. But the sound system very much took
> second place. The 'stage' was a 8mx4m gazebo with open
> front and sides direct on grass. The audio system
> supplied to the groups was basic: powered speakers at
> either end of the gazebo, couple of mics and a mixer.
> The mixer was banished to the floor towards the rear of
> the stage and hence largely ignored.
> Consequently each band had a bit of a twiddle with the
> mixer but the overall sound spread and mic quality was
> poor.


A lot of this depends on the nature of the show. Some simple shows can work
well with set-and-forget mixing. Others are far too complex and/or dynamic.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

PEter Larsen writes:

On Tue 2038-Jul-13 11:03, "Peter Larsen" (1:3634/1000) wrote to All:

"L> Davy wrote:

>> At the weekend I attended a small jazz festival which was very
>> enjoyable. But the sound system very much took second place.

> That is usually a budget choice rather than a musical or technical
> choice.

Indeed, but you'd hope that whoever supplied the rudimentary system knows what they need to do with it. ON that one,
often ymmv.

<snip>
> Behind the ensemble had possibly been a better choice, that is how a
> small jazz band I know used to operate their pa. Saved them setting
> up stage monitors and helped keep levels down.

Indeed, especially elevated a bit for speakers, but for that one I like having more tuning capability than a lot of basic systems provide. But, it can be made to work.
Especially with minimal mics such as the op describes.

<snip>
>> Consequently each band had a bit of a twiddle with the mixer but the
>> overall sound spread and mic quality was poor.

<snip>
> Of course it was possible, the problem was that the budget did not
> allow for an operator.

INdeed, and there you're depending on the party that owns
the gear to watch over things. Had it been my gear in that
situation, if all else, adjust, listen out front during each act's performance, adjust as needed, and encourage the
musicians to not have "a bit of a twiddle."

> Your question comes with the pre-supposition that it is required to
> tweak faders all the time, it isn't. The setup per se is excellent
> for a band that knows it and has learned how to set it up, in the
> real world it might well work to tape all faders but the master
> fader into a fixed position as long as it is one ensemble only ....
> what is broken about the concept as described by you is that it is
> a multiple bands type of event, a dedicated mixer operator would be
> preferable. You do however need to appreciate that such an event
> does not require a lot of musical production, it is all about
> adding "carry".

INdeed, I've gone to more than one gig with a large system
where the productions were such that not many microphones
were required, and not a lot of work other than "set it and
forget it" for each presentation or act. the only problem
I'd have at those shows was that there's enough equipment at stake that leaving it unattended to go get a snack or pee
might mean some fool decides to have "a bit of a twiddle."
with it.

I used to have a little sign for such events. It read:

"I'm perfectly adjusted, so don't mess with my knobs."


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.