Advice for live sound

[[email protected]]

I have studio experience, but no live sound experience other than
playing shows as a musician. I might be able to start a position doing
live sound for a church band, and have a couple of questions.
1. I use a compressor to squash the hell out of vocals and get more
attack out of a kick drum in the studio. Would I use it in the same way
in a live situation?
2. I believe that the shows will take place in an open, YMCA type of
building. Any advice?

[Richard Crowley]

> wrote ...
>I have studio experience, but no live sound experience other than
> playing shows as a musician. I might be able to start a position doing
> live sound for a church band, and have a couple of questions.
> 1. I use a compressor to squash the hell out of vocals and get more
> attack out of a kick drum in the studio. Would I use it in the same way
> in a live situation?

One would think that most churches would want a minimum
of "hell" coming through their sound system. :-)

> 2. I believe that the shows will take place in an open, YMCA type of
> building. Any advice?

Acoustic counseling?

[Fletch]

wrote:
> I have studio experience, but no live sound experience other than
> playing shows as a musician. I might be able to start a position doing
> live sound for a church band, and have a couple of questions.
> 1. I use a compressor to squash the hell out of vocals and get more
> attack out of a kick drum in the studio. Would I use it in the same way
> in a live situation?
> 2. I believe that the shows will take place in an open, YMCA type of
> building. Any advice?

Live sound is not studio sound. The rules are different for some
things, but others can be cross compatible.

You could squish the vocals, but you may not like the results when it
diseminates into the space... and that's the big difference, the space
will affect your sound alot. Studio/mixing environments are controlled
and damped to create an ideal mixing environment. Live venues are
anything but controlled and ideal. Studio speakers are supposed to be
flat response, PA speakers are anything but and, depending on quality,
can be anything from a nightmare to a joy to mix through.

I will use compressors to smooth things out, particularly on the kit,
so I can have less drop out problems (band mic technique on vocalists
will drive you insane). But I rarely squish anything to death.

You're not just dealing with what is coming out of the speakers, the
sound of the band is floating around the space as well, and depending
upon how loud they are, it can have a dramatic effect on your mix.

I always try to gather the band together beforehand (if I think they'll
be open to it), just before rehearsal/soundcheck and lay down a couple
rules as "guidelines"...

1) Help me make you sound better by giving me control because that is
my job, "sound tech/man/person/guru/whatever". I run the sound that
reaches the audience. What that means is simple: Guitar players will
have to turn down if your sound bleeds off stage too much. Drummers may
need to be behind shields or play quieter. If I cannot control the
sound -- and so make the music sound great -- I can't do anything.

2) We're all here to worship God (in church environments); it isn't
about me and it isn't about you and how good you are. It is about
serving God and the need of the people by helping them enter into a
worshipful state during the musical portion of the morning/evening
service. So, if I ask you to do something, know that it is because I
need this co operation in order to do my job properly.

For secular gigs, I modify this a bit by saying: People are paying to
hear good music; they will have a better time if we all forget our ego
trips and work together to make this gig happen the way we want, the
way people expect. So if I ask you to do something, this is why. I need
you to co operate to help make you sound as good as you want to sound.

You hired me to do this job, now let me do just that by following my
direction -- and not turning your rigs up during the gig because you
"can't" hear yourself. If you didn't set your levels right during the
rehearsal/sound check, deal with it. But don't screw the whole gig up
because your ego demands your amp/drumming/keyboard needs to be louder.

Mainly, you need to realise that it is a different beastie and
soliciting co operation from the band will help make your job easier.
Oh, and watch the feedback in the 63, 800 and 2.5K regions, they can
kill you. ;)

--Fletch

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> 1. I use a compressor to squash the hell out of vocals and get more
> attack out of a kick drum in the studio. Would I use it in the same way
> in a live situation?

Maybe not. If you're going to send the vocals back to a stage monitor
from an AUX send on the front-of-house board then you probably don't
want to use the compressor as an insert directly on the vocal channel.
If you sned compresse vocals back to a stage monitor you can have some
real problems preventing feedback. If your mixer's routing will allow
it then you'll be better off compressing vocals via a sub-group.
-Paul

[George Gleason]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>I have studio experience, but no live sound experience other than
> playing shows as a musician. I might be able to start a position doing
> live sound for a church band, and have a couple of questions.
> 1. I use a compressor to squash the hell out of vocals and get more
> attack out of a kick drum in the studio. Would I use it in the same way
> in a live situation?

doubtful
more than likely using a ton of comprewsion will result in feedback, or a
very unstable system, you use compression to take the spikes off but not
alter the dynamics(much)

> 2. I believe that the shows will take place in an open, YMCA type of
> building. Any advice?

get the speakers close to the audience
you can run them quieter and reduce the ring of the room
george
>

[Julian]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:47:48 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

> wrote ...
>>I have studio experience, but no live sound experience other than
>> playing shows as a musician. I might be able to start a position doing
>> live sound for a church band, and have a couple of questions.
>> 1. I use a compressor to squash the hell out of vocals and get more
>> attack out of a kick drum in the studio. Would I use it in the same way
>> in a live situation?
>
>One would think that most churches would want a minimum
>of "hell" coming through their sound system. :-)

Yeah. Squashing the hell out of vocals and kick won't get the same
satisfaction with live sound although some compression may be helpful
and definitely ease up on the reverb in most venues.

Julian

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ps.com
> I have studio experience, but no live sound experience
> other than playing shows as a musician. I might be able
> to start a position doing live sound for a church band,
> and have a couple of questions.

> 1. I use a compressor to squash the hell out of vocals
> and get more attack out of a kick drum in the studio.

I wouldn't be proud of that.

> Would I use it in the same way in a live situation?

Probably not, and particularly probably not in a church.

First off, using compressors on mics in a live sound situation can be tricky
because of stability margins for feedback. It's hard enough in some
circumstances to get enough gain. You may find yourself anxiously inching up
faders, listening for the beginnings of feedback, hoping to know when to
stop before feedback sets in. If there's a black box in the signal path also
playing with system gain, this can get too weird.

Secondly, live sound is not nearly as demanding of sound quality as
recording. People don't listen as critically when they only have only one
shot at listening. A lot of what we worry about with recordings relates to
stuff we notice when we listen to the same recording again and again.

Thirdly, live sound in a church is not always as demanding as typical
concert live sound because the congregation is singing along a lot of the
time. Only a fraction of what people in the seats hear is actually coming
from the mics. The sound of their own voices and the voices around them tend
to drown other things out. Also, the acoustic sound from some of the
performers can be significant, especially the acoustic drummer, some
vocalists, the acoustic piano and any brass instruments.

None of this is an excluse to slack off on SQ, but it does explain a lot of
things that are noticable about church live sound. One of thing you'll
notice is the fact that board tapes can sound pretty crappy, while the
performers and the audience think that it all sounded great. It did sound
great, for the audience, at the time. So, a lot of the tuning, tweaks,
adjustments and flourishes that are important for recordings are moot when
you're doing church sound.

> 2. I believe that the shows will take place in an open,
> YMCA type of building. Any advice?

Pay attention to setting up a speaker array that actually covers the seats
evenly. Avoid situations that will cause feedback. You'll probably be
working with stage monitors, and their gain may be far higher than you ever
used in the studio, because your performers are going to be working a lot of
the time while facing 100's of people that are singing at the top of their
lungs right into their faces.

[Willie K. Yee, MD]

Do you know what "ringing out a room" means? Dealing with feedback is
something you rarely need to worry about in the studio, and almost
always have to deal with first in the live environment.

On 24 Aug 2006 13:13:17 -0700, wrote:

>I have studio experience, but no live sound experience other than
>playing shows as a musician. I might be able to start a position doing
>live sound for a church band, and have a couple of questions.
>1. I use a compressor to squash the hell out of vocals and get more
>attack out of a kick drum in the studio. Would I use it in the same way
>in a live situation?
>2. I believe that the shows will take place in an open, YMCA type of
>building. Any advice?
>

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:30:52 GMT, (Willie K. Yee,
MD) wrote:

>Do you know what "ringing out a room" means? Dealing with feedback is
>something you rarely need to worry about in the studio, and almost
>always have to deal with first in the live environment.

It's a quick-and-dirty way of getting a PA to go louder than the room
wants it to :-) You can easily end up with a louder sound but a
nastier one.

[Julian]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:11:09 +0100, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:30:52 GMT, (Willie K. Yee,
>MD) wrote:
>
>>Do you know what "ringing out a room" means? Dealing with feedback is
>>something you rarely need to worry about in the studio, and almost
>>always have to deal with first in the live environment.
>
>It's a quick-and-dirty way of getting a PA to go louder than the room
>wants it to :-) You can easily end up with a louder sound but a
>nastier one.

That's an interesting concept - how loud a room "wants" you to run
sound!

Ringing is of limited value, but some rooms which have a few nasty
frequencies behave nicely with a little ringing. Most rooms / speaker
placements tend to pile up somewhere and cutting a little of it out
clears things up even when obvious feedback is not present.

Julian

[[email protected]]

On 2006-08-27 said:
>>>Do you know what "ringing out a room" means? Dealing with
>>>feedback is something you rarely need to worry about in the
>>>studio, and almost always have to deal with first in the live
>environment. >
>>It's a quick-and-dirty way of getting a PA to go louder than the
>>room wants it to :-) You can easily end up with a louder sound
>>but a nastier one.
>That's an interesting concept - how loud a room "wants" you to run
>sound!
true enough, but a valid concept.
A close analogy: Placing an operatic soprano in a small
vocal booth, or just a small room for that matter.




Richard webb,
Electric Spider Productions
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

[Julian]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:42:43 GMT, wrote:

>
>On 2006-08-27 said:

> >That's an interesting concept - how loud a room "wants" you to run
> >sound!
>true enough, but a valid concept.
>A close analogy: Placing an operatic soprano in a small
>vocal booth, or just a small room for that matter.

Or a grand piano in an iso booth? Those are all bad combinations true
but I don't think they are a close analogy to a feedback situation.
If your positioning between mics and speakers are varied vast
differences in volume result when an un-eq'd system starts to ring.

Julian

[George Gleason]

"Julian" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:42:43 GMT, wrote:
>
>>
>>On 2006-08-27 said:
>
>> >That's an interesting concept - how loud a room "wants" you to run
>> >sound!
>>true enough, but a valid concept.
>>A close analogy: Placing an operatic soprano in a small
>>vocal booth, or just a small room for that matter.
>
> Or a grand piano in an iso booth? Those are all bad combinations true
> but I don't think they are a close analogy to a feedback situation.
> If your positioning between mics and speakers are varied vast
> differences in volume result when an un-eq'd system starts to ring.
>
> Julian

ringing out a system does not "force" a room to be louder than it wants to
be
in fact the room has no opinion on loudness

IMO ringing out your system is more like taking the pebbles out of your
shoes allowing a more useable system
George

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:02:29 GMT, "George Gleason"
> wrote:

>ringing out a system does not "force" a room to be louder than it wants to
>be
>in fact the room has no opinion on loudness
>
>IMO ringing out your system is more like taking the pebbles out of your
>shoes allowing a more useable system


Would you agree that eq is of little use in taming a listening room?
Treat the room, or work closer to the speakers so the room matters
less. Do you admit any analogy to a PA situation?

[George Gleason]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:02:29 GMT, "George Gleason"
> > wrote:
>
>>ringing out a system does not "force" a room to be louder than it wants to
>>be
>>in fact the room has no opinion on loudness
>>
>>IMO ringing out your system is more like taking the pebbles out of your
>>shoes allowing a more useable system
>
>
> Would you agree that eq is of little use in taming a listening room?

EQ has NO effect on the room

> Treat the room,

often no possible , esp with rented system used for one offs

or work closer to the speakers so the room matters
> less.

again often not possible as the stage is where the stage is and the audience
is where the audience is, most of the time these positions are not very
fluid, unless of couse your Paul Winter Consort doing "The World Tree"

Do you admit any analogy to a PA situation?

The EQ acts as a buffer between the sound system and its interaction with
the room

Allowing the sound system to be sculpted sonicly to bring out the best of
the room, and temper(as much as posible ) anomolies

[Laurence Payne]

>again often not possible as the stage is where the stage is and the audience
>is where the audience is, most of the time these positions are not very
>fluid, unless of couse your Paul Winter Consort doing "The World Tree"
>
> Do you admit any analogy to a PA situation?
>
>The EQ acts as a buffer between the sound system and its interaction with
>the room
>
>Allowing the sound system to be sculpted sonicly to bring out the best of
>the room, and temper(as much as posible ) anomolies

So eq cannot tame a listening room, but CAN tame a room with a pa in
it?

[George Gleason]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> >again often not possible as the stage is where the stage is and the
> >audience
>>is where the audience is, most of the time these positions are not very
>>fluid, unless of couse your Paul Winter Consort doing "The World Tree"
>>
>> Do you admit any analogy to a PA situation?
>>
>>The EQ acts as a buffer between the sound system and its interaction with
>>the room
>>
>>Allowing the sound system to be sculpted sonicly to bring out the best of
>>the room, and temper(as much as posible ) anomolies
>
> So eq cannot tame a listening room, but CAN tame a room with a pa in
> it?

eq only effects the PA system
with judicious use it can make a PA sound MUCH better in a giving room
OR it can destroy the listening experiance

Eq is a tool for adjusting the PA system nothing more , nothing less
and the tools finished product is decided by the craftsman, or hack , which
ever applies
george

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote:
>
>So eq cannot tame a listening room, but CAN tame a room with a pa in
>it?

EQ does not tame anything. But EQ can be a useful tool to reduce feedback
problems. It can't do anything about the real acoustical issues; you can
use notch filters to keep the system from ringing but it'll still sound hollow
when you pull back, for instance.

For the most part, PA guys use narrow notch filters to eliminate room
feedback modes, they use wide sweeping filters to help compensate for
low end effects in the room, and they use the console EQ as an effect or
to help compensate for the tonal changes when instruments are close-miked.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On 28 Aug 2006 10:44:08 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>For the most part, PA guys use narrow notch filters to eliminate room
>feedback modes, they use wide sweeping filters to help compensate for
>low end effects in the room, and they use the console EQ as an effect or
>to help compensate for the tonal changes when instruments are close-miked.

Yeah. The number of times I've gone into a theatre and found a master
eq under lock and key. Then seen the console, with every channel set
up to negate it :-) That's if the last operator had ears, and didn't
just want everything as loud as possible.

[George Gleason]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> On 28 Aug 2006 10:44:08 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>For the most part, PA guys use narrow notch filters to eliminate room
>>feedback modes, they use wide sweeping filters to help compensate for
>>low end effects in the room, and they use the console EQ as an effect or
>>to help compensate for the tonal changes when instruments are close-miked.
>
> Yeah. The number of times I've gone into a theatre and found a master
> eq under lock and key. Then seen the console, with every channel set
> up to negate it :-) That's if the last operator had ears, and didn't
> just want everything as loud as possible.

or no ears at all
often installed systems in decent sized rooms are set up very very well and
the crossovers and eq are locked away because it took most of a week of
tuning and anaylis to arrive at the optimum settings
I would be shocked if some tour guy could come in and "better" a properly
installed system
its not about volume. its about accuracy and even coverage
I don't know anyone or any place who uses eq solely to achieve higher
overall gain, except maybe in a on stage monitor system

george

[Scott Dorsey]

George Gleason > wrote:
>its not about volume. its about accuracy and even coverage
>I don't know anyone or any place who uses eq solely to achieve higher
>overall gain, except maybe in a on stage monitor system

Sadly, I do. And I know folks who use third-octave equalizers that way
too, rather than a notch filter that would actually do an acceptable job
of it.
--scott

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

[Julian]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:02:29 GMT, "George Gleason"
> wrote:


>in fact the room has no opinion on loudness

That's what I meant!

Julian

[Julian]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:40 GMT, "George Gleason"
> wrote:

>I would be shocked if some tour guy could come in and "better" a properly
>installed system

The optimum tuning of a room depends on the program source.

Unfortunately many venues are tuned for spoken word and when you do a
musical event there you don't want that same eq. I know of a good
example of an especially difficult room where I was able to get far
better musical results by bringing in my own PA before the house
system was installed than afterwards using the house system. The
house system sounds just fine for voice though.

Julian

[George Gleason]

"Julian" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:40 GMT, "George Gleason"
> > wrote:
>
>>I would be shocked if some tour guy could come in and "better" a properly
>>installed system
>
> The optimum tuning of a room depends on the program source.
>
> Unfortunately many venues are tuned for spoken word and when you do a
> musical event there you don't want that same eq. I know of a good
> example of an especially difficult room where I was able to get far
> better musical results by bringing in my own PA before the house
> system was installed than afterwards using the house system. The
> house system sounds just fine for voice though.
>
> Julian
>

I don't buy that
a PA system should be(if properly installed) neutral,invisible,benign to the
source
Now some people will deliberatly maladjust a PA to emphisize one type of
sound over another
but IMO
this is a deliberate distortion of what a good PA should do
A Pa that sounds good, sounds good with nearly everything and if slight
adjustments are needed the console strip is more than sufficent for this
task
George

[Julian]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:48:06 GMT, "George Gleason"
> wrote:

>
>"Julian" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:40 GMT, "George Gleason"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>I would be shocked if some tour guy could come in and "better" a properly
>>>installed system
>>
>> The optimum tuning of a room depends on the program source.
>>
>> Unfortunately many venues are tuned for spoken word and when you do a
>> musical event there you don't want that same eq. I know of a good
>> example of an especially difficult room where I was able to get far
>> better musical results by bringing in my own PA before the house
>> system was installed than afterwards using the house system. The
>> house system sounds just fine for voice though.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>
>I don't buy that
>a PA system should be(if properly installed) neutral,invisible,benign to the
>source
>Now some people will deliberatly maladjust a PA to emphisize one type of
>sound over another
>but IMO
>this is a deliberate distortion of what a good PA should do
>A Pa that sounds good, sounds good with nearly everything and if slight
>adjustments are needed the console strip is more than sufficent for this
>task
>George

George,

I have no idea how what you are saying relates to what you quoted of
mine.

Julian

[George Gleason]

"Julian" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:48:06 GMT, "George Gleason"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Julian" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:40 GMT, "George Gleason"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I would be shocked if some tour guy could come in and "better" a
>>>>properly
>>>>installed system
>>>
>>> The optimum tuning of a room depends on the program source.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately many venues are tuned for spoken word and when you do a
>>> musical event there you don't want that same eq. I know of a good
>>> example of an especially difficult room where I was able to get far
>>> better musical results by bringing in my own PA before the house
>>> system was installed than afterwards using the house system. The
>>> house system sounds just fine for voice though.
>>>
>>> Julian
>>>
>>
>>I don't buy that
>>a PA system should be(if properly installed) neutral,invisible,benign to
>>the
>>source
>>Now some people will deliberatly maladjust a PA to emphisize one type of
>>sound over another
>>but IMO
>>this is a deliberate distortion of what a good PA should do
>>A Pa that sounds good, sounds good with nearly everything and if slight
>>adjustments are needed the console strip is more than sufficent for this
>>task
>>George
>
> George,
>
> I have no idea how what you are saying relates to what you quoted of
> mine.
>
> Julian
>
>
that a PA should not be "eq'ed" to be useful for only one type of source
such as a voice only curve(roll off at 300 and 8K)
a paging system that needs to project into a dense noise feild such as a
airport lobby needs special eq to maintain inteligibility
but not venue sound systems, the system ,if properly installed is NOT
bandwidth liumited for voice, or bass boosted for low level music playback
the system is neutral in regards to the source material

I will conceed that not all installed systems are up to all tasks, they
might be undersized, or not intended for full production work
then the rented system is required
but I put money on that guest techs should NEVER be allowed near thehouse
graphs or crossovers as they simply are not "set to taste" but rather set
for smoothness and even coverage though many days of detailed measurment and
anaylsis
something a knob jockey simply does not have the ears,tools or time to
better
George
george

[Julian]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:09:49 GMT, "George Gleason"
> wrote:

>a PA should not be "eq'd" to be useful for only one type of source
>such as a voice only curve(roll off at 300 and 8K)

Should not, yes but some aren't. Many are optimized for speech. Yes
it is below 300 that there are most issues.

>but I put money on that guest techs should NEVER be allowed near thehouse
>graphs or crossovers as they simply are not "set to taste" but rather set
>for smoothness and even coverage though many days of detailed measurment and
>anaylsis

Some are set better than others.

>something a knob jockey simply does not have the ears,tools or time to
>better

Depends on the house, depends on the speaker placement, depends on
the calibration, depends on the knob jockey. Many houses are over
eq'd, sound fine for voice but not so great for music. A house
engineer who has good ears and knows what he's doing might get a
better sound using his own eq's with the house eq set to bypass.

Julian