Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Smiley faces
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Greg
Jun 24, 2012, 12:52:53 PM6/24/12
to
The parties in this drama are the owner of a small PA system, loaned to a local club, a friend recently "trained" by the owner to run the system and thus #1 sound man, and me, who had studied the manual and experimented with the system for months before my friend and the owner got involved. It's an amateur situation, so my "demotion" to #2 is only an annoyance, not a career problem. What's important is the sound itself.
The owner insists that the graphic EQs (one for the mains, another for the monitors) should be set to, and remain, a "smiley face," with the curve up about 6 to 10 DB at each end, and #1 insists on complying. That works more-or-less for the mains, but the monitors are very prone to feedback: vocal mics like to squeal with feedback at the high end of the smiley face, and guitars like to boom with feedback at the low end. So I think the "smiley face" EQ for the monitors is just wrong, but the owner has never actually come around in the evening to listen.
The owner and #1 insist the solution to the feedback is to use the channel EQs to compensate for the smiley face: every guitar channel should have the bass turned down, and every vocal channel should have the treble turned down. I think that just gives us two EQs fighting each other in unknown ways, and messes with the main mix to fix the monitor feedback. Absent proper measurement to tune the graphic EQs to the speakers in the room, I think (after a lot of tweaking) that the main graphic EQs should be started out flat, then tweaked a bit by ear, each channel's EQ should be adjusted to sound good in the mains, and the monitor graphic EQ should be adjusted to minimize feedback (a bit of a frown) at some cost to how good the monitors sound. Is there a right and wrong here? Or is it just opinions?
Another problem is that the #1 sound man likes to record off the main mix, and thinks that once the sound check is done the mix shouldn't be touched, since changing things ruins his recording. I think that in an open mic and jam session context the mix needs constant tweaking as players and singers come and go, and if he wants to record he should bring in his own mixer and use the channel inserts -- then he can have a recording mix that is independent of the house mix. Again, is there a right and wrong here?
The owner insists that the graphic EQs (one for the mains, another for the monitors) should be set to, and remain, a "smiley face," with the curve up about 6 to 10 DB at each end, and #1 insists on complying. That works more-or-less for the mains, but the monitors are very prone to feedback: vocal mics like to squeal with feedback at the high end of the smiley face, and guitars like to boom with feedback at the low end. So I think the "smiley face" EQ for the monitors is just wrong, but the owner has never actually come around in the evening to listen.
The owner and #1 insist the solution to the feedback is to use the channel EQs to compensate for the smiley face: every guitar channel should have the bass turned down, and every vocal channel should have the treble turned down. I think that just gives us two EQs fighting each other in unknown ways, and messes with the main mix to fix the monitor feedback. Absent proper measurement to tune the graphic EQs to the speakers in the room, I think (after a lot of tweaking) that the main graphic EQs should be started out flat, then tweaked a bit by ear, each channel's EQ should be adjusted to sound good in the mains, and the monitor graphic EQ should be adjusted to minimize feedback (a bit of a frown) at some cost to how good the monitors sound. Is there a right and wrong here? Or is it just opinions?
Another problem is that the #1 sound man likes to record off the main mix, and thinks that once the sound check is done the mix shouldn't be touched, since changing things ruins his recording. I think that in an open mic and jam session context the mix needs constant tweaking as players and singers come and go, and if he wants to record he should bring in his own mixer and use the channel inserts -- then he can have a recording mix that is independent of the house mix. Again, is there a right and wrong here?
John Williamson
Jun 24, 2012, 1:45:03 PM6/24/12
to
(with his consent after I'd described and let him listen to a recording
of the problems) putting the EQ on the backing tracks to flat and a
slight (3dB) smile on the output. Then tweaking the vocal to sound as
good as possible. It got rid of the bass clipping where he had the bass
full up on the backing track input and the bass full down on the output.
He was amazed at the improvement.
There is no single "right" way, but the way that your boss and #1
operator seem to want things set in stone is, IMHO, one of the wrong ways.
A slight smile on FOH will compensate for a long, full room to a degree,
and the smile should be bigger the more people there are in the room,
but the monitors should be set to minimise feedback, with maybe a notch
at the worst frequency, however the settings are unlikely to be those
wanted on the front of house feed.
Feeds for recording should be before EQ if you have no warning about the
performance, as EQ and effects can be easily added post facto. If you
want to give the artistes a quick and dirty mix, then take it off the
FOH feed by all means, but if you have time later to edit, take another
feed off the effects sends if your desk will let you do a track per channel.
Just my two penn'orth....
Others with more experience will be along shortly. :-)
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
rocke...@yahoo.com
Jun 24, 2012, 2:32:11 PM6/24/12
to
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 11:45:03 AM UTC-6, John Williamson wrote:
> ...
> A slight smile on FOH will compensate for a long, full room to a degree,
> and the smile should be bigger the more people there are in the room,
> but the monitors should be set to minimise feedback, with maybe a notch
> at the worst frequency, however the settings are unlikely to be those
> wanted on the front of house feed.
That's what I was doing before I got outvoted. A slight "frown" on the monitors that notched the lowest and highest frequencies and kept the guitars from booming and the vocals from squealing. Got occasional complaints that the monitors had too much midrange, but most folks accepted my explanation that the alternative was painful feedback. (I once watched the "Reverend" Al Green cursing out an incompetent sound crew that couldn't keep his mic from squealing.)
> Feeds for recording should be before EQ if you have no warning about the
> performance, as EQ and effects can be easily added post facto. If you
> want to give the artistes a quick and dirty mix, then take it off the
> FOH feed by all means, but if you have time later to edit, take another
> feed off the effects sends if your desk will let you do a track per channel.
The board has per-channel, pre-EQ, pre-volume feeds that can be sent through #1s own mixer for recording.
> Just my two penn'orth....
Worth more than that, thanks.
> Others with more experience will be along shortly. :-)
As ever. Thats why I'm here, after a too-long absence. Nice to see how many of the wise ones are still here, putting up with our stupid questions.
> ...
>
> There is no single "right" way, but the way that your boss and #1
> operator seem to want things set in stone is, IMHO, one of the wrong ways.
Agreed.
> There is no single "right" way, but the way that your boss and #1
> operator seem to want things set in stone is, IMHO, one of the wrong ways.
> A slight smile on FOH will compensate for a long, full room to a degree,
> and the smile should be bigger the more people there are in the room,
> but the monitors should be set to minimise feedback, with maybe a notch
> at the worst frequency, however the settings are unlikely to be those
> wanted on the front of house feed.
> Feeds for recording should be before EQ if you have no warning about the
> performance, as EQ and effects can be easily added post facto. If you
> want to give the artistes a quick and dirty mix, then take it off the
> FOH feed by all means, but if you have time later to edit, take another
> feed off the effects sends if your desk will let you do a track per channel.
> Just my two penn'orth....
> Others with more experience will be along shortly. :-)
Scott Dorsey
Jun 24, 2012, 3:21:50 PM6/24/12
to
Greg <rocke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The owner insists that the graphic EQs (one for the mains, another for the =
>monitors) should be set to, and remain, a "smiley face," with the curve up =
>about 6 to 10 DB at each end, and #1 insists on complying. That works more=
>-or-less for the mains, but the monitors are very prone to feedback: vocal =
>mics like to squeal with feedback at the high end of the smiley face, and g=
>uitars like to boom with feedback at the low end. So I think the "smiley f=
>ace" EQ for the monitors is just wrong, but the owner has never actually co=
slider corresponding with the note that is feeding back and stop the
feedback.
Usually people will do the smiley face thing in an attempt to hide severe
problems somewhere else in the sound chain.
>The owner and #1 insist the solution to the feedback is to use the channel =
>EQs to compensate for the smiley face: every guitar channel should have the=
> bass turned down, and every vocal channel should have the treble turned do=
>wn. I think that just gives us two EQs fighting each other in unknown ways=
>, and messes with the main mix to fix the monitor feedback. Absent proper =
>measurement to tune the graphic EQs to the speakers in the room, I think (a=
>fter a lot of tweaking) that the main graphic EQs should be started out fla=
>t, then tweaked a bit by ear, each channel's EQ should be adjusted to soun=
>d good in the mains, and the monitor graphic EQ should be adjusted to minim=
>ize feedback (a bit of a frown) at some cost to how good the monitors sound=
to control feedback, use the channel strips to alter tone.
In fact, most graphics are pretty damn wide and you are better off with a
proper parametric or digital notch filter to control feedback. But the
graphic is nice in that once you have a good sense of pitch you can just
pull the slider down and stop it.
Feedback is inexcusable.
>Another problem is that the #1 sound man likes to record off the main mix, =
>and thinks that once the sound check is done the mix shouldn't be touched, =
>since changing things ruins his recording. I think that in an open mic and=
> jam session context the mix needs constant tweaking as players and singers=
> come and go, and if he wants to record he should bring in his own mixer an=
>d use the channel inserts -- then he can have a recording mix that is indep=
being paid to provide good house sound, that should be more important than
the recording. If you're being paid to make a recording, that may be more
important than good house sound. Who is paying the bills and what are they
paying the bills for?
Don't you have a couple prefade auxes you could use for his recording?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>The owner insists that the graphic EQs (one for the mains, another for the =
>monitors) should be set to, and remain, a "smiley face," with the curve up =
>about 6 to 10 DB at each end, and #1 insists on complying. That works more=
>-or-less for the mains, but the monitors are very prone to feedback: vocal =
>mics like to squeal with feedback at the high end of the smiley face, and g=
>uitars like to boom with feedback at the low end. So I think the "smiley f=
>ace" EQ for the monitors is just wrong, but the owner has never actually co=
>me around in the evening to listen.
Well, keep the smiley face, but then when it feeds back, pull down the
slider corresponding with the note that is feeding back and stop the
feedback.
Usually people will do the smiley face thing in an attempt to hide severe
problems somewhere else in the sound chain.
>The owner and #1 insist the solution to the feedback is to use the channel =
>EQs to compensate for the smiley face: every guitar channel should have the=
> bass turned down, and every vocal channel should have the treble turned do=
>wn. I think that just gives us two EQs fighting each other in unknown ways=
>, and messes with the main mix to fix the monitor feedback. Absent proper =
>measurement to tune the graphic EQs to the speakers in the room, I think (a=
>fter a lot of tweaking) that the main graphic EQs should be started out fla=
>t, then tweaked a bit by ear, each channel's EQ should be adjusted to soun=
>d good in the mains, and the monitor graphic EQ should be adjusted to minim=
>ize feedback (a bit of a frown) at some cost to how good the monitors sound=
>. Is there a right and wrong here? Or is it just opinions?
The channel EQs are very wide.... the graphics are narrow. Use the graphics
to control feedback, use the channel strips to alter tone.
In fact, most graphics are pretty damn wide and you are better off with a
proper parametric or digital notch filter to control feedback. But the
graphic is nice in that once you have a good sense of pitch you can just
pull the slider down and stop it.
Feedback is inexcusable.
>Another problem is that the #1 sound man likes to record off the main mix, =
>and thinks that once the sound check is done the mix shouldn't be touched, =
>since changing things ruins his recording. I think that in an open mic and=
> jam session context the mix needs constant tweaking as players and singers=
> come and go, and if he wants to record he should bring in his own mixer an=
>d use the channel inserts -- then he can have a recording mix that is indep=
>endent of the house mix. Again, is there a right and wrong here?
What is more important, a good recording or good house sound? If you are
being paid to provide good house sound, that should be more important than
the recording. If you're being paid to make a recording, that may be more
important than good house sound. Who is paying the bills and what are they
paying the bills for?
Don't you have a couple prefade auxes you could use for his recording?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
rocke...@yahoo.com
Jun 24, 2012, 4:38:30 PM6/24/12
to
I replied to this an hour ago. This is a test to see if replies work on Google.
rocke...@yahoo.com
Jun 24, 2012, 5:10:59 PM6/24/12
to
And now I'm getting a "your message is taking a long time to post" and a suggestion to try again. As if I saved a copy. So Google Groups sucks, like most everything these days. Maybe I need to find a real Usenet feed again. Oh well. I'll wait a while and try again. And remember to always save a copy.
rocke...@yahoo.com
Jun 24, 2012, 3:59:50 PM6/24/12
to
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:21:50 PM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Greg <rocke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >The owner insists that the graphic EQs (one for the mains, another for the =
> >monitors) should be set to, and remain, a "smiley face," with the curve up =
> >about 6 to 10 DB at each end, and #1 insists on complying. That works more=
> >-or-less for the mains, but the monitors are very prone to feedback: vocal =
> >mics like to squeal with feedback at the high end of the smiley face, and g=
> >uitars like to boom with feedback at the low end. So I think the "smiley f=
> >ace" EQ for the monitors is just wrong, but the owner has never actually co=
> >me around in the evening to listen.
>
> Well, keep the smiley face, but then when it feeds back, pull down the
> slider corresponding with the note that is feeding back and stop the
> feedback.
Which eliminates the smile, as it's the lowest and highest sliders that need to be pulled down. That's why I found a slight frown more effective than a smile. But #1 and the owner don't want the monitor smile touched, so all the mics have to get their (too-wide) treble controls brought down instead, killing the FOH vocal sparkle in order to kill the monitor feedback, requiring more FOH smile, which makes the guitars too sparkly ...
> >
> >The owner insists that the graphic EQs (one for the mains, another for the =
> >monitors) should be set to, and remain, a "smiley face," with the curve up =
> >about 6 to 10 DB at each end, and #1 insists on complying. That works more=
> >-or-less for the mains, but the monitors are very prone to feedback: vocal =
> >mics like to squeal with feedback at the high end of the smiley face, and g=
> >uitars like to boom with feedback at the low end. So I think the "smiley f=
> >ace" EQ for the monitors is just wrong, but the owner has never actually co=
> >me around in the evening to listen.
>
> Well, keep the smiley face, but then when it feeds back, pull down the
> slider corresponding with the note that is feeding back and stop the
> feedback.
> > Usually people will do the smiley face thing in an attempt to hide severe
> problems somewhere else in the sound chain.
> >The owner and #1 insist the solution to the feedback is to use the channel =
> >EQs to compensate for the smiley face: every guitar channel should have the=
> > bass turned down, and every vocal channel should have the treble turned do=
> >wn. I think that just gives us two EQs fighting each other in unknown ways=
> >, and messes with the main mix to fix the monitor feedback. Absent proper =
> >measurement to tune the graphic EQs to the speakers in the room, I think (a=
> >fter a lot of tweaking) that the main graphic EQs should be started out fla=
> >t, then tweaked a bit by ear, each channel's EQ should be adjusted to soun=
> >d good in the mains, and the monitor graphic EQ should be adjusted to minim=
> >ize feedback (a bit of a frown) at some cost to how good the monitors sound=
> >. Is there a right and wrong here? Or is it just opinions?
>
> The channel EQs are very wide.... the graphics are narrow. Use the graphics
> to control feedback, use the channel strips to alter tone.
>
> In fact, most graphics are pretty damn wide and you are better off with a
> proper parametric or digital notch filter to control feedback. But the
> graphic is nice in that once you have a good sense of pitch you can just
> pull the slider down and stop it.
>
> Feedback is inexcusable.
> >Another problem is that the #1 sound man likes to record off the main mix, =
> >and thinks that once the sound check is done the mix shouldn't be touched, =
> >since changing things ruins his recording. I think that in an open mic and=
> > jam session context the mix needs constant tweaking as players and singers=
> > come and go, and if he wants to record he should bring in his own mixer an=
> >d use the channel inserts -- then he can have a recording mix that is indep=
> >endent of the house mix. Again, is there a right and wrong here?
>
> What is more important, a good recording or good house sound?
> If you are
> being paid to provide good house sound, that should be more important than
> the recording. If you're being paid to make a recording, that may be more
> important than good house sound. Who is paying the bills and what are they
> paying the bills for?
> Don't you have a couple prefade auxes you could use for his recording?
rocke...@yahoo.com
Jun 24, 2012, 5:26:57 PM6/24/12
to
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:21:50 PM UTC-6, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Greg <rocke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >The owner insists that the graphic EQs (one for the mains, another for the =
> >monitors) should be set to, and remain, a "smiley face," with the curve up =
> >about 6 to 10 DB at each end, and #1 insists on complying. That works more=
> >-or-less for the mains, but the monitors are very prone to feedback: vocal =
> >mics like to squeal with feedback at the high end of the smiley face, and g=
> >uitars like to boom with feedback at the low end. So I think the "smiley f=
> >ace" EQ for the monitors is just wrong, but the owner has never actually co=
> >me around in the evening to listen.
>
> Well, keep the smiley face, but then when it feeds back, pull down the
> slider corresponding with the note that is feeding back and stop the
> feedback.
Which are the highest and lowest sliders, so no more smile.
> >
> >The owner insists that the graphic EQs (one for the mains, another for the =
> >monitors) should be set to, and remain, a "smiley face," with the curve up =
> >about 6 to 10 DB at each end, and #1 insists on complying. That works more=
> >-or-less for the mains, but the monitors are very prone to feedback: vocal =
> >mics like to squeal with feedback at the high end of the smiley face, and g=
> >uitars like to boom with feedback at the low end. So I think the "smiley f=
> >ace" EQ for the monitors is just wrong, but the owner has never actually co=
> >me around in the evening to listen.
>
> Well, keep the smiley face, but then when it feeds back, pull down the
> slider corresponding with the note that is feeding back and stop the
> feedback.
> Usually people will do the smiley face thing in an attempt to hide severe
> problems somewhere else in the sound chain.
> >The owner and #1 insist the solution to the feedback is to use the channel =
> >EQs to compensate for the smiley face: every guitar channel should have the=
> > bass turned down, and every vocal channel should have the treble turned do=
> >wn. I think that just gives us two EQs fighting each other in unknown ways=
> >, and messes with the main mix to fix the monitor feedback. Absent proper =
> >measurement to tune the graphic EQs to the speakers in the room, I think (a=
> >fter a lot of tweaking) that the main graphic EQs should be started out fla=
> >t, then tweaked a bit by ear, each channel's EQ should be adjusted to soun=
> >d good in the mains, and the monitor graphic EQ should be adjusted to minim=
> >ize feedback (a bit of a frown) at some cost to how good the monitors sound=
> >. Is there a right and wrong here? Or is it just opinions?
>
> The channel EQs are very wide.... the graphics are narrow. Use the graphics
> to control feedback, use the channel strips to alter tone.
>> In fact, most graphics are pretty damn wide and you are better off with a
> proper parametric or digital notch filter to control feedback. But the
> graphic is nice in that once you have a good sense of pitch you can just
> pull the slider down and stop it.
> Feedback is inexcusable.
And circa 10Kz it hurts.
> >Another problem is that the #1 sound man likes to record off the main mix, =
> >and thinks that once the sound check is done the mix shouldn't be touched, =
> >since changing things ruins his recording. I think that in an open mic and=
> > jam session context the mix needs constant tweaking as players and singers=
> > come and go, and if he wants to record he should bring in his own mixer an=
> >d use the channel inserts -- then he can have a recording mix that is indep=
> >endent of the house mix. Again, is there a right and wrong here?
>
> What is more important, a good recording or good house sound? If you are
> being paid to provide good house sound, that should be more important than
> the recording. If you're being paid to make a recording, that may be more
> important than good house sound. Who is paying the bills and what are they
> paying the bills for?
Me and #1 aren't getting paid beyond a free beer or two, just pitching in to support the local musicians in this tiny mountain town. A surprisingly large number of surprisingly good musicians, at that. I don't know what the arrangement between the equipment owner and the club owner is. But the club owner wants drinking customers which the music helps to draw.
> Don't you have a couple prefade auxes you could use for his recording?
Sean Conolly
Jun 24, 2012, 5:56:54 PM6/24/12
to
<rocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1b8d2817-59b6-4440...@googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------
Problems exist in domains, and generally the best solutions are in the same
or nearest domain. What you have a problem in the domain of human
interaction, and there is no good solution in the technology domain. You
have to connect at a human level to get them to accept that you may have a
better idea and give you a real chance to demonstrate it.
I've been called in to fix sound problems a number of times that were
basically caused by a person who didn't fully understand what they were
doing, and weren't willing to listen to anyone. I'd go in, talk with them
enough to make them realize that I'm just trying to help, and then go about
my business. Sometimes the guy I was struggling with on the last gig is the
one calling me to help out on the next gig.
Sean
news:1b8d2817-59b6-4440...@googlegroups.com...
Problems exist in domains, and generally the best solutions are in the same
or nearest domain. What you have a problem in the domain of human
interaction, and there is no good solution in the technology domain. You
have to connect at a human level to get them to accept that you may have a
better idea and give you a real chance to demonstrate it.
I've been called in to fix sound problems a number of times that were
basically caused by a person who didn't fully understand what they were
doing, and weren't willing to listen to anyone. I'd go in, talk with them
enough to make them realize that I'm just trying to help, and then go about
my business. Sometimes the guy I was struggling with on the last gig is the
one calling me to help out on the next gig.
Sean
rocke...@yahoo.com
Jun 24, 2012, 6:20:51 PM6/24/12
to
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:56:54 PM UTC-6, Sean Conolly wrote:
> <rocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1b8d2817-59b6-4440...@googlegroups.com...
>
> <rocke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1b8d2817-59b6-4440...@googlegroups.com...
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> Problems exist in domains, and generally the best solutions are in the same
> or nearest domain. What you have a problem in the domain of human
> interaction, and there is no good solution in the technology domain. You
> have to connect at a human level to get them to accept that you may have a
> better idea and give you a real chance to demonstrate it.
>
> I've been called in to fix sound problems a number of times that were
> basically caused by a person who didn't fully understand what they were
> doing, and weren't willing to listen to anyone. I'd go in, talk with them
> enough to make them realize that I'm just trying to help, and then go about
> my business. Sometimes the guy I was struggling with on the last gig is the
> one calling me to help out on the next gig.
Thank's Sean. I agree that the solution is with the people involved. I'm trying here to get clear enough on the tech to be sure of my advice, and have come away more confident, thanks to John and Scott. The equipment owner thinks he knows best how to use his gear, but never shows up for me to discuss things with him, so I was thinking I'd need to convince him.
>
> Problems exist in domains, and generally the best solutions are in the same
> or nearest domain. What you have a problem in the domain of human
> interaction, and there is no good solution in the technology domain. You
> have to connect at a human level to get them to accept that you may have a
> better idea and give you a real chance to demonstrate it.
>
> I've been called in to fix sound problems a number of times that were
> basically caused by a person who didn't fully understand what they were
> doing, and weren't willing to listen to anyone. I'd go in, talk with them
> enough to make them realize that I'm just trying to help, and then go about
> my business. Sometimes the guy I was struggling with on the last gig is the
> one calling me to help out on the next gig.
But a few minutes ago my friend #1 and I decided to set up my own gear, so I'll be the expert, and we won't have to argue it anymore, and he won't feel caught in the middle. One problematic person out of the equation. And maybe, with a bit more gear and practice, we can make some money providing sound to people who appreciate a crew who actually listens.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 24, 2012, 8:30:21 PM6/24/12
to
<rocke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Which eliminates the smile, as it's the lowest and highest sliders that nee=
>d to be pulled down. That's why I found a slight frown more effective than=
> a smile. But #1 and the owner don't want the monitor smile touched, so al=
>l the mics have to get their (too-wide) treble controls brought down instea=
>d, killing the FOH vocal sparkle in order to kill the monitor feedback, req=
What you want is a super narrow filter right on the feedback mode, so it
notches it out without affecting the tone audibly at all.
>> Feedback is inexcusable. =20
-- Beenie Man
>Nobody is paying me and #1 anything beyond a free beer or two. We just lik=
>e having open mics and jam sessions, and don't mind some work to make it ha=
>ppen. I don't know what the arrangement between the owner of the sound sys=
>tem and the owner of the club is. The owner of the club just wants to have=
PA quality is more important, because he's basically paying the bills.
If he wants a good recording and doesn't care about the room sound, that's
his business. Mind you, I'd get rid of him for that, but that's not my
decision.
We live in a world today where very few people are willing to pay for good
sound. Or even barely adequate sound. I get calls asking me to do club
gigs and I tell them what it will cost and they hire some kid with a behringer
instead.
>
>Which eliminates the smile, as it's the lowest and highest sliders that nee=
>d to be pulled down. That's why I found a slight frown more effective than=
> a smile. But #1 and the owner don't want the monitor smile touched, so al=
>l the mics have to get their (too-wide) treble controls brought down instea=
>d, killing the FOH vocal sparkle in order to kill the monitor feedback, req=
>uiring more FOH smile, which makes the guitars too sparkly ...
Right, that's why using broad filters to control EQ is a bad idea.
What you want is a super narrow filter right on the feedback mode, so it
notches it out without affecting the tone audibly at all.
>> Feedback is inexcusable. =20
>
>No kidding. And at circa 10KHz it really hurts.
"I hear feedback, I cut your balls off, monitor boy."
>No kidding. And at circa 10KHz it really hurts.
-- Beenie Man
>Nobody is paying me and #1 anything beyond a free beer or two. We just lik=
>e having open mics and jam sessions, and don't mind some work to make it ha=
>ppen. I don't know what the arrangement between the owner of the sound sys=
>tem and the owner of the club is. The owner of the club just wants to have=
> people there drinking, and the better the sound the more that happens.
The owner of the sound system, then, gets to decide whether recording or
PA quality is more important, because he's basically paying the bills.
If he wants a good recording and doesn't care about the room sound, that's
his business. Mind you, I'd get rid of him for that, but that's not my
decision.
We live in a world today where very few people are willing to pay for good
sound. Or even barely adequate sound. I get calls asking me to do club
gigs and I tell them what it will cost and they hire some kid with a behringer
instead.
Trevor
Jun 24, 2012, 8:53:03 PM6/24/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:js8bet$l3f$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> We live in a world today where very few people are willing to pay for good
> sound. Or even barely adequate sound. I get calls asking me to do club
> gigs and I tell them what it will cost and they hire some kid with a
> behringer
> instead.
Which is probably the correct thing to do if the cost of hiring you and the
> sound. Or even barely adequate sound. I get calls asking me to do club
> gigs and I tell them what it will cost and they hire some kid with a
> behringer
> instead.
artist means they will make a loss, but stupid if they pay big money for an
artist who draws a big crowd and deserves/can justify the expenditure on
decent sound. One simply cannot expect that the smallest of gigs will rate
the same sound expenditure as stadium concerts!
However a kid with a Behrenger and reasonable speakers, who knows what he's
doing, can still provide acceptable sound in a small room. Or really screw
it up if he doesn't know what he's doing. Likewise many huge concerts with
big budgets and big ticket prices still get screwed badly! :-(
Trevor.
rocke...@yahoo.com
Jun 24, 2012, 9:28:39 PM6/24/12
to Trevor
rocke...@yahoo.com
Jun 24, 2012, 10:18:31 PM6/24/12
to Trevor
0 new messages