Live performance ?
Moderators: Sharp, X-Trade, Pepperpotty, karmathanever
Live performance ?
Our soundman is ALWAYS complaining about having to chase my program/combi changes because of volume fluctuations. I have spent countless hours programming volume for each patch I use for live performance to get them as even and consistent as possible. When I'm sitting in my studio all of my program/combi changes sound very even and balanced to me, but live they seem to be all over the place, so I'm told. Any ideas or does anyone else have this problem? I know Kurzweil has on their latest boards a master compressor that can be globalized for all patches/programs/combis/setups. Problem is, when I have used a compressor it seems to take away any dynamics when playing, especially piano. What are your thoughts?
Re: Live performance ?
This stuff tends to change in different rooms and on different PA systems. I use 3 different environments to balance out my sounds: home studio (Mackie monitors), Bose headphones and our band's practice space PA. I've had bandmates mention that something was too loud or too soft in the mix while at practice (which I've fixed on the spot), but never had complaints at a gig.drama1 wrote:Our soundman is ALWAYS complaining about having to chase my program/combi changes because of volume fluctuations. I have spent countless hours programming volume for each patch I use for live performance to get them as even and consistent as possible. When I'm sitting in my studio all of my program/combi changes sound very even and balanced to me, but live they seem to be all over the place, so I'm told. Any ideas or does anyone else have this problem? I know Kurzweil has on their latest boards a master compressor that can be globalized for all patches/programs/combis/setups. Problem is, when I have used a compressor it seems to take away any dynamics when playing, especially piano. What are your thoughts?
Ask your soundman to give you specific sounds & songs to work from and adjust as necessary. It's a bit of trial and error.
Bill
Korg Kronos 61 (2); Kurzweil PC4; Casio Privia PX-350m; Macbook Pro
-
ozy
whn programming, don't focus only on volumes,
check also
a) harmonic content (filter, waveforms, effects)
b) how the patch will be played (two fisted chords? long sustained notes on a silent background? staccato counterpoint to a sax solo? Duel with a screaming guitar?)
c) what other instrument will be played while you solo/comp on that patch.
Sometimes you create a sound which can't fit in the mix unless you pump up the volume, because you got the wrong sound in the first place. It may hog the same frequencies "occupied" by an electric guitar, or ny a sax, or by the bass drum.
This will lead to frantic volume-dueling.
While some EQ would be the good answer.
Or some savvy filter opening. or closing.
Or a sharper attack which will make your riff easy to "read", even at low volume.
Or a softer attack which will make a comping horm less intrusive, without need to lower its volume.
Sometimes only the low notes will need pumping. So, add a layer of horns or a muted clavinet to your rhodes, only in the lower octaves, and let the mid-to-high range alone.
You will be heard, but not hated.
You will be polite, but will not disappear.
You need to check your patches in quasi-live situation before you set the volumes.
And sometimes (often, I'd say), you have to DISCARD the patch you love so much,
because it sounds good only in insulation, and it doesn't work live.
It's like that nice riff, which sounded in your head for days, like it was your ultimate, perfect hymn to life...
... but finally sounded dud and pompous when you played it in a song.
You just gotta let it go. Or write it down for another time, another place.
I also suggest that you:
d) read something about orchestration.
Think of your synth sounds in terms of "horns", "cellos", etc, and read something about "how to" and "how NOT to" in a classical orchestra.
It will be useful even if you play trance or metal prog: a dark fuzzied les paul is not much sonically different from a cello (or a trombone?), etc.
e) set "patch rehearsal" sessions with the drummer the singer and the guitar player.
They don't need to be there together.
Sometimes you say "this pad is wonderful", but the singer won't hear himself screaming because the pad is full of saturated mid-frequency swirls.
Or you may think that a lead is "phat", until somebody hits a snare 10 meters from you. Then you realize it's definitely non "phat" enough, even to be heard.
PS:
and sometimes the sound engineer is just a jerk.
check also
a) harmonic content (filter, waveforms, effects)
b) how the patch will be played (two fisted chords? long sustained notes on a silent background? staccato counterpoint to a sax solo? Duel with a screaming guitar?)
c) what other instrument will be played while you solo/comp on that patch.
Sometimes you create a sound which can't fit in the mix unless you pump up the volume, because you got the wrong sound in the first place. It may hog the same frequencies "occupied" by an electric guitar, or ny a sax, or by the bass drum.
This will lead to frantic volume-dueling.
While some EQ would be the good answer.
Or some savvy filter opening. or closing.
Or a sharper attack which will make your riff easy to "read", even at low volume.
Or a softer attack which will make a comping horm less intrusive, without need to lower its volume.
Sometimes only the low notes will need pumping. So, add a layer of horns or a muted clavinet to your rhodes, only in the lower octaves, and let the mid-to-high range alone.
You will be heard, but not hated.
You will be polite, but will not disappear.
You need to check your patches in quasi-live situation before you set the volumes.
And sometimes (often, I'd say), you have to DISCARD the patch you love so much,
because it sounds good only in insulation, and it doesn't work live.
It's like that nice riff, which sounded in your head for days, like it was your ultimate, perfect hymn to life...
... but finally sounded dud and pompous when you played it in a song.
You just gotta let it go. Or write it down for another time, another place.
I also suggest that you:
d) read something about orchestration.
Think of your synth sounds in terms of "horns", "cellos", etc, and read something about "how to" and "how NOT to" in a classical orchestra.
It will be useful even if you play trance or metal prog: a dark fuzzied les paul is not much sonically different from a cello (or a trombone?), etc.
e) set "patch rehearsal" sessions with the drummer the singer and the guitar player.
They don't need to be there together.
Sometimes you say "this pad is wonderful", but the singer won't hear himself screaming because the pad is full of saturated mid-frequency swirls.
Or you may think that a lead is "phat", until somebody hits a snare 10 meters from you. Then you realize it's definitely non "phat" enough, even to be heard.
PS:
and sometimes the sound engineer is just a jerk.
Last edited by ozy on Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Live performance ?
With all due respect, that is his job. He should stop complaining.drama1 wrote:Our soundman is ALWAYS complaining about having to chase my program/combi changes because of volume fluctuations.
M3, Triton Classic, Radias, Motif XS, Alesis Ion
Interesting....
I had a Motif XS, which I recently sold 'cause I much prefer the sound of my M3. However, when I did a theatre project recently I found myself the most comfortable with the XS 'cause the sounds were more "even" accross the spectrum.
What that means for me is that the volume and playability was more consistent using the XS, which was great for that project, but I find the M3 punches through the mix better and overall has a punchier sound.
I don't know if that means that Yamaha "mastered" their sounds to be a little less punchier and more predictable, but that's the conclusion I came to.
I had a Motif XS, which I recently sold 'cause I much prefer the sound of my M3. However, when I did a theatre project recently I found myself the most comfortable with the XS 'cause the sounds were more "even" accross the spectrum.
What that means for me is that the volume and playability was more consistent using the XS, which was great for that project, but I find the M3 punches through the mix better and overall has a punchier sound.
I don't know if that means that Yamaha "mastered" their sounds to be a little less punchier and more predictable, but that's the conclusion I came to.
Another thought....
Recently got the Motionsound KP-500sn (2 x 12" woofers, 500 watts, 1 point stereo), so I've had the opportunity to crank the volume to satisfaction.
What I found was very interesting. Normally when I play in jam sessions I've got it cranked, and the sound i get is very different than what I'm used to- it's like I can finally evaluate the sound and know if it's a sound that cuts through the mix, has 3d qualities of being full and rich, and generally if I really like it or not. It should be said however that the jam space also has acoustics that contribute the the fullness of the sound.
In general I find it very challenging to evaluate sounds, but since I've been using a full range (esp. for the bass) speaker at home, I feel like I can finally "hear" what the sound is doing, and of course, if I have music to play along with, I can also evaluate that sounds ability to cut through or sit nicely in a mix. So try that in your practice space: using a quality speaker, crank it to performance volumes and adjust accordingly.
I also use a volume pedal- it's hard to imagine not using one- for me its as vital as the sustain pedal and gets used constantly. But it sounds like you're not even sure what the sound guy is talking about- are you not hearing the changes in volume from one patch to the next like he is? It'd be pretty impossible to adjust yourself if you're not hearing the same thing.
Ozy- what a great post! I find it incredibly time consuming to evaluate sounds, trying to know which one's will translate for live sound!
Recently got the Motionsound KP-500sn (2 x 12" woofers, 500 watts, 1 point stereo), so I've had the opportunity to crank the volume to satisfaction.
What I found was very interesting. Normally when I play in jam sessions I've got it cranked, and the sound i get is very different than what I'm used to- it's like I can finally evaluate the sound and know if it's a sound that cuts through the mix, has 3d qualities of being full and rich, and generally if I really like it or not. It should be said however that the jam space also has acoustics that contribute the the fullness of the sound.
In general I find it very challenging to evaluate sounds, but since I've been using a full range (esp. for the bass) speaker at home, I feel like I can finally "hear" what the sound is doing, and of course, if I have music to play along with, I can also evaluate that sounds ability to cut through or sit nicely in a mix. So try that in your practice space: using a quality speaker, crank it to performance volumes and adjust accordingly.
I also use a volume pedal- it's hard to imagine not using one- for me its as vital as the sustain pedal and gets used constantly. But it sounds like you're not even sure what the sound guy is talking about- are you not hearing the changes in volume from one patch to the next like he is? It'd be pretty impossible to adjust yourself if you're not hearing the same thing.
Ozy- what a great post! I find it incredibly time consuming to evaluate sounds, trying to know which one's will translate for live sound!
-
ozy
Yes, it takes plenty of patience and time.Randelph wrote:I find it incredibly time consuming to evaluate sounds, trying to know which one's will translate for live sound!
Sometimes I spend a week on a sound. The song can wait until I have the sound to play it.
I think I spend maybe 45% of time on sounds [and setting instruments, fine tuning aftertouch, etc.], 45% practicing [technique, chords, rehearsing, just plain good playing], and just 10% writing new music or studying theory or listening to other people's music [I mean, purposefully. Of course I listen to music for fun ar "life soundtrack" more or less always...].
The day I play live or record, I'd rather find myself short of manual dexterity in a riff, or with one less new tune available, or with a piece of paper because I didn't memorize everything, than playing with an instrument that doesn't sound like I want.
You can always do one less embellishment, one less arpeggio, but if you play with the voice of an emasculated duck... All the notes you play are wasted.
(I mean, this is after 47 years playing. I mean that I get my notes right. If one can't find the keys, he better let synthesizers and sound designing alone and practice piano for some time).
The purpose of playing is... making sounds. Hitting the keys is a mean, not the purpose.
People listen you with ears, not looking at your hands or at transcriptions (except maybe prog fans
. present company excepted 
). If you don't put in the air nice sounds, and don't make them heard (as they should, no more no less, no farther no closer)... what's the purpose of even playing?
Ozy,
Yeah I hear you- I spend a ridiculous amount of time going through the available sounds on the M3, changing the name (I use a 3 at the very beginning of a patch I like, for example: 3 Grand Piano, so I recognize it as a good sound no matter where or how I'm navigating the M3), and then within any given category it takes a huge amount of time to cross compare sounds, and the few that I judge as totally superior end up in my Favorites category (at which point I change the 3 to a 6 as the first part of the name). I try for as few sounds as possible in the Favorites, so that only the most vetted, useful sounds are there.
And of course, once a sound gets a 3 in front of it, then I take the time to adjust the effects and other simple adjustments. I also put an s after the three if it's a Program that only uses a single oscillator (so I can more easily recognize the full sounding 1 osc Programs when designing a Combi).
My next step will prob be to have a letter of the alphabet after the 3 to designate further changes, esp. as regards live performance. This would tell me, for example, if I've got the IFX set up so that there's a consistent way of accessing fx (like being able to turn on the last unlit IFX button while in Realtime Control mode and know that I'm turning on a delay that works with that patch).
That said, I'm both really pleased with the M3 and displeased. Playing the Nord Stage gives me so much instant, true satisfaction and access that I've been challenged at times to be patient with the M3. But the M3 is such a great complement to the Stage, it does so many other things, and has other sound possibilities, so I'm investing a lot of time in the M3. It just really burns me that Korg went to the trouble of creating a full Editor and they didn't finish the job- no Librarian! It's so damn tedious doing everything on the M3 (all the name changing and category changing).
I agree with you completely- for me sound quality is everything, and getting a sound I like, setting it up the way I like, and then learning how to play it is an ongoing, endless project.
Yeah I hear you- I spend a ridiculous amount of time going through the available sounds on the M3, changing the name (I use a 3 at the very beginning of a patch I like, for example: 3 Grand Piano, so I recognize it as a good sound no matter where or how I'm navigating the M3), and then within any given category it takes a huge amount of time to cross compare sounds, and the few that I judge as totally superior end up in my Favorites category (at which point I change the 3 to a 6 as the first part of the name). I try for as few sounds as possible in the Favorites, so that only the most vetted, useful sounds are there.
And of course, once a sound gets a 3 in front of it, then I take the time to adjust the effects and other simple adjustments. I also put an s after the three if it's a Program that only uses a single oscillator (so I can more easily recognize the full sounding 1 osc Programs when designing a Combi).
My next step will prob be to have a letter of the alphabet after the 3 to designate further changes, esp. as regards live performance. This would tell me, for example, if I've got the IFX set up so that there's a consistent way of accessing fx (like being able to turn on the last unlit IFX button while in Realtime Control mode and know that I'm turning on a delay that works with that patch).
That said, I'm both really pleased with the M3 and displeased. Playing the Nord Stage gives me so much instant, true satisfaction and access that I've been challenged at times to be patient with the M3. But the M3 is such a great complement to the Stage, it does so many other things, and has other sound possibilities, so I'm investing a lot of time in the M3. It just really burns me that Korg went to the trouble of creating a full Editor and they didn't finish the job- no Librarian! It's so damn tedious doing everything on the M3 (all the name changing and category changing).
I agree with you completely- for me sound quality is everything, and getting a sound I like, setting it up the way I like, and then learning how to play it is an ongoing, endless project.
This is a common situation (problem?) among keyboardists. Remember you're playing an editable sinthesyzer, so you can edit things like pitch, key zones, and layer and/or split so many sounds and effects, that you're virtually playing on all the audible range. It's a volume thing, but i try to think about it more like and eq, effect or even sound parameter thing.
For ex., i alwas add a stereo chorus to every lead sound. Why? It fattens the sound, making it even wider, and adds more harmonic content, so it can be heard on a mix.
Try to adjust every sound using the rehearsal as a guide. I have some strings that are way ot of volume compared to the pianos or leads, but that's because in that part of the song, strings need to be heard.
For ex., i alwas add a stereo chorus to every lead sound. Why? It fattens the sound, making it even wider, and adds more harmonic content, so it can be heard on a mix.
Try to adjust every sound using the rehearsal as a guide. I have some strings that are way ot of volume compared to the pianos or leads, but that's because in that part of the song, strings need to be heard.
Re: Live performance ?
if you want to sound like crap from gig to gig, sure. You have to assume that most sound men will set levels during sound check and will rarely touch them after that. Also assume that many of the times you'll get a crappy sound man. We sometimes have to run our own sound and there's no way we can edit the settings after we start.Synthoid wrote:With all due respect, that is his job. He should stop complaining.drama1 wrote:Our soundman is ALWAYS complaining about having to chase my program/combi changes because of volume fluctuations.
Current Korg Gear: KRONOS 88 (4GB), M50-73 (PS mod), RADIAS-73, Electribe MX, Triton Pro (MOSS, SCSI, CF, 64MB RAM), SQ-64, DVP-1, MEX-8000, MR-1, KAOSSilator, nanoKey, nanoKontrol, 3x nanoPad 2, 3x DS1H, 7x PS1, FC7 (yes Korg, NOT Yamaha).
Re: Live performance ?
I've run sound myself--many times--and I make lots of tweaks before and during a performance. I would fire a soundman that just sits there.McHale wrote:You have to assume that most sound men will set levels during sound check and will rarely touch them after that.Synthoid wrote:With all due respect, that is his job. He should stop complaining.drama1 wrote:Our soundman is ALWAYS complaining about having to chase my program/combi changes because of volume fluctuations.
M3, Triton Classic, Radias, Motif XS, Alesis Ion
I'm a sound engineer at an indy concert venue, as well as vocalist and keyboard player in a few bands. I agree with Synthoid: it is his job. That's what he's there for. He should not complain, but offer suggestions. But perhaps you can help him a little.
Without knowing your band/style/skills/setup it's hard to make suggestions, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Ozy has made some very useful points. Here's my two cents...
The sound of the room, the PA, the monitors, DI's, mics, cables, stage placement, all make a difference to all instruments. The other musicians will also sound different, so they will compensate by playing louder/softer/otherwise. But the most important factor is probably: playing for a live audience is different to a soundcheck or rehearsal or at home in your studio. I tend to compensate during the soundcheck, because bands will almost always play louder when the gig starts, and get even louder during the gig as adrenaline levels rise and hearing adjusts.
So the place to figure out what needs changing isn't your home studio or rehearsal space, but a live session. Kind of tricky if you're on stage...
The first thing I would check is your monitoring setup: can you hear yourself and other instruments clearly on stage? Are you using in-ears or wedges? Do you have your own monitor & mix? Is what you hear on stage similar to the house sound? If you can't hear properly, you won't be able to judge your relative or subjective volume. Are you or other members of the band using earplugs? That can have a huge (mostly negative) influence!
Second, ask the engineer (or a knowledgable friend) to make a note of the passages where he makes "corrections" to your channel, e.g. "song 3 bridge" or "song 5 piano intro". Make a setlist for him which lists each song & section, so he can just +++ or --- where he makes major changes.
Or set up a video camera so you can clearly see the changes he makes to your channel. Plug a room mic into the FOH desk, and plug the camera's left and right audio inputs into the direct outs of the keys & room mic channels. Record the gig and compare the levels and subjective "presence" of your keys. The keys channel will give you an indication of what you are sending to FOH, and the room mic will pick up how that sounds in relation to other instruments after the engineer has adjusted your level. Don't substitute the room mic for a tape send unless you are playing in a large venue where the stage sound doesn't influence the house sound. Remember, this recording isn't supposed to sound great, it's for analytical purposes.
If you happen to use a digital desk you can probably record the entire mix using automation instead of a camera. Make sure you have some way of syncing the two.
Third, check your combi's using mono amplification. Most PA's will be driven mono or very narrow stereo - wide stereo doesn't work for audience members who are not in the center of the venue. Many engineers will leave both your stereo channels panned middle, effectively summing both channels to a single mono channel. If your combi's are designed for stereo there may be amplitude differences or even phase cancellation when summed at FOH.
As for compression: a little bit (e.g. 1:1.6 or 1:2) with appropriate parameters (threshold, attack, sustain and knee) should not damage your dynamics, but should enhance the soft passages. Remember, compression is not meant to make loud passages softer. That's a limiter. It's meant to make soft passages louder. It can even enhance your dynamics! Also, you know the adjustable velocity curve of the M3 is in fact a form of compression...?
Finally, a sound engineers opinion is only one opinion. Perhaps he just doesn't like your playing, or the arrangement, or the band, or keys in general. He may have damaged high frequency hearing. Or maybe he's too chicken to ask the guitar player to turn down his amp and takes it out on you...
Cheers, - Jon -
Without knowing your band/style/skills/setup it's hard to make suggestions, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Ozy has made some very useful points. Here's my two cents...
The sound of the room, the PA, the monitors, DI's, mics, cables, stage placement, all make a difference to all instruments. The other musicians will also sound different, so they will compensate by playing louder/softer/otherwise. But the most important factor is probably: playing for a live audience is different to a soundcheck or rehearsal or at home in your studio. I tend to compensate during the soundcheck, because bands will almost always play louder when the gig starts, and get even louder during the gig as adrenaline levels rise and hearing adjusts.
So the place to figure out what needs changing isn't your home studio or rehearsal space, but a live session. Kind of tricky if you're on stage...
The first thing I would check is your monitoring setup: can you hear yourself and other instruments clearly on stage? Are you using in-ears or wedges? Do you have your own monitor & mix? Is what you hear on stage similar to the house sound? If you can't hear properly, you won't be able to judge your relative or subjective volume. Are you or other members of the band using earplugs? That can have a huge (mostly negative) influence!
Second, ask the engineer (or a knowledgable friend) to make a note of the passages where he makes "corrections" to your channel, e.g. "song 3 bridge" or "song 5 piano intro". Make a setlist for him which lists each song & section, so he can just +++ or --- where he makes major changes.
Or set up a video camera so you can clearly see the changes he makes to your channel. Plug a room mic into the FOH desk, and plug the camera's left and right audio inputs into the direct outs of the keys & room mic channels. Record the gig and compare the levels and subjective "presence" of your keys. The keys channel will give you an indication of what you are sending to FOH, and the room mic will pick up how that sounds in relation to other instruments after the engineer has adjusted your level. Don't substitute the room mic for a tape send unless you are playing in a large venue where the stage sound doesn't influence the house sound. Remember, this recording isn't supposed to sound great, it's for analytical purposes.
If you happen to use a digital desk you can probably record the entire mix using automation instead of a camera. Make sure you have some way of syncing the two.
Third, check your combi's using mono amplification. Most PA's will be driven mono or very narrow stereo - wide stereo doesn't work for audience members who are not in the center of the venue. Many engineers will leave both your stereo channels panned middle, effectively summing both channels to a single mono channel. If your combi's are designed for stereo there may be amplitude differences or even phase cancellation when summed at FOH.
As for compression: a little bit (e.g. 1:1.6 or 1:2) with appropriate parameters (threshold, attack, sustain and knee) should not damage your dynamics, but should enhance the soft passages. Remember, compression is not meant to make loud passages softer. That's a limiter. It's meant to make soft passages louder. It can even enhance your dynamics! Also, you know the adjustable velocity curve of the M3 is in fact a form of compression...?
Finally, a sound engineers opinion is only one opinion. Perhaps he just doesn't like your playing, or the arrangement, or the band, or keys in general. He may have damaged high frequency hearing. Or maybe he's too chicken to ask the guitar player to turn down his amp and takes it out on you...
Cheers, - Jon -
Keys: M50, PA50, JV1010, MT32, Hohner melodica. Sax: Jupiter alto, AKAI EWI. Guitar: Ibanez AEG10. Mix: MH-3, DDX3216, Helixboard 18FW. DAW: Cubase 5.
App & Web developer @ <a href="http://www.webbsites.nl" target="_blank">webbsiites</a>.
Sound engineer @ <a href="http://www.ekko.nl" target="_blank">ekko</a>.
App & Web developer @ <a href="http://www.webbsites.nl" target="_blank">webbsiites</a>.
Sound engineer @ <a href="http://www.ekko.nl" target="_blank">ekko</a>.
-
ozy
I throw another cent in.
Go to the FOH thru a keyboard mixer you can easily handle from your performance stand (I've got mine just behind my back).
This will give you some leverage without editing patches. You can get a bit more low punch, a bit more hi sparkle, or less,
so that you can adapt your sound to the venue, before the soundman checks the volumes.
It's easier than editing patches on the fly.
I use that a lot for the VL synths, which have excellent definition but sometimes are a bit "thin".
Instead of waging a volume tug-of-war, I just give them some bass boost from the mixer's eq.
It depends on how comples is your setup, but of course a modicum of live outboard can help as well (compressor, exciter). It should be located at your stand, under the mixer, and YOU should handle it.
The idea is that YOU are your better sound engineer.
We are keyboardists, for gossake, not drummers! We are articulate, knowledgeable, we spend hours checking sounds, we chatter on forums about sound definition and D/A converters! Who is to think about what frequencies and amplitudes we release: a guy who chose to be a sound engineer because the local hardware shop wouldn't hire him when he dropped out of hi school? Somebody who during thw summer break would work at a Virgin store because McDonald wouldn't entrust him with mixing a salad?!? 
A guy who "is really a guitar player in an experimental band, play my own music, can't read or write it but I'm a natural, I can't find many gigs because it's too hard to understand for you morons, so I gotta earn a living as a sound engineer (buy the way, I have a computer and I thing I'll go into synths as well )"? 
The better the sound you give the FOH, the less the guy meddles in timbre and the more he focuses on volume, reverb, etc, the better.
Go to the FOH thru a keyboard mixer you can easily handle from your performance stand (I've got mine just behind my back).
This will give you some leverage without editing patches. You can get a bit more low punch, a bit more hi sparkle, or less,
so that you can adapt your sound to the venue, before the soundman checks the volumes.
It's easier than editing patches on the fly.
I use that a lot for the VL synths, which have excellent definition but sometimes are a bit "thin".
Instead of waging a volume tug-of-war, I just give them some bass boost from the mixer's eq.
It depends on how comples is your setup, but of course a modicum of live outboard can help as well (compressor, exciter). It should be located at your stand, under the mixer, and YOU should handle it.
The idea is that YOU are your better sound engineer.
We are keyboardists, for gossake, not drummers! We are articulate, knowledgeable, we spend hours checking sounds, we chatter on forums about sound definition and D/A converters! Who is to think about what frequencies and amplitudes we release: a guy who chose to be a sound engineer because the local hardware shop wouldn't hire him when he dropped out of hi school?
Somebody who during thw summer break would work at a Virgin store because McDonald wouldn't entrust him with mixing a salad?!? A guy who "is really a guitar player in an experimental band, play my own music, can't read or write it but I'm a natural, I can't find many gigs because it's too hard to understand for you morons, so I gotta earn a living as a sound engineer (buy the way, I have a computer and I thing I'll go into synths as well )"? The better the sound you give the FOH, the less the guy meddles in timbre and the more he focuses on volume, reverb, etc, the better.
Oh dear, us sound engineers have a bad rep!
I'm sure there are crap engineers out there, but trust me, we are not all like that. I take pride in my work, and I want to make the band sound as good I/they can. I consider myself part of the band, even if it just for one night.
I'm sure there are crap engineers out there, but trust me, we are not all like that. I take pride in my work, and I want to make the band sound as good I/they can. I consider myself part of the band, even if it just for one night.
Keys: M50, PA50, JV1010, MT32, Hohner melodica. Sax: Jupiter alto, AKAI EWI. Guitar: Ibanez AEG10. Mix: MH-3, DDX3216, Helixboard 18FW. DAW: Cubase 5.
App & Web developer @ <a href="http://www.webbsites.nl" target="_blank">webbsiites</a>.
Sound engineer @ <a href="http://www.ekko.nl" target="_blank">ekko</a>.
App & Web developer @ <a href="http://www.webbsites.nl" target="_blank">webbsiites</a>.
Sound engineer @ <a href="http://www.ekko.nl" target="_blank">ekko</a>.
-
ozy
I hope I had included enough cheerful emoticons, to show I was pulling the present engineers' leg!Jonno wrote:Oh dear, us sound engineers have a bad rep! ;-)I'm sure there are crap engineers out there, but trust me, we are not all like that. I take pride in my work, and I want to make the band sound as good I/they can. I consider myself part of the band, even if it just for one night.
Of course you'll find egregious sound engineers. Some of them will know more about music than you could figure.
Some of them will help you by listening to your sound with an "objective ear", giving you feedback and help keeping you away from mannerism.
But obviously not every night you'll meet Teo Macero sitting behind the FOH console.
As for the sound engineer being "part of the band". Of course, of course he is...
... like the bass player / wannabe composer / wannabe keyboardist,
... the drummer,
... the guitarist' girlfriend / wannabe singer / currently tambourine player (tried the real thing, but couldn't keep the time, so she's moving to a VST tambourine, thinking of buying a 7000 us$ Tyros and just start the "tamborine" sequence...)
They all have a reason to exist.
They must have.
No, really.