Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Taylor Phillips]

A few days ago I attended a civic orchestra concert here in Jacksonville where they performed Saint-Saëns' Symphony No. 3 - the "organ symphony" - at the Episcopal cathedral here.  It was pretty neat to hear an entirely acoustic ensemble play something so darn loud!  Especially the first note of the finale which consists of a very loud chord on the organ, the intention of which is to deliberately startle the audience.  I and many other classical music fans there new it was going to happen, but it still made pretty much everyone jump.

Anyway, it got me thinking about how people run sound, and I think a lot of mistakes we make come down to not understanding some of the natural characteristics of acoustic instruments that might end up in the ensembles we work with.  Acoustic vs electric drums is something that gets talked about a lot, but it can be really surprising how loud something like a cello can get.  A 50 piece orchestra can hold it's own in a decent sized space without any help - add a 60 rank pipe organ to the mix and you can literally shake the building. 

There's plenty of reason to control sound on stage, but sometimes the best thing to do is to take advantage of it instead of diminish it.  Being familiar with large-scale acoustic performances is something I think might be able to help some to know when to do what.  So, my "must-do" for sound techs would be to attend some unreinforced orchestra concerts.  What other things can you think of that sound techs must do to be their best?

[Tim McCulloch]

The most important tool a sound mixing person can own is a large and varied record collection.  - Andy Peters

[Art Welter]

So, my "must-do" for sound techs would be to attend some unreinforced orchestra concerts.  What other things can you think of that sound techs must do to be their best?

Walk the room while making musical references between the acoustic instruments- technically they all fall at 6 dB per doubling of distance, but in room, that never happens, due to room modes and the "Q" (dispersion vs. frequency) of the source.

Each acoustic instrument originates from a single virtual point source in the far field, so there is no "comb filtering" from an un-reinforced orchestra or vocal ensemble. Any differences heard while walking the room are more easy to "hear" and identify as room or instrument affects than if they were amplified/duplicated through a sound system.

When a multiple point reinforcement (PA) system is employed (that would include any system, as the original point source is "source 1"), the original point source is "smeared" by the reinforcement source, and then the choice surrounds what to do to achieve the most uniform representation across the widest audience spectrum using (or not using) the reinforcement system.

And that choice, and the tools used to achieve the choice, are completely useless if a "sound tech" has not done miles of walking to determine "what sounds real" with real instruments and voices in real spaces.

OK, bring on the alternate realities, smoke 'em if you got them ;^)

Art

[Jonathan Johnson]

One thing that is easily forgotten (if it is understood in the first place) is how acoustic instruments can reinforce each other in ways that electronic instruments cannot.

As the sound from one instrument falls on another, the second instrument tends to vibrate complementary, in phase with the original instrument. The effect is that they tend to reinforce each other. This is much like how electrical generators on the power grid "phase lock" with each other to provide a uniform, additive sine wave.

The output of an electronic instrument (whether a feed into a mixer or the output of a dedicated loudspeaker) simply cannot and will not operate complementary to other sound sources, as the only input that it responds to is the internal electronics of the instrument itself. In a worst-case scenario, two electronic instruments oscillating a pure sine wave but 180 degrees out of phase (not to be confused with polarity) will cancel each other. In reality, this "pure" scenario rarely happens but, even so, the summation of electronic (even if the source is originally acoustic) can result in non-complementary cancellations that contribute to harshness of the final audio.

(It should be noted that when an electronic and acoustic instrument are coupled acoustically, the electronic instrument will override and control the sympathetic vibration of the acoustic instrument.)

Maybe this is partly why purely acoustic, unreinforced sets often seem to sound better than electronic mixes or even amplified acoustic sets. There is less harsh intermodulation distortion in a purely acoustic realm.

* * * * *

A while back I attended a concert by the Concordia College Choir at a church in Portland, Oregon.

Even though the performance was entirely vocal (no instruments or amplification), the choir achieved bass notes that I would normally associate with very long organ pipes. It was quite impressive.

[Scott Helmke]

The most important tool a sound mixing person can own is a large and varied record collection.  - Andy Peters

+1.  Having heard the music before is key to being able to present it properly. 

I actually do have a copy of #3. It's got some serious low frequency content, even on vinyl.

[Chris Hindle]

The most important tool a sound mixing person can own is a large and varied record collection.  - Andy Peters

Absolutely agreed.
And don't forget to LISTEN.
Don't be shy to ask "the group" for a demo or release so you can get an idea how they want to be presented.
Chris.

[Scott Holtzman]

+1.  Having heard the music before is key to being able to present it properly. 

I actually do have a copy of #3. It's got some serious low frequency content, even on vinyl.

I would like to explore your impression that vinyl has limited LF response?

It's main limitation is in dynamic range.

LF can be limited in low end turntables by unsupressed mechanical rumble.

[Randy Pence]

Cut off your pony tail

[Art Nadelman]

Volume?  Let me tell you about volume.  As a teenager, I was a professional woodwind musician in a major symphony orchestra who sat in front of the trumpets and trombones.  I'm surprised that I can still hear anything out of either of my ears.

But what I can tell you about volume is the difference between a major professional orchestra and an amateur or regional orchestra.  The major orchestra plays with dynamics, allowing room for 1 clarinet player, or 1 oboe player to cut through the mix to be heard in a soft, subtle way.

It's also a difference between major touring acts and bar bands or wannabes.

[Scott Helmke]

I would like to explore your impression that vinyl has limited LF response?

It's main limitation is in dynamic range.

LF can be limited in low end turntables by unsupressed mechanical rumble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

There's a significant mechanical limitation on low frequency reproduction with vinyl records. The RIAA curve is used to reduce the lows physically recorded on a record, and then an opposite curve is applied on playback to restore those lows. But there are still tradeoffs with respect to how loud the record can be and how much time can be recorded.  Also it's typically for stereo imaging at low frequencies to be narrowed, again because of the physical limitations of the media and the playback devices*.

The "Organ" symphony is relatively short by symphony standards, so it wouldn't have been hard for the mastering engineer to cut a better low frequency response.

*I've got a record titled "Ramsey Lewis, The Piano Player" where the mix engineer panned the upright bass significantly to the right, I would guess to make the piano the centerpiece of the audio image. That upright bass would probably sound much better if there had been any content below 100Hz! As it is I really can't listen to the record, regardless of the brilliant musicianship displayed.

[ProSoundWeb Community]