ProSoundWeb Community
Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => LAB: The Classic Live Audio Board => Topic started by: Derrick McDonald on May 03, 2014, 01:40:48 PM
-
Hey all,
I've got a couple of these DI's that I'm trying out this summer, used one recently and liked it. For those of you who are in ear pro's....
Guitar player liked that he had a consistent tone (no mic moving around, etc.) and could consistently hear his notes. Would you pan the DI to their dominant side on stage and add a condenser to their weak side (hard panned) to create more room in the center for vocals?
If so, would the inherent delay help add to the space much like multing a mono source and adding 33ms of delay in the studio OR is it better to time align them for a fuller sound?
Amps and Cabs are Mesa Dual Rect's, tone is full on distorted rock rhythm guitar, IEM are sennheiser ew300 G2's with UE7's (main vocal/guitar has UE11's), Main Vocal Mic is Sennheiser 2000 with Tele kk205 capsule (backups are hardwired e935), stage size range from large outdoor festival stage to medium size festival stage, not using ambience mics.
Artist prefers to not use audience mics, would a touch of a short reverb help add a little extra space around the guitar?
Thanks
-
As a guitarist myself I can say I would probably cringe at the DI sound of any guitar. I suppose with a good speaker emulator I could be convinced? The whole ambiance thing doesn't work too well on large stages if only using a pair of ambient mics. Yes it adds ambiance, but there is usually a time delay that can be too distant. You will notice that on many large stages where IEM's are used there are usually ambient mics at each musicians position. These mics can then be added into each mix as needed.
That being said if he is not a fan of ambient mics anyway, adding a small amount of verb can help add feel? Too much though and notes can get lost. To me getting a good DI sound from the preamp out of a guitar amp is just not worth the effort. However if he is happy with it, then adding a small amount of verb should help add some depth. A mono ear mix will tend to have a dry and less than stellar sound to it though. Panning things around would be ideal if you have stereo ears. A good IEM mix should sound pretty much like your favorite band through headphones. It takes a bit of work though as with wireless you don't always have a lot of dynamic range to work with. one hot signal is all it takes to compress the mix down. That as the case that also means that you need to be able to feed a stereo verb to the mix. This may not always be the case at every gig?
-
You will notice that on many large stages where IEM's are used there are usually ambient mics at each musicians position. These mics can then be added into each mix as needed.
I spend my life on large stages and have literally never actually seen this. I hear it talked about on forums, but have yet to see it used in real life.
Partly I think its because it depends on what you want from ambience. If you want crowd, downstage mics work great. If you want the sound of the musos around you, then not so much. However, I find that adding appropriate reverb to stage sources and having full mixes in the IEMs is a much better way to achieve this than simply putting lots more noise into the ears via local ambience mics.
Anyway, on the guitar thing, I generally avoid DIs and go for well secured mics that don't move. The amp/speaker combo is a big part of the sound. Taping a square on the amp grill works wonders for getting the right positioning every time.
Generally I give musicians a flat EQ on their instruments on the basis that they need to be aware of what they really sound like, without polish. That way they spend more time working on their sounds to perfect them, rather than relying on the engineers to 'fix' it. Everyone I work with appreciates this.
-
When I say large stages I'm talking stadium and A national acts. It is costly and takes more time to set up multiple ambient mic stations. I have seen it done with Metallica and Led Zeppelin in a couple of different occasions. I think I even saw it done once on a Rush show?
It usually involves placing ambient mics near the drums, guitar and bass with another couple that face the audience near the vocal wedges. The idea of simply taking a couple of mics and pointing them at the crowd can make for a rather large yet indistinct overall sound. This doesn't factor in delay either........ The several ambient mics can be used to add flavor to each mix in any combination. Want more drums ambiance, cool, simply add that to the guitarists mix.
I like the approach you ( Chris ) mention about using a flat EQ. I too also like using little or no EQ. I like to get it right from the source. If I have to move the mic several times to get it right I will. No point in trying to fix it and still not have it be right. I am also a panamaniac........ Some engineers look at me like I'm crazy, but yes I will pan the Hi-Hat to the side a few degree's to give it a place in the mix. I will pan most everything one direction or another ( obviously some things stay in the middle ). When I get the why and what on earth for's, my answer is this:
Imagine each band member as a piece of paper. Now realize we can only mix in 2 dimensions. There is a third, but I will get to that later. Volume is up and down ( softer in or more on top of the mix ) and panning is left and right. If you don't pan anything you can only differentiate the band members by volume, which is the equivalent of stacking all the pieces of paper one atop the other. The vocals on top and rhythm instruments on the bottom. Nothing really pops out. Now lets do the same thing but pan things around. Now you have more space being used and you can actually see more of the instruments popping out from behind another. Where there is less paper it's more transparent and where more instruments share the same space the less transparent and more opaque that section of the mix becomes. So panning things around a bit can open up space and make things more apparent in a mix even with similar volume levels. The only thing is getting over the idea that each individual channel may be panned left or right a bit. So how about that third dimension. That would be color. Color is the sonic content of each instrument and each instrument needs to have a different color in order to stand out from each other. Going back to mixing with everything panned right up the middle the only other way to differentiate the instruments aside from volume would be their color. Now imagine if you pan things left and right a little! It gets that much easier. When you get things right you should have a mix that takes very little volume to create the needed distinctions between instruments and have a desirable mix that feels natural and inspiring.
-
Do you blend on guitar mics and hard pan like some do for a FOH mix?
-
At the level I'm providing for I rarely if ever have to use more than 1 mic per amp. I would not be against blending and panning, but Again at the level I provide for I would most likely be panning the guitar to the opposite side of the stage because of stage level. I usually laugh when I get a keyboardist that insists on stereo DI's. I will take the sends, but I usually end up panning hard one way and only partially the other. Again this is to make room for other instruments. Not much I do stays in the middle. Vocals, snare and perhaps acoustic guitar if it's the only one. Horns will also be spread across the field.
-
I usually laugh when I get a keyboardist that insists on stereo DI's.
Even at wedding band level, stereo keys are routine. Lots of conscious effort goes into factory and custom patches and full panning is designed-in. The artist and audience should hear them as written.
And never laugh at people trying to do their best...
-
Those jdi's are no regular di box
-
Even at wedding band level, stereo keys are routine. Lots of conscious effort goes into factory and custom patches and full panning is designed-in. The artist and audience should hear them as written.
Does your wedding band audience listen with headphones? I don't understand how I, as the soundman, can ensure that the audience hears the full stereo glory of the keyboard patches without giving each of them a headset. Now, the artist who wears stereo IEMs probably should get a stereo feed if the resources are available. I'm all for making them as happy as you can.
My experience with "stereo" keyboard players apparently doesn't match yours. It seems to me that most of these players like their stereo sounds when they play by themselves with headphones but don't have a concept of how their sounds integrate into a mix of an entire ensemble. Then when they get to the show they again fail to realize how various elements of their stereophonics fall apart in most concert applications. Remember OSM's rants about DZM?
And never laugh at people trying to do their best...
This is a powerful statement and I definitely agree with the sentiment. Respect is important. Of course the corollary is: How will they 'broaden their horizons' if they don't get feedback about their efforts? Ridicule seems cruel but it might provide the emotional charge that makes the education stick...
-
I don't understand how I, as the soundman, can ensure that the audience hears the full stereo glory of the keyboard patches
I have worked with various factory keyboard patch developers over the years. They are quite aware of how and where their products are used, and how different patches lay in a mix with other instruments and vocalists. Mono options may be satisfactory for a shoestring budget (not really pro forum material), but stereo is optimal. Appreciating and using stereo patches actually makes better end results easier.
Now, as a soundman, you understand...
-
I should have said I laugh internally. Not actually at them...... I'm certainly not rude. I'm all for stereo, but if it's not a B3 patch it's probably not going to make the world of difference. Now in the case where you have an ethereal pad sound that is the core of the bands sound, then I would surely opt for a stereo hard panned DI feed. Most bands are simply piano and B3 ish patches, but here is the real kicker and it will make sense why I laugh..........
If you take a B3 or any instrument for that matter and place it on a stage where the amp or monitor would be placed, where are you going to place that person in the mix in a live situation? I'm not going to place piano across the whole mix ( unless it's the KEY instrument....... Get it :) ) when he is sitting deep stage left. I will pan his stereo feed so that it is still stereo, but is biased towards the side of the stage he is placed. I mix so that if you close your eyes, you can point at the guy on the stage making the noise. In a studio mix the same rules apply except that you can only imagine the person playing in that space. In a live mix you have the stage sound and the PA sound. It would be somewhat ideal that the two align to some degree.
It's all application as far as I see it. But if I have two guitarists, an acoustic guitar and two keyboard players, I am panning those guys, I don't care what the patch is. There is not enough sonic space in the middle even if it's swirling mildly from left to right. In the studio where I can make things swirl in perfect sync with each other, then yeah, I would hard pan stereo. Remember I said I'm a panamaniac and love to mix and run things in stereo. If I'm more interested in a mono or bias panned stereo feed, then for me it means that I feel I can get a better, more distinct mix without it eating up space in the middle. I have yet to play with stereo widening FX for keys that could open the hole in the middle up more and make it more viable to hard pan in a busy mix situation. Could be worth exploring?
-
I'm all for stereo, but if it's not a B3 patch..
If I may clear this one up: Leslie's were/are never a stereo source. They are often enhanced/treated as such.
To "dumb down" true stereo key patches while inventing a unique one is counter-engineering.
-
true
-
If I may clear this one up: Leslie's were/are never a stereo source. They are often enhanced/treated as such.
To "dumb down" true stereo key patches while inventing a unique one is counter-engineering.
Hi Jim, I'm confused about a few things. I'm curious if you might expound on a few things you've said...
A) When someone says "Stereo B3" I think of the common practice of using 2 mics on a Leslie cabinet. Each mic is placed on opposite sides of the spinning horn and one mic is panned hard L, the other panned hard right. The result is a dramatic "stereo effect". Sometimes a third mic is used on the bass speaker and is usually panned up the middle. If this isn't "stereo" can you explain why? I'm wondering if I have a different definition than you do.
B) I'm having a hard time understanding how you do sound reinforcement for a room full of people (like at a wedding reception) and give every member of the audience a stereo experience. In most cases there is a large portion of the audience that is only "served" by one side of the PA. And this is especially true of the seated audience at a typical wedding reception where the stage is placed in the middle of the long wall, jutting out into the room. Is there something here I'm missing?
-
A stereo Rhodes patch sounds dramatically different than a mono one, even from behind the speakers. Try it. It was designed for that effect>
The "stereo B3" is a modern invention of questionable merit, considering HF mics that aren"t strictly L/R, but more like 90 degrees apart. Stereo-izing this source defeats rather than enhance the designed-in Doppler.
-
I have used sound modules to enhance the backline for over 20 years. Stereo patches, or what is being referred to as a stereo patch are seldom more than the same sound both left and right. The exception will be an instrument capable of emitting a stereo sound such as many types of keyboards, certain guitar effects, and a B3.
In the case of the B3 attempts are made within the patch to separate the upper and lower keyboard which results in a very unnatural sound. Other attempts with patches separate the upper horn and lower rotating drum. Not so bad by still very strange sounding.
The proper way to mic a B3/Leslie is to use a pair of mics properly spaced for the upper rotating horn, and a mic for the lower drum. Using the two upper mics does not double the Doppler effect but only allows the sound of the horn to be picked up long enough so that a quick pass in front of a single mic is eliminated. That allows the mic'ed horn to produce a more natural and open sound. No stereo allowed here, just proper micing of the cabinet.
-
Also note that the mics are NOT attached to the Leslie and that a black hood is applied to the drum eliminating the all to common whooshing sound as the drum rotates.
-
No stereo allowed here, just proper micing of the cabinet.
So Bob, I think you're saying that you mix the 2 upper mics together into a mono feed? I think there are some issues with the fact that some Leslie's (all?) have the upper spinner offset in the cabinet which would mean that there is a fixed amount of delay between those 2 mics unless you set one mic further off of the cabinet than the other.
Shure has an somewhat interesting blog on the topic. http://blog.shure.com/shure-notes/miking-the-legendary-leslie-tone-cabinet/
-
So, I used the JDX's on my last show. Alot of bite, see sm57 in the center of the cone. For FOH, I set up stereo mics for each rig hard panned with the DI driving the center if not a touch toward the musicians side of the stage. The di required a touch of delay to line up to the mics. I tried a trick that I think Andy Meyers used on Motley Crue and drove a bit of the di to the subs. When I wanted that effect, it added a real nice big tone to chunky guitars. Cool for a chorus. Worked great for the in ears too, I believe the ME used them for almost the same effect.
Sorry to derail the B3 discussion.
-
Ha! I was thinking same thing.
Are you saying the ME added sub to IEM mixes?
-
B) I'm having a hard time understanding how you do sound reinforcement for a room full of people (like at a wedding reception) and give every member of the audience a stereo experience. In most cases there is a large portion of the audience that is only "served" by one side of the PA. And this is especially true of the seated audience at a typical wedding reception where the stage is placed in the middle of the long wall, jutting out into the room. Is there something here I'm missing?
That is an argument that comes up a lot. Why mix in stereo when half the audience isn't even sitting in a spot where it matters? Because the other half is sitting in a spot where it matters, is my response. I have been to a few concerts and there is a definite difference between a stereo mix and a mono one. Yes a mono mix can sound clear and defined, open and dimensional, but not quite like a well mixed stereo show. The brain is smarter than that and can associate sounds to a space. So although the mix may be light on one side of a particular instrument, the brain ( and a smarter audience member ) should be able to get the idea that obviously the guitar is on the other side of the stage, so naturally is will be quieter.
I have been mixing more shows in mono lately by simply taking stereo away as an option. I simply put only one speaker up........