What file format is best for Live Performances? Please read!

P

pistachio

New member
I have performed a few times with my girlfriend at clubs around Providence, RI using an Ipod with 320 kbps .mp3 files playing my pre-recorded backing tracks, with me playing guitar and singing over the tracks, but I've had a lot of difficulties with the Ipod both times.

For example, the mp3s appear to be too loud and peak, or just too stale on the speakers at the venue. I also want to mention that the idiot sound people at both of these places didn't let me have a real sound check before I went on stage so I couldn't adjust the volume of the Ipod until it was too late. We ended up doing the best we could both times and had a lot of fun. BUT, we have two more performances coming up next month and I just want them both to go off as well as possible, so my major questions are:

1. What is the best format for playing backing tracks at a live performance? I have been saving my instrumental tracks in Lossless .WMA format (which I can play back on my Zune) after a sound guy told me that my files sound too compressed.

2. Is Lossless .WMA superior to 320 kbps .Mp3, when it comes to live playback?

3. If anyone has experience with live tracks in concerts and general live performing, can you tell me what to tell my sound engineer to make my performance better? I'm wondering if the Zune should be put through a mixer? Will it be too quiet?


I really only understand digital recording right now, but I want to get better at performing. Unfortunately, I need to use my own tracks behind me until I can find a talented group of people to work with.

I included an instrumental of a song that we will be singing over next month. It has a lot of reverb, but that is the sound I am going for. I'm hoping someone with really good monitors can tell me what they think of the difference between the MP3 and WMA version of the same song.



- pistachio =]

EDIT: On page 2 I posted a link to the WMA file!
 
Last edited:
These are just my opinions. I've played for years in Hawaii, mostly at hotels and lots of that has been in duos, me on keys, with a pretty singer and tracks, you know the routine.

I don't like mp3's, they sound terrible to me. My ear rejected them right from the start. I hear something in the sound I absolutely hate.

I'm a believer that MIDI modules sound vastly better than anything else. They sound live because they are. I don't like any of the soft synths I've heard yet.

As far as digital recording, AIF's or WAV's beat the crap out of mp3's any day. They don't take up much room so I don't know why you'd consider anything that would be inferior just to save space.

I listened to your 2 song versions on my Yamaha NS-10m's. Now being honest, the playing didn't sound ready for prime time. If you're doing pads they need the top rolled off way more and need to be really, really subtle. They sounded too close to auto horns. It sounds like you need better synth sounds to me. With that in the song, the difference between the two formats doesn't even come into play.

So I hear the problem being in the initial playing/recording, not in the playback format. For starters, I'd try to get some better sound for the main synth pad that sounds nicer. Forget any reverb on the bass or any lower sounds, the room will do that and your bottom end is kinda muddy. Maybe add something really light like hihat or shaker doing 1/4 notes, super soft almost buried.
 
pistachio said:
I have performed a few times with my girlfriend at clubs
Click to expand...
HEY!!! Keep it clean, this is a music forum. (At least link to pistures ;) :D)
pistachio said:
What is the best format for playing backing tracks at a live performance? I have been saving my instrumental tracks in Lossless .WMA format (which I can play back on my Zune) after a sound guy told me that my files sound too compressed.
Click to expand...
Seriously...
It makes no difference what format you use; for that kind of use you're not going to hear any difference.

When that sound guy said "too compressed", he was probably taking about the dynamic range of the music recording itself, which has nothing to do with data file compression of the type you're talking about when you're talking lossy/loseless compression. They are two entirely different animals from two different planets and have nothing to do with each other.

And he probably had a point. If you compressed those backing tracks to sound like commercial recording levels, that will make them sound very artificial and hard to mix as backing tracks. Keep them natural-sounding and use any loudness compression sparingly, and they'll probably fit with your live performance a bit better, whether they are WAV, WMA, AIFF, MP3, SWA, or any other file format.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
... It makes no difference what format you use; for that kind of use you're not going to hear any difference....
Click to expand...

I've been using tracks on stage for about 25 years and I know that that's simply not true. I've proved it over and over again on thousands of gigs and it matters way more than people think.
 
dintymoore said:
I've been using tracks on stage for about 25 years and I know that that's simply not true. I've proved it over and over again on thousands of gigs and it matters way more than people think.
Click to expand...
ditto ditto.
I use a keyboard for my backing tracks (just drums and bass) and so, don't use any kinda file at all .... it's simply a keyboard in the PA.
I've tried MP3 players but they bite to my ears. Even at 320 ....... if I were gonna use recorded tracks I'd definitely go with wave files.
But I prefer a keyboard for a lotta reasons ..... I have loops so I can run songs longer or shorter .... I can change keys if someone wants to sit-in and needs a different key ..... a bunch of other things I can do that you can't do with an MP3 player ... even if you set it up for wave files.
 
dintymoore said:
I've been using tracks on stage for about 25 years and I know that that's simply not true. I've proved it over and over again on thousands of gigs and it matters way more than people think.
Click to expand...
Opinion noted and allowed. Perhaps that's your experience and impression, and that's fine. But after also playing tracks to live crowds and doing live sound mixing for some 30 years myself with practically every format from live mics to vinyl to open reel to CDs to MP3s, I just don't see it mattering.

99.5% of people outside of audio engineers and audiophiliacs can't tell whether they're listening to a 192k MP3 or a WAV file when you play it for them on a THX system in a treated room, let alone ear buds. And half the times the engineers and audiophiliacs get it wrong. And any difference that Joe and Sally Clubber might pick out if they tried - and they usually need to try in order to catch it - they practically 100% of the time don't give a shit about. Compound that with the fact that here we're talking about playing *backing tracks* to a live act over a stinkin' club PA to an inebriated audience, and in my experience it's not going to make a whit of difference.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Opinion noted and allowed. Perhaps that's your experience and impression, and that's fine. But after also playing tracks to live crowds and doing live sound mixing for some 30 years myself with practically every format from live mics to vinyl to open reel to CDs to MP3s, I just don't see it mattering.

99.5% of people outside of audio engineers and audiophiliacs can't tell whether they're listening to a 192k MP3 or a WAV file when you play it for them on a THX system in a treated room, let alone ear buds. And half the times the engineers and audiophiliacs get it wrong. And any difference that Joe and Sally Clubber might pick out if they tried - and they usually need to try in order to catch it - they practically 100% of the time don't give a shit about. Compound that with the fact that here we're talking about playing *backing tracks* to a live act over a stinkin' club PA to an inebriated audience, and in my experience it's not going to make a whit of difference.

G.
Click to expand...
It makes a HUGE difference if it matters to the player.
I can't play as well if my sound is shit.

You points about the audience are well founded. They mostly wouldn't even know if you were playing in a different key than your tracks ( and I've proven that just for fun).
But the majority of what I use is for me and not the audience. They wouldn't care at all, not even a little bit, whether I got an adequate sound from a modeler or a great sound from my Mark V. So why haul a 65lb amp around?
Because I care and it helps me reach a bit further in my playing.
Plus, the occasional player that comes in can tell and I'd prefer my rep to be one of always having great sound.
 
FWIW, my experience is in line with Glen's. I haven't done a controlled test in a while, but the last time I tried maybe 6 or 8 years ago, 258kbps with the lame.dll codec was the point where I couldn't consistently do better than 50/50 distinguishing between .wav and .mp3 on actual recorded music.

Keep in mind, though, that there are SO many variations in what you're referring to when you say "mp3" that I could very well be right, AND grimtraveller could be just as correct in his experience even ignoring personal ability to differentiate. If you've been working with 128kbps or, god forbid, something even smaller like 96kbps, then sure, I'd be shocked if it DIDN'T sound bad through even an average PA. Also, choice of codec makes a difference here too. It's just, given a good codec and a high-fidelity mp3, I'd be really surprised if you could hear a significant difference through your typical club PA.

Pistachio - you hint at this yourself, but the output level on your mp3 player may be a factor too. In general I'd say start with it at 50% or so and adjust as needed, to leave you plenty of room at input, and if possible boost at the mixer and not from the player.
 
I want to remind everyone that I did include an mp3 and lossless Wma file of a song I want to perform live in the first post of this thread. This song does have a good dynamic range and has almost no compression on it at all, but I'm not really seeing anyone talk about the actual song itself.

What could I do to that song to have it sound better when I play live? (Because it does matter to me a lot).

Thanks so much for all the input so far, but I would still like to know what one of you would do if you were forced to perform the song I posted in this thread? If it were up to you, would you go out with a backing track like that?
 
Lt. Bob said:
It makes a HUGE difference if it matters to the player.
I can't play as well if my sound is shit.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, it's funny that that was your reply, Bob; while I was offline and out running some errands, I was thinking to myself that I'd allow/agree the point that if it helps the player to play better by them feeling better about what they hear, than I could see that as a valid point :p. I'm glad we're on the same page even when we're not both on line :D.

But other than that, I'd have to think that while, yes, there is a fine difference in quality between WAV and MP3, that if one's backing tracks actually sound noticeably bad to anybody who hasn't had the benefit of A/B comparison, unless there's a bug in their MP3 encoder, there's probably a problem with their track other than the file format itself.

@pistachio: I haven't had a chance to check out your file(s) yet, I'm away from my listening station at the moment. I'll check them out when I get a chance a little later. In the meantime, I'm sure others will chime in with useful help.

G.
 
pistachio said:
I want to remind everyone that I did include an mp3 and lossless Wma file of a song I want to perform live in the first post of this thread. This song does have a good dynamic range and has almost no compression on it at all, but I'm not really seeing anyone talk about the actual song itself.
Click to expand...
I guess you missed this:
dintymoore said:
I listened to your 2 song versions on my Yamaha NS-10m's. Now being honest, the playing didn't sound ready for prime time. If you're doing pads they need the top rolled off way more and need to be really, really subtle. They sounded too close to auto horns. It sounds like you need better synth sounds to me. With that in the song, the difference between the two formats doesn't even come into play.

So I hear the problem being in the initial playing/recording, not in the playback format. For starters, I'd try to get some better sound for the main synth pad that sounds nicer. Forget any reverb on the bass or any lower sounds, the room will do that and your bottom end is kinda muddy. Maybe add something really light like hihat or shaker doing 1/4 notes, super soft almost buried.
Click to expand...

Also, keep in mind what Glen said. When the sound engineer told you your tunes were too "compressed", it probably had nothing to do with the file format and everything to do with your mixing/mastering.
 
RAMI said:
I guess you missed this:


Also, keep in mind what Glen said. When the sound engineer told you your tunes were too "compressed", it probably had nothing to do with the file format and everything to do with your mixing/mastering.
Click to expand...

Well, when you say sound engineer, think "guy who does this on the weekend's to support his drinking habit and clearly doesn't wash his hair or know what planet he is on".

Rami, did you listen to the files I uploaded? They are not overly compressed like you are suggesting.
 
pistachio said:
I want to remind everyone that I did include an mp3 and lossless Wma file of a song I want to perform live in the first post of this thread. This song does have a good dynamic range and has almost no compression on it at all, but I'm not really seeing anyone talk about the actual song itself.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm typing this from my work computer, which makes it a little tough to listen to your files, seeing as I, you know, don't have speakers.

I, however, was more than happy to offer a few suggestions on your stated question, which wasn't "listen to my clips!" but rather "what's the best format to use live," with an implicit "is using a mp3 hurting my sound?" undercurrent.
 
I wrote the whole post so you would read the whole thing, not just the subject. Didn't mean to offend you or anything.

But I don't want to get off track here with other stuff.
 
Since I got the mic:

For whatever reason I've found that a computer playing a MIDI module like the Roland SC-8850 I use sounds way better than any recorded format. I don't really understand it because the Roland is largely old samples that aren't really the greatest, but the presence is better.

I'd be willing to go as far as saying you could take any old crap SoundCanvas from 1992 (like I sold for $25) and it will sound better on stage than any WAV, AIF or mp3. It sounds rounder, the bass is better and the treble less disgusting.

The chick singers I work with used to bring their iPods and I'd play one of my MIDI tracks and then they'd play an iPod track and they'd say "how come mine sounds like shit compared to yours?". And I'd tell them it's because theirs was a recording of the real thing and mine was real (fake) synthesizers.

So IMO you're way better off using MIDI tracks on stage with a module or keyboard than recording the song in any format. It sounds way better - more pure and rounded, easier on the ears, plus you can tweak it easier so you don't live with mistakes forever! :rolleyes:

Also: the playback speakers are ultra crucial! If there's any way you can have your tracks come out a separate system than your vocals it really helps. It helps to have a speaker system with a mid speaker, and I give up if you're playing it back through speakers that have peizo horns! The quality of the horns really matters - that's where all the pretty sound comes from (if "pretty" is allowed in describing a sound!). :)
 
Alright, stash, I gave the MP3 a listen and a little bit of the WMA (only part of it downloaded for me, but enough to compare the two.)

While in both formats the track sound a bit midrangey, that's not my main question with it:

I'm going to sound like a broken record here because I just got through talking about this in another thread, but my main concern is that I can't hear any definitive space for your live vocals. Granted, I have not heard or seen the vocal arrangement, so I can't say for sure, but the density/volume of the whole arrangement sounds pretty constant...until about 1:03, that is, when it all gets louder.

I had expected to hear something along the lines of an few bars of intro, then either a bit of a decline in volume or lightening up of the arrangement to make room for vocal verses, with maybe some swells here or there for fills/transitions/etc. But instead it's all fairly constant in energy and volume (except for that increase halfway through).

If my speculation is correct, that might very well be what the FOH guy was saying about it all sounding too compressed; there's no real dynamics in the instrumentals over time to make room for the vocals, forcing you and your g/f not only to sing over the top of everything - especially difficult if they have the playback volume for the tracks set too loud - but also then leaving some "holes" in the volume of the backing track when your vocals are at rest.

If this is indeed an issue, the file format itself has nothing to do with it, rather it's a matter of mixing of the instrument tracks themselves.

G.
 
To get back to the question...

1. Whatever you're most comfortable with

2. No. "when it comes to live playback" your audience won't be able to tell the difference.

3. Tell him you need a sound check. I found that using my laptop I got better results than when I used an mp3 player and maybe thats because the engineer is more likely to treat the laptop as a proper instrument and pay it more attention. Or maybe its psychological as I suspect most of the issues here are!
 
A From the Heart Message

A big part of the rotten place the music industry is in now is because of the "don't give a fuck" attitude so prevalent today.

It does matter if it sounds great or just good. The audience isn't a bunch of drunks that don't notice. It matters!

I would encourage everyone to go the other way - make everything the very best it can be, aim to be the Best in the World at whatever the fuck it is you're doing.

Why not? You only go this way once. :)
 
Of like heart

Dinty,

I share your sympathies and, as you probably know from my general posts over the years, my heart beats to the same drum as yours in this matter. I hate the lazy, "don't give a flying eff at a rolling doughnut" attitude that is so prevalent these days. But sometimes a difference is a distinction without difference.

Two questions for you:

You've listened to both his MP3 and his WAV. Do you really think that *anyone*, drunk or sober, tin eared or audiophile, could reliably and in reality tell with any better than 50-50 chance success which one he used in his live performance?

Do you think that the file format issue even begins to address the problems he has which generated this thread to begin with? You even said yourself that given the shape of his mix that the format didn't matter.

Now, I won't argue against using WAVs over MP3s, there certainly is no harm done in doing so other than the size of the files, but file size is probably not an issue in this case. Go ahead and use WAVs for this stuff, sure. But I wouldn't want to exacerbate the sorry state of today's expertise in the music industry by causing folks to think that in situations like this that changing from MP3 to WAV is really going to matter or is anything they really should lose any sleep over.

Now, if it matters to the performer, like Bob said, that's a different issue. But that's more of a psychological difference for the performer who has already peeked behind the curtain than it is an actual audiological difference that has any effect on anyone else.

G.
 
My impression based on the track (I only listened to the mp3 version because I think that in a noisy bar-type situation, compression really isn't going to hurt much.) is that your problem is probably the tracks themselves, not the encoding.

If it's just vocals and a guitar over that pre-recorded track, I feel like you'll end up with a pretty boring show. The music will be very sterile and canned, and I think the audience will feel that too. They'll see you up there with a guitar and hear these soothing string sections, and they'll know that it's pre-recorded and won't get into it.

That being said, I'd go ahead and use WAVs. Space really isn't an issue with modern mp3 players. It may or may not make a perceptible difference, but it won't hurt anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top