Micing a cab live

Now ...... once again ........ I think it's probably a great unit ...... but it will NOT pick up the sonic differences between different speakers themselves ..... only a mic will do that.

I don't mind having equipment discussions and even heated arguments over them ...... but don't toss out insults and then not be man enough to own up to them.

Talk equipment ........ I'm interested in your knowledge ....... I'm not interested in being insulted when I didn't give you a reason to do so.
And BTW, I'm being scrupuously polite here ..... try and do the same.

This. Additionally, it won't replicate the difference between a SM57, and i5, or a MD421, nor will it replicate the difference between and 35 and 45 degree off axis position, the difference between being 1.5 and 2cm from the edge of the cone, or the change in proximity effect from moving the mic back from 1.8 to 2.0 inches. You can try to fake this stuff with corrective EQ, but this will add some phase anomalies that would otherwise not be present and you're still not going to get it as cleanly as just using a mic would. It's a great unit, and if you dig the sound it produces then it's an awesome way to get there, but it's one potential option out of many, not a magic bullet answer for everybody.

Also, I get along with damned near everybody here, and was perfectly agreeable towards you right up until you started leaving me negative rep. I've been pretty respectful to you, and I'd appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy.
 
I changed my mic placements last night and it made a huge difference in tone quality. Previously I was leaving a bit of space between the mic and the cab. reason being, I felt as though my mixes were too bass heavy and several instruments were vying for the same space. So naturally I thought more space would equate to less bass.

So last night I said screw that because I was not satisfied with the results. I lined my mics right at the edge of the speaker, pointing towards the center at an angle parallel with the angle of the cone. The results were much better. The tones are much throatier. An for whatever reason the blend has also improved (but there were other factors there, we used 2 guitarists instead of 3, and I lowered the gain on several of my Pres having decided I didn't need max input volume on every track all the time).
 
drew

And, again, all you're doing is questioning my knowledge and insinuating I'm stupid and argumentative.

like i said, once you have one in hand, and have used it and have experience with it, then we can talk on an even playing field.
meanwhile, until then, perhaps you shouldn't push your opinions so hard.
there's no point in arguing with someone about something you really don't know about first hand, is there?



lt bob

That's exactly saying I must not know much about live sound

no, saying this, is saying you don't know much about live sound:
dude ...... I WANT feedback ..... part of the sound and part of what you can do with an electric.
Plus , a HUGE part of the sound is the speaker which you won't get from this even if it's between the amp and the speaker.
because you CAN get it, from this device. i do.




and then this:
but it will NOT pick up the sonic differences between different speakers themselves

of course not, the palmer has a chosen speaker filter applied to it, with certain limitations as to how it sounds, that is inherent in the unit.
this was never about capturing the sound of your sweet greenbacks, like in a studio..
it's about a tool to be used INSTEAD of mic, and that is all.
if it happens to make your rig sound good, all the better.

but feedback is what you focused on, not the sound of your choice of speaker in your choice of cabinet, that is an entirely different discussion, correct?

but don't toss out insults and then not be man enough to own up to them.
hey, i could say the same thing about saying silly things out of context, being called on it, then being all grumpy about it.

all i'm talking here, is equipment, and if someone comes into the discussion trying to swing their elbows, and take away from the discussion, don't be surprised if they get called on it.


I'm being scrupuously polite here


trust me, you're not the only one!




ibleedburgundy
you're absolutely right, with your approach...
there are a million slightly different tones you can get with mic placement.
literally, a million.

one of the cool things about the palmer (see the joe bonamasso interview) is the fact that the palmer ALWAYS sounds the same, so if you're trying to dial in one solid tone, that never changes, voila.

i love experimenting with mic positions.
it takes time, and you've got to be able to get away from the cabinets and listen to the monitors, which is tough if you are a one man team.
 
like i said, once you have one in hand, and have used it and have experience with it, then we can talk on an even playing field.
meanwhile, until then, perhaps you shouldn't push your opinions so hard.
there's no point in arguing with someone about something you really don't know about first hand, is there?

Why do I need to own one before I can say with authority that Joe Satriani doesn't use one live? Or that it doesn't replicate the difference between a SM57 and an Audix i5, or a V30 versus a C90? I'm not saying it's a piece of crap, I'm sure you're very happy with it and some people DO use it with great success. However, neither of those statements are at all debatable and I don't see how owning a Palmer would be a factor that determines that.
 
who cares about joe?

i mean, really, i gave numerous links besides this 'joe' thing.
you apparently didn't bother with any of them.

what does 'joe' have to do with it? leave joe out of it.
 
who cares about joe?

i mean, really, i gave numerous links besides this 'joe' thing.
you apparently didn't bother with any of them.

what does 'joe' have to do with it? leave joe out of it.

Joe has a LOT to do with this, because he's one of the "things I just make up" you accused me of. :rolleyes:

How about the speaker choice or mic choice? Does the Palmer do that as well, or did I just "make that up" as well?

Again, I'm not saying the Palmer isn't a perfectly viable option, but rather that there were a couple things in your original post that weren't technically correct. If you like it, use it. :)
 
chamelious
that's fine, man.
like i said, i was only trying to help, and with so many pro loud and hard rock and metal acts using the palmers, maybe eventually you'll remember this thread.

What metal acts use it? Guns n Roses or Van halen do not count.
 
drew



but feedback is what you focused on, not the sound of your choice of speaker in your choice of cabinet, that is an entirely different discussion, correct?


.
well I also mentioned speaker choice in that same post. Yes ..... feedback is one issue ....... I'll take your word on it doing that and I can see that anything that you provoke your amp into doing will be picked up by the Palmer. But I also care about the specific things a speaker contributes to the sound. There is speaker breakup and such that can be an integral part of your sound.

Still ..... as I have repeatedly said ...... it looks like a great unit.
 
Tom Abraham, who mixes for Marilyn Manson, Suicidal Tendencies, Mötley Crüe, Garbage and Alice In Chains, with whom he is currently out on tour.

Another key technique along these same lines is to minimise the number of microphones on stage, period. Abraham replaces guitar amps with DI and Palmer speaker simulators as often as possible, adding a SansAmp to the bass DI.





ENTIRE INTERVIEW:

"I've dealt with a lot of artists of a high-volume nature," is the euphemistic manner in which Tom Abraham responds to the question of SPL vs sound quality. Those artists include Marilyn Manson, Suicidal Tendencies, Mötley Crüe, Garbage (who Abraham says are not thought of as a loud rock band "but certainly are in concert") and Alice In Chains, with whom he is currently out on tour. The key to achieving balance, he says, is with a combination of creative compression and high-mid frequency control. "My theory is to use a lot of frequency-dependent — or what you'd call 'dynamic' — compression and EQ," and usually limit it to guitars and vocals, as opposed to across the mix bus, he explains. "The point is that the input is not always compressing equally all the time, but rather only on certain frequencies. It's one of the most important but least-used techniques, in my opinion." He attributes that to a live sound environment that hasn't completely left the analogue domain, where the idea of bringing individual processing per channel on tour was prohibitively expensive; plug-ins and onboard DSP lets you treat individual channels easily and with a degree of automation.
Crucial to the idea of dynamic compression is to hit what you're processing hard — very hard. Abraham says the ratios depend upon the nature of the console, but he has gone as high as 50:1 on a DigiCo console, and upwards of 100:1 on the Digidesign Venue. "It all depends on the desk's [compression] algorithm," he says.
The way high-mid frequency attenuation is addressed was illustrated when Abraham was "forced" back to analogue on a recent stint with rockers Mötley Crüe. He relied upon an XTA D2 frequency-dependent compressor to keep Vince Neil's vocals above the guitars. "It's the best hardware I've ever used for this type of application," he says. But even analogue requires a stiff arm, with the ratio set to "thermonuclear" and a very fast attack, he says. "I high- and low-pass [the vocal channel] and set the compression to only take out the low-mids and de-ess. And you're only compressing the loudest thing this particular input is generating at any given moment. By applying it to only certain instruments at only certain frequencies, you're subtracting the annoying stuff, keeping the useful stuff and that helps to manage the overall level."
Other insights from Abraham include the necessity of becoming operationally familiar with the songs of the set. "I'm constantly riding the vocal mics, both because I know what's coming and because anything can happen," he says. And he cautions never to leave unused vocal channels open. I close them on the fader, so you don't hear it clip," he says.
"Stage volume going through those microphones can quickly cause the volume to get out of control in the house."

Another key technique along these same lines is to minimise the number of microphones on stage, period. Abraham replaces guitar amps with DI and Palmer speaker simulators as often as possible, adding a SansAmp to the bass DI. If the band can use D-Drums, all the better; if not, he'll apply onboard gating to drum channels, as well as soft-gating guitars and bass to avoid electrical humming or buzzing between songs. Silence, to the extent that it can be achieved on stage, is the ultimate dynamic. The quieter it can be at certain points, the more pronounced the dynamics of the music at a lower overall volume.
Abraham is also a proponent of using a real-time analyser (RTA). "You especially want to watch the 1.5kHz to 5kHz range," he says. "Run pink noise through the whole spectrum, but watch for anything poking out of that range especially. This is the area that hurts like hell in terms of volume — a distorted guitar at 106 to 109dB A-weighted will rip your face off between 2kHz and 4kHz — so, if you see it poking through the curve, tuck it back on the EQ." However, to avoid eviscerating the guitar sound, he suggests putting the RTA into sixth- and 1/12th-octave modes, and looking for the high-mid frequency spikes. "That way, you can nail the offending frequency more specifically with a parametric EQ, but without taking out the guitar's desired nastiness," he says.
We've had a great run of hard rock bands in recent years, from the Strokes to the Arctic Monkeys — the Kinks would approve. Rock music should be loud. Fortunately, it can also still sound great.

http://www.performing-musician.com/pm/dec07/articles/mixingmetal.htm


there's lots more info on these things, do a little homework if you care.

all i'm saying is, there's a lot of good info out there, don't just stick your head in the sand.

it's out there, if you really want to know.
 
I'm going to cautiously stick my toe in the boiling water here... :D

I went to see the Grateful Dead in Las Vegas in 1994 or thereabouts. Ultra Sound was doing their sound, and other than the mains (the first big linear arrays I ever saw), the only speakers in the system or the backline were in a Leslie cab, and it was mic'ed and (literally) placed in a safe under the stage. Everyone on stage had in ear monitors and the drummers were behind plexiglass shields.

The human voice, being the lowest volume instrument in a band, has to be mic'ed LOUD, so the vocal mics are the most susceptible to picking up other sounds. The idea with this design was to clean up all the phase mismatched bleed from the guitars, bass, drums, and keys that was getting into the vocal mics and muddying up the mix.

The results were nothing short of stunning. The mix was chest thumping loud, but even where I was ("dead" center halfway between the sound board and the stage) you could turn to the person next to you and speak in a normal voice, and be clearly heard. The stereo imaging was superb, and I have never heard such a clear mix, before or since. All the instruments sounded to me exactly as they should (I am very familiar with Jerry's tone), and the vocals rode easily atop the instrumental mix. I could hear everything clearly; I have often heard the words "transparent" and "three dimensional" to describe audio, but that was the first time I experienced it like a slap up side of my head.

Speaker emulators may not be the answer to everyone's problems, but in this case they worked amazingly well.

Fire away. :D
 
maybe but emulators at that time weren't so good. I saw Yes about that time and they also had no speakers on stage (it seemed) but when I went up there they actually had all their amps mounted under the stage facing up.
The members each stood on top of a grill with their amps directly beneath them.

I find it hard to believe that the Dead wouldn't have some amps somewhere under that stage besides the Leslie.
I'm not calling bullshit but are you sure there weren't some amps hidden in there somewhere?
And once again to avoid conflict ...... I'm just asking the question.
 
maybe but emulators at that time weren't so good. I saw Yes about that time and they also had no speakers on stage (it seemed) but when I went up there they actually had all their amps mounted under the stage facing up.
The members each stood on top of a grill with their amps directly beneath them.

I find it hard to believe that the Dead wouldn't have some amps somewhere under that stage besides the Leslie.
I'm not calling bullshit but are you sure there weren't some amps hidden in there somewhere?
And once again to avoid conflict ...... I'm just asking the question.

I read an interview that David Ganz (the Dead archivist) did with the main engineer for Ultra Sound where the engineer described the system in some detail. IIRC, the speaker emulators were their own design. It was pretty amazing stuff - way ahead of its time.
 
I read an interview that David Ganz (the Dead archivist) did with the main engineer for Ultra Sound where the engineer described the system in some detail. IIRC, the speaker emulators were their own design. It was pretty amazing stuff - way ahead of its time.
well that makes more sense ........... cool info.
And, of course, the Dead were always pretty much into electronics.
Wasn't one of them an electronics guy able to do some designing of his own?
 
well that makes more sense ........... cool info.
And, of course, the Dead were always pretty much into electronics.
Wasn't one of them an electronics guy able to do some designing of his own?
I don't know. I know that Phil and Jerry both had their hands in Alembic, but I don't know that they did any actual design work.

It wasn't until I traveled out west to see them that I gained an appreciation for the innovations in stage production that they were into. When they came east of the western states, they contracted out their PA to local outfits and they didn't bring their elaborate lighting gear, so when I saw them in Austin, Houston, etc., I didn't see or hear any of that. When I went to Phoenix and Las Vegas to see them, however... wow.
 
Speaker emulators may not be the answer to everyone's problems, but in this case they worked amazingly well.

No arguments here - I think the only disagreement, aside from a couple odd particulars, was over Gonzo's insistence that we all needed to go out and buy them. :D

Another band that, while they don't use Palmers, gets a VERY effective sound of out an emulated out is Meshuggah. They're after a very clinical, percussive, almost harsh guitar sound, and all of the things that would make a Palmer inappropriate for, say, a blues rock guy work exceptionally well for their sound. The closest I was ever able to get was running through the emulated out of my old TSL, which was amazing but otherwise no match for a SM57 and my Recto 2x12 cab. :)
 
Back
Top