OMG this singer is driving me nuts

[fishkarma]

OK, not the article I'm looking for but it's a start to the basics.
Bob Heil

“I had brought in these monitors and started thinking ‘wait a minute I can start playing with phasing’ . . . and I DID. We would run the microphones out of phase from the monitors, something that nobody had been doing yet. Since they were out of phase from the mics and the front systems, we could get these things incredibly loud before they would feedback.” The key to the golden lock was phasing, as Bob relays to everyone he instructs. “That’s one of the things that Jerry Garcia was really in love with. Our monitors were really something; and we got those guys into doing all kinds of phasing tricks with the monitors and mics. As you know, a lack of phasing equals no sound; so it’s all very important — the placement of monitors, the types of microphones, and having it in the right phase or the wrong phase.”

Concerning choice of mics in relation to phasing, Bob adds that technological advancements, many of which have been handheld by Heil Sound, are now the key to the world of using phasing to achieve the desired end. “You take this new technology, which comes in the form of better cardioid patterns, and the phase plug of the mic reduces what’s coming from behind. If you take two signals out of phase they will cancel; from 180 degrees out you will get no sound. In the studios, guys will put microphone after microphone up: one 3 feet away, one 2 inches away, one 10 feet away, and so on. Sure, all the mics are picking up sound—but the one closest to the source, of course, gets the sound fastest. They are in different phases, so you experience time delays. The amount of time it takes for the sound to reach the mic changes depending on their placement — and in that case they might have flipped phase three times before it gets there. You have to be real careful where you place all this stuff in the studio, because when you record something you want it to come back through the speakers exactly in the same phase that it was recorded.” Bob concludes, “So many times the signal is going through different chains. Every time you go through a device, if it’s a virgin where nothing has been changed in it, it will change phase. You have to understand what is going on here — you might have to have phase inversion to get it back to the original phase it was recorded in. It’s more than just important — it’s everything.”

What great ideas!! im off to go play with wires, phase and my mics!!!
if you find more on this stuff let me know! either in this post a new one or PM

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Concerning choice of mics in relation to phasing, Bob adds that technological advancements, many of which have been handheld by Heil Sound, are now the key to the world of using phasing to achieve the desired end.

How convenient

They are in different phases, so you experience time delays. The amount of time it takes for the sound to reach the mic changes depending on their placement — and in that case they might have flipped phase three times before it gets there.

Ummmmmm.... WHAT???? The only thing that's out of phase is this guy's handle on the truth...or at least his explanation of the truth.

G.

 

[Lt. Bob]

1st thing to try is simply taking one side of the cans off ...... possibly taking her out of the monitor mix altogether so she hears her voice the same as normal.
I bet just doing that'll make a huge difference.
Also .... try putting her behind a screen or turn the lights out or whatever it takes so she knows she can't be seen. Singers will sometimes do a lot better if they don't feel like they're a spectacle and if they can feel like they're at home by themselves they'll relax a lot.

 

[ridgeback]

How convenient Ummmmmm.... WHAT???? The only thing that's out of phase is this guy's handle on the truth...or at least his explanation of the truth.

G.

How do you mean Glen?

 

[zbert]

Another vote for no headphones. I had an opera singer who never recorded with headphones. We tried different ideas for a couple of sessions. I finally said no headphones. That was the key. We went out of phase and it did the trick.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

How do you mean Glen?

Do the math. Any composite waveform (one that is not a simple pure tone like a single sine wave) is made up of sounds at a wide range of frequencies (potentially 20Hz-20kHz), with each frequency having its own wavelength, varying greatly from over 50ft at 20Hz to less that an inch at the highest audible frequencies.

Therefore the amount of phase rotation caused by traveling a set distance of a few feet or a dozen feet would be different for each frequency. This means that the shape of the overall composite waveform will be constantly changing and will never (except in very rare circumstances) be an inverted copy of the original. There is no "flipping" at all. (And that's not even counting the real-world additions of first reflection and other possible reverberations added to the distant signal.)

The only time when there is a phase "inversion" is when two mics are facing opposite each other and therefore the sound waves are pushing the mic capsules in opposite directions and therefore creating inverse voltages to each other in the electrical lines. And in those cases, distance has nothing to do with the inversion. The mics could be right next to each other and the inverted voltage polarity (erroneously but commonly called a "flipped phase") would still happen as long as the mics were facing in opposite directions.

G.

 

[ridgeback]

Do the math.

I Hate Math

There is no "flipping" at all. (And that's not even counting the real-world additions of first reflection and other possible reverberations added to the distant signal.)

So Heil's full of crap? Maybe just a little outlandish in his wording perhaps? I see exactly what you are saying though. Maybe you could give us insight on how one could get live monitoring out of phase from the mic that is recording so essentially the mic doesn't hear it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I Hate Math
So Heil's full of crap? Maybe just a little outlandish in his wording perhaps? I see exactly what you are saying though. Maybe you could give us insight on how one could get live monitoring out of phase from the mic that is recording so essentially the mic doesn't hear it.

Maybe I'm completly misunderstanding what he's talking about, but based upon what I read in that quote, my best understanding of what he's saying is that what he is saying makes no sense; it sounds more like a manufactured excuse to try and sell more mics with polarity switches on them than anything else. Maybe someone can correct me if I'm interpreting him wrong.

As to your question, I don't really understand what you're asking, to be honest. Changing the polarity of what is coming out of the stage monitors isn't going to make them inaudible to a microphone. And throwing some kind of delay in them in order to synthesize a phase rotation is just going to throw off the performers more than anything else. If you want to try flipping the polarity on either the mics or the monitors and see what that does, knock yourself out; it's easy enough to hit a phase switch on a mixer or to flip a couple of wires in the monitor cable.

But I'd simply be careful with my mic selection and placement, using those to provide maximum rejection of surrounding sounds, make sure one follows the 3:1 rules, and run with it. It's worked fine for thousands of bands and engineers for many years now .

G.

 

[fishkarma]

well that puts that question to rest, at least its been answered. though what heil was saying was interesting looking at it objectionably it dosnt make too much sense as proved by glen. thanks for pointing it out!!

 

[ridgeback]

well that puts that question to rest, at least its been answered. though what heil was saying was interesting looking at it objectionably it dosnt make too much sense as proved by glen. thanks for pointing it out!!

Not so fast. I found it in a book. OK. Send the monitors in mono to the booth or room. Switch polarity on one of the speakers. Talent faces the mic and the monitors. Because the monitors are out phase the bleedover was minimal. Nothings perfect but it took me about 15 minutes to get it close enough and it works. Yes there were some reflections but those were tamed with a little treatment behind the talent. I played with distance and monitor levels. Because the talent is hearing the monitors with two ears the effect should be minimal to them. It was to me.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Send the monitors in mono to the booth or room. Switch polarity on one of the speakers.

OK, that's quite a bit different than what it sounded like he was talking about earlier and your followup question.

First he's talking albout doing this in controlled studio conditions ("booth or room"), not on a live recording. This is important because it requires a) monitors with the name mono mix going to them, and 2) dual monitors equidistant from the microphone. Live recording with multiple monitor mixes and microphones commonly set asymmetrically to them is not going to benefit from the same effect. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but when you asked about "live monitoring", I thought you were referring to monitoring in a live performance recording.

Second, this also seems to have nothing to do with the passage I was commenting uopn, where he said

The amount of time it takes for the sound to reach the mic changes depending on their placement — and in that case they might have flipped phase three times before it gets there.

That is a different subject altogether, and a statement which I still ask someone to explain to me just where it makes any sense or even corresponds to known physics.

G.

 

[ridgeback]

Sorry Glen. I was just going after the OP's situation and although the article I posted wasn't the one I was looking for, it seemed to "loosely" lean in that direction. Hope that clears things up a hair.

 

[fishkarma]

Not so fast. I found it in a book. OK. Send the monitors in mono to the booth or room. Switch polarity on one of the speakers. Talent faces the mic and the monitors. Because the monitors are out phase the bleedover was minimal. Nothings perfect but it took me about 15 minutes to get it close enough and it works. Yes there were some reflections but those were tamed with a little treatment behind the talent. I played with distance and monitor levels. Because the talent is hearing the monitors with two ears the effect should be minimal to them. It was to me.

Hehey! you found the article! great idea i definatly gotta go try that soon. the funny thing is when you think about it its so simple but trying to figure it out earlier before you posted just stumped me as how it was even possible! probably because i was thinging it HAD to be sent in stereo

just goes to show how engineers of the time must of felt when they figured out how to balance a line!!! everyone before must of been smacking their heads going *Duh*

 

[fishkarma]

Lol its been a long time since taeyoung posted
Topic got a bit side tracked didnt it!
oh well it came up with some good stuff!
Good Luck
-josh

 

[mathamagician]

Go the Capt. Beefheart route...

1) no headphones on the singer
2) have someone signal the singer when the music is about to start
3) singer then will let it rip
4) enjoy the sweet sounds of the chaos that ensues

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Sorry Glen. I was just going after the OP's situation and although the article I posted wasn't the one I was looking for, it seemed to "loosely" lean in that direction. Hope that clears things up a hair.

You're right, ridge. That second quote did indeed address the OP situation more directly, and it is also one I agree with (and I'm glad to see, so did your experiment ).

I just wanted to make sure that I was differentiating between the two different passages.

G.

 

[Flangerhans]

Go the Capt. Beefheart route...

1) no headphones on the singer
2) have someone signal the singer when the music is about to start
3) singer then will let it rip
4) enjoy the sweet sounds of the chaos that ensues

What's amazing is how close he got on some of the tracks on TMR. "Pachuco Cadaver" is almost conventionally right. Goes to show what a year's rehearsal will get you.

Oh, yeah..sorry to go off subject...I guess my phase must have flipped too many times.

 

[taeyoung]

Lol its been a long time since taeyoung posted
Topic got a bit side tracked didnt it!
oh well it came up with some good stuff!
Good Luck
-josh

Actually, I am still here, I've been reading your suggestions. I had sent some PMs to people about the status of the situation...which is, I won't be getting together with her unti next weekend.

So, I will be trying a few things. Actually, I don't have any monitors in the tracking room...so, first I'm gonna just try to lower the volume of the vocals in the headphone mix a lot. Also, I will try to let her have just a 1 ear set of headphones also, if the first thing doesn't work.

It's hard to say what is really going on, since like I said, she won't really communicate the problem to me. So, we'll see what happens, and I'll update everyone.

 

[fishkarma]

good to know youll update us (and are still here lol) hopefully something will work for her!

 

[HangDawg]

OK, so maybe I'm not alone in this, but I feel like this must be the stupidist singer I've ever worked with. And the weird part is I actually like her a lot.

So, I have this singer, and she's a great singer...when she is not in front of a recording mic. Performing without a mic she has this super powerful voice, extremely clear and accurate. But then stick her in the recording booth and she turns into this other person that I do not know or understand. She loses her voice.

Actually the main thing she does is get real REAL quiet in front of the mic. Like whispering quiet. But she doesn't seem nervous, that's the weird part. She's fine with it. She THINKS she's doing just fine. But she is singing EVERYTHING TOTALLY different.

Have any of you ran into this? I tried giving her a hand held sm58 and just listen to her sing without recording, and she does the same thing...gets real quiet like she doesnt want anyone to hear, but then take away a mic and just put her in front of the piano and she sings nice and loud and clear.
That won't do for this though, and I've even told her "hey, you're singing way quiet all the sudden...sing LOUD" and she sings a little louder, but not even close to the same without a mic.

Hoping someone has some suggestions, she's driving me nuts, it's like she's a little kid who doesn't understand what she's doing

Maybe she wants it that way. I'd track the song that way. Then let her hear it in the control room.