soundguys...ARG!

[jmorris]

Born,
the fuuny thing is this guy was SUPPOSED to work with me.It was not at all a pain for him.It was 2 bands that day, no big deal. 1.5 hours to set up from band one to band two. So not excactly a pressure situation. And I disagree about the gain structure. When 2 people are working together, and there isnt enough signal coming out of a channel and you simple need to put up the channel gain and bring down the fader, they guy that does not want to is wrong.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Once you have those gains set, mix with the FADERS, that's what they are there for!

I could be wrong, but I think you two are saying the same thing.

I think (please correct me if I'm wrong, born) born is simply saying that you use the unity gain on the faders not to set the final mix, but rather as a null gain on the output as you set the input trims solo'd, setting them via the meter(s) to get the best gain stage coming into the channel strip.

Then once you have the input trims set to accommodate the channel strip, you can adjust the faders to set the output mix.

And also, then set the aux send levels to accommodate the monitors. This is the part about jmorris' story that his sound guy seems to get wrong; he should be controlling the stage monitor levels via his aux send levels, not by his input trim levels.

Not to mention that one of the best ways to control feedback from the stage monitors other than just attenuating the volume would be to cut back some of the high end from the monitor bus. Maybe this guy did not have that capability, I don't know. But even if he didn't, adjusting the aux levels should still be the fallback, not dialing back on the input trim. That would indeed be bad gain form.

G.

 

[jmorris]

Glen, this sound guy had a seperate board/amps for monitors up at the stage. Yes, to control feedback cut the level or the highs I also agree. I have, and I'll be the first to say, not done much live sound. But to say you cant bring up the gain on one channel and the fader down or else you'll have feedback to me seems stupid. Furthermore were talking only front end sound, not monotors, thats a whole other guy. The channel that Im bitching about, with the d/i guitar was so low I only had like at best 2 leds on my alesis hd24 max. This is why all the knobs and faders move, were supposted to move them to get the end result right.Oh, the other thing is he said twice my level was low because he was compressing the signal.All his outboard was post!

 

[jmorris]

If I'm assuming correctly, the case of the acoustic guitars is supposed to be an example of poor gain structure? Personally I disagree and feel that - assuming the fader that was "almost all the way to top" was set at somewhere close to unity - this is more an example of good gain structure.

In a live situation where you're there to provide a FOH mix, you're job is to optimise levels through the desk, not to the direct out. It is quite common when mixing live sound to get the basic mix with the faders set at unity and use the mic gain/line trim to balance levels. This makes sense for more than one reason, but when talking gain structure through the desk why gain a signal so much that you have to attenuate it at the next stage??? Sure, at times you might want to push the channel on a (good) desk close to/just into distortion with something that warrants a little edge, but in the case of an acoustic guitar (depending on the style of playing) it's probably best to stick with optimum gain structure.

I understand that this guy may have been a bit of a douche bag, but from what you've said it would seem he did at least know how to set up the gain structure... just my 2 cents.

As for the feedback thing, I'm not sure where he pulled that from... he may have been able to weakly justify it if he was mixing monitors from the desk as well... monitors, when mixed from the FOH board, are typically mixed using pre-fade aux sends, which means you crank the gain you crank the monitors and run the risk of running into feedback and upsetting the musicians by ruining the balance... using the solo function on the aux sends and a set of headphones can overcome this problem to a certain extent... so agreed, he may have been a bit of a douche... but there is another but...

Have you ever had any live sound experience? I don't want to stand up for a guy that was maybe not that good, but there will be guys who will work to accommodate your wants and needs, and there will be other guys who just prefer to not have the distraction of it. If you haven't had experience mixing live it's very very different to sitting in your studio, particularly at a festival type event where you typically have band after band play, normally with nothing more than a line check as the sound check. Consider that the poor sound guy has to set up mic gain, insert settings (comps/gates/anything else that may be patched in), insert return levels, aux levels, rough eq, etc, for all instruments in a matter of minutes. Then he has to hope that when the band starts playing nothing's too far off, and then proceed to pull a FOH mix (and possibly monitor mixes) in less time than what you may sometimes spend getting a snare drum sound in your studio. Then some guy who's tapping off his board - despite the fact he could have bought a splitter, his own preamps and his own mics which could have, just maybe, been recorded without the need for them to be plugged into the desk which may have elminated half the problems - wants him to crank the gain and pull the fader down, and then possibly have to readjust monitors, whilst watching the singer who's getting close to his monitor, has poor mic technique and a dynamic range that has to be ridden at the same time as a trying to accommodate the guitarist madly flicking pedals on and off producing disjointed tones and levels, etc, etc, etc, and you might understand that really it can be the sort of job where some people just like to do it their own way because they have a system which works so they don't want to disrupt it.

Perhaps his mic choices, placement, or whatever else may not have been what is considered best... but really, was the sound at the show bad? If he pulled an acceptable mix at the show, then he's done his job.

Just remember, some sound guys will be assholes. Some people are assholes. Some sound guys will be lovely people. Some people are lovely people. Some sound guys are idiots... and yes, some people are idiots. Yes, live sound guys are normal people, and you will run into idiots working in the profession, just as you run into idiots every day. So what? That's life, deal with it.

Funny as I said I wanted to bring my 24 channel whirlwind splitter snake and my mackie 1640 onyx and put up any extra mic's I thought I needed, he was not really interested. Im like, look if I have overheads on the drums( of which he did not want) just pull your faders down and dont worry about them but I need them.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen, this sound guy had a seperate board/amps for monitors up at the stage. Yes, to control feedback cut the level or the highs I also agree. I have, and I'll be the first to say, not done much live sound. But to say you cant bring up the gain on one channel and the fader down or else you'll have feedback to me seems stupid. Furthermore were talking only front end sound, not monotors, thats a whole other guy.

OK, my mistake; I was figuring a smaller venue where the FOH and monitor control came off of one board.

I was going on his comment that he was afraid to bump the trim because he was afraid of feedback. I thought he was referring to feedback from the stage monitors.

But you're still right and I still agree that needing to push the faders up like Mr. Scott on the transporter indicates a problem.

G.

 

[jmorris]

I'm in total agreement with all of born's comments, and in particular the one above. Having done live mixing, live recording, studio recording and performed in bands for all those scenarios as well, I am familar with the less-than-gifted practitioners (mixing, recording and performing). But I also know many more who were professional and great at what they do.

So statements such as "no lessons to be learned here other than most sound guys are idiots" are gross generalisations and unhelpful.

Myabe the "all soundguys are idiots" was a bit over the top yes. Again there are no lesons to be learned here by me when I did all I could to get the job completed correctly and third, the "unhelpful" comment? I did not post to aid someone or to be helpful, it was to vent my frustration.

 

[notsocoolguy]

I could be wrong, but I think you two are saying the same thing.

I think (please correct me if I'm wrong, born) born is simply saying that you use the unity gain on the faders not to set the final mix, but rather as a null gain on the output as you set the input trims solo'd, setting them via the meter(s) to get the best gain stage coming into the channel strip.

Then once you have the input trims set to accommodate the channel strip, you can adjust the faders to set the output mix.

Nah, he was suggesting setting all the faders at unity then mixing using the gain pots... Which alot of people do when they are starting out... Often it's so if for some reason they have to drop all their faders down to -infinity, they can easily recall their mix by just bring the faders back up to unity...

Of course, these people are using desks with out mute buttons, so they have other issues!

 

[gecko zzed]

Nah, he was suggesting setting all the faders at unity then mixing using the gain pots... Which alot of people do when they are starting out... Often it's so if for some reason they have to drop all their faders down to -infinity, they can easily recall their mix by just bring the faders back up to unity...

Of course, these people are using desks with out mute buttons, so they have other issues!

Well, there is a lot of speculation about what born may or may not have intended to suggest, so maybe we ought to wait and see if he clarifies, rather than us put words into his mouth.

However, I can't say that I've ever seen anyone mixing using the gain pots . . . perhaps I've been blessed.

But I can say that whenever I do a mix, I do exactly as Glen says.

 

[Massive Master]

They're not mixing using the gain trims, they're just setting up the mix with the faders at unity. Then they can do whatever they want and bounce back to where they were.

It's done a lot in live settings - Usually with the headliner's engineer. Then the opening act (who would be killed if they even look at the EQ) mixes on the faders (pre-gain be damned, but it's usually pretty close anyway) and the headliner's FOH guy can just bring it all to unity and go.

It may not be the ideal situation sonically, but it can certainly be the most efficient.

 

[notsocoolguy]

They're not mixing using the gain trims, they're just setting up the mix with the faders at unity. Then they can do whatever they want and bounce back to where they were.

It's done a lot in live settings - Usually with the headliner's engineer. Then the opening act (who would be killed if they even look at the EQ) mixes on the faders (pre-gain be damned, but it's usually pretty close anyway) and the headliner's FOH guy can just bring it all to unity and go.

It may not be the ideal situation sonically, but it can certainly be the most efficient.

True, I didn't clarify that in my post I'll admit... But that is what I meant. Just setting up a mix with the gains. I was always taught, and firmly believe the fact that gain staging is of utmost importance, so it annoys me to see people mixing in this fashion... I will generally set gains before I touch a single fader. (Aside from running house music through the system first to check everything is running and sounding sharp). But I've yet to see a situation where it's acceptable to be honest!

I mean, in the situation where the headliner sets his mix with the faders at unity for recall purposes, why not set gains properly, then note down your settings for each channel and off you go? If your in such a position where you have the power to "kill if they (the opening engineers) even look at the EQ" then surely you could afford a piece of paper and a pen, and perhaps an assistant for a bit to help you sort out your mix in the change over!

Or learn to do a bit of mixing with your eyes... Provided you have all the gains structured correctly for each channel, you should be able to sort out an acceptable mix before the first downbeat is played...

Sorry, I know I'm beginning to rave a bit here, and I apologize for my strong opinion on the matter...

 

[notsocoolguy]

Well, there is a lot of speculation about what born may or may not have intended to suggest, so maybe we ought to wait and see if he clarifies, rather than us put words into his mouth.

True, I apologize for that, I wasn't as clear as I should have been in my first few posts, but I think I've summed up in a later post...

 

[gecko zzed]

I actually think it is more complicated than that, and relates to how different people process information. It's like when someone asks you directions to a place, and you say "go down the road a bit, turn left, then turn next right, and it's opposite the church," and they will be quite happy with that description. Others will look at you blankly and say, "show me on a bit of paper", and you will need to sketch a map for them. Others, as you describe the way, will make themselves a list:" go straight, turn left, turn right, opposite church."

Because we process information differently we get our cues in different ways. A graphic equaliser is a highly visual tool, and at a glance, you can see what the situation is by the variations from a straight line. In a sense, a mixing desk (for me. at least) is similar: faders at unity means that the mix is about right, and when changes are needed, or have been made, the variation from an (approximate) straight line are sign posts to what you've done.

I agree that marking fader positions on a bit of paper is a straightforward (and, indeed, inexpensive) approach, but it will suit some people's mental processes better than others.

During a mix, I find myself rarely looking at the board, but instead, watching the stage intently, because I am looking for visual cues for what's going to happen, who's drifting off the mike, who's swapping instruments and so on, and (a bit like touch typing I guess) my hands are working accordingly, using the position of a fader in relation to its neighbours which are generally hovering somewhere near zero.

 

[jmorris]

I actually think it is more complicated than that, and relates to how different people process information. It's like when someone asks you directions to a place, and you say "go down the road a bit, turn left, then turn next right, and it's opposite the church," and they will be quite happy with that description. Others will look at you blankly and say, "show me on a bit of paper", and you will need to sketch a map for them. Others, as you describe the way, will make themselves a list:" go straight, turn left, turn right, opposite church."

Because we process information differently we get our cues in different ways. A graphic equaliser is a highly visual tool, and at a glance, you can see what the situation is by the variations from a straight line. In a sense, a mixing desk (for me. at least) is similar: faders at unity means that the mix is about right, and when changes are needed, or have been made, the variation from an (approximate) straight line are sign posts to what you've done.

I agree that marking fader positions on a bit of paper is a straightforward (and, indeed, inexpensive) approach, but it will suit some people's mental processes better than others.

During a mix, I find myself rarely looking at the board, but instead, watching the stage intently, because I am looking for visual cues for what's going to happen, who's drifting off the mike, who's swapping instruments and so on, and (a bit like touch typing I guess) my hands are working accordingly, using the position of a fader in relation to its neighbours which are generally hovering somewhere near zero.

You guys are making too much of all this I thinK. Iit is not complicated at all.Example, if you have an input too low, bring up the damn gain,end of story.Anyone in that job should be able to do that.

 

[born]

Ok, seems like I've evoked a fair bit of thought/discussion here. Let me respond and/or clarify. Sorry if my grammar/spelling/structure/logic goes a bit off course, I'm kinda drunk and running in sleep deprivation mode at the moment. (And have now just realised this is becoming quite a rant...)

Have you done much live sound before?
That sounds like a horrible technique which, I'll admit, alot of newer people do, but it's quite bad form! And I say this with over 10 years experience in live sound...

Yes, I have. I've also spoken with many other engineers over my time doing it about various approaches... some of which have up to or more than triple your experience and mix/have mixed for bands bigger than most people are ever likely to even meet and/or now own companies providing production for events that reside in the upper spectrum of production, and this approach to gain structure seems quite common amongst many of them. It's not some fact I went and pulled from the latest Bullshit Audio 101 website like a lot of the advice that people around here seem to be given is.

To quote one referable source, just in case you really must have proof that I'm not just pulling this out of my own arse, here's a quote from Bruce Johnston from the current issue (issue 63, sept 2008) of Audio Technology.

"I do a lot of mixing by turning the gain knob rather than pushing faders, group masters or VCAs. I like to keep the channels at unity."

Bruce Johnston, for those who don't know, is the currnet FOH engineer for Oasis, who's been in this position for around 10 years, along with mixing many other big name bands (Crowded House, Mignight Oil, Silverchair, The Killers, Hoodoo Gurus, Paul Kelly - who I've also worked with, etc, anyone not heard of at least one?), who also happens to run quite a large production company (Johnston Audio) here in Australia that caters to many of the larger international touring acts. I'm sure it would be safe to assume that he does know a thing or two when it comes to gain structure seeing as most of his life and living is based around... yes, live sound installations/mixing.

Besides, you want to know one of the biggest 'secrets of the pros' is??? The thing that so many people scouring the forums/interwebs seem so intested in... There is no right or wrong way to do things. The most common implicit consensus amongst many 'pros' opinions is that they all work differently. Yes, they all have a regard for certain basic techincal limitations, but they all do things differently. One guy says sweep your EQ, another guy says never sweep your EQ. One guy says control your levels by compressing this way pre-fader then compressing another way post fader, another guy says only compress for feel/groove only. Many of the 'pros' recognise that their methods are their methods... not necessarily the correct methods, but methods which ultimately result in desirable outcomes for their line of work.

Ultimately, there is no right or wrong way to do things. Personally, I say aspire to achieve an inspired mix over a technically perfect mix. The average listener (someone listening to the music but not critiquing the production) will generally feel more connected with the inspired mix than the technically perfect mix. Yes, production quality and aesthetics have an impact on how the listener will perceive the piece, but assuming production is up to standard, an inspired mix will only serve to draw the listner in more, even if there is 6dB more noise in it than the technically perfect version.

A basic line test should be able to be done in under 10 minutes easy

I do realise this...

Consider that the poor sound guy has to set up mic gain, insert settings (comps/gates/anything else that may be patched in), insert return levels, aux levels, rough eq, etc, for all instruments in a matter of minutes.

This boosts the voltage up to a decent level to be able to drive the EQ, AUX sends, Direct outs, whatever LINE LEVEL devices which may come after the preamp which are expecting LINE LEVEL... If your not boosting the mic signal up to LINE LEVEL, everything else after in your signal chain will suffer...

Ok, here's a run down of gain structuring and what not as I see it.

Devices, that are generally patched into the direct signal path, whether they be EQ's, compressors, gates, aux sends, or whatever, are essentially the same as your mic/line amp that resides at the front of your channel strip. How are they the same??? They are all ther to provide gain or trim/attenuation. EQ's are frequency selective gain/attenuation controls (well, slightly more complex than that, but still similar in concept)... compressors and gates are essentially VCA's with the ability to control themselves dependant on programme... aux sends are just buffers that allow you to split the signal several ways and gain/attenuate it to feed different outputs... they are essentially all just gain controls that boost/attenuate voltage. They don't discriminate because something's not at line level... 3dB boost on your eq will boost that frequncy 3dB relative to it's original level whether the signal's at line level or below it. Yes, each element has a certain noise floor, which will determine it's dynamic range, and a certain amount of head room, which will partly determine distortion... from these we achieve optimum operating level - the level at which these elements are minimised whilst still leaving sufficient headroom. When working in the studio it's good practise to work at that level as we're striving towards an outcome which will potentially be listened to in quiet environments on 'hi-fi' equipment where noise and other undesirable elements are much more apparent. In a live sound situation, we can afford to reasonably slip below optimum as whilst our ultimate aim is still to provide the best quality mix we can, there are other more severe elements interfering with our mix than the already low noise floor we achieve with modern equipment. Crowd noise alone will almost certainly outweigh the extra couple of dB or so of noise you create by running a few of your channels below optimum level. Saying all this, I do realise there's a point where you can slip too low... I don't have that much neglect.

Admitedly, my opinion is biased as I come from a background of mixing what can be losely defined as rock/pop groups where, conveniently, most of the elements tend to sit at appropriate levels in the mix when at roughly equal levels. Sure, I'm not so stupid I'm about to go trimming the gain down so far that I have a signal coming into the console from the preamp at -40dBu while leaving my fader up at unity. I am more inclined, though, to balance the gain trim and faders, to get the channel fader up a bit higher than -40dB down where, really, it feels a little useless. Faders are for mixing, yes... they're great because they give you something to grab, something to feel, something to ride (this is starting to sound wrong), something that lets you easily and creatively manipulate several elements at once in a meaningful way... you know... they're there for the feel thing. Functionally, they're exactly the same thing as your aux sends, practically they're much more fun. For me, and many others, having your faders at or close to unity is great for this. They just feel better there. To quote a quite prolific (studio) engineer (Micahael Stavrou), they're at "their most useable and juicy position, enabling finer control."

Of course, these people are using desks with out mute buttons, so they have other issues!

Of course, it's not like I'm allowed to work with large format consoles that not only have mute buttons (which even basic mixers have), but mute groups, VCAs, the ability to recall scenes, etc... hmm...

They're not mixing using the gain trims, they're just setting up the mix with the faders at unity. Then they can do whatever they want and bounce back to where they were.

It's done a lot in live settings - Usually with the headliner's engineer. Then the opening act (who would be killed if they even look at the EQ) mixes on the faders (pre-gain be damned, but it's usually pretty close anyway) and the headliner's FOH guy can just bring it all to unity and go.

It may not be the ideal situation sonically, but it can certainly be the most efficient.

...then surely you could afford a piece of paper and a pen, and perhaps an assistant for a bit to help you sort out your mix in the change over!

Yes, indeed pens/paper come in handy. A basic Crib Sheet, presets, and/or your own memory is usually enough to get you through this.

As for jmorris, all I have to say as a professional working in this industry is that perhaps you've now learned from this experience and know better for next time. The harsh reality of it is similar to the last paragraph in my last post... yes, some peole are dicks. That's how this game (along with every other job) works - some people are just really hard to deal with... However, perhaps you've also failed for being unprepared and less assertive than you could have been, instead choosing to rely on another guy to do half your work for you. It is generally accepted that when recording a live event you run a splitter and your own console and/or preamps. It is not the FOH guys position to object to having mics up on stage if they're not running on his console. Yes, the promoter/venue/event manager/band reserves the right to object, however as long as you set up in such a way that you have no affect on the FOH guy there should be no problem with him. Next time perhaps just tell the FOH guy "Hey, I'm bringing a splitter and my own console, preamps and mics. I'll be setting up the splitter and console and any extra mics I need to record this event myself in such a way that it won't affect your job. This is what I've been employed to do, and this is what I need to do." If you have a problem, consult the promoter/event manager/venue who's employing you. If they really do want you to fulfill your job requirements they will usually be happy to assist you reasonably. Just don't step on anybodies toes and you should be fine 99% of the time.

I hope some of this has made sense... it's gotten kinda long.

Take care.

 

[jndietz]

We recently played an outdoor gig with Ludo and the sound guy that we dealt with was good, but was a dickhead. No one was even mouthing off to him -- we just let him mic stuff however he wanted to. He had no reason to be that rude to us.

Man.

 

[jmorris]

Ok, seems like I've evoked a fair bit of thought/discussion here. Let me respond and/or clarify. Sorry if my grammar/spelling/structure/logic goes a bit off course, I'm kinda drunk and running in sleep deprivation mode at the moment. (And have now just realised this is becoming quite a rant...)


Yes, I have. I've also spoken with many other engineers over my time doing it about various approaches... some of which have up to or more than triple your experience and mix/have mixed for bands bigger than most people are ever likely to even meet and/or now own companies providing production for events that reside in the upper spectrum of production, and this approach to gain structure seems quite common amongst many of them. It's not some fact I went and pulled from the latest Bullshit Audio 101 website like a lot of the advice that people around here seem to be given is.

To quote one referable source, just in case you really must have proof that I'm not just pulling this out of my own arse, here's a quote from Bruce Johnston from the current issue (issue 63, sept 2008) of Audio Technology.

"I do a lot of mixing by turning the gain knob rather than pushing faders, group masters or VCAs. I like to keep the channels at unity."

Bruce Johnston, for those who don't know, is the currnet FOH engineer for Oasis, who's been in this position for around 10 years, along with mixing many other big name bands (Crowded House, Mignight Oil, Silverchair, The Killers, Hoodoo Gurus, Paul Kelly - who I've also worked with, etc, anyone not heard of at least one?), who also happens to run quite a large production company (Johnston Audio) here in Australia that caters to many of the larger international touring acts. I'm sure it would be safe to assume that he does know a thing or two when it comes to gain structure seeing as most of his life and living is based around... yes, live sound installations/mixing.

Besides, you want to know one of the biggest 'secrets of the pros' is??? The thing that so many people scouring the forums/interwebs seem so intested in... There is no right or wrong way to do things. The most common implicit consensus amongst many 'pros' opinions is that they all work differently. Yes, they all have a regard for certain basic techincal limitations, but they all do things differently. One guy says sweep your EQ, another guy says never sweep your EQ. One guy says control your levels by compressing this way pre-fader then compressing another way post fader, another guy says only compress for feel/groove only. Many of the 'pros' recognise that their methods are their methods... not necessarily the correct methods, but methods which ultimately result in desirable outcomes for their line of work.

Ultimately, there is no right or wrong way to do things. Personally, I say aspire to achieve an inspired mix over a technically perfect mix. The average listener (someone listening to the music but not critiquing the production) will generally feel more connected with the inspired mix than the technically perfect mix. Yes, production quality and aesthetics have an impact on how the listener will perceive the piece, but assuming production is up to standard, an inspired mix will only serve to draw the listner in more, even if there is 6dB more noise in it than the technically perfect version.


I do realise this...




Ok, here's a run down of gain structuring and what not as I see it.

Devices, that are generally patched into the direct signal path, whether they be EQ's, compressors, gates, aux sends, or whatever, are essentially the same as your mic/line amp that resides at the front of your channel strip. How are they the same??? They are all ther to provide gain or trim/attenuation. EQ's are frequency selective gain/attenuation controls (well, slightly more complex than that, but still similar in concept)... compressors and gates are essentially VCA's with the ability to control themselves dependant on programme... aux sends are just buffers that allow you to split the signal several ways and gain/attenuate it to feed different outputs... they are essentially all just gain controls that boost/attenuate voltage. They don't discriminate because something's not at line level... 3dB boost on your eq will boost that frequncy 3dB relative to it's original level whether the signal's at line level or below it. Yes, each element has a certain noise floor, which will determine it's dynamic range, and a certain amount of head room, which will partly determine distortion... from these we achieve optimum operating level - the level at which these elements are minimised whilst still leaving sufficient headroom. When working in the studio it's good practise to work at that level as we're striving towards an outcome which will potentially be listened to in quiet environments on 'hi-fi' equipment where noise and other undesirable elements are much more apparent. In a live sound situation, we can afford to reasonably slip below optimum as whilst our ultimate aim is still to provide the best quality mix we can, there are other more severe elements interfering with our mix than the already low noise floor we achieve with modern equipment. Crowd noise alone will almost certainly outweigh the extra couple of dB or so of noise you create by running a few of your channels below optimum level. Saying all this, I do realise there's a point where you can slip too low... I don't have that much neglect.

Admitedly, my opinion is biased as I come from a background of mixing what can be losely defined as rock/pop groups where, conveniently, most of the elements tend to sit at appropriate levels in the mix when at roughly equal levels. Sure, I'm not so stupid I'm about to go trimming the gain down so far that I have a signal coming into the console from the preamp at -40dBu while leaving my fader up at unity. I am more inclined, though, to balance the gain trim and faders, to get the channel fader up a bit higher than -40dB down where, really, it feels a little useless. Faders are for mixing, yes... they're great because they give you something to grab, something to feel, something to ride (this is starting to sound wrong), something that lets you easily and creatively manipulate several elements at once in a meaningful way... you know... they're there for the feel thing. Functionally, they're exactly the same thing as your aux sends, practically they're much more fun. For me, and many others, having your faders at or close to unity is great for this. They just feel better there. To quote a quite prolific (studio) engineer (Micahael Stavrou), they're at "their most useable and juicy position, enabling finer control."



Of course, it's not like I'm allowed to work with large format consoles that not only have mute buttons (which even basic mixers have), but mute groups, VCAs, the ability to recall scenes, etc... hmm...





Yes, indeed pens/paper come in handy. A basic Crib Sheet, presets, and/or your own memory is usually enough to get you through this.

As for jmorris, all I have to say as a professional working in this industry is that perhaps you've now learned from this experience and know better for next time. The harsh reality of it is similar to the last paragraph in my last post... yes, some peole are dicks. That's how this game (along with every other job) works - some people are just really hard to deal with... However, perhaps you've also failed for being unprepared and less assertive than you could have been, instead choosing to rely on another guy to do half your work for you. It is generally accepted that when recording a live event you run a splitter and your own console and/or preamps. It is not the FOH guys position to object to having mics up on stage if they're not running on his console. Yes, the promoter/venue/event manager/band reserves the right to object, however as long as you set up in such a way that you have no affect on the FOH guy there should be no problem with him. Next time perhaps just tell the FOH guy "Hey, I'm bringing a splitter and my own console, preamps and mics. I'll be setting up the splitter and console and any extra mics I need to record this event myself in such a way that it won't affect your job. This is what I've been employed to do, and this is what I need to do." If you have a problem, consult the promoter/event manager/venue who's employing you. If they really do want you to fulfill your job requirements they will usually be happy to assist you reasonably. Just don't step on anybodies toes and you should be fine 99% of the time.

I hope some of this has made sense... it's gotten kinda long.

Take care.

The frustrating thing is , that is exactly what I did. I contacted the soundguy, explained I had a nice splitter, hd24 recorder and a host of mic's, I will be of no concern to him except maybe some additional mic's and maybe adjust placement. I mean, at the gig, he wasnt at all a dick. He was cool, just clueless and any explainantion regarding my needs became fruitless. My words were almost exactly yours. Now another thing I did a week prioe went great. The soundguy, was VERY inexperienced. He had the monitors and front end speakers wired wrong, did not know how to run the board etc.But he was very open to anything I suggested, very willing to learn and it came out very nice. I guess to a certain extent, I feel Im being a little blasted here from some for "not being prepeared" and having contracts written up when the issues ay had to me are common sense and knowlage of their craft, or lack there of.

 

[witzendoz]

I have done many years of live sound, and always try to get the faders at unity, at least to start with. I too tend to mix quite a bit using the trim to try to keep the faders at unity while the band keeps turning up the stage volume. The faders should be used to mix (produce) for adjusting solos, vocal dynamics, feature sections, effect levels, etc.

However, if the front of house desk is also sending to the foldback via a pre-fader aux send, turning up/down the trim also turns up/down the foldback level. Now if you have set up the foldback so that it is nice and loud (for the deaf band) you don't want to fiddle with the trim and mess up the foldback levels (that you can't hear from the mix position). Therefore in that case if I set up my trims during sound check (or previous act) I would then adjust the front of house levels using only the faders so you could end up with some faders right down and some pushed up.

I too have on occasions been the grumpy sound guy, when the band turns up 5 minutes before the doors open and want a sound check (I have been there for 2 hours waiting for them), bands that think that I am an endless supplier if Gaffer tape (that I pay for), surprises like someone turning up during the band change over wanting to plug into my insert points (that I am using already for compressors, etc) to record their friends band, the friend of the guitar player telling me the guitar is not loud enough during the sound check (even though we are checking drums and the guitar is not being played), the list is endless.

Cheers

Alan.

 

[Pahtcub]

However, if the front of house desk is also sending to the foldback via a pre-fader aux send, turning up/down the trim also turns up/down the foldback level. Now if you have set up the foldback so that it is nice and loud (for the deaf band) you don't want to fiddle with the trim and mess up the foldback levels (that you can't hear from the mix position). Therefore in that case if I set up my trims during sound check (or previous act) I would then adjust the front of house levels using only the faders so you could end up with some faders right down and some pushed up.

Yeah or if you have some screamer doing the sound check for a singer who actually needs his IE monitors turned up without clipping the pre like the screamer liked.

 

[witzendoz]

I did not write this but could not resist posting it,

SOUND ENGINEERS

A musician who's spent his entire life trying to get a
record deal is feeling extremely depressed. He's been
turned-down by every record company he's ever
contacted. No one seems to recognize his unique
genius. So, he decides to top himself and comes up
with an ingenious plan to get back at all the record
companies who've rejected him all of his life.
He books time at a recording studio, and instructs the
sound engineer to record everything he says, and every
sound he hears, and then copy it all onto 1000 CDs,
and send a CD to every record company executive on the
list that he hands the engineer.
The guy walks into the vocal booth; the red light is
on, and he begins..."This is a message for all you
sycophantic, talentless, stupid record company
ass-holes who've ignored me for all these years. I've
dedicated my life to writing beautiful, emotive,
soul-searching music, and all you bastards do is
discard my tapes, never return my 'phone calls, and
sign these horrible, no-talent, ridiculous, dumb
bands, and these filthy, dirty rappers! Well, you
bunch of morons, you parasites, you dumb pricks; I've
taken all I can of your puerile, shallow industry, and
it's you who have driven me to this! Goodbye you
fuckin' murderers of art!" With that, he pulls out a
gun, puts it to his head and blows his brains out.
The sound engineer glances up and says, "Okay. That's
fine. I've got a good level. Wanna go for a take?"

 

[thexflamesxburn]

I did not write this but could not resist posting it,

SOUND ENGINEERS

A musician who's spent his entire life trying to get a
record deal is feeling extremely depressed. He's been
turned-down by every record company he's ever
contacted. No one seems to recognize his unique
genius. So, he decides to top himself and comes up
with an ingenious plan to get back at all the record
companies who've rejected him all of his life.
He books time at a recording studio, and instructs the
sound engineer to record everything he says, and every
sound he hears, and then copy it all onto 1000 CDs,
and send a CD to every record company executive on the
list that he hands the engineer.
The guy walks into the vocal booth; the red light is
on, and he begins..."This is a message for all you
sycophantic, talentless, stupid record company
ass-holes who've ignored me for all these years. I've
dedicated my life to writing beautiful, emotive,
soul-searching music, and all you bastards do is
discard my tapes, never return my 'phone calls, and
sign these horrible, no-talent, ridiculous, dumb
bands, and these filthy, dirty rappers! Well, you
bunch of morons, you parasites, you dumb pricks; I've
taken all I can of your puerile, shallow industry, and
it's you who have driven me to this! Goodbye you
fuckin' murderers of art!" With that, he pulls out a
gun, puts it to his head and blows his brains out.
The sound engineer glances up and says, "Okay. That's
fine. I've got a good level. Wanna go for a take?"

haha thats funny.

my personal experience with live soundguys is that they dont really care. again, im not saying all, but any i have dealt with (and i have deal with A LOT). such as last week, i saw the ataris play, my friend's band end the stars played before them. end the stars is an INCREDIBLY talented band that will be huge one day. but the sound guy did a half assed job at getting them a good sound (half assed gives him more credit than he deserves).

you couldnt hear the toms or the kick. the bass guitar was overwhelming, the electric guitars were drowned out by the painfully loud lead vocals and non-existent backups. the soundguy didnt even stay at the board. he set the crappy levels and walked away to have a beer. it was miserable. i felt bad for the guys in the band, who have played incredible shows at the same venue. (and to defend them further from anyone who would blame their equipment, they all play on top of the line amps, drums, guitars, etc [h&k, orange, mesa, tama]).

so the ataris came on. the sound was phenomenal. it was actually one of the best sounding performances ive seen at this venue. perfect levels, crisp, clear notes. amazing. and the soundguy stayed at the board, monitoring the entire time.

moral of the story? you win some, you lose some i guess...but it seems the overwhelming majority lose (thus the creation of this thread, i'm assuming).