Conference napalm::guitar

Ah Ram, good food for thought...

one of the attributes about our current/to-be-previous sound man was
he was not only a damn good sound man, but a very capable guitarist
with a (what I consider) phenominal ear for not only the sound, but
the essence of it.  We kept our system MODERATE by many of the general
standars.. (Eg. ceratinly big enough to cover most occasions...)

BUT I see you point,, and that goes back to mine..

Back in them good old days,,, anything goes.. today, if you go squirell
hunting, you're brining elephant guns..  seems the more gut wrenching,
nausiating bottom end,, the better,, Ahh, but I think not...  But yet,
most bands have such a prominent bottom end, that it hurts to listen
too... why, is beyond me!

    Well, I can't speak about ALL soundmen, but the last one I worked
    with (same guy referred to in .1) certainly didn't fit the model
    presented in .0. I couldn't have been happier with my keyboard 
    sound thru the mains and I thought the band's sound from the
    audience's seat was something every band should aspire to.
    
    He was certainly an "enhancer"....
    
    Edd

    
    
    Its interesting,but,even though my group is Country,we do play some
    
    50s,60s,our set-up is as simple as I could get it. I use the PA for
    
    vocals only,and,we mix on stage. The only effect,if any,is reverb.
    
    I see other Country groups with tons of stuff,and,I think to myself,
    
    I'm glad I dont have to cart that around! I think a lot of times there
    
    is too much,and,unless you have someone that really knows what they
    
    are doing,its gonna sound worse. I like it simple.
    
    Mike
    

    
    	Well, I'm one of those who have seen the evolution of the PA
    	system go from a 30 watt Bogen with Atlas horns to the vocal master
    	to ...... mega PAs. It makes me chuckle... and grab my earplugs
    	when I'm in a room where I played 20 years ago with 100 watts total
    	(and we were loud) where nowadays the band has 500 to 1000 watts
    	and everything micd.
    
    	Ray, your soundman was good, but many aren't.  The whole idea about
    	micing drums was to compete with the louder amps, and that started
    	a battle where even in the smallest room, everything is micd, and
    	sound man keeps turning up the drums and vocals as the guitarist
    	turns up.
    
    	I like self mixing in small to medium rooms. Usually a friend can
    	tell you when the sound is balanced.
    
    	Guy
    

>    I was listening to an intersting bit on public radio this morning about
>    a young black trumpet player who just cut an album with his father (on
>    keys) of jazz "standards".

    FWIW  - someone told me Wynton Marsalis & his dad Ellis were on TV and
    radio this morning -- that may be who you heard.  Some might know them
    better (or prefer to think of them) as brother & dad of Branford
    Marsalis.   JBC

>seems the more gut wrenching,
>nausiating bottom end,, the better,, Ahh, but I think not...  But yet,
>most bands have such a prominent bottom end, that it hurts to listen
>too... why, is beyond me!
    
    Obviously you don't play the bass  8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    I've been working recently as a soundman in a coffehouse and it's a lot
    of fun when you find performers who just want the mikes to make thier
    sound a little bigger...i.e. it used to be called sound
    *reinforcement*, eh?  
    
    Many of the hassles of live sound are due to enormous volume.  The
    lower the level, the easier it is to get by without a lot of gear.  The
    PA we use in the coffeehouse is 200w to the mains (15" plus horn X 2)
    and 200w to monitors (four of those Peavey minimonitors, 10" plus
    piezo tweet).  I have never seen the DDT compressor kick in....
    
    What we strive for is matching the raw sound of the performer(s) but at
    a larger volume.  Lots different than my rock band experience, that's
    for sure.
    
    						Brian
    
    

   
    	Re .0 - Have you ever been to a Pat Metheney concert? I recall
    that they seemed to have the kilowatt PA setup with all the trimmings
    and the sound was however *wonderful*. Apparently the soundman had
    the perspective to make the SPL quite pleasant to listen to. He
    could have made it a terrible experience given what he had for options
    but chose (or was directed) instead to make it nice.

    	I guess given that "art" has to do with the quality of someone's
    ability to communicate and idea or feeling, all the soundman has
    to do is be in support of "quality". If he does a quality job, he
    does his part in telecasting the musicians' performance to the
    audience. He also has the ability to ruin it and is therefore just
    another complicating factor, so, why's it necessary to have one
    at all?
    
    	It's necessary because, optimally, the sound man enhances the
    sound of the instruments and should ideally be part of the performance,
    not work against it. As such, I think the soundman should be on
    stage with the rest of the performers and be "part of the band"
    - like the bass player or whatever. In this way, giving control
    of your instrument's sound would not be dehumanizing, because hey
    - there he is - the guy that's doing that!

    	So, one solution is to put the sound man *on stage* with the
    rest of the artists, if he has such a degree of influence on the
    final product! Make him a performer too...
    
    	Joe Jasniewski
    

    <<Obviously you don't play the bass  8^)  8^)  8^)

yo!  But I love a full warm sound...  I just think that lots of rock bands
take it to the other end of midnight, and by the time the mix is done,
you can't hear the vocals, nor, pickup a balance in the sound.. you get
bass, you get drums..  hey what-dya want for your cover charge,, Phill Collins ?

<<	As such, I think the soundman should be on
<<    stage with the rest of the performers and be "part of the band"
<<    - like the bass player or whatever.

I Disagree (big time) hear...

For the sound man to be effective, he MUST hear,, when you're
on stage, you got the worst seat in the house as far as the sound
goes..  Thus your soundman is totally ineffective.

We sat our sound man about 20 to 30 infront of at least one of the stacks.
optimally in the middle, but it wasn't always doable..  The larger the room,
the closer we put him...  Never-ever more the 35 ft out.  That way there, he
was in the optimum distance for the system we used, which was a medium throw
three way tri-amp set up..

    
       The band I play in has taken a new tack about 5 months ago......
    seriously reducing the volume. We had to change personnel to do it though.
    
       We play in restaurants, lounges, at dinner dances and weddings doing
    50's to 80's. We are booked 4 times a month minimum until next year.
     
       The reduced volume has had an impact on the number of gigs we're
    getting (we're getting more). The big complaint of most bands is that
    they are TOO LOUD. 
    
       It's true that we don't look the part (no long hair, not super
    skinny, etc.) and maybe it's not doing what you would envision playing
    in a band (mega-solo, blow it out rock 'n' roll) but we are working 
    steadily and the audiences seem to be enjoying it.
     
        I saw the Young Rascals in concert a couple of years ago (remember
    them?). Their soundman KILLED them. They were annoyingly loud with a
    crunchy undertone that eventually took it's toll....people walked out.  
    
    
         - Bob

    
    	Re .9-
    
    	Yes, that's absolutely true and is why soundmen are conventionally
    placed halfway out in the audience - so they can "hear the mix" or
    whatever...You could get around the necessity of doing that by using
    some kind of microphone technology however - if you really wanted to.
    
    	My point is that because the "soundman" is apparently such an
    inextrictable part of the final product made by the artists, why
    not have them share in the stage_glory? ;') I mean, it's easy to see
    how doing that would tend to foster better cooperation and put this
    "seperatist" attitude/feeling between the performers and the supporters
    to rest for good.
    
       	Yeah, we've all heard 'em - even at the big shows. The lead
    player starts out and then a couple bars later, his volume comes
    way up in the mix. It's like the stupid soundman isnt even *listening*
    to what's going on, nevermind knowing something about the song in
    terms of what happens when like the musicians have to. You sit in
    the audience and say "Sh*t man - *I* know the song better than that!"

       	If the soundman was actually an intergal part of the act instead
    of being hidden away serving some "supportive" function, that wouldn't 
    happen, because he or she would be performing along with the rest
    of the band. Just a "rad" suggestion I guess!
        
    	Joe
    	

 <<  	Yeah, we've all heard 'em - even at the big shows. The lead
 <<   player starts out and then a couple bars later, his volume comes
 <<   way up in the mix. It's like the stupid soundman isnt even *listening*
 <<   to what's going on, nevermind knowing something about the song in
 <<   terms of what happens when like the musicians have to. You sit in
 <<   the audience and say "Sh*t man - *I* know the song better than that!"


Not with the guy we work with.. He catches fills between words
for cyring out loud..  I've never-ever seen any one work the board
like our guy does..  We call him Dr. Tweak...  He's constantly adjusting
to everything.  His ear is his worst enemy thou cuz sometimes he's simply
hearing things more out of imagination then anything else.  But the overall
effect was the band always sounded good.. vocals and hamronies always
took the front, solos were always keyed up on time, drums sounded just
pissa, bottom end was right where it should be, delay patters were customized
and programmed depending on the tempo of the song, and dynamics of the
instrumentation.  Most of all, he took it upon himself to make the system
produce to it's fullest potential.  Just as I'd be bumbed if I wasn't feelin
good about the way I was playin on a given night, he'd feel that way if
he couldn't get it (sound) the way he liked...

He's a gift, granted,, but too many bands just grab a guy that wants
to do it.. Difference is bands should be looking for an --Engineer--, not
someone who just wants to cruise chicks, drink buds, and say "I'm with the
band man"  Gahd! Glad those days were over for me when we hired Dr. Tweak.
    

    My soundman gets and equal cut in our gig money and is also metioned in
    the band biography section of our promo package .... my leads are
    always loud and clear !  
    
    Again, as was mentioned in another topic, less IS more, in this case of
    stage volume.  I have gone from Marshall stacks to a 2x12", saving the
    4x12" for the BIG places.  Give the power to the PA, and keep it off
    the stage.
    
    As far as the soundman's placement, I feel he should be at the outer
    edge of the dance floor, when possible, especially if your music is
    dance oriented like ours is.  If it sounds good there, chances are it
    will sound OK in the rest of the club.  And once you get 'em onthe
    dance floor where the sound is primo, then the gig will be a success.
    
    Scary (just some thoughts ...)

    Jerry,
    
    Your point about Stage sound has been the best one in the note for
    me.  I have done the "soundmans" job in the past, a thankless task
    at best.
    
    Keeping the stage sound to a level where every member of the band
    can be heard above the drums (using transparent screening where
    nesesary).  This of course should all be worked out at rehersals,
    when the soundperson should be present to get a feel for their stage
    sound.  Then reherse with the PA rig and tape the output.  Use this
    along with the rest of the band to get the sound they want to hear
    out front.
    
    The point made about placement (-1) of the desk is a fair one when
    using Full Range bins and passive X-overs, but with a standard rig,
    placement is very important with regards to number of people expected
    at the gig, accoustics of the hall, etc...
    
    Overall an interisting topic for those of us that have either been
    "soundpersons" or are "soundpersons"...
    
    Bob

    Well, I didn't always think this way - I used to *try* to play small to
    medium clubs with a full Marshall stack.  Naturally, I wanted to hear
    it scream, but there was nothing left for the mix.  When I was told to
    turn down I always complained that I couldn't hear myself good enough,
    so it surely couldn't be loud enough in the room.  But after borrowing
    a wireless and walking back to the board (where I was loud and proud !)
    I changed my stance.  If you have a good sound man then trust his
    judgement concerning stage volumes.  If the crowd was all up on stage
    with you, you wouldn't need him anyway - but such is not the case.
    Being loud isn't a macho thing - it's a stupid thing if you care about
    how the BAND sounds ..... JMHO ...
    
    Scary (who practices MUCH louder than he plays live ...)

re:-1

Domina-Domina, Acitro-la-domina..

Amen!

    I saw Stevie Nicks during the Rock a Little Tour at the Worcester
    Centrum and again at Great Woods. The sound was horrible at both
    places, when she talked you couldn't understand it and the music was
    also bad. It  ruined both shows.  
                

    I can see that you are addressing several points that are not meant
    to pass judgement on soundmen, so much as to question the seemingly
    over-abudance of electronic gear needed for the current rock bands.
    My concern is that the richness of the "soundscape" is not what
    it used to be; maybe we loose something when we gate, compress,
    and reverb the frequencies ?  Maybe we loose something when we take
    sound from a guitar amp, go through a mike, go through another amp,
    go though some crossovers along with everyone else, and finally
    hit the air ?  Do you also think there has been some deterioration
    the overall depth or quality of sound in rock n' roll ?
    

    If all this *new* technology is used properly, nothing is lost - a LOT
    is gained.  The days of grabbing a guitar and an amp and heading to a
    club to play are over.  Most new amps have channel switching at least. 
    Even grass roots bands like Black Crowes probably use a ton of digital
    this and that to "enhance" the raw sound ... and to me, that's the
    secret - to enhance the original sound of the instrument or voice, not
    alter it ....
    
    Scary (ramblin' on a rainy Saturday ...)

    re: .18
    
    Yes, exactly. I didn't mean to be critical of soundpeople in general -
    I'm sure many of them are highly qualified and do an excellent job. I
    was making more of a comment on the over-use of technology, and the
    "de-humanization" of rock music. I over the years I have used (and
    still use) a lot of electronic gear, and I have nothing against it, per
    se. In fact, I used to be an audio recording engineer, so I understand
    the application of sound processing equipment very well. But musicians
    would do well to learn something from good audio engineers. The more
    experienced engineers I worked with would go out of their way to
    *avoid* the use of compressors, limiters, noise gates, etc. These
    things have an undeniable homogenizing effect on the sound. Something
    is lost in terms of the dynamics, tone and raw *power*.
    
    I'm not saying that if you're the Rolling Stones on tour you don't
    need a good sound system and effects processing. But for the average,
    roll-your-own rock band I think it's overkill. More than that, it may
    just be "audience-kill".
    
    - Ram

    
    	Re .18, .20 - 
    
    	Yes, you do definitely lose something when you mic, compress,
    comb filter, sonic maximize, delay duplicate, aural excite, amplify
    and crossover a sound source to several different drivers to finally
    spew it out at the audience. The sound *does* get "homogenized"...
    
    	In the HiFi world, there's this "minimalist" philosophy when
    it comes down to what's best for getting the sound off a record
    and into the air. Graphic EQs are out...one power amp is better 
    than three...preamps with no tone controls - just volume and balance...
    No unnecessary extraneous signal processing between pre and power
    amps...Two-way speakers are better than three... What this does
    is try to preserve what's *really* on the record, by having the
    least possible "interferances" between it and the speaker. One might 
    try to preserve what's *really* the actual performance when doing 
    sound in a similar way.
    
    	However, as I pointed out before, the sound processing in a
    performance is part of it; maybe you want it to sound "homogenized".
    Part of the homogenized sound is due to compression, which *MUST*
    be used for the dynamic range of a band or orchestra to be broadcast
    or recorded onto vinyl. It is because the buying public is used
    to this particular sound from listening to records and the radio,
    that the processing is done for it to "sound right" or "produced".
    Even with CDs, the 90 db or so dynamic range of a CD is NOT fully 
    made use of in all but classical recordings; and is certainly not in 
    "rock" music. A rock song is essentially either "on" or "off" SPL wise.
    
    	Joe
    	
    

    I've heard lot's of people refer to the good old days, but the
    fact is the sound at many live concerts during the 60's was terrible.
    Every time the beatles played live, they couldn't hear themselves
    over the screaming, and the audience also heard more screams than
    music. 
    
    The sound at the Montreaux Pop festival was terrible. The sound at
    Woodstock was terrible. The list goes on and on. The equipment
    available today is better, and cheaper. The problem is that the
    equipment is so reasonably priced, that some people overdo it. I'll
    admit many bands would sound better without compression, exiters, 
    heavy reverb, and other efx, but it's a fact of life that a large
    hall requires a large P.A.  The bare essentials include mics, a
    mixer, power amps, and speakers. Active cross-overs, and biamp
    setups should improve the sound if used properly. Passive crossovers
    tend to waste power, and cause distortion. It's like anything else,
    when used in moderation, anything can be good. When overdone, anything
    can be bad.
    
    The same can be said about recording. After I bought my multi-tracker,
    I laid down some tracks, and was quite impressed with the results. The
    more I read and talked to people, the more I felt my recordings could
    be improved by adding compressor/limiters, condensor mics, enhancers,
    eq's. etc.  Years ago, I played a very small club with a band. It was
    our first gig after 6 months of rehearsals, and we wanted to get an
    idea how we sounded live. Someone recorded us with a boom-box using
    the built-in mics. The tape sounded hot. It captured the energy of
    the band and the crowd, and every listen brought smiles to our faces.
    We later went into a recording studio with over $50,000.00 worth of 
    equipment and the resulting tapes sounded awful. I'm not saying you 
    can't get good results in a studio, but it takes a lot more time, 
    and trial and error to get great results. Tracks should be recorded
    dry, and efx added later, in moderation. A friend of mine has a very
    professoinal studio in his basement. His policy on equalization is to
    set the eq by ear, and then cut all boosts in half, because his
    experience tells him that his ear always trys to overcompensate.
    
    Mark
    

    I have both stuff that is recorded before and after I got my
    compressor.
    
    It's undeniable that they sound different so I can't really debate
    whether or not something is "lost".  Obviously something is also gained
    or we wouldn't be using them.
    
    Stuff I recorded without the comrpessor does have some technical
    problems which I consider to be undesirable (but perhaps could be
    avoided by spending more time (retakes, etc.), but it also does have
    a distinctly more "live" sound to it.  
    
    However, when I compare it to stuff I've recorded with the compressor,
    I find that that "live" sound gives it a sorta amateurish quality.
    It doesn't "sound" like what we've become used to hearing in a
    recording.
    
    Things don't "mix" quite as smoothly as with the compressor and thus
    too many parts seem to be "up front" in the mix.
    
    Thus my decision has been that while I might record very simple things
    (like a solo acoustic guitar piece) without compression because it
    gives it a very live sound, I'll record more complex things (like a
    band) using a compressor just to be able to have a more professional
    sounding mix.
    
    But I will *ALWAYS* record vocals with some compression, at the very
    least limiting.   That's just how I'm used to (and wANT to) hear
    vocals sound on tape.
    
    	db

    
    My feelings on soundman is that he's is the producer at the show.
    If he happens to be a guitarist, I'd shudder because I know that
    being one, he's likely to focus more on the sound of the guitar.
    Rest of the band would be more or less over looked.  Even if I'm 
    in a situation like Satch, I would like the rest of the band to 
    be just as focused into as the "main instrument".
    
    As far as sound goes, last and only time I played at a bar, the 
    soundman really screwed my sound up, and I'm the type of player 
    who relies a lot on my ear's feedback.  After the show, I ended 
    up telling him that I didn't spend almost $2000 for Mesa Boogie
    just to have a sound man screw up my sound by going direct (I wanted
    to mic) to not so high tech Trainor mixer/PA.  Luckily, he understood
    where I was coming from and we're still friends.
    
    J-Dot

    I don't know if there is a better note for this, but...
    
    What is the best way to mic a classical (nylon strings) guitar for the
    most clarity?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

re: .2

>    I don't know if there is a better note for this, but...
>    
>    What is the best way to mic a classical (nylon strings) guitar for the
>    most clarity?
    
For recording, or for live sound reinforcement?  If the former, I'd suggest
getting a reasonably good condensor mic and experimenting with mic placement.
If the latter, you also should experiment, but with a different goal: 
maximum gain-before-feedback rather than maximum tone.

-Hal

    As Hal says, it depends on the application.  I've done both, tell us
    whatcha need and I'll definitely have a reconmendation.
    
    Greg

    the latter: live sound reinforcement.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

reL .28

>    the latter: live sound reinforcement.
    
Solo, or with a band?  And if a band, what instrumentation?  For that matter,
how loud, and what kind of room?

-Hal

    Also, does the guitarist also sing?
    
    Greg

>Solo, or with a band?  
    
    both over the course of the show(s).
    
    >And if a band, what instrumentation?  
    
    if anything else at all, just a synth and maybe some percussive
    instruments.
    
    >For that matter, how loud, and what kind of room?
    
    It's a 1,000 seat theater/concert hall with 2 upper balconies that
    swing all around above the floor seats in a U-shape.  Looks kinda like
    an old opera-house.
    
    And yes the guitarist does sing on some of the songs.  Some are
    instrumental.  He always sits on a stool while playing the nylon guitar
    too.  
    
    Guitars are changed often for a variety of styles, but I'm only
    concerned about proper reinforcement of the nylon stringed guitar.
    
    Mike

>    Guitars are changed often for a variety of styles, but I'm only
>    concerned about proper reinforcement of the nylon stringed guitar.
    
    I don't think the way you'd mic a nylon string guitar is any different
    then how you'd mic a steel string guitar.  I've only done steel
    strings, myself.  Naturally, the optimum mic position for EVERY guitar
    is somewhat different, but I'd tend to say that a good condensor mic
    would go a long way toward getting a good sound.  
    
    If he's singing, I'd tend to start by trying to place the mic at the
    back of the guitar, pointed vaguely at the bridge, probably about 6-8"
    off of it.  If that doesn't sound good, try the same thing near the
    neck/body joint.  Avoid the soundhole at all costs, seriously boomy. 
    You'll EQ the snot outta it at the board and it'll end up sounding
    really thin and harsh.
    
    If you don't want to mic, there are pickup systems available.  They
    generally don't sound as good as a mic, but are much easier to deal
    with in a live situation.
    
    Greg
                                                      

    I'm a total non-believer in attempting to mic acoustic guitars for live
    sound.   There's too many variables.
    
    1) Generally you need very high gain at the board end and that usually
       means 
    		1a) feedback
    		1b) Leakage from other instruments
    
    2) In my experience, it's hard to keep the level right because
    		2a) You don't have a volume control
    		2b) You can get tremendous variances in volume when
    		    the distance between the mic and the instrument
    		    changes (as it does when you perform)
    
    3) The mic generally needs to stay VERY close to the instrument.  
    
    You can make this work as a solo performer, but within a band... forget
    it.
    
    I think the only way to get is either a pickup (they do make them for
    classical guitars) or preferably one of the NEWER guitars with builtin
    pickups.   I'd go with the thin bodied ones if you're playing in a
    band, but if your not, go with the more conventional designs.
    
    I say the "newer" because I think there have been substantive
    improvements in the area of live acoustic performance.   Perhaps thanks
    to MTV Unplugged.
    
    One other thing to consider is that there are new amps that are
    specifically designed to amplify acoustic guitars.   They are NOT
    a marketing gimmick.   Electric guitar amps are designed to add
    overtones/gain etc.    These are larger undesirable for acoustic
    guitars.   Most of these amps also have features to minimize feedback.
    

re: .33

Again, it depends.  Micing an acoustic guitar in an electric band is almost
always a disaster.  On the other hand, if the rest of the band is acoustic
as well (perhaps a bluegrass band, for example) micing works much better.

Mike also has an advantage in that the classical guitar player plays 
sitting on a stool.  This greatly reduces problems with the mic-to-guitar
distance changing.

-Hal

    the guitar (Takamine classical) has a pickup too.  The problem is the
    nylon strings.  I can't seem to get a clear, crisp sound out of the
    board that I like.  

re: .35

>    the guitar (Takamine classical) has a pickup too.  The problem is the
>    nylon strings.  I can't seem to get a clear, crisp sound out of the
>    board that I like.  

How are you taking the pickup into the board?  Acoustic guitar pickups often
sound bad when fed into insuffiently high impedance inputs.  You might see 
if you can borrow a Countryman Type 85 active direct box from someone and
see if that improves the sound.

-Hal

>Again, it depends.  Micing an acoustic guitar in an electric band is almost
>always a disaster.  On the other hand, if the rest of the band is acoustic
>as well (perhaps a bluegrass band, for example) micing works much better.

    Amen!  In bluegrass bands, they WANT mics, so that they can work 'em,
    like a singer does, to boost/reduce their own volumes!
    
    Greg