Control Geek

I know that as an engineer, these are the goals that I strive for, I'm not sure theres much more than that to constitute a well-mixed show.

The only other thing that I might add would be that the concert sound the way that the artist wants. Sounds weird, but for example, if one went to see an acapella group, one wouldn't want it to be so reverb heavy that the words cannot be heard clearly. Likewise, a more artsy, prog-rock type band might shun the vocal sound being so clean and free of reverb, etc.

Hear hear, John.

I think there should also be a zone at a venue where you can have a conversation, away from the show level SPL. I mix a lot of live shows, a lot of concerts- and what really get my goat is when another engineer thinks that 110dB SPL, broadband is a fine AVERAGE level for enjoying a concert. it's not, it's too darn loud. If a crowd is screaming bloody murder, maybe it's an OK level, but there's no good reason for it most of the time. Don't know about you, but I don't want my ears to ring. I want to hear later in life!

To make matters worse, at live outdoor festivals I mix every summer, I often have people come up and say, "Can you turn it up? We're in the back, and people are talking." So move closer to the PA, or tell the offenders to shut up. Don't assume that I should raise the entire PA just to suit your position 500' from the stage!

It's no wonder I prefer mixing television broadcasts, where I can control the listening environment.

JvB

Hi,
I have been lucky enough to experience when live sound doesn't suck. And, for me, it is one of two occasions: (a) the space where the live sound was produced was designed specifically for that kind of sound, i.e. a concert hall for the philharmonic with the philharmonic playing or a church - now how is it the gothic churches could get it right and we just can't? or (b) when the performance space took the time to place speakers for that performance space. I think the placement of speakers for rock-n-roll tends to be standard meanwhile each space has its own ambiance, timbre, etc. etc. Lighting designers change in every venue in order to match the initial design. Why can't sound design do the same? This is coming from a musician/lighting designer. Is this too pedestrian for the conversation? Hope it provokes something more than a scoff.

The problem is all too often the venue, or the artist, not the engineer or the sound system.
How many times have you seen a little bar band with old ratty PA system but sounds really good? It's not the gear, it's the talent and the space they are in.

Bands that want to sound good have to get their stage volume under control, their playing tighter, and the rooms they play in cannot be bunkers with huge reverb times. Arenas, gymnasiums, churches and reverberant concert halls are just no good for amplififed live sound.
Any engineer can make a great band sound good in a great room. It takes REAL talent to make the shitty band in the concrete bunker sound halfway-reasonable!

Here's my take on it as an audio engineer. Basically, most of the staffing companies/venues/clients that actually hire a sound guy are looking for two things: 1) Good value for their money for the amount of work done, and 2) Someone who understands things well, stays calm, and works hard and fast.
Every sound guy worth his salt should be #2, and of course we're all a little TOO MUCH #1, but notice there is no #3 on this list. Mixing ability / good ears / thoughtful design / meticulous / takes as much time as needed to get a good mix are simply not factors to the client. They just need to make it work, and make things (sort of) heard. I run into this even in venues with high-end systems and clients with a lot of money.
I know exactly what you're taking about, and I believe I possess these other qualities, but they're rarely all that desirable enough to give me the edge - competitive rates are vastly more important. It's a sad state.

Also, I believe there should be federal laws in every country dictating maximum concert volumes, at a level that isn't going to do any damage (I usually mix just above 90db - if the mix is good, and the system is flat enough, you never need any more to get good impact and please everyone in the crowd.)

Hey,

My experience with live sound has been highly unfortunate for the most part. I'm a youngster, and a lot of my concertgoing experience has been small groups, small venues, and loud music. Only after I got into audio a number of years back did I realize that earplugs were an absolute necessity, and now I never attend a show without. Even so, that is not always enough. My personal favorite was a show where the sound pressure was so intense that after only a few minutes I felt queasy and had to step outside. I spent a good part of the evening alternating between cigarette smoke and sickening SPL's before finally convincing the people I had brought along to leave early.

The best part was that the engineer was drinking a beer and hitting on a girl about four feet back from the console. I don't think I saw him touch a fader after the first song.

It seems obvious that with smaller groups and sloppy little venues the quality of the sound might go down, but I don't really think this is acceptable either, especially when it is painfully loud. The standards that you've suggested seem perfectly reasonable and perfectly achievable. I just think that a lot of people believe it's a much cooler experience to be assaulted by violently loud sound. As stupid as it may be, that seems to be the mentality.

My significantly less experienced thoughts on the matter.

Thanks,
-Ben

My question is why. The quality of the gear keeps going up and the sound in the venues is going down. Any soundman worth their weight knows the source sound is most important. The shit-in-shit out rule has always applied. A good tight band is where this all starts.

Over the years management has stepped in and said bury that guitar, vocal or whatever the artist is the most important. There must be 10 Db between the band and the singer. They are paying us and we have no say but to do as they wish. At times we all have to make allowances and try to do what the artist whats to be done. He wrote the song right and he knows what he wants it to sound like. You had better know what has to sound like what in order to get his point accross.

I got into this business cause I love to mix. Nothing like a tight band playing whatever type of music and any realy good band cannot be destroyed by a bad soundman. Guys we gotta stop looking, Smarrt, m
Melissa,and SIM, at what we are doing and start listening. If you don`t trust your PA tuner get another, there are lots of great guys and gals out ther who know what they are doing. First shut off the PA and listen to the band. Then add what you need to make the mix work.. And you better know what sounds you are tring to get theirs. We as soundmen are there to translate their feeling to the crown and not at 120Db 200 feet from the stage. With all the DB police out there fining soundmen hefty sums the 106 Db C rule is far too loud in Europe. North of Toronto it is 96Db or else.
In the small clubs our main enemy is stage volume you must balance the band on stage then add what is needed. It seems so simple why is it not being done. I have been doing this sort of thing with up and starting bands for over 35 years. This is supposed to be fun so let us make it fun for all.

I think it's a happy thing to strive for, and as a mixer, I always try to do all of these - as we know, it can be difficult, and it requires co-operation. On track with what JVB says, it drives me nuts when a show calls for light re-inforcement and artistically the statement is "I don't want it to sound mic'ed" so I do my best, work extra hard on the EQing, balancing and levels and achieve it - then some cone-headed audience member complains because they actually have to listen to the show instead of being assaulted by it.

Opinion of a non-sound-pro audience body:
First complaint is it's almost always too loud.
I don't want to be "assualted by the sound" ( thanks Mike G>).
Then vocal intelligibility is most important
(else why bother having any words ?)
Reducing the horsepower in the loudspeakers
will usually help the intelligibility.

There is a large economic factor, too: The (loud, if not vast) majority of people that come up to me during a show are not asking for it to sound better or be smoother or for the vocal clarity to be improved. They are asking me to TURN IT UP, MAN! Same thing from the artists, "Dude, we shouldn't be able to hear for 3 days after a show."

Yes, the older, more professional acts may have mellowed out on this attitude after a few decades of playing.. but by now their ears and the ears of their engineers are likely long gone. 20 years of people spilling beer on you while asking you to CRANK IT UP, MAN leads you to believe that the way to please the customer is to turn it up.

Take a survey of concert goers and ask them which is more important:

A) Painfully loud, dude!
B) Nuanced articulate mix faithfully reproducing the subtleties of the material.

When I'm driving the board, I can give you either one. But I already know what most of the audience wants. The seven people who stormed out because it was too loud don't hold a candle (measured in market share) to the 5,000 screaming people down in front.

"Dude, if you die with any hearing left, you wasted it."

- FOH for Bo Diddly Iron Horse, Northampton MA.