Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

Marsellus Fariss

Marsellus Fariss

Sophomore
Oct 25, 2011
121
1
0
Most of the tech riders I see come through here have "PA must be able to maintain 115db undistorted at mix position" and some have been absurdly high like 130db. Rarely if ever is there a weighting specified which is silly to me. What's the deal? A or C?
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

Jonathan Goodall said:
I had one the other day that stated 110dB evenly throughout the whole room (room unseen)
Yeah-nah
Click to expand...

What's wrong with asking for consistent coverage?

From my rider:

"HOUSE SPEAKER SYSTEM
All Time Low is looking for something that was made in the last 15 years, is capable of high volume, and provides a high level of sound clarity. Please see above for a list of preferred speaker systems. The house system should be able to comfortably maintain 126dBC at the mix position; this usually corresponds to 110dBA at the mix position based on All Time Lowʼs mix structure. Our Engineer doesn't plan on mixing at these volumes, but the system headroom is greatly appreciated for overall mix dynamics."




Evan
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

If no weighting is specified then wouldn't that technicaly be Z-weighting or unweighted values? On the other hand, I can see someone walking in with their Radio Shack meter set for A-weighting and then complaining you don't meet their requirements. So I gues it depends on if you intepret it literally (Z-weighted), conservatively (A-weighted) or somewhere in between (C-weighted).

I think that one point of the coverage spec is trying to ensure an acceptable and consistent result in every house even if they have not seen the hosue or system.
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

I interpret it as a sign to the entertainment committee in charge of the annual fundraiser that they need to get someone involved who understands the language.

It's just a generic safety net for the band that gives them a way to get out of the gig if they show up and there's only a couple of 12" eons on sticks provided for them.

I've never had a BE, PM, ETC. test the raw SPL capabilities of a system before deciding whether to unload the truck.
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

The major difference between A&C weighting is only below 1khz. Instrument and bass tracks will have noticeably different readings, but vocals will be essentially the same. Requiring 'undistorted' sound is a pretty lofty spec. Not sure that's even technically possible. But at least they are trying to quantify what they want from a sound system. Essentially, they are saying make sure it gets loud and doesn't suck. Coming up with specific wording that would work in all venues would be quite challenging to say the least, as every room has its potential issues to deal with.

My favorite rider that I've had to fill is for a waterski tournament. I have to pull out all of the stops to make sure my gear can get that quiet....

A. Loudspeaker cabinets sufficient to provide clear, intelligible coverage of the entire spectator and judging area. Sound pressure level (SPL) at the judging area should be at least 70 db.
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

I think we all know the difference between A and C weighting but most are unfamiliar with Z weighting and I'm sure that's not what these riders imply. I think most also understand what BE's and agents are going for when they spec high SPL requirements to ensure an adequate rig is supplied. My question is within the context of the unclear, self-contradictory and out-right ridiculous riders that float through Clubland how should I interpret required SPL at FOH if no weighting is specified?

I know how much we all enjoy discussing such things so I'll bring up several helpful points I think everybody should appreciate when making a tech rider:

Outside fest gigs and inside club gigs are two entirely different animals. For one the mix position is usually the back of the room behind the audience in a club and at a fest your somewhere in the midst of the audience. For this reason I find "SPL at mix position" a bad standard. I think the "SPL over the listening area" is much more relevant.

Input lists and monitor requirements are similar and I would enjoy some allowances between the two on riders. I think it could be done without much complication. I've done it myself. You won't need 12 mics on the kit in my 50X60' room. Nor has any act needed each member to have a pair of 15"x2" bi-amped wedges at 130dbA on a 25'x15' stage, an XL4 or any line array ever as our maximum trim height is 10'.

What these unrealistic riders do in Clubland is cause lots of venues to disregard them entirely as something they would/could never actually adhere to possibly causing actual problem day of show. i.e. a conversation I overheard once with a band I was playing with at the time: BE:" The riders said we needed a monitor desk I'm not doing wedges from FOH!" PM: "you had all kinds of stuff on there you knew you'd never get how was I supposed to know what you needed! You not getting an XL4 or a 2000k light rig either!" This was a small time regional act and the TM/BE had made one of these typical "wish list" riders. He did 6 mixes from FOH on a Mackie and made use of the matrix for a verb send.


I recommend BE's and TM's right realistic riders containing things they really need and learn the language to do it. I think it would cause less problems for everybody.
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

Marsellus Fariss said:
My question is within the context of the unclear, self-contradictory and out-right ridiculous riders that float through Clubland how should I interpret required SPL at FOH if no weighting is specified?
Click to expand...

Legally, if it isn't specified in the contract rider then it is not important enough to worry about.
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

Milt Hathaway said:
Legally, if it isn't specified in the contract rider then it is not important enough to worry about.
Click to expand...

Puts me in mind of the sign I saw in the window of the barber shop back in 1954:

"Three chairs, no weighting."
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

I agree that if it isn't specified, it can't be enforced.

I think that the only useful weightings are those that take into account the lower frequencies. Either C or Z would give more meaningful information about the speaker system. Creating lots of HF noise doesn't mean that the sound is going to be able to be good. Getting tons of HF is easy. It is the LF that takes work.

I also think that SPL is generally poorly understood by most people.
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

Nothing at all but in the room the gig is in and the fact that it is a SOS rig, it will be extremely unlikely
that there will be an EVEN coverage from front-to-back at the same level :)
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

It's a bullshit, arbitrary number so A or C don't stinkin' matter.

There, I feel better now.

Really, it's a way of saying "bring Enough Rig for the Gig® and we'll be cool". Cover the audience areas with enough SPL to get over the band's stage level and you'll be fine. How much that needs to be is a matter of the guys on stage and what levels they're accustomed to.

Feel free to X out the rider stuff you don't agree to. The band will play the show anyway just to sell their merch.
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

With this being posted in the JV section... Riders are taken with a grain of salt.

I once was doing a small local festival with a bunch of high school and 'original style music' bars bands... the contract between the promoter/festival stated that bands rider requirements are only a suggestion for the production company; and the contract signed between us and the promoter stated that we'll accommodate the bands input list to the best of our abilities.

Most of the bands sent me a description of what they needed and except for one band…

Well I receive this "rider" from one of the bands, think of them as a washed-up 80's glam rock band still trying to make it big; they send me their entire production specs packet and it lists: 48 channel Allen & Heath or Midas mixer, the FOH PA system needs to be a 4 or 5 ways system with upwards of 40k watts; it also stated that each member needs to be double up on wedges with a dual 18 on the drummer… blah blah blah. But what wasn't included the "packet" was a list inputs. So I called the band was like hey what all do you need mic'd for this festival (got the list, 4 piece band with 15 inputs) and then they started asking me what PA was I bringing (1 per side of JBL SRX722/SRX728 & Itechs and dB Tech DVX wedges), they started saying that it wasn't going to be enough PA for them and their crowd. Guy was being a dick on the phone, so I asked them how many tickets have they sold for this event? His response was 12; so I said I'll have enough PA out there for your 12 fans that have paid to see you.
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

Tim McCulloch said:
Really, it's a way of saying "bring Enough Rig for the Gig® and we'll be cool". Cover the audience areas with enough SPL to get over the band's stage level and you'll be fine.
Click to expand...

I remember walking into a system with Mackie console and a couple little speakers (old EV or Yamaha?), no subs. Or another gig, Bose speakers and Mackie mixer. Tim nailed it, after being burned with crap gear, writing something to keep those experiences from happening again.
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

Matt Vivlamore said:
they started saying that it wasn't going to be enough PA for them and their crowd. Guy was being a dick on the phone, so I asked them how many tickets have they sold for this event? His response was 12; so I said I'll have enough PA out there for your 12 fans that have paid to see you.
Click to expand...

Now that is funny:)
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

Evan Kirkendall said:
What's wrong with asking for consistent coverage?

From my rider:

"HOUSE SPEAKER SYSTEM
All Time Low is looking for something that was made in the last 15 years, is capable of high volume, and provides a high level of sound clarity. Please see above for a list of preferred speaker systems. The house system should be able to comfortably maintain 126dBC at the mix position; this usually corresponds to 110dBA at the mix position based on All Time Lowʼs mix structure. Our Engineer doesn't plan on mixing at these volumes, but the system headroom is greatly appreciated for overall mix dynamics."
Click to expand...
Evan,

Nothing wrong with asking for consistent coverage, though your rider does not mention an impossible to meet permissible variation through the audience as all the good old ones did.
Your level difference of 16 dB "A" and "C" is interesting, to actually achieve that level difference would require a ratio of approximately 10 times the subs to tops with most systems.

The way your rider is written, I would make sure that the mix position was about 10 feet in front of the system to insure plenty of headroom for "Our Engineer (who) doesn't plan on mixing at these volumes", but frequently writes of exceeding them ;^).

Art
 
Re: Do you interpret "required SPL" on riders as A or C weighting?

Evan Kirkendall said:
What's wrong with asking for consistent coverage?

From my rider:

"HOUSE SPEAKER SYSTEM
All Time Low is looking for something that was made in the last 15 years, is capable of high volume, and provides a high level of sound clarity. Please see above for a list of preferred speaker systems. The house system should be able to comfortably maintain 126dBC at the mix position; this usually corresponds to 110dBA at the mix position based on All Time Lowʼs mix structure. Our Engineer doesn't plan on mixing at these volumes, but the system headroom is greatly appreciated for overall mix dynamics."




Evan
Click to expand...

I would love to see that rider..
 
Top Bottom