Why is mixing considered...

Jay Barracato

Graduate Student
Jan 11, 2011
1,528
4
38
Solomons MD
the pinnacle of what we do?

It seems about once a year that this band engineer vs. house engineer battle flairs up, and what it always seems to come down to is who is allowed to mix. I have never understood the focus that many people have on the mixing aspect of sound. It seems to me to be one of the easiest skills in sound to learn, and to teach. Leaving aside the question of musical taste (disagreeing with someone taste's doesn't really make them an idiot or unskilled), most of the live sound problems I have witnessed first hand don't come from the board or the choices of the mixer.

I really have enjoyed Phil's blogs (http://www.soundforums.net/blog/entries/40-Live-Mixing-Primer-Part-4) because of the practical, systematical approach he describes. However, the fact that he can explain things so simply suggests to me that the skill is really not as arcane as many people believe (Maybe we all want to believe that we are good at what we like to do and therefore it is important).

I am currently wrapping up an extremely busy festival season, where I have been a guest on what seems to be an endless set of systems deployed by others. Many of our big festivals were bracketed by routing dates in smaller clubs/listening rooms. I don't think I have actually set up my own system since early May. During these shows, no one ever hinted that I would not be the one to mix. However, some places were clearly not receptive to the idea of a guest engineer, others were accepting, while a few went out of their way to make things easy for a guest. At one festival this weekend, on the day we were playing, 4 of the 5 bands had hired techs with them. One of the bands used their tech for monitors and wireless (both IEMS and instruments). 2 of the bands (including mine) used the techs for FOH and IEM wireless (carrying our own boards and splits). One of the bands used their tech for both monitors (wedges) and FOH. While I had never worked with the sound company before, I knew all three of the other techs and their bands prior to this show. I would guess that any of us could have done a perfectly adequate job of mixing for any of the other bands. On the other hand, the second festival we went to, I was the only guest engineer. Guess which festival had the stronger lineup of bands.


Instead, it seems to me that system design and deployment should be considered the pinnacle of what we do. If the system is well designed and deployed, I am going to have an easy time mixing on it. In a festival setting I really have to trust the system engineer that the sound is at least relatively consistant at as many listening positions as possible. One problem that consistantly came up this summer was front fills. During a festival, the bands fans tend to move front and center for the groups they like. So the fans are most likely to be hearing the fills, which cannot be heard at FOH. One festival had great fills (to the point that I spent a lot of time sitting there when other bands were on stage), one festival had ok fills, but I felt they were significantly brighter than the mains, one festival had searing fills to the point that I couldn't stay in front of them for more than a couple of minutes, and a couple of festivals had no fills at all (Nothing like seeing a video filmed from the front row with no highs).

The second system problem that greatly effects the mix is system bleed. One festival had the stage under a tent with the mains on the outside. With no monitors, the low mid bleed off of the mains was terrible on stage, but could not be heard out front. I thought it was interesting that I ended up cutting 4 frequencies on the FOH graphic to deal with this, when I was done the system tech reflattened the graphic, only to have both of the other guest engineers cut the exact same frequencies.

Finally,the last system deployment problem that affects the mix is the one we are so familiar with that I think we take it for granted, and that is the sub power alley. I have gotten in the habit during the act before me on a festival to check for the high point and low point for the subs and to figure out where the FOH is in relationship to those. One festival (the same with the great fills) had flown subs, which I thought was a great solution for evening out the sub volume.


I think I have a definite mix style, but that style is based on the equipment I like to use. While my tech rider does not name any particular brands, it does list the capabilities of the equipment. Not having the equipment means falling back on basics. I prefer 4 channels of insertable compression for instruments. Adding in 2-4 extra for vocals, you get what my rider asks for. Several festivals have had none available, or had a single one slapped over the whole mix (8:1 on the whole mix for bluegrass? Excuse me while I hit bypass). Sure, I can fall back on riding faders, but that locks me to the desk, and keeps me from being able to respond to other problems. If mixing is more than just setting relative volume, I would prefer not to spend all of my time adjusting volume. If I feel limited in what I can do mixing by the equipment provided, I think I should be less critical of other peoples mixes without knowing what limitations they think they are working with. And if they have no limitations, then it is a matter of taste and there is no accounting for taste. I actually like to hear different engineers step to the board at a festival or else everything starts to sound the same.

So if I would have to take a SWAG, I would say that maybe 80% of the quality of MY MIX is actually the skill of the system engineer. So thanks to those guys making me look good.
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

Hey Jay,

I couldn't agree more. Being a good mixer (especially if you can mix more than one genre, and more than one type of event) is a valuable skill, but I can get guys with good mixes all day. I often get asked, when recommending a peer for some job, how their mix is. I always say it is good or excellent, because that question is so relative and also because (in my experience) anyone good at general audio is also at least decent at mixing since they must have the fundamentals down to do either.

The truth is, I don't give two shits how they mix. That's not why I'm asking for them on my gig, or why I'm recommending them for another. If they're mixing it's because the band doesn't have an engineer, and therefore the quality of their mix is of middling importance. What they can do is not embarrass me or the client. That means they work well under pressure, show up on time, work until the job is done, cover unexpected eventualities, troubleshoot quickly and well, make solid compromises, and take care of something the way I've asked for it to be done the first time. I'm talking about guys who I can say "hey, go upstairs and tell me how it sounds" and trust their response when they return (and trust that they aren't going to give me all sorts of unnecessary detail... I know there's a 2kHz buildup in the first four rows of the balcony. It was there when I put up and measured the PA. It's a compromise I made, and there's nothing to be done about it). I'm talking about guys who I'll spend 8 hours in a truck with, and then 12 hours loading in and running a show with, and not want to murder. I'm talking about guys who I can send to another stage and not hear from again all day because when a problem came up they solved it instead of making their problem my problem. I'm talking about guys I can have take down or put up a line array and have it come out right the first time, who aren't going to get an angle wrong or not plug in an enclosure or set the trim height or down angle wrong.

That's what I'm looking for, and while I know maybe a hundred folks who can mix their way out of a paper bag, I know far less that can be an all around audio tech. All the mixing talent in the world is valueless if you can't get the gig off on time.
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

Simple. It's what average Joe or Jane sees us do while they do what they do at concerts.

I, for one, bought, owned and rented out gear as well as organized all technical and practical aspects of gigs for a long time before I became a "mixerperson".

Stepping behind the desk is something I started doing when I felt ready and noticed that I had the passion for it. One day I knew this was something for me and I waited it out until I felt like I had learned enough by observing that I was ready to start doing. It was never the glamour of "being part of the music" or the boyish fascination with all the lights and buttons.
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

This is a very big point that I've tried to get across to people for the past few years in my area. Its especially true now that I'm parting ways with my weekend band.

They can't find an audio tech. Sure they can find someone that can move faders up and down and make them sound OK. But they can't find anyone that understands the full flow and processing of an audio system. Now i'm not at any level close to Bennett or anyone that does it for a living. I jumped out of full time 3 years ago when I had some life changes I had to make. But I know how a crossover works along with basic power and lighting.

Trying to find someone that understands how the system works as opposed to how to set it up is a while different beast. I love setting up, and don't mind tearing down. Mixing is just something I end up having to do in between those two.
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

Ya gots ta tune that thang 'fore ya kin play it......
 

Attachments

  • smashed-guitar2.jpg
    smashed-guitar2.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 0
Re: Why is mixing considered...

There are several reasons that the mix engineer is considered the "pinnacle" of what we do. First, it is the job that leads to "hanging out with the band". This is pretty silly, but for a 22 year old guy it makes a difference when they see pics of Dave Rat surfing with Flea. Second, the mix engineer gets paid the most. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't think there are many system techs making $7k+ a week. Then there are bonuses.
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

There are several reasons that the mix engineer is considered the "pinnacle" of what we do. First, it is the job that leads to "hanging out with the band". This is pretty silly, but for a 22 year old guy it makes a difference when they see pics of Dave Rat surfing with Flea. Second, the mix engineer gets paid the most. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't think there are many system techs making $7k+ a week. Then there are bonuses.

+1

And...part of being the guy behind the console is that...you're one of two (if there's a monitor tech) that's neck is most noticably on the line. Your "mistakes" are noticed by the Artist(s), Artist's Agent, Tour Management, Tour Crew, and Event Attendees.... then, there's the politics, social and work relations, etc...

Your switch must be in the "ON" position at all times....especially with the "A" acts.

Good luck and don't say or do anything stupid...;o)

Hammer
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

For Jason and Hammer,

I am not sure which is the chicken or the egg. Is that pay and responsibility due to the person mixing being responsible for all aspects of the sound, or is it because the person responsible for all aspects of the sound also happens to be the one mixing?

I like the way Dick said it and put it into musical terms but: Great system = easy mixing, Less than good system = difficult evening.

My comments were really more addressed to the levels under where a band is touring an entire crew, and where the house tech sees having a guest engineer as something unusual or infrequent. On the other boards there were some comments that were negative to band techs.I was basically thinking of some polite way to say to the house engineers "If every guest engineer on your system is unable to get a good mix, maybe you better start trying to figure out what is wrong with the system."

As with any performer that is doing a large number of shows, I have had nights that were up and nights that were down. I tend to nitpick at the performances that were less than my standards, but it seems that the shows that really had significant mix "problems" were invariably equipment related. I can only really think of one show where it was honestly my mental "I should have known that" goof that started when I believed a house tech about the way his system was patched.
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

For Jason and Hammer,

I am not sure which is the chicken or the egg. Is that pay and responsibility due to the person mixing being responsible for all aspects of the sound, or is it because the person responsible for all aspects of the sound also happens to be the one mixing?

* I really see no difference ..... bigger paychecks equates to larger responsibilities. (whether actual or perceived)

I like the way Dick said it and put it into musical terms but: Great system = easy mixing, Less than good system = difficult evening.

* While true...generally, the larger paychecks see less deviation in system quality, per their Tech Rider's requirements.

My comments were really more addressed to the levels under where a band is touring an entire crew, and where the house tech sees having a guest engineer as something unusual or infrequent. On the other boards there were some comments that were negative to band techs.I was basically thinking of some polite way to say to the house engineers "If every guest engineer on your system is unable to get a good mix, maybe you better start trying to figure out what is wrong with the system."

* If a band is touring with an entire Crew... it usually means that their venues are fairly substantial in size. If these Acts are still not carrying gear, and hiring in a rig or are using the House's rig...the House Tech's job is to serve the Road Crew. In my experience.... these negative comments are either from perceived lack of respect, out-right lack of respect,(from either or both parties), or envy of the Road Crew.

* While I would encourage anyone in this business to grow thick skin, there are times when no Body Armor is thick enough. ;o)



As with any performer that is doing a large number of shows, I have had nights that were up and nights that were down. I tend to nitpick at the performances that were less than my standards, but it seems that the shows that really had significant mix "problems" were invariably equipment related. I can only really think of one show where it was honestly my mental "I should have known that" goof that started when I believed a house tech about the way his system was patched.

* In regards to gear...you can only use it to the best of IT'S ability. When it comes to personnel... they are either concerned about the show, and enlightened about their gear....or not.....part of being a Tech is determining the value of the gear and the expertise and performance of your Crew. ALL of the CREW.

Cheers,
Hammer
 
Last edited:
Re: Why is mixing considered...

I have noticed an relationship between the quality of the rig provide and the openness of the owner to guest engineers. It seems the better the rig, the more likely they are to be used to visitors. On the other hand the pieced together RPS owner seems to think they are the only one who can run it.

The backwards thing in my world is that the great rig was probably put up by someone who is perfectly capable of getting a perfectly adequate mix on the first hearing of the band, so the better the equipment, the better paying the gig is, the less reason there is for me to actually be there. On the other hand, it is the lowest paying gigs, with the most marginal equipment, that the band most needs my experience to get a consistantly good show.

I do have a tech rider, but most of it is actually safety related stuff. Other than that it breaks down to please have a PA for FOH, no monitors needed, I bring the complete stage setup including mics, let me know if I need to bring compressors and effects, and have at least 14 channels to FOH. The tech rider is included with every contract and I advance every show by both e-mail and telephone about 2 weeks prior to the show. This year I am running about 2 out of 4 advances actually reaching the person who needs the information, and about 1 in 4 returning any useful information. Want to guess which of those venues are the ones prepared for a guest engineer and which ones are agast that the band would want to pay for and bring their own mix person?
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

In racing terms:
People want to drive, not be the chief mechanic.


or
System tech is tech (and HIGHLY) important.
Mixer is seen as art and the next best thing to being on stage.

I think more BE's need to realize that system techs do sometimes, a harder act than the actual engineer. The engineer walks up to a tuned rig, but someone else has spent time before the show even arrived specing out and then tuning the rig. System teching is art in my opinion, and as you said is highly important. We should all trade places for a few days... bring the monitor engineer out front for once! :p ;)
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

I think more BE's need to realize that system techs do sometimes, a harder act than the actual engineer. The engineer walks up to a tuned rig, but someone else has spent time before the show even arrived specing out and then tuning the rig. System teching is art in my opinion, and as you said is highly important. We should all trade places for a few days... bring the monitor engineer out front for once! :p ;)

If only that was what actually happened. I often spend far more time than I should have to aligning zones, tuning, and searching through menus on processors to find the odd filter or crossover that was left in by the "last guy to take the rig out".

I DO think that us BE's respect the art and science of tuning a system and being a system tech. It is just part of our job description to double check what has happened before we arrived.

In February and March I am doing 21 shows in the UK. My call will be to my system tech over there, who will look at the venues, decide which system works best, and then contact and rent the gear from a sound company. Sometimes it's DV-DOSC, sometimes Q1. I don't care, as long as he's setting it up and tweaking it.

Also, I do system tech. My main artist has been off for the summer, so I've been flying DV-DOSC from Genie's all summer long.
White glove season starts September 8 at the Mercy Lounge in Nashville.
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

Bennett,

A agree that having, basically what you describe as a "troubleshooter extraordinaire" is essential. If the rule is "the show must go on" then you need people that can figure out the root cause of a problem and fix it, or put in a safe, reliable workaround. Like any job, working with people you can stand for an entire shift or week of shifts is very important too. Throw in good work ethic and unfortunately, you have limited your prospective employment pool by a good margin. True of any profession really.

But I will say this: there is something nearly magical about listening to a well mixed live show. Maybe it is something you can learn (quickly or over time) and I don't claim to be a star at this by any means, but there are some that just have "it." What "it" is - pure talent, perseverance to learn what it should sound like, or perhaps just lucky enough to work with astounding musicians, good equipment, and good deployment - I don't know, but you know it when you hear it.

Maybe those times when the mix is damn near perfect, it's the later case (great musos, equipment, and deployment) and a tiny fraction of it is the mixer-person talent. Maybe it is all relative. I think more ratings than good or excellent are in order however, because I can definitely say I've heard a so called "good system tech" consistently butcher a mix on more than one occasion.

The good mixes are what have inspired me to apply continuous improvement to my work, though I constantly play system tech and band engineer hats. If what you and Jay say is true, then maybe since I play both roles I should focus more of my efforts on the system deployment and less effort on mixing. Interesting.
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

Sure, Ryan, but I know maybe 5 guys that can mix like that. Interestingly enough, two of them mix for jam bands. Any given season I see many many more guys who can put together a very good mix, and that's fine. A very good mix is not a deal breaker. Hell, a serviceable mix is not a deal breaker. We should all aspire to "very good" and always at least manage "serviceable", when touring for months at a time I'm sure there is considerable variability in the quality of one's mix.

I like to think I am a "very good" mixer, certainly 90th percentile. I sure as shit know what separates me from the best, though, and that's all creativity. The best mixers are to some extent part of the band, they know the music like the back of their hand and they add in little audible treats to make their mix part of the experience. I just present what's happening on stage with a little modification.
 
Re: Why is mixing considered...

If only that was what actually happened. I often spend far more time than I should have to aligning zones, tuning, and searching through menus on processors to find the odd filter or crossover that was left in by the "last guy to take the rig out".

I DO think that us BE's respect the art and science of tuning a system and being a system tech. It is just part of our job description to double check what has happened before we arrived.

In February and March I am doing 21 shows in the UK. My call will be to my system tech over there, who will look at the venues, decide which system works best, and then contact and rent the gear from a sound company. Sometimes it's DV-DOSC, sometimes Q1. I don't care, as long as he's setting it up and tweaking it.

Also, I do system tech. My main artist has been off for the summer, so I've been flying DV-DOSC from Genie's all summer long.
White glove season starts September 8 at the Mercy Lounge in Nashville.

I totally hear you. And please know that I wasn't bashing all BE's, hence why I said "more BE's" need to realize that there is an art to working through all the menus on processors. And I think the system techs should be able to double check BE work too, because some engineers just like to drive a system a little too hard! This is really just a team game all the way across the board. Everyone plays a part in a much, much bigger picture. I think it was Bennett that was saying something like this way in the beginning of this thread, but he said that he would rather hire the people that he knows can do the work, but also are able to spend countless hours in a truck together without someone being kicked out mid-trip. That's where the team work begins, before the show ever even happens.