Number of Engineers

[Josh Millward]

Re: Number of Engineers

Confusion with "Band Manager" would make this less than desirable… and lord knows someone will confuse BMP with BPM...

How about FT for FoH Technician? No… "foot."

OR OR OR FP for Fader Pusher?

Hahaha!!!

Personally, I'm kind of partial to "Noize Boy".

 

[Ivan Beaver]

Re: Number of Engineers

Hahaha!!!

Personally, I'm kind of partial to "Noize Boy".

I used to work with a band back in the 80s named "noise boys". They were very popular on the college circuit.

 

[Jack Arnott]

Re: Number of Engineers

OR OR OR FP for Fader Pusher?

Make that Fader Jockey.

 

[Max Warasila]

Re: Number of Engineers

Make that Fader Jockey.

 

[Jared Koopman]

Re: Number of Engineers

Really enjoying this thread, keep it coming. I love reading all the approaches to mixing. I like to think that I am doing all the above suggestions. I would love to have some of you hang out at FOH with me sometime and just offer some critique and suggestions. I dont want to become complacent with my mixing.

So again, if any of you all are ever in CO for an event (or just traveling through) I would love to hang out and learn what I can.

 

[Randy Pence]

Re: Number of Engineers

BMPs is too long. Let's just call them BMs. :lol:

too long to spell or say? nobody outside the industry would understand (maybe a good thing!), but call each sound band mixing person a "Bumpy." I would hope that this is significantly distinct from that thing that speakers get hung from or the buttons used to flash lights.

 

[frank kayser]

Re: Number of Engineers

Forgive me if I misunderstood the question, my theory is A) The 'A level' gigs are next to impossible to get if you aren't already doing them and B) the techs with the potential to be 'A level mixers' need to get some of those gigs to build the chops to do the mix and build the rep. So, you end up with a small pool of professionals doing everything, rusted on, little or no opportunity for new techs to join their ranks.

Being a touring professional would also seem to indicate there is a difficult or no home life. The road beckons to many, while it's not a thought for others.

The point someone made previously of playing nice on the bus may be the most important point, and new folks, regardless, are a risk to the peace and harmony of that "family".

 

[frank kayser]

Re: Number of Engineers

So much super information and reinforcement of some of the techniques I try to use. A couple comments (somewhat useful, I hope)

In most fields the high levels are occupied by people of skill that are often unliked by others.
Great chefs, great ball players, great surgeons...all of which I doubt were hired for their people skills and schmoozing abilities.
My duty is to the band/audience during the performance. Being a nice guy should not get me hired. Friendship and loyalty are touted locally around here and the average mixing skill level is in the dumpster. Like selling used cars to teenagers.

I figure that there can be only one great ego in a performance. It ain't (or shouldn't be) the sound guy, no matter how good they are. That's for the talent. If the talent graciously chooses to say "... and thanks to Frank for running sound tonight", all the better.

...(snip) What I don't enjoy is listing to CRAP coming out of the mains at the volumes my rigs are capable of producing, especially if it does not have to sound bad. That was what set off my little rant earlier. I really try to do something about bad sound rather than just complaining about it. That is why I write in this forum and always try to help others who really are interested in mixing.

That's precisely why I got involved in my "Jobby". Self defense. Just because I'm miserably small stuff, doesn't mean my work has to miserable. Most performers work too hard for little to nothing on the way up, and do not deserve lousy sound.

Yeah, but I can say with confidence that if someone is a douche bag to live with on the road, their skill set will have to be exceptional to compensate for being poison to the rest of the crew, and his/her job secured by some kind of relationship with the artist or its management. Playing "Chef Ramsay" to the artist will probably get you fired unless the act is up for that bit of fun...

(snip)

If you're mixing locally and not living with the band or other crew, then no, being a nice guy shouldn't be what gets you hired. It can be what gets you retained when the artist has choices of equally skilled people.

Amen.

Most of the bands I mix, I won't see again for months until they show up on another tour. I've taken the organic approach, pretty much giving the performers the benefit of the doubt and accept the sounds they give me as being representative of what they want the audience to hear. Sometimes that's hammered dogshit. I don't like dogshit, so I'll see what I can do about it, but at some point it is not my place to make significant artistic changes without the knowledge (and hopefully consent) of the act. If I have a relationship with the band or even a 5 minute conversation with them about how they want to be presented, things are different.
Tim Mc

My goal is to be transparent; not change the band's sound, but balance it for the room and make it louder. A common thread here is that part of that function, cleaning up the mix. Make sure I (as a fader pusher) to not get in the way (either sound or function) I do what I can to let the musicians concentrate on their music and "forget" the sound. Granted, I'm playing in an extremely small pond where most acts have no one at the soundboard, or do it themselves. Still have much to learn about my craft - and I'm in debt to all on the board.

(snip) Anyone can learn to mix, while their interpretation and taste is very subjective some basic concepts are not. I used the well recorded CD as a place to compare because I am sure the average person thinks that will be the best sound one can get. (snip) I can assure you it is easier to sound better on a great system live than playing a CD if you have the talent and equipment to work with for the optimization reasons I mentioned above.

Not sure if I'm there yet, but I have not worked with a great system. A well tuned system is a joy which allows optimization and perhaps some creativity, while anything else is a limitation you're fighting all night. (I know can beat a modern, over-compressed, POS CD on most systems, however)

With live sound you are dealing with so much more than in the studio, so it requires some different techniques and approaches. (snip)

The name of the game with live is to not amplify anything you don't want in the mix first and foremost. (snip)

The other big part of cleaning up a mix that most people seem to miss is that the overall sound is coming from EVERYTHING on ALL channels combined. Something may sound great by itself but when everything else is playing the perceived tone may go completely in another direction. Also anything else coming through that channel if it is a microphone or pickup is affecting the overall sound to some degree. The real skill is making various cuts and compromises across the board to get the stellar overall sound.
-Eric

"Cuts and compromise" is such an important concept that is so poorly understood, or even recognized. I think we rarely phrase it like that, though we many times hear and read about "finding a spot in the mix". Clean sound is a compromise. Punters will come up and say "need more X", especially when there's a "homey" in the Dead band and they want to hear their cello loud all the time. Most bands do not understand dynamics - which is a form of compromise. Not everything can be up front all the time.

Taking a potshot at the recording industry, most recordings are so compressed that it seems everyone is up front all the time. I think that's what they are used to listening to, and think that's normal. Personally I think many modern recordings are mush. YMMV.

Most musicians have no concept decent sound period, let alone that of mixed sounds. They do know when they or their friends sound good at a venue where their music comes across well, but never analyze why. Some recognize the sound guy has something to do with it, but have no clue (interest?) on what. They do see "Mr. Soundman Great" makes them sound better than "Mr. Soundman Poor", even at the same venue.
Obviously "Mr. Soundman Great" is a student of the "cut and compromise" method, while "Soundman Poor" isn't.

Jay elaborates (very well) on the "cut and compromise" concept below.

There is a lot of really good basics here and I truely believe that a great mix is just the basics repeated over and over again. I have raised some ire before but I also believe that mixing (especially in a live setting with a one off band where you have no input into their production or arrangement) is technical skill rather than an artistic skill that can be learned by anyone with decent ears who is willing to learn then apply those basics.

So I figured I would add on some of my basics.

1. A great mix starts with a well tuned system. You cannot use use eq to help shape a mix if you are using it to fight feedback.
(snip)

2. Practice subtractive eq. Take out what you don't want. The better a band is at arranging their material, the less you will have to cut because the band will already have made space in the mix for each instrument. If they haven't, don't be afraid to cut a lot. As an alternative to Eric's tom example, I like to use a bluegrass example. Each of the typical bluegrass instrument overlaps significantly in the frequency range that gives their voice. When close micing the instruments, the buildup can make it difficult to hear solo parts without a significant volume change, which I hate and think is bad mixing. So instead, you can make space by subtractive eq to give each instrument its own place in that frequency range. Use 3-6 cuts from roughly 1000 hz - 3000 hz, placing the cut for the instrument you want to be lowest in the mix highest in the range. I.E. cut the lows from the mandolin, cut the highs from the guitar/dobro.
(snip)

3. Ignore #2 as needed. Subtractive eq is nice but if a boost is what makes it works, go for it.
(snip)

5. The thought that making each instrument sound great on its own but that may not work in a complete mix is important. Everything we hear, we hear in a particular context. This is the same reason I discourage bands from the one channel at a time method for setting levels in monitors. Go ahead and play something. You can survive a verse or two without yopur monitors being perfect. Listen in the context of the whole band playing because that is how you will be listening during the set. The same holds true for FOH, listen to your mix including both monitors and backline volume. Perhaps what the mix needs is for you to reinforce only part of what the instrument sound is. It is fairly common for me in small shows to only reinforce part of the bass' range of frequencies because I think bassists have a hard time hearing how their amp sounds in different spaces. So I basically let them do what they want to hear it at their playing position, and then take the stage bleed and supplement it with the FOH system.

Another good example is the current use of the acoustic guitar in modern rock/modern country. I rarely eq an acoustic guitar the same way for an acoustic/solo show and a full on band show. For the full band, I drastically cut the mids to move the tone above the other guitars. Often you will have to talk with the guitarist about this, especially if they want to check the instrument without the context of the other band.
(snip)
Those are some of my thoughts for now. I will probably have something else later if this conversation continues.

I mostly work with acoustic or acoustic/electric bands, and it is absolutely AMAZING how effective these techniques are in cleaning up a mix. Some I've read here, some deduced, and some by accident. The best part is that these tips are universal whether working minimal systems or great systems (substituting rule 1, a reasonably tuned system)

That also works great as a side chain function with the features we have on the new digital consoles since we have all the compressors available. You can do a multi guitar channel with the frequency removed on the main channel and take a vocal side chain keying the compressor on the channel with the frequency flat or boosted. The vocal will duck it however many dB you set it up for when it comes in.

Super tip, Eric.

The multi channel/multi band approach also works with a guitarist who switches between strumming/flat picking/finger picking. I also like to use parallel compression (but not nearly as high of a ratio you read about in studio work) because the boost of the lead instrument can serve to duck the rest of the instruments, leaving the overall volume unchanged.

I have also, on one off shows, used John's technique of boosting part of the band with the eq rather than boosting the whole channel with the fader. As a matter of fact, while I am an active mixer, I am not a finger on each fader mixer, and once my gain structure is set, most of my time is spent with eq, effects and dynamics.

I have usedsome variations of Eric's and Jay's multi-channel thing (without compressors) for the different picking styles, but using manual balance of the channels to mix 'n match to the technique and re-position in the mix as needed.

By the way, out of everything a sound guy might do for a show,mixing is the one thing least deserving the title of "engineer".

On that discussion, engineering is an approach to problem solving. If you design something based on a predict or model, build, measure, test, confirm cycle you are doing engineering. If you are doing something learned by repetition or rule of thumb, technician is a better term.
(snip)

I agree fully (well nearly). Probably semantics, but I prefer the term "analytics". Analysis starts as recognizing that a deficiency or problem exists, then going down a decision tree to look for the proper solution. That solution may or may not require an engineering fix. (I'm not an engineer, but rather I played the role of an analyst in my former life)

Really enjoying this thread, keep it coming. I love reading all the approaches to mixing. I like to think that I am doing all the above suggestions. I would love to have some of you hang out at FOH with me sometime and just offer some critique and suggestions. I dont want to become complacent with my mixing.

Pound for pound, syllable for syllable, one of the best threads in recent memory.