Some thoughts on "mixing"

[Jay Barracato]

While I was working with individual bands as a BE and using my own mic package, I found that in a festival setting I could get the gain of one mic by metering, set the rest relative to that, bring up the faders and have a workable mix.

Recently, I have been doing more one offs, in a bar setting where an extensive soundcheck would be distracting to the dinner crowd. I have been line checking using meters and headphones. SMAART spectrograph on my que bus adds even more frequency dependent information. Just prior to show time, we bring up the house and monitors for a quick last check. Once again, a good line check results in a workable mix.

So my current thought: Mixing is about control of gain structure.

That gain structure should be considered as both dependent and independent of frequency, and should include all processing such as dynamics and effects, but it just comes down to gain structure.

Some people may not like that because it reduces the amount of the process that might be considered "art", and I will probably hear the usual lines about "mixing with your eyes", but I am also pretty sure that poor gain structure is likely to result in a good mix.

 

[Chris Nixon]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

I'm not sure it it's on exactly the same lines as what you're talking about, but here is how I sometimes set the house GEQ with an act I have worked with before and have settings saved for. It's like the frequency version of your gain theory.

Choose an input, say the lead vocal. Leave the channel strip settings for it the same, using the same mic etc. and adjust the house EQ to make that vocal sound the way it should. This will then make every other input sound "correct" as well.

Chris

 

[Scott Bolt]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

While I was working with individual bands as a BE and using my own mic package, I found that in a festival setting I could get the gain of one mic by metering, set the rest relative to that, bring up the faders and have a workable mix.

Recently, I have been doing more one offs, in a bar setting where an extensive soundcheck would be distracting to the dinner crowd. I have been line checking using meters and headphones. SMAART spectrograph on my que bus adds even more frequency dependent information. Just prior to show time, we bring up the house and monitors for a quick last check. Once again, a good line check results in a workable mix.

So my current thought: Mixing is about control of gain structure.

That gain structure should be considered as both dependent and independent of frequency, and should include all processing such as dynamics and effects, but it just comes down to gain structure.

Some people may not like that because it reduces the amount of the process that might be considered "art", and I will probably hear the usual lines about "mixing with your eyes", but I am also pretty sure that poor gain structure is likely to result in a good mix.

Jay,

I am thinking the same thing. It is my intention to get a variant of the X32 to mix with and to save scenes for different songs which I will switch via MIDI when live (I mix from stage).

Of course, this only works if the input gain on the channels remains constant from when you created the scene.

My bass player uses a DI exclusively, so no problem there. The drummer .... vDrums, so that should be pretty easy to get right. The microphones .... again, this should be the same as long as the mic's stay the same.

It's those darned guitars

I sing lead and play rhythm. I dime my guitar and do all my tone changes through patches on my 2120. That is also where I get my boost for leads. Because of this, my volume is pretty consistent between patches and through the night (although sometimes my VHT amp does get a little louder as the night goes on as the tubes heat up). This is still pretty easy to get right.

It is the lead guitar player that is tough. He modifies his tone by rolling off or on the guitar volume knob. He has a chain of individual efx which get bumped from gig to gig when moved and thus sometimes simply engaging part of the chain changes the volume level.

My cure (more like a bandaid) for this is going to be to have an iPad / PC Tablet mounted on my microphone stand showing the input gains. If things get screwy, I can do a quick modification to either his gain, or his fader.

This isn't as good as having a dedicated sound man, but even the soundman would have issues with continual changes in volume. Sound would simply be better if guitar players would put a little thought into consistency

 

[John Chiara]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

Funny you said what you did about the lead player! My preferences and experiences have been the opposite. When I attempted to play guitar in my original band I came from a long history of playing with top notch guitar players, who came up before digital pedalboards. These great players with great tone ALL used the guitar volume knob. When I set up my rig I had a Tube Screamer, a delay and a modulation pedal. And did a lot of tone stuff by switching pickups and changing the guitar volume knob. This process, IMO leads to smooth transitions, more character in the overdrive sounds and gives some headroom if I needed it. Many guitarists I mix "dime" their guitar, and the rhythms are too loud and the leads are thin and wimpy and they can't adjust because it is a preset. With a digital pedal and guitar on 10 the gains might be 'even' but I rarely find that the sound is "even."
YMMV. There are many ways to skin a cat.

 

[Jay Barracato]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

Scott,

Your answer lies in both my and John's posts.

A guitar player adjusting the "volume" at their guitar should not ever be any type of "problem" for the soundman. Consistency doesn't mean every thing is always the same.

Consistency means that the volume and tone dialed in by the guitarist is appropriate to the arrangement of the song.

Once your gain is correctly set through the system, any change the guitarist makes at the guitar should result in a minimal change at FOH. While I might make small changes at FOH, the point of having solid gain structure from the beginning is so you don't have to make any large, radical changes. Once you can add some light compression, it is rare I make ANY change at all to the guitarists fader that is song dependent once the set is underway. My assumption is that the minor changes in tone/volume made at the guitar are what the guitarist wants reflected in the FOH mix and are part of their arrangement. I think live music is better when the tonal pallette/volume varies from song to song so the ear is encountering something new. Therefore, I don't see it as part of my job to try and smooth out relative volumes, especially within each song. If a band hires me for multiple shows and wants me to put on a producer hat to help them with their arrangements, that is a different story, but for a one off show, I am going to let their arrangements stand the way they present them.

Therefore; once the show is underway, I actually spend minimal time on the faders, and certainly don't ride all of them all the time like I see some mixers do. Instead, I spend most of my time on the effects, which I like to vary every song, and the dynamics, where fine tuning actually solves all of the level related problems. Add a couple DCA's for a rare lead part that really needs to stand out and all my bases are covered.

Which leads back to my original thought, if you stop thinking of mixing as relative volume and start thinking as relative gain, it is a lot easier to reproduce the bands arrangement as they are presenting it, rather than trying to figure out what they might have intended.

As an example, I had a typical five member rock band where in the third set the singer suddenly became a third guitarist playing an acoustic/electric. At first I could not hear that the acoustic added anything to the mix, nor could I hear any of the sounds I associate with an acoustic. However cueing the channel showed the signal was equally as strong as either of the other two guitars, and the headphones told me he was playing a one chord drone that was distorted into pure fuzz (you literally could not tell when one strum ended and the next started). Since it was obvious he was playing a fill and not a lead part, it was clear I should leave the level underlying the other two guitars, rather than trying to place it on top.

On another gig, the lead guitarist changed to an acoustic/electric for part of one of the sets, and during soundcheck all he did was strum it. During the set, one of the songs was a fingerstyle Steve Miller song. With the gain correctly set, I would bet no one would have noticed if I just left the level as set because the rest of the band pulled back nicely to leave him the space to play, but a small bump of the fader put the guitar nicely front and center. If it is done as a volume swell rather than abruptly during the intro, then the change becomes part of the arrangement and the audience perceives it as a positive part of the overall mix.

So those volume changes that you may see as a negative, may actually serve to highlight what the guitarist is doing because the audience will focus on the change. Many great artists have learned to highlight parts of their music by making the key instrument quieter, rather than louder. The instrument will then have greater impact if the volume swells back to its original level. I am not going to be the one to remove that dynamic the artist chose to create.

 

[Jared Koopman]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

I agree with Jay in that songs that stay the same level get boring real fast. Music is about emotion and getting the audience to experience that emotion along with the band is critical, at least in my environment.

In my situation (mixing for a Church) I have been given the license to craft the mix/mood as needed and how the band leader has expressed he wants it. We do not have pro musicians so they are still learning dynamics within a song. So my mixing is very active in order to help create those dynamic moments. I dont ride faders to keep "levels the same" but to add intrigue and mood to the songs. As the band grows in skills and the ability to control that more from their end, the less I will need to do in crafting that mix for the audience.

I generally dont mess with FX settings during the set as I dont want it to be distracting. But we do multitrack record our rehearsal so I can come in the next day and play witht he mix and try different FX settings for the different songs.

Jared

 

[Scott Bolt]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

I am not suggesting that the guitar should stay at the same volume all night, or even for every song.... or even for every portion of a song.

What I am saying is that when you have a guy doing his own volume from stage, and you are stuck mixing from stage with adjustments only possible between songs ..... this is a problem.

If you have someone out front, they can adjust in real time, so this isn't as much of an issue.

It is difficult, if not impossible to get the proper input gain on a guitar player that changes his output from nearly inaudible, to blasting everyone off stage in a single song.

Furthermore, most guitar players aren't changing their volume knob in the interest of getting different tones out of their tube amp. They are doing it because they don't think they are loud enough in the mix. I have had this get totally out of hand (as I am sure you guys have as well). A decent 4x12 with a good tube amp (like my VHT) can blow the entire band away (and chase everyone out of a small to medium venue as well). You have to keep the stage volume under control to get a decent mix. This is nearly impossible when your lead player is fiddling with his knobs all the time.

Give me a single efx/preamp and a decent amp for a guitar and do the patches to the appropriate levels any day. Sure, there is nothing like a fender strat straight into a Fender tweed for clean tone, nor is there an equal for a Les Paul straight into a JCM900. It's not the nuances of guitar tone that makes a successful gig. It is the ability to mix it well that makes the biggest difference .... at least at my level guys.

Jay,

Consistency means that the volume and tone dialed in by the guitarist is appropriate to the arrangement of the song.

The problem is that the guitar player doesn't know how loud he sounds out in the audience. If you can just get the same volume and tone on a particular song every night, that would be good ..... but you can't (at least not easily) when they are "playing it by ear" on the volume knob.

You are correct that perhaps a bit of compression would tame things a little

Which leads back to my original thought, if you stop thinking of mixing as relative volume and start thinking as relative gain, it is a lot easier to reproduce the bands arrangement as they are presenting it, rather than trying to figure out what they might have intended.

True, but can the band set their own volume levels from stage accurately? Maybe it sounds perfect on stage, but not so good out front. I find this is particularly true of lead guitarist. The amp is generally behind them pointed at their knees. For them to hear it over the drums ..... it gets pretty loud

 

[John Chiara]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

All the things you are commenting on would seem to indicate the need for a sound person to mix the band. If there is a choice a competant guitarist using his guitar volume would be preferable to an inexperienced player doing the pedal board River Dance!
Kinda like.." I know it would be better to have someone to pilot the boat, but are there any preset ways to keep us in the channel?"

 

[Scott Bolt]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

All the things you are commenting on would seem to indicate the need for a sound person to mix the band. If there is a choice a competant guitarist using his guitar volume would be preferable to an inexperienced player doing the pedal board River Dance!
Kinda like.." I know it would be better to have someone to pilot the boat, but are there any preset ways to keep us in the channel?"

Of course.

Very few bar bands have a dedicated soundman. Even some of the best ones in my area mix from stage. For those that have a dedicated soundman, I haven't seen one mix from out front for years. The ergonomics of most bars simply don't allow room for it.

Over the years, I have gone from a large passive FOH (Klipsch KP301's over Cerwin Vega folded horns), a snake, and a dedicated soundman out front, down to an all powered speaker FOH mixed from stage.

I used to do a speaker eq using pink noise, find optimal speaker placement, yada yada yada. We still had issues.... like the soundman showing up late or not at all. The quality of people professing to being able to mix live sound was sketchy at best. The ones that were worth a damn were hard to get booked, the money in a bar band doesn't justify the expense of a decent sound guy, etc, etc.

I am moving to a digital mixer so I can setup patches for the mixer as well. As long as I can get the gain consistent for the channels at the soundcheck, this should provide a superior mix to what I am currently doing (analog MixWiz with slight tweaks to vocal channels depending on who is singing lead). The key is going to be getting CONSISTENT volume from the guitars for each song. In other words, the lead player can do what he likes as long as he does it consistently every night (with respect to volume in various songs).

I still think that the old pedal board efx are a PITA for bar bands. Too many things go wrong with them and the tone is never consistent (nor is the output levels). There are plenty of good all-in-one efx boxes out there today which provide more than enough quality efx that you don't need stomp boxes and guitar volume knob changes to get a great sound. I think it is just what some guys are used to.

I think that mixing from stage is a necessary workflow for most bands. When I play a larger venue that has an installed live sound system (and usually a sound engineer who gets part of the pay for the night), it is surely a breath of fresh air (especially since I don't have to move my own gear ), but those venues are by far and away the minority (maybe 1 out of 20).

The appeal that the new digital mixers have for me is that they can optimize the workflow for mixing from stage in ways not previously possible. I can practice a song with the band, playback the audio through the mixer and get everything sounding perfect (at least as perfect as we play it ), and save the scene for recall at the gigs.

Can you see where I am coming from?

 

[Per Søvik]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

Can you see where I am coming from?

Absolutely, and when you have a band that play together a lot and you get used to doing sound from stage, it is not different to how it was fourty years ago, and peolple managed then. Once you set your levels, have control over your equipment and organize for it, the soundman is superflous. Back when we wern't soundmen, but roadies, we drove the van/bus, set up the equipment and helped out during sound check, and by the time the performance started, our work was done till the band was done and we were packing up and loading the van. Then some bright spark thought it would be cool to make a snake and take a console, and the cat was out of the bag .

Edit: One thing though, a guitar player that isn't in control of his pedal board is no different from any other musician that doesn't have his or her shit together. If the guitar player can't control his pedal board and have his levels in order, one would think that the problem was lack of practice or lack of insight, not an inherent problem with the concept of pedal boards.

 

[Tim McCulloch]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

The appeal that the new digital mixers have for me is that they can optimize the workflow for mixing from stage in ways not previously possible. I can practice a song with the band, playback the audio through the mixer and get everything sounding perfect (at least as perfect as we play it ), and save the scene for recall at the gigs.

Can you see where I am coming from?

This is whole concept of "virtual sound check." The problem is that there is no stage sound, i.e. the band is not there to produce the SPL that needs to be mixed "up" to. You can produce a stunning mix in VSC, and have it NOT be what you need once the band makes their stage SPL contribution. Rob Scovil (Tom Petty, Rush, Matchbox 20, other Bands You've Heard Of) makes extensive use of VSC, and devised a rather elaborate system of taking DI signals ahead of player's pedal boards, and using ReAmp to inject the DI'd playback sources into the back line while doing the virtual. Kind of expensive and resource-intensive, but it's about the only way to get a realistic idea of how the mix will work with the stage contribution... I think he does the drum playback through the drummer's monitor...

Virtual sound check is a tool, but using it to advantage takes more work than may initially meet the eye.

 

[Jay Barracato]

Of course.



Can you see where I am coming from?

Where you are coming from seems to be your usual place of believing that the single solution you have come up with is the only solution and not the understanding that others people experiences may have led them to a different solution, like your statement that you don't understand why other guitarists use pedalboards when you are happy with a one brand multi pedal solution. While you participate in these discussions, I really don't think enough information flows in both directions for you to learn anything new.

But for the record, the thoughts I posted and the experiences I based them on ARE directly applicable to your situation, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. I am not writing from experiences in some ivory tower gig where everything is perfectly OK. My recent resume sounds more like a wireless phone commercial, "more bars in more places".

So when I say that using my mix strategy with 12 local cover bands and 20+ guitarists in the last two months has resulted in my adjusting a guitarists fader maybe 6 times, that means it can be done at the level you are talking about. And yes, I am the 1 in 10 shows for these bands to have a soundman out front but all that means is hat they have done their homework and have their arrangements finely tuned. That means I am not spending my time troubleshooting or chasing them all over the board, but instead I am able to give them a very professional polish and make the show which may be their biggest bar gig into their best shows as well.

I can do this because I have paid attention to what works and what doesn't when I have been on bigger shows, and taken those professional level techniques back to the bars. And for many of those bar shows I have K12 and Ksub with a presonus sidestage and an iPad out front and never heard the system in the room until the first song of the first set.

Back in the army we had a saying, " if you keep doing what you are doing, you will keep getting what you are getting". At some point to induce change, you have embrace and try something new, which may mean discarding your preconceptions even if you believe in those preconceptions from experience.

I guess I am ready for the summer semester to start because I definitely have my professor hat on now.

 

[Scott Bolt]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

This is whole concept of "virtual sound check." The problem is that there is no stage sound, i.e. the band is not there to produce the SPL that needs to be mixed "up" to. You can produce a stunning mix in VSC, and have it NOT be what you need once the band makes their stage SPL contribution. Rob Scovil (Tom Petty, Rush, Matchbox 20, other Bands You've Heard Of) makes extensive use of VSC, and devised a rather elaborate system of taking DI signals ahead of player's pedal boards, and using ReAmp to inject the DI'd playback sources into the back line while doing the virtual. Kind of expensive and resource-intensive, but it's about the only way to get a realistic idea of how the mix will work with the stage contribution... I think he does the drum playback through the drummer's monitor...

Virtual sound check is a tool, but using it to advantage takes more work than may initially meet the eye.

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the reply.

We turn the guitar amps to the back of the stage and mic them. The Bass is DI, and the drums are vDrums. We all use IEM's. While I agree that there is still a portion of our sound from the guitar amps that is unaccounted for in the FOH virtual mix, I am hoping that it is small enough that it doesn't sound that different. When I go out front to hear the mix at practice, it appears that the vast majority of the guitar sound is emanating from the FOH AFAIK.

I am hoping to learn to use this new tool to make our gigs sound more polished. While I would agree that having a good soundman to mix out front for every gig would be the very best possible solution (with many advantages over the process that I am proposing), I am simply hoping to improve from where we are (mixing from stage on an analog desk).

@Per Søvik

Absolutely, and when you have a band that play together a lot and you get used to doing sound from stage, it is not different to how it was fourty years ago, and peolple managed then. Once you set your levels, have control over your equipment and organize for it, the soundman is superflous. Back when we wern't soundmen, but roadies, we drove the van/bus, set up the equipment and helped out during sound check, and by the time the performance started, our work was done till the band was done and we were packing up and loading the van. Then some bright spark thought it would be cool to make a snake and take a console, and the cat was out of the bag .

Edit: One thing though, a guitar player that isn't in control of his pedal board is no different from any other musician that doesn't have his or her shit together. If the guitar player can't control his pedal board and have his levels in order, one would think that the problem was lack of practice or lack of insight, not an inherent problem with the concept of pedal boards.

I agree. He knows he has volume consistency issues, but doesn't want to invest in a quality preamp unit (something like a Axe Fx or Eleven Rack). He is a good kid and is trying to get it right

@Jay,

Hmm. I appreciate your high opinion of me but don't quite understand your abrasive tone in your first paragraph or how I have justified your character attack (ie my lack of ability to listen to what others are saying). Lets try to keep it civil professor.

... and as they used to say in my Navy days ..... "The head is that way if you feel the need to drop off more shit".

I do agree with much of what you are saying and am attempting to find a way to make my own gigs better by learning about what you are saying. I have simply stated that there are difficulties for someone who mixes from stage while in the band to implement what you are talking about.

As for pedal boards, they are not going away any time soon. Many pro guitarist I know use them. They are not as convenient as an all-in-one preamp with efx, nor are they as flexible/usable. Doing covers frequently require the guitar tone to change fast and completely. It is impossible in many situations to accomplish this with a pedal board full of stomp boxes. Furthermore, the pedal boards have a much higher rate of something going wrong since there are many more things there to go wrong.

As an aside, using a presonus and an iPad is a very good way to do most bar gigs. I am going to enjoy selling my snake knowing that I will never need such a setup again once I move to a digital mixer You can sit at the bar, have a drink, and mix. What more is there to life?

 

[Art Welter]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

Once again, a good line check results in a workable mix.

So my current thought: Mixing is about control of gain structure.

... I am also pretty sure that poor gain structure is likely to result in a good mix.

Clearly :^).

 

[Jay Barracato]

Clearly :^).

Mixing is about control of gain structure.

Saturday, I had my first guest BE in the bar. This was someone who has good credentials, knows what is what, has worked all the big local rooms, and owns a local studio that has recorded many of the big regional bands.

The band is an Irish/Celtic rock act including fiddle and pipes as well as assorted shakers, whistles, congas, and other stuff. I started with the board zeroed out, monitors nicely rung, and the house graphs set flat (having already voiced the pa to my taste in the drive rack).

In typical bar fashion, there was a horserace showing on the big projection screen in front of the stage at the same time we were to be line checking. So line check was going to be without visual connection with the stage.

The visiting BE turned one of my own tricks back on me and asked me to pull gains while he was still on stage with the band. I have done the same as a BE in festival settings where I trusted the FOH guy. Sometimes it makes more sense for the BE to be on stage overseeing the patching and giving instructions to the band.

We did a full line check and set the monitor levels with him on stage and me in the booth. 4 compressers and gates were used on drum channels, one stereo compresser was strapped across the instrument group, and another across a vocal group. The vocal group was double bussed.

The first song was the soundcheck, and he started, like I usually do, with the instrument channels at -5 and the vocal channels at unity. By the end of the first song he had finished his adjustments to the channel eqs, walked the room, and made a couple adjustments to the FOH eq. By the end of his second song, he had the effects dialed in.

His comment to me, " now we relax the rest of the night".

And he did. Other than varying the effects and making a couple of song specific adjustments like when a conga mic did double duty as a trumpet mic, nothing required 10 fingers on 10 faders all the time.

This was also the first show I could sit back and watch the gain post mixer through the eqs, the drive rack, and the amps, and everything was nice and clean. We were getting a lot from the system without stressing anything, no apparent distortion, and plenty of level at all frequencies throughout the room.

Mixing is about control of gain structure.

The only really wrong with the show was the band, in true Irish fashion, wanted to sit around for 2 hours after the show drinking, without packing anything up on stage.

 

[John Chiara]

Re: Some thoughts on "mixing"

This all sounds logical and sensible. Doesnt sound very interesting. I am coming at it from the idea of producing a Hifi live mix.
I find that nothing the band can do on stage can make parts get larger than life...they are not mixing the band. I have control of that...well...hopefully I have a chance! Trying to think of any major or regional touring acts where the BE sets the gains and "relaxes."
Maybe I am missing something?

 

[Jay Barracato]

This all sounds logical and sensible. Doesnt sound very interesting. I am coming at it from the idea of producing a Hifi live mix.
I find that nothing the band can do on stage can make parts get larger than life...they are not mixing the band. I have control of that...well...hopefully I have a chance! Trying to think of any major or regional touring acts where the BE sets the gains and "relaxes."
Maybe I am missing something?

John,

Probably because, whether by foresight, long practice, or instinct, you have adequately taken care of this first basic step.

I am not suggesting this replaces the type of mixing you do but instead it must be done BEFORE someone can do the type of mixing you do. Instead of treating necessary changes as constantly "fixing" or "improving" something in the mix, the changes become a list of necessary cues that are part of the bands presentation.

Think about which faders are under your fingers the most during the show. A DCA is not very useful if the gains within the DCA are not right.

Have you ever matched a recording by varying the effects during different parts of a song, say chorus and verse? How likely are you to do that if you are still chasing a bunch of channel faders for level? You were the one saying you liked to have 7-8 channels of effects. Many 10 fingers on the faders mixers couldn't even imagine using that many because they wouldn't want to lift their hands long enough to use that many effect channels.

I also remove all the effects on vocals during spoken parts between songs. I also duck or mute unused mics for each song. This is not set and forget mixing.

In order to get the type of mix you are talking about requires the person at FOH to be actively engaged with what the band is doing on stage, and I would say someone constantly chasing problems caused by poor gain structure are unable to be actively engaged.

The devil is in the details but those details are only about 5% of everything under our control. Having a solid foundation means not having to worry about the 95% and being able to focus on the details that push the presentation from good to great.