Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

Michael John

Michael John

Junior
Jun 25, 2011
352
9
18
Sydney, Australia
eclipseaudio.com
I saw Mark Knopfler at the Royal Albert Hall last Monday night. The rig was (I think) Meyer and pretty well tuned. Mark sounded great...

The support act was Ruth Moody and what surprised me was how low her vocals were, relative to the band. The band mix was really nice, but her vocals were unintelligible and her backing singers looked like they were miming. I could only hear them in her last song. (I nearly went over and said something to the engineering, just a few metres away.)

I have a theory that when an engineer knows the songs really well, they "hear" the lyrics more easily and might mix the vocals lower. (I've struggled with this myself on occasion.) Does this make sense? Has anyone else experienced anything like this? Was anyone else at the show?

Cheers,
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

I think you have a valid theory there. I have seen too many shows of A list national acts were the vocals were lost in the mix and countless numbers of local and regional acts. Many times I have had local and regional acts thank me for putting the vocals on top of the mix. At the local regional level many times the engineer is focused on the kick drum and bass guitar all night!
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

I have seen this many times. Really apparent when the BE is openly "singing along" to each song out loud. I always suggest mixing the band as if you have never heard the songs.
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

John Chiara said:
I have seen this many times. Really apparent when the BE is openly "singing along" to each song out loud. I always suggest mixing the band as if you have never heard the songs.
Click to expand...

This is definitely a real phenomenon. I tend to mix a bit vocal hot in general, which helps offset this. It is especially noticeable in scenarios where the song lyrics are displayed on a screen for the audience, such as in many churches - the vocal can be far too low but the audience won't notice this as readily in those circumstances.
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

Jeff Babcock said:
This is definitely a real phenomenon. I tend to mix a bit vocal hot in general, which helps offset this. It is especially noticeable in scenarios where the song lyrics are displayed on a screen for the audience, such as in many churches - the vocal can be far too low but the audience won't notice this as readily in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

I wonder if public expectations have changed some. I used to be told I over-mixed vocals, now I'm told they're under-mixed. Since I'm mixing a support act that I've not worked with before I doubt that I'm singing along, and I don't think my mix technique for vocals had changed -6dB.

I've also noticed that contemporary audiences are unaccustomed to this thing called "dynamics" in performance. "What's wrong, why does it get softer then louder?"

As for projected lyrics... since the vast majority of those songs are mind-numbingly simple and the re-use of the same 20 songs cycles over a couple of weeks, why is projection needed? (Can you tell I don't sell video to houses of worship?)
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

Tim McCulloch said:
As for projected lyrics... since the vast majority of those songs are mind-numbingly simple and the re-use of the same 20 songs cycles over a couple of weeks, why is projection needed? (Can you tell I don't sell video to houses of worship?)
Click to expand...

I for one would be totally lost in contemporary church service without the projected vocals. There are some strange arrangements out there!
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

Tim McCulloch said:
As for projected lyrics... since the vast majority of those songs are mind-numbingly simple and the re-use of the same 20 songs cycles over a couple of weeks, why is projection needed? (Can you tell I don't sell video to houses of worship?)
Click to expand...

Back in the Olde Days they just printed a few hundred of the popular ones up in books and left them laying around in the seating area. ;)

Regarding vocals, I've found that loud music needs even louder vocals to have the same effect compared to quieter settings. When I hit the ceiling on my own hearing I start having trouble making out the words, something that happens more and more as I've gotten older.
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

Tim McCulloch said:
I wonder if public expectations have changed some. I used to be told I over-mixed vocals, now I'm told they're under-mixed.
Click to expand...

Tim, back in the late 80's and the 90's studio recordings tended to have vocals less forward both in level and in midrange than they are in many current productions. There is certainly a tendency in modern stuff for the engineer to push a little more in the 2K region of the vocal than used to be the norm.

Of course these are vague generalities, there are many many exceptions.

FWIW, If you ever hear me mix a show and the vocals are low, it's because someone on the "talent" end of the mic was stinking it up. Recently, someone said to me, I can't hear the background singer very clearly. My response to him was: "You're welcome". He got the hint. I should be more careful though....fortunately it was not his wife, his kid, etc.

I know some who say "if they suck, let them suck loud and clear". I subscribe more to the "try to make something tolerable out of this" mantra.
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

Jeff Babcock said:
FWIW, If you ever hear me mix a show and the vocals are low, it's because someone on the talent end of the mic was stinking it up. Recently, someone said to me, I can't hear the background singer very clearly. My response to him was: "You're welcome". He got the hint. I should have been more careful though....fortunately it was not his wife, his kid, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my stock answer to someone with that comment is "I brought her/him down a little because they seem to be having a rough night and I don't want them to be embarrassed." If the response is then "it's the best he's ever sung" my reply is "let me work on that some more, thanks for coming by."
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

Tim McCulloch said:
Yeah, my stock answer to someone with that comment is "I brought her/him down a little because they seem to be having a rough night and I don't want them to be embarrassed." If the response is then "it's the best he's ever sung" my reply is "let me work on that some more, thanks for coming by."
Click to expand...

Indeed, good strategy. My preferred strategy however is to barricade FOH to keep the armchair experts away. Sadly many venues don't make this practical. The "look busy" approach is often useful as well. I have not resorted to the various grumpy sound engineer t-shirts that address this.....

Seems too many people forget that creating a mix is a subjective thing. Sadly people have little reverence for what IMHO should be a respected art form. Does an artist creating a painting have random people stop and make bold suggestions? Most people have reduced the role of the sound person to a purely technical task, which is prone to disrespect. Also newcomers are approaching it technically without placing proper priority on the "art" aspect of it, which further exacerbates the problem. Good luck being considered an artist if you don't even believe that about yourself.

Sorry Michael for taking this thread on a tangent....
 
Last edited:
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

A common problem I run into is from people who usually mix themselves in a club with few instruments miced. They often expect vocals to be thick and bloated, which often happens with SOS systems and loud bands. I always reply that I am mixing a full band mix and if they head a full mix with vocals like that it would sound bad to them. Again, where have you heard that on a recording?
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

I don't do many regionals anymore. When I did I noticed more and more of what I call the "egalitarian mix".
Were everything is the same in level. And I am very much a vocals on top kind of guy. It bugged me.

One thing I blame is the fact that my PA sounds so good. As in, you can still hear everything when it is mixed that way.
In the old days, when everything was a combfilter battle, if the vocals were not right where they need to be, they would be unheard.

But, even then, I noticed what you are talking about. The sound man would be singing along, and the vocals were not where they need to be.

I have seen some of Evan's mixes on you tube of ATL, and the vocals there are some of the best I have heard on live video (read cell phone/small digital camera). One person even commented on how good his (photographer) camera sounded. It was the mix.

I have to work with my guys some to make sure the vocals stay out front. Especially with wispy vocaled female singers.
Sometimes its an exhausting fight, but the vocals have to be out there. If their will starts sagging I just boot them off the board and take over.

Regarding "help" from the audience. I consider myself to be there to serve 1) who hired me 2) if the band is not #1, then, the band, and 3) the audience. Maybe since I am not in bars anymore the bar is higher, but I usually listen to what comments come to me. I still have a BS filter, but don't have to use it as much as I used to. Sometimes I overlook things, and sometimes I just have a different seat than others. One woman about 80 years old came to me on a break a couple years ago wanting more flute. I did not have an optimum seat, and was perhaps guessing more than I should about its placement in the mix, and in my cans. I turned it up some. Later that night at dinner after the show, she hobbled all the way across the restaurant to thank me. Much better feeling than being an "arteest".

I do think its a blurry line between technical and feel. But we are in the service industry.
No-one goes home humming the reverb or the kick drum.
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

I also like a very transient feel to sound. I think compression has its place, but I like dynamics.
I do not like when I get comments from people who hear with their eyes, or are used to rat fur cabinets, with cones and pizzos.
Does not happen much, but I remember vividly getting what soon became unwanted advice from a wife who was used to hearing hubby as such. She requested less highs, but I could tell it was the consonants that were bothering her. She was not used to such being heard. In that case I had to let what I thought was the right thing for the audience, and the performers presentation. Even though she was not happy. Another musician was bugged by the fact that my stage has the lows built into it, and all that are visible are the mid/high horns. She was hearing with her eyes, and was practically insisting that I let her bring in her EV boxes to supplement the system because they had cones in them. ;-)
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

John Chiara said:
A common problem I run into is from people who usually mix themselves in a club with few instruments miced. They often expect vocals to be thick and bloated, which often happens with SOS systems and loud bands. I always reply that I am mixing a full band mix and if they heard a full mix with vocals like that it would sound bad to them. Again, where have you heard that on a recording?
Click to expand...

Do you mean the dip at 200 but boost at 100 thing? Or maybe no dip at 200 at all?

I think this is definitely a music style and mix fad kind of issue. And on top of that, it often only takes a few db to a) lose the vocal or b) make it seem disconnected from the rest of the mix.

As far as mixing as an art form... I think it would be great if we had more opportunities to stop by while an "artist" is painting and make bold suggestions. It's only art. Art has come before us and art will come after us. Most of it has already been done before. I guess I don't completely subscribe to the idea that human expression is sacred. And most of the time we as live sound dudes are either a) trying to make something palatable out of the mass of noise coming from the stage or b) trying to make at least some of the nuance in the performance heard in a room (and sound system) that will not cooperate. Is there art involved? Yeah a little but a lot of the time it's like trying to paint on a 4" canvas with a 3.5" brush. There are only so many options. Now, in the studio, that's where it's at if you want to get "creative". All those dbs of dynamic range waiting for your personal colors and flourishes. Your mileage may vary and there are obviously venues and events where the sound dude has a lot of room to work. Often those are the gigs that make the lousy ones worth enduring.
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

drew gandy said:
I guess I don't completely subscribe to the idea that human expression is sacred. And most of the time we as live sound dudes are either a) trying to make something palatable out of the mass of noise coming from the stage or b) trying to make at least some of the nuance in the performance heard in a room (and sound system) that will not cooperate. Is there art involved? Yeah a little but a lot of the time it's like trying to paint on a 4" canvas with a 3.5" brush. There are only so many options.
Click to expand...

Everybody has a different opinion on this. I personally think that you are undervaluing yourself with that attitude. And the whole "It's only Art" line of thought is exactly the mentality behind the major budget cuts to various music and related arts programs in schools and elsewhere, which saddens me. Sure, art is not absolutely sacred, but it is a very important and increasingly undervalued part of our culture..

Sure, low budget combat audio might be a different story (I try hard to avoid such situations), so maybe it depends on where your frame of reference is. This is the VARSITY forum though......

Personally I am always trying to think about the mix in a creative way. I guess I'm one of those weirdos who actually cares about the character of one compressor over another, who is constantly adjusting effects, who is riding faders to help accentuate dynamics and enhance transitions, etc. If I think about my mix as a performance(in the context of properly supporting the musicians intentions), then I enjoy it more, it usually comes across better, and I go home knowing that I made an artistic contribution. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

Jeff Babcock said:
YMMV.
Click to expand...

I laughed at this. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but the YMMV part pointed out to me that at least you care, and have an opinion, and a process, and a thoughtful system.

We have all heard way to many of those who's millage varies, and have no talent, let alone any interest in getting the job done right.
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

When I mixdown our band recordings, I have a similar issue sometimes (getting the vocal levels wrong) and I think your theory is a good one. I have to close my eyes and think about it to break myself of "putting more (or less) in there" in my head than is going through the real mix.

I occasionally will go up to the soundman at the end of a show if it was done really well and tell them that the sound was well done if I really liked the mix. If I didn't care for something, I don't say a word. You guys have better things to do than explain to me what was going on in the FOH and why you decided to mix it that way ;)

Oh, and my favorite tool for covering up a bad singer is to dip the highs, add a bit more reverb, and drop the volume a bit ;)
 
Re: Vocal Levels - Ruth Moody

Ditto...100%
It is tiring sometimes but I cannot not mix...no matter what. The way I see it, the song will go by anyway, and I or someone else may learn something, hear something that inspires or at least makes someone pay attention. Small steps are better than no steps.
I also have come to the conclusion that me doing less than I am capable of at any time during a show, is a way of selling myself short. Sometimes I am surprised how much some people notice and appreciate.
 
Top Bottom