Concerned About Where Live Sound Is Headed

[bucephylus]

My wife and I attended a major Tucson fund raiser this weekend. The entertainment was a top flight corporate band called The Midnight Special out of Hollywood. I take this act to be pretty representative of where live soundstages are headed.

The band was TIGHT. Four outstanding front voices, excellent backing players.

The show sounded like utter garbage. Of course, the stage was ampless. FOH was two elevated 4x arrays and two sub woofers on the floor on each side of the stage. The mixing boards looked like NASA control centers. The technology was there. The sound was awful, and in a way that is concerning. Basically, there was a massive hole from about 90Hz up to about 275 Hz. So, what was projected was ear piercing levels of mainly drums burying everything and prerecorded horn tracks (no horn section). Or, maybe the keys had the the horn patches. Sounded like tracks.

Anyhow, drums were burying the vocals, chordal instruments were mud, and bass was a drone with no content above 90 Hz. Sad to say, this isn't the first time I've heard this kind of live mix. In fact, it seems to be becoming more prevalent. And, I can't tell if it's happening because the modern PA's encourage it, or because the sound engineers are being taught to target that kind of mix, or some of both, or something else.

In any case, the classic Motown stuff does NOT play well in that mix. No groove whatsoever in the FOH, even though it was clear the band members were grooving in their IEM channels. The mix literally destroyed the material.

Some folks dance to it, because they had more than a few and what the heck, they're out for a good time. But, seriously, most hated the levels more than anything; and the fact that the mix obscured the good stuff going on didn't help at all.

Not my band, and glad I don't have to perform in that gig. Not doing the music any favors, that's for sure. Perhaps, I'm too old school. But, it seems to me that we have the cart driving the horse; the technology is usurping the music. I think that's sad. The crowd isn't impressed. As a musician, I'm not impressed. I think it has gotten bad for the music.

 

[bucephylus]

Oh, and BTW, I'm not sure why this act even employs a bass player, other than optics. A drone tone in whatever the key fundamental was would have been just as effective.

 

[FatBoutedGirls]

I wouldn't blame technology, while better gear has become cheaper and more prevalent I don't believe it has resulted in worse live sound. Idiots running sound have always existed and have been ruining shows armed with nothing more than a Shure Vocalmaster.

 

[dave64o]

I'll agree, the quality of live sound seems to be dropping. Not sure what the causes are, but it's definitely noticeable.

 

[musicman7722]

I agree as well, the gear is getting better. I have only been doing FOH mixing for 3 years now. Meaning up until then I only mixed front stage as a performer. Though I am not a novice I am also not what I consider a seasoned pro. I am told consistently that my mixes are very good and get rehired. I do see a lot of people trying to start out that don't know anything. Look at the CL ads for sound people it is pretty frightening. I think it is very possible that some techs just don't know their boards. These newer Digital ones take a lot more research to use properly.

 

[Barisaxman]

Maybe the room was an acoustic mess and what you heard was the BEST case scenario? If you've not stood behind a console with every tool imaginable and felt helpless because of horrendous acoustics, you truly can't understand how complicated live sound is. But like it or not, a warrior with a keyboard and an online forum will always be sure assume the worst and try to declare that modern equipment and bad sound must be "the way it is now"...

I for one don't think your conclusion has an ounce of qualifying evidence, but I'm just a bass player/sound guy with a keyboard

 

[hieronymous]

I saw Mr. Big back in 2016 at the Recency Ballroom in San Francisco - I was amazed at how bad the sound was. The drums were the loudest instrument, even though the drummer was the only non-original member! I purposely moved around the place during the show to see if maybe it sounded better somewhere else (started near the front) - even by the soundboard it sounded like crap.

I said something to Billy Sheehan on his Facebook page and he expressed surprise, saying it was their regular soundguy so I dropped the issue, but it was definitely a disappointment. I have heard a couple of other shows there that were much more satisfying sound-wise, so I don't think the room was solely to blame, though it could have been a combination of the room and the stage volume of Mr. Big? Paul Gilbert was wearing those headphone-things so his amps could have been cranked to a degree that the soundman felt they had to crank the drums to compensate...

 

[Bassamatic]

You are right - the band is HOT! What a shame that the sound guys can't hear what they are doing.

It is likely a competence issue and the fact that no one complains to the right people. With today's technology, a good sound tech can make nearly any venue sound good.

 

[byacey]

My wife and I attended a major Tucson fund raiser this weekend. The entertainment was a top flight corporate band called The Midnight Special out of Hollywood. I take this act to be pretty representative of where live soundstages are headed.

The band was TIGHT. Four outstanding front voices, excellent backing players.

The show sounded like utter garbage. Of course, the stage was ampless. FOH was two elevated 4x arrays and two sub woofers on the floor on each side of the stage. The mixing boards looked like NASA control centers. The technology was there. The sound was awful, and in a way that is concerning. Basically, there was a massive hole from about 90Hz up to about 275 Hz. So, what was projected was ear piercing levels of mainly drums burying everything and prerecorded horn tracks (no horn section). Or, maybe the keys had the the horn patches. Sounded like tracks.

Anyhow, drums were burying the vocals, chordal instruments were mud, and bass was a drone with no content above 90 Hz. Sad to say, this isn't the first time I've heard this kind of live mix. In fact, it seems to be becoming more prevalent. And, I can't tell if it's happening because the modern PA's encourage it, or because the sound engineers are being taught to target that kind of mix, or some of both, or something else.

In any case, the classic Motown stuff does NOT play well in that mix. No groove whatsoever in the FOH, even though it was clear the band members were grooving in their IEM channels. The mix literally destroyed the material.

Some folks dance to it, because they had more than a few and what the heck, they're out for a good time. But, seriously, most hated the levels more than anything; and the fact that the mix obscured the good stuff going on didn't help at all.

Not my band, and glad I don't have to perform in that gig. Not doing the music any favors, that's for sure. Perhaps, I'm too old school. But, it seems to me that we have the cart driving the horse; the technology is usurping the music. I think that's sad. The crowd isn't impressed. As a musician, I'm not impressed. I think it has gotten bad for the music.

I believe it's a case of the sound man not knowing what he's doing and in this day and age, the overuse of subwoofers, now that they are common place and readily available.

I see and hear all the time too much content in the subwoofers that shouldn't be there, that muddies everything else horribly.

 

[bucephylus]

I fear some of you are missing my point. Which is that I am beginning to suspect that there is a dynamic including both the newer board / speaker topologies AND the mix references / preferences of younger sound techs, such that we are hearing precisely what they think we should hear. In other words, the mix is intentionally what it is.

I confess that my reference (currently in two cover bands) is to study the reference (usually studio) recordings; and to do my very best to render performances which are both faithful to the recording and add a few signature things in the correct places to keep things tasteful and make it our own. Still, understanding the mix dynamics and where various instruments / vocals are in the hierarchy is essential study material, IMO.

What I am increasingly hearing is sound techs who seem to be tossing the reference recordings in the garbage and intentionally striving to create a more "modern" renditions, based on whatever their biases happen to be. I do NOT think this is inexperienced techs with too much board in front of them. I believe what I am hearing are conscious decisions; and, that's my concern.

Further, I don't believe I'm some kind of hobbyist warrior with a keyboard. At least I don't think I am. I'm still a performing musician, and just remarking on progressions of the way things are being done. But, if it makes some of you feel bigger to make me little, have at it.

 

[bucephylus]

I believe it's a case of the sound man not knowing what he's doing and in this day and age, the overuse of subwoofers, now that they are common place and readily available.

I see and hear all the time too much content in the subwoofers that shouldn't be there, that muddies everything else horribly.

That could be; but, I doubt that for two reasons. First, these are national level corporate gigs with resources to higher well qualified staff. Second, I am hearing this on multiple occasions. I really don't think it is a trend of inexperience vs a trend of intent.

 

[JPaulGeddy]

I really think a lot of it is the transition where low-end speakers can reproduce a *lot* more frequency with less/better power than ever before. Too much holding on to old ways of thinking for running sound, that would be my best guess.

 

[s0c9]

idk. I tend to concur with the OP on poor, "pro level" mixes.
As a freelancer at FOH (not a pro - I don't make my living from it - but I DO get paid!) having run all kinds of analog and smaller digital (but not the big pro rigs), the basics of mixing haven't changed - but the tech and price points have!
The problem I see is over use! Just because your Touchmix 30 has compression, gates, EFX (and other "Stuff") on each channel, doesn't mean you HAVE to use it.
I've subbed at churches where they have EVERYTHING in use.. eg: an X32 with compression on everything (even vox), gates, tons of effects (reverb, delay, chorus) and EQ profiles that look like a six flags roller coaster!
Then there's the "dance club" mentality where the kick/bass are prominent and driving in everything!. Great in the right place, but not everywhere.
When I mix a covers/tribute, I try to make them blend like the original, regardless of genre.
If I don't know the material or it's an originals band whose material I am not familiar with, I'll try to map the mix to the appropriate genre.
When I mix at local churches, I make sure I prep for the gig, and know what the expectations are.
But, there nothing quite like walking into the Sat am church rehearsal to find out you've got 42 inputs - from hand bells and large choir (with overheads) to full electric band (drums, bass, acoustic/electric), acoustic timpani, rain stick, bells, horn (5) and string (8) sections, 5 vocalists, a lectern mic (used by 6 different people) and the principal pastor's wireless headset mic (who expects FOH to watch for muting and un-mute his mic during the service)!!
Can't say I always make it great, but I haven't been fired yet!

 

[JRA]

if i had to choose between the OP's premise vs. FOH incompetence = it's always on the FOH --- no matter the technologies, topologies, or "price points." it sounds good, better, best, or not. of course, any room/circumstance can mess up the best intentions, but if it doesn't sound good: we know who is responsible.

 

[s0c9]

if i had to choose between the OP's premise vs. FOH incompetence = it's always on the FOH --- no matter the technologies, topologies, or "price points." it sounds good, better, best, or not. of course, any room/circumstance can mess up the best intentions, but if it doesn't sound good: we know who is responsible.

But don't forget.. even at FOH, garbage in, garbage out.
You can't polish a turd - even with all that digital gear!

 

[JPaulGeddy]

if i had to choose between the OP's premise vs. FOH incompetence = it's always on the FOH --- no matter the technologies, topologies, or "price points." it sounds good, better, best, or not. of course, any room/circumstance can mess up the best intentions, but if it doesn't sound good: we know who is responsible.

I espouse this at work all the time. 'May not be our fault, but it's our responsibility.'

 

[nnnnnn]

Thread subject asks about a trend, but initial post only talks about one specific performance.

Bad live mixes have always been a thing. Are you saying now they're bad in a different way to the poor mixes of previous decades?

 

[Carl Hillman]

Then there's the "dance club" mentality where the kick/bass are prominent and driving in everything!. Great in the right place, but not everywhere.

This.
It seems like the majority of people mixing FOH are mainly concerned with the bass drum/drum sound. They want to, and are inordinately proud of, producing a kick drum that sounds like a cannon going off. ...really impressive, but very often not appropriate for the music.

I can't count the number of times I've seen the person setting up mikes stare at an 18" bass drum (with both heads on it) with a look of baffled amazement. I remember one fellow telling the drummer, "Hey man, I've got a coffee can and an Xacto knife, so we can cut a hole in that outer head and get a mike in there".

 

[two fingers]

I fear some of you are missing my point. Which is that I am beginning to suspect that there is a dynamic including both the newer board / speaker topologies AND the mix references / preferences of younger sound techs, such that we are hearing precisely what they think we should hear. In other words, the mix is intentionally what it is.

I confess that my reference (currently in two cover bands) is to study the reference (usually studio) recordings; and to do my very best to render performances which are both faithful to the recording and add a few signature things in the correct places to keep things tasteful and make it our own. Still, understanding the mix dynamics and where various instruments / vocals are in the hierarchy is essential study material, IMO.

What I am increasingly hearing is sound techs who seem to be tossing the reference recordings in the garbage and intentionally striving to create a more "modern" renditions, based on whatever their biases happen to be. I do NOT think this is inexperienced techs with too much board in front of them. I believe what I am hearing are conscious decisions; and, that's my concern.

Further, I don't believe I'm some kind of hobbyist warrior with a keyboard. At least I don't think I am. I'm still a performing musician, and just remarking on progressions of the way things are being done. But, if it makes some of you feel bigger to make me little, have at it.

It's not the gear. Not at all.

It's not the room. I can make a great band sound pretty stinking good in even the worst acoustic conditions. They may not sound good everywhere in the room. But from the stage to the board they'll sound fine.

It's the humans.

1) "Pro" musicians have "their sound". They insist on sending the sound guy what THEY prefer. Often it's pure MUD coming from the bass because that's the bass player's favorite warm fuzzy fat round bedroom tone. And often that sounds like garbage in a live mix. Yep, I've heard it before. "A good sound guy can take any tone and make it sound great in a mix." That's pure BS. It's often a screeching mess coming from the guitar. Never mind that guitar players are stomping on stuff all night and sound COMPLETELY different from song to song. Just about the time you get them a sonic niche carved out, they go from fat and round to thin and piercing. And don't even get me started on keys players.

2) The sound guys/gals themselves. They think they are doing the audience a favor by making the live mix sound like a car stereo loud enough to rattle windows as they roll down the street. Nothing but boom. It's awful. Sure, my mixes sound "live". But that doesn't mean they knock you over with bass.

Nope. It's not the equipment, which is getting ridiculously more clear, light, and loud every day. And I can make most any PA sound fine from the speakers to about 40 feet out in almost any room.

It's the people. Start there.

 

[SactoBass]

It's not the gear. Not at all.

It's not the room. I can make a great band sound pretty stinking good in even the worst acoustic conditions. They may not sound good everywhere in the room. But from the stage to the board they'll sound fine.

It's the humans.

1) "Pro" musicians have "their sound". They insist on sending the sound guy what THEY prefer. Often it's pure MUD coming from the bass because that's the bass players favorite warm fuzzy fat round bedroom tone. And often thay sounds like garbage in a love mix. Yep, I've heard it before. "A good sound guy can take any tone and make it sound great in a mix." That's pure BS. It's often a screeching mess coming from the guitar. Never mind that guiyar players are stomping on stuff all night and sound COMPLETELY different from song to song. Just about the time you get then a sonic niche carved out, they go from fat and round to thin and piercing. And don't even get me started on keys players.

2) The sound guys/gals themselves. They think they are doing the audience a favor by making the live mix sound like a car stereo loud enough to rattle windowwias they roll down the street. Nothing but boom. It's awful. Sure, my mixes sound "live". But that doesn't mean they knock you over with bass.

Nope. It's not the equipment, which is getting ridiculously more clear, light, and loud every day. And I can make most any PA sound fine from the speakers to about 40 feet out in almost any room.

It's the people. Start there.