Ear over gear

[rob098]

Hi All

 

I've just written this article for my website and I though I had such a good rant that I'd share it here so we can have a big argument over it!

 

Cheers

Rob

 

In an industry that (of late) seems to be inundated with the latest technologies (the line array epidemic, digital desks, digital speaker management systems...the list goes on) I believe that this has moved the focus away from the skill of the technician to a degree, and placed the "belief" that good sound can only be achieved through the "top-end" equipment. This thinking is the result of very clever marketing pushes from the main manufacturers - making us more aware of acoustic issues and problems that surprise surprise, how their latest bit-of-kit overcomes beautifully (at a price tag).

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I do embrace the advances in technology - its an absolute necessity in this game to move with the times, and I agree that we should wherever possible use respectable, trusted brands to ensure our concert goes without a hitch. What I do object to is the concept that one should rely purely on the gear to be responsible for the sound. That somehow, the gear is responsible for the fidelity of the sound.

 

I've toured extensively, on systems large and small, and I can categorically say that I have NEVER run a live sound system "flat". In other words there are ALWAYS improvements to be made.

 

This art is becoming "lost" as more and more engineers buy into the high end speaker marketing philosophy. The number of times I've walked into a concert in an acoustically challenging space to see the sound engineer running the FOH EQ flat because "its d&b" or whatever, and "shouldn't need EQing".

 

I've just read a psychological investigation suggesting that sight and expectation has 20 times more emphasis over the other sense. So much so that a test was performed on those wine-tasting experts (" I'm tasting elderflower, a hint of spice, then an after-taste of charred leather" ) The test had them drink two glasses of wine, one from a really expensive bottle, one from a table bottle of wine. Every taster (of 54) preferred the expensive wine...you guessed it .. it was the SAME wine in different bottles!

 

Read more here

 

I wonder how much of this "perceived excellence" occurs in the sound system world....?

 

It never ceases to amaze me when I talk to fellow professional sound engineers how often we will have the discussion of "Which sound system do you prefer?...I love L-Acoustics, Funktion 1 is ok, d&b Q series is wonderful, I hate the mid-highs on Martin Audio"

 

.....well change the way the mid-highs sound for crying out loud!

 

I simply DO NOT have a system I prefer (by way of how it sounds) because I make each and every system I use sound more or less the same - for the best sound possible, to my taste. I do, on the other hand, have systems I prefer by means of coverage, weight, ease of rigging, efficiency, price etc ... but never sound quality.

 

The problem with adopting the "gear-snob" approach to live sound, is that as a working sound engineer on tour, you will be expected to work with WHATEVER you find yourself faced with. Even when I've been doing really high profile acts touring abroad or whatever, I can guarantee that at some point on the tour, I will walk in to some small arts centre gig (maybe a stop-gap date) and be faced with THE most appalling sound system known to man! (last incident was one of those unbalanced mixer/amps with the built in spring reverb as my monitor amplifiers...BUZZZZZ)

 

What should one do in situation like this?! Demand d&b or the band wont play?! Are you sure you want to upset their contract with the venue? their agent? their manager?......not the best option. What you have to do it obtain the best results possible with the equipment available.

 

This is the true skill of the live sound engineer. Your own ears are by far the best "bit-of-kit" you can have.

 

Moderation: quote and link tidied

[AndyL]

I've just read a psychological investigation suggesting that sight and expectation has 20 times more emphasis over the other sense.

 

Once upon a long time ago I remember reading that an audience will automatically 'assume' that the sound is coming from any speakers that they can see, regardless of the actual sound source. The advice, aimed at theatre sound folk, was therefore that any speakers you use should not be visible whenever possible, unless you want your audience to believe that the speaker they can see is actually the source of the sound.

 

Many times I have wondered, when I have heard a system at a gig and perhaps thought something along the lines of 'yuck, thats not nice'; is it the system, or is it the way it's set up? If you get to hear the same (type of) rig in different hands and it always sounds consistently good or consistently bad then I think it is fair to judge the hardware. On the other hand if you have only heard a particular system once without personally being 'at the controls' and you didn't like it then you really don't have enough information at that point to form an opinion of that system, or that brand of system, on your own. Which is where a forum like this can perhaps help....

[drsound]

Well it's the same in most walks of life. It's easy to do a bad job with good kit but a good sound engineer will manage to get a sound from whatever they have. I guess this is one of the points you're making.

 

In a previous life I had my fair share of charity jobs where the kit has amounted to what could be borrowed or stolen and they were generally a bit of a challenge. I'm immodest enough to think that I've always done a decent job with the gear though. Does that mean I wouldn't have preferred d&b, L-Acoustics or another 'brand' system? Of course not. They would have made my job a damn sight easier and I could have spent more time working on the balance of the mix rather than attempting to EQ the system into submission.

 

There is something to be said for having to serve your time on less "top-end" equipment and work your way up but it doesn't make you a bad person just because you've always had access to the best gear.

 

What annoys me more is when I see people who have been given every advantage - big brand PA, oodles of outboard kit, shiny expensive desk and so on - and they just can't mix a decent sound.

 

I'd be delighted to work out how I could EQ Bose 802s to sound like V-dosc or d&b Q. I don't have that button on my graphics.

[rob098]

I've just read a psychological investigation suggesting that sight and expectation has 20 times more emphasis over the other sense.

 

Once upon a long time ago I remember reading that an audience will automatically 'assume' that the sound is coming from any speakers that they can see, regardless of the actual sound source. The advice, aimed at theatre sound folk, was therefore that any speakers you use should not be visible whenever possible, unless you want your audience to believe that the speaker they can see is actually the source of the sound.

 

Many times I have wondered, when I have heard a system at a gig and perhaps thought something along the lines of 'yuck, thats not nice'; is it the system, or is it the way it's set up? If you get to hear the same (type of) rig in different hands and it always sounds consistently good or consistently bad then I think it is fair to judge the hardware. On the other hand if you have only heard a particular system once without personally being 'at the controls' and you didn't like it then you really don't have enough information at that point to form an opinion of that system, or that brand of system, on your own. Which is where a forum like this can perhaps help....

 

I'd be inclined to suggest the only way one might be able to truly evalute different systems is by means of some sort of shoot-out. Namely, same venue, same band, same engineer, then trial the different systems.

 

How often do any of us come across that situation?!

[Matt Riley]

I think it's true that you've got to also be aware of the limitations of your kit. If someone could magically walk into one of my venues, and with ten minutes fiddling, get the peavey rig that's installed to sound like vdosc or q then I'd be out of a job. It's just about doing the best possible with what you're given. I think a lot of the fear of graphics is due to the fact that there are still some engineers who are convinced that the phase irregularities introduced into a 'top system' by boosting or cutting a frequency on a dn370 is enough to make it a cardinal sin to touch said bit of kit. In the words of one sound company MD: 'Phase: shift happens!'

 

Matt

[rob098]

-snip-

I think a lot of the fear of graphics is due to the fact that there are still some engineers who are convinced that the phase irregularities introduced into a 'top system' by boosting or cutting a frequency on a dn370 is enough to make it a cardinal sin to touch said bit of kit. In the words of one sound company MD: 'Phase: shift happens!'

 

Matt

 

I think you're hit the nail on the head here Matt - maybe the reason why many engineers have preferences as to which systems they like/dont like is because they dont put the work in on the graphic. In other words, runnung the system mostly flat and then comparing the fidelity with other systems also run flat on the FOH EQ.

 

I could see then why someone might not like the upper mids in such-and-such boxes.

 

I was brought up on a large custom built large Eminence loaded rig (about 12Ks worth), and you HAD to butcher the graphic massively to make it sound slightly hi-fi. This was partly due to the fact that it had no speaker management, just an active ATC 3 way xover. It would present real problems with touring engineers, because they would insist on flattening the graphic, then proceed to slag off the system when they didn't like the sound they achieved. The whole time I'd be biting my tongue thinking "l've heard this system sound much much better than this..... its you that's at fault here!"

 

In later days we installed the good old DCX2496 which allowed us to take way more control of the fidelity through the use of "gentle" EQ curves (its all there in the bigger systems if you can get into the presets) and we then had a system that visiting engineers wanted to know more about and buy off us, due to its ability to sound beautiful flat.