What to do with two identical-sounding singers/instruments?

[Solstace]

Hi everyone!

 

A nightmare that many of us working with less-than-pro bands will regularly have to deal with at the board, I'm sure. With the brief being to make every singer and musician heard in the mix, we then get two singers who sound exactly the same, singing exactly the same thing at the same time. This gives us grief on several levels, as it pushes the perceived volume up while doing nothing to help the integrity or intelligibility of the song. It also means that the singers can't identify themselves in foldback mixes. Ugh.

 

Anyone else encounter this? How do you deal with it? Are there any conventional or effective techniques to make things more pleasant in the mix?

 

[my own method]

I start by getting the singers as happy as they can be in monitors/foldback, then with that set (and leaving it alone), I then drop the level of one in comparison to the other. Usually the stronger, more confident singer gets the lead here. Anywhere between 3 and 10dB difference seems to do the trick. Then for the quieter channel, I would bring out more "texture" by then boost the high frequencies somewhere around 3-6dB and perhaps some high-mids too. This allows both singers to be heard individually, without overpowering the mid-range too much.

 

Alternatively if I've got the option of mixing in stereo I'll start by panning each singer about half-way left or right (as seen from the sound desk perspective) - but often this doesn't do enough on its own.

[/my own method].

[Wilflet]

if they do sound identical, and are singing the same part, at the same time, then if it sounds good why does it have to sound like two people? you dont mix a choir to sound like individual voices. or am I missing something here?

 

As for monitors, Id think step one is getting them on different mixes, hopefully without very much of the other voice (providing they have themselves and an instrument they can key off)

[Solstace]

You're right - if it sounds good or better as one merged voice, then that's great. BUT: if the mix/arrangement is already overcrowded in the midrange (and the musicians can't/won't change it), then having two singers belting the same thing out in the same harsh overpowering tone is far less helpful than just one. It usually just sounds overpowering and confusing for the singers themselves and for everyone else. This can be especially pertinent if the intended application of the mix happens to be for a sing-a-longa, or for sung worship.

 

I've long found that in such situations, adjusting/softening the mix so that both singers can be heard separately (doesn't need to be by much) can really help make a loud mix sound less "loud" and suggest a little more intimacy. And niceties like that are really appreciated by the older folk who don't much like it louder than 80dB or so unless it's somehow "done right".

 

So - artistic differences aside, anyone know how else we *can* meet the brief?

[J Pearce]

Different effects, compress one harder, reverb on one, delay on other; that sort of thing works well. I also go for the same one high level, one low level with boosted high mid.

 

It's a difficult thing to sort, and ought to be sorted at the musicians end, but often (regularly within churches) the problem is left with us...

[lonfire]

hi,

I had this the other day at an event, two female singers, doing pretty much exactly the same thing. I ended up panning L one vocal and R the other (not hard pan, but quite a bit), actualy sounded pretty good, almost like double tracking, because obviously they weren't singing identicaly. This was a small band with a small crowd so wasn't much of an issue with mixing in stereo.

 

This doesn't work so well if one of the people then wants to speak, because you only get it out of one side and sounds a bit odd.. I wonder if you could split each vocal into two channels and pan hard L and R, then compress the L channel for singer one and R channel for singer two, and feed the side chains of the compressors from the other singer. So when one singers speaking you get L/R (no compression) but when they sing together they are compressing one side of the L/R channels of the other singer more giving more stereo space.. maybe.. might try that..

 

regards

chris

[Solstace]

Well said Jon - it really ought to be fixed at the source, so to speak. But in churches and for other ministry needs we get to work with what we're given, and it's up to us to make it all work. Personally I like this kind of challenge from both a people and tech perspective - but it is rather disheartening at times if the feedback (sic) we receive is generally less than encouraging, even when it's clear that things are generally going pretty well. Your thoughts about using FX certainly work in some situations, but might be a bit "modern" for the application I have in mind. Orchestral and more "Classical" styles don't tend to lend themselves to such things, especially in a building that adds its own unique uh... "signature", shall we say.

 

Chris, I think your panning/compression technique sounds like great idea - especially in the age of digital desks. We're hopefully soon to go there, so we'll get decent compression as standard with the desk. Might have a go at that in software this week on some test multitracks I keep by for experimentation and training and if I do, I'll report back. Doing it your way also gives the ability to send the singers the uncompressed channels into their monitors very easily. We can't do that live as we presently run the old-fashioned way without outboard (except GEQ's and speaker/delay processing on all outputs).

 

Anyone else with alternative methods? Just to re-iterate - questioning the artistic brief is a good thing from the perspective of ongoing growth and direction, but doesn't wash when we're in the rehearsal and just trying to get things done. So while we can do that, we need to know what tools and techniques we could apply to make things work as far as we can. Good to know for example I'm not the only one working as I do, but it's always good to hear what others do.

[lonfire]

Well said Jon - it really ought to be fixed at the source, so to speak. But in churches and for other ministry needs we get to work with what we're given, and it's up to us to make it all work. Personally I like this kind of challenge from both a people and tech perspective -

 

Hi,

I have the same issue, some weeks the team aren't so good, some weeks amazing. I've got into the habbit now of gently commenting on different teams with the guy that plans them, there are certain people that work well together and others that don't (on a personal and audio level).. Always keep it constructive though, theres no place for destructive criticism in churchs. The difficulty we had was if you put all the good muso's together you get accused of creating an A and B team.

 

Anyway we have a couple of guys whos voices are very similar, so I ask if they can go on different teams, two sisters who sound great together, but put the mum with them and it goes to pot. The most anoying thing is when they put a team on that needs more foldback mixes than the desk is capable of!

 

We use our youth services and smaller midweek meetings to bring on younger and less experienced muso's as these tend to be smaller services. Means I can train them in monitor/mic technique from the start and also to give the engineer hassle if they are not happy (rather than quietly struggling on)

 

I was always taught, if you do sound for a church you work for the congregation not the band. i.e. if something doesn't sound right or somebody is having a bad day just drop them out the mix (if you can), its not like a band situation where you have to reproduce the sound the band want.. This approach also helps the muso's become more confident because they know if they are having an off day or struggling I'm not going to put them in front of mix for everybody to hear..

 

but it is rather disheartening at times if the feedback (sic) we receive is generally less than encouraging, even when it's clear that things are generally going pretty well.

 

Ahaha, "that video sounded terrible and looked aweful, what can we do about it?" ermm, stop bringing me low quality youtube videos!

 

sunday morning all three singers started a song late at the same time, worship leader said to me, I'm sure they can't hear me, so I checked the foldback and they hadn't got much guitar (lead instrument) in their foldbacks, so increased it a bit, went around and checked (with my own ears!) the level, and they tried again.. much better the second time and low and behold they started the songs in time.. they've all been told now they must have the lead instrument in their foldbacks and to stop asking for it to be removed!

 

Regards

Chris

[stevefez]

snip

Ahaha, "that video sounded terrible and looked aweful, what can we do about it?" ermm, stop bringing me low quality youtube videos!

snip

It's a often endured classic. Alternatively, instead of giving you a video, they will just give you a link, 5 mins before the service... because that's plenty of time to download/convert it!*

In regards to the actual OP, I think you've already nailed it with resources available to you (/me/most churches). Dropping one down, and re eq'ing will sound as good as you are going to get I would imagine.

 

*NB: based on stone age broadband speeds, because 10 years ago it was on the edge of the broadband supply 'sphere' and they don't see any reason to improve/upgrade it

 

EDIT: splng