"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1100704414k@trad
In article
writes:

I'm mixing live sound at the same time I'm recording.

However, I wouldn't change a thing - mixing later on is far more
precise. For one thing, I have perfect knowlege of what is from the
standpoint of the flow of the recording, the future.

That's the way to do it, if you have the time, and particularly if
you're being paid for taking that time.

I wish!

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1100704414k@trad
In article
writes:

I'm mixing live sound at the same time I'm recording.

However, I wouldn't change a thing - mixing later on is far more
precise. For one thing, I have perfect knowlege of what is from the
standpoint of the flow of the recording, the future.

That's the way to do it, if you have the time, and particularly if
you're being paid for taking that time.

I wish!

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1100777285k@trad
In article
writes:

Yes, but a recording with 10 dB or more headroom is not an easy
listen. It's pretty faint-sounding particularly if it also has a lot
of dynamics.

If it's really dynamics in the music, then there's nothing wrong with
10 dB of dynamic range. Or are you talking about the "lazy listener"
syndrome, where the listener complains that the recording is too quiet
when he could solve that problem by turning up his volume control?

Roger!

If you don't adjust gain between a loud and a soft talker or solo
singer, then you're making a conscious decision to "fix it in the
mix." Sometimes that makes sense, other times it's a waste of time.

In the particular context, I have a mic and a track assigned to each person.
Set the levels once for the whole track, and I'm generally close within a
few dB.

I find that recording a mix that's based on the live mix can make a
pretty decent (but not perfect) recording. When someone is too loud,
reduce the mic preamp gain - then you fix the problem both in the
house mix and the recording. And you also correct the monitor mix.

That depends on the purpose of the monitor mix. I work with a monitor mix
that is fixed during rehearsal. Purpose being that the monitor mix is
supposed to inform the musicians how loud to play. If I alter it during the
performance, I've messed up their feedback on how they are singing.

Of course if it's a rehearsed show, the situation is different, but
then you should be part of the rehearsal so you'll have a response to
every change that would affect your recording or live sound
reinforcement.

Only problem there is that in this context, the rehearsals are very
fragmentary.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1100777285k@trad
In article
writes:

Yes, but a recording with 10 dB or more headroom is not an easy
listen. It's pretty faint-sounding particularly if it also has a lot
of dynamics.

If it's really dynamics in the music, then there's nothing wrong with
10 dB of dynamic range. Or are you talking about the "lazy listener"
syndrome, where the listener complains that the recording is too quiet
when he could solve that problem by turning up his volume control?

Roger!

If you don't adjust gain between a loud and a soft talker or solo
singer, then you're making a conscious decision to "fix it in the
mix." Sometimes that makes sense, other times it's a waste of time.

In the particular context, I have a mic and a track assigned to each person.
Set the levels once for the whole track, and I'm generally close within a
few dB.

I find that recording a mix that's based on the live mix can make a
pretty decent (but not perfect) recording. When someone is too loud,
reduce the mic preamp gain - then you fix the problem both in the
house mix and the recording. And you also correct the monitor mix.

That depends on the purpose of the monitor mix. I work with a monitor mix
that is fixed during rehearsal. Purpose being that the monitor mix is
supposed to inform the musicians how loud to play. If I alter it during the
performance, I've messed up their feedback on how they are singing.

Of course if it's a rehearsed show, the situation is different, but
then you should be part of the rehearsal so you'll have a response to
every change that would affect your recording or live sound
reinforcement.

Only problem there is that in this context, the rehearsals are very
fragmentary.

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
. 191...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in
:

But is totally unnecessary overhead given that 'real' 24 bit
converters do not, and probably never will exist, owing to the laws of
Physics.

Now 32 bit floats for processing and intermediate file saving is a
different story...

You're forgetting that it's a computer.

24-bit is not a native computer numerical format. It will have to be
converted to a 32-bit integer or 24-bit integer plus sign and mantissa
(32-
bit floating point) in order to go through the APU.

That's nothing to do with the file record or storage format. That's to do
with the application design in how it sends data to the CPU and associated
modules.

geoff

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
. 191...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in
:

But is totally unnecessary overhead given that 'real' 24 bit
converters do not, and probably never will exist, owing to the laws of
Physics.

Now 32 bit floats for processing and intermediate file saving is a
different story...

You're forgetting that it's a computer.

24-bit is not a native computer numerical format. It will have to be
converted to a 32-bit integer or 24-bit integer plus sign and mantissa
(32-
bit floating point) in order to go through the APU.

That's nothing to do with the file record or storage format. That's to do
with the application design in how it sends data to the CPU and associated
modules.

geoff

In article writes:

I find that recording a mix that's based on the live mix can make a
pretty decent (but not perfect) recording. When someone is too loud,
reduce the mic preamp gain - then you fix the problem both in the
house mix and the recording. And you also correct the monitor mix.

That depends on the purpose of the monitor mix. I work with a monitor mix
that is fixed during rehearsal. Purpose being that the monitor mix is
supposed to inform the musicians how loud to play. If I alter it during the
performance, I've messed up their feedback on how they are singing.

Well, if something gets too loud and the musicians don't recognize
that (from what they hear in the monitors) and correct for it then the
monitor isn't doing what you intended for it to do. Of course if you
misjudged the initial setting of the gain and the channel level to the
monitor, then boo on you. g

Frankly, I'd rather make a change to the monitor (and let the
performer hear it - maybe that will get his attention!) rather than to
have him realize that he's too loud because I had the gain set wrong,
and then back off so the mix sounds right to him but now I have to
deal with the sound of him being off mic.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

I find that recording a mix that's based on the live mix can make a
pretty decent (but not perfect) recording. When someone is too loud,
reduce the mic preamp gain - then you fix the problem both in the
house mix and the recording. And you also correct the monitor mix.

That depends on the purpose of the monitor mix. I work with a monitor mix
that is fixed during rehearsal. Purpose being that the monitor mix is
supposed to inform the musicians how loud to play. If I alter it during the
performance, I've messed up their feedback on how they are singing.

Well, if something gets too loud and the musicians don't recognize
that (from what they hear in the monitors) and correct for it then the
monitor isn't doing what you intended for it to do. Of course if you
misjudged the initial setting of the gain and the channel level to the
monitor, then boo on you. g

Frankly, I'd rather make a change to the monitor (and let the
performer hear it - maybe that will get his attention!) rather than to
have him realize that he's too loud because I had the gain set wrong,
and then back off so the mix sounds right to him but now I have to
deal with the sound of him being off mic.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

That depends on the purpose of the monitor mix. I work with a monitor mix
that is fixed during rehearsal. Purpose being that the monitor mix is
supposed to inform the musicians how loud to play. If I alter it during the
performance, I've messed up their feedback on how they are singing.

Relative volume level in the auditorium is not the musician's responsibility --
it is the FOH mixing engineer's job to make it sound good. Granted, in small
venues you often have to work with the band (often to control drum level for
example), but the reason you have a person mixing sound live is to adjust
volume levels.

If a person sings too loud in the monitor, it does a couple of things -- it may
or may not let them know that so they can back off, *AND* it affects everyone
else, which affects their ability to deliver a compelling performance.

This is compounded by the way that musicians rarely sing/play exactly the same
in the performance that they did during sound check. The acoustics for the
room are also often different as the room is filled with people.

When I run live sound, I try for a pleasing set of monitor mixes (typically
we're running 3 mixes), with the variations desired by the musicians. I don't
vary the monitor mix drastically during performance, but if a singer grabs the
microphone and starts blasting, I don't hesitate to quickly restore some
measure of balance to both the house and monitor mixes.

-lee-

That depends on the purpose of the monitor mix. I work with a monitor mix
that is fixed during rehearsal. Purpose being that the monitor mix is
supposed to inform the musicians how loud to play. If I alter it during the
performance, I've messed up their feedback on how they are singing.

Relative volume level in the auditorium is not the musician's responsibility --
it is the FOH mixing engineer's job to make it sound good. Granted, in small
venues you often have to work with the band (often to control drum level for
example), but the reason you have a person mixing sound live is to adjust
volume levels.

If a person sings too loud in the monitor, it does a couple of things -- it may
or may not let them know that so they can back off, *AND* it affects everyone
else, which affects their ability to deliver a compelling performance.

This is compounded by the way that musicians rarely sing/play exactly the same
in the performance that they did during sound check. The acoustics for the
room are also often different as the room is filled with people.

When I run live sound, I try for a pleasing set of monitor mixes (typically
we're running 3 mixes), with the variations desired by the musicians. I don't
vary the monitor mix drastically during performance, but if a singer grabs the
microphone and starts blasting, I don't hesitate to quickly restore some
measure of balance to both the house and monitor mixes.

-lee-

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
.191...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in
:

But is totally unnecessary overhead given that 'real' 24 bit
converters do not, and probably never will exist, owing to the laws of
Physics.

Now 32 bit floats for processing and intermediate file saving is a
different story...

You're forgetting that it's a computer.

24-bit is not a native computer numerical format. It will have to be
converted to a 32-bit integer or 24-bit integer plus sign and mantissa
(32-
bit floating point) in order to go through the APU.

That's nothing to do with the file record or storage format. That's to do
with the application design in how it sends data to the CPU and associated
modules.

geoff

Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to 32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit integers.


Yes, there is more *disk* overhead, but no significant real time overhead in
CPU, memory or buffer space. In fact, storing to disk can be *more* efficient
in terms of overhead (not disk space), because the CPU doesn't have to "pack"
the data before putting it on disk. With 24 bit data, the CPU has to go
through extra manipulations to put it on the disk.

-lee-

"Carey Carlan" wrote in message
.191...
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in
:

But is totally unnecessary overhead given that 'real' 24 bit
converters do not, and probably never will exist, owing to the laws of
Physics.

Now 32 bit floats for processing and intermediate file saving is a
different story...

You're forgetting that it's a computer.

24-bit is not a native computer numerical format. It will have to be
converted to a 32-bit integer or 24-bit integer plus sign and mantissa
(32-
bit floating point) in order to go through the APU.

That's nothing to do with the file record or storage format. That's to do
with the application design in how it sends data to the CPU and associated
modules.

geoff

Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to 32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit integers.


Yes, there is more *disk* overhead, but no significant real time overhead in
CPU, memory or buffer space. In fact, storing to disk can be *more* efficient
in terms of overhead (not disk space), because the CPU doesn't have to "pack"
the data before putting it on disk. With 24 bit data, the CPU has to go
through extra manipulations to put it on the disk.

-lee-

"Leoaw3" wrote in message


That depends on the purpose of the monitor mix. I work with a
monitor mix that is fixed during rehearsal. Purpose being that the
monitor mix is supposed to inform the musicians how loud to play.
If I alter it during the performance, I've messed up their feedback
on how they are singing.

Relative volume level in the auditorium is not the musician's
responsibility -- it is the FOH mixing engineer's job to make it
sound good. Granted, in small venues you often have to work with the
band (often to control drum level for example), but the reason you
have a person mixing sound live is to adjust volume levels.

Agreed.

If a person sings too loud in the monitor, it does a couple of things
-- it may or may not let them know that so they can back off, *AND*
it affects everyone else, which affects their ability to deliver a
compelling performance.

My take is that the musicians are supposed to be a team, and stay together
on stage. If they lack teamwork, IMO its not up to the mix staff to impose
it on them unless things get totally out of hand. Sitting in the back of the
room its darn hard for me to nudge a musician and suggest to him that he
settle down. But his mate on stage can and should do that.

This is compounded by the way that musicians rarely sing/play exactly
the same in the performance that they did during sound check. The
acoustics for the room are also often different as the room is filled
with people.

Agreed.

When I run live sound, I try for a pleasing set of monitor mixes
(typically we're running 3 mixes), with the variations desired by the
musicians.

Do you vary the monitor mixes during the show? If you do, how do you get
feedback from the musicians about how to vary them? I can't even hear the
monitors from where I mix.

I don't vary the monitor mix drastically during
performance, but if a singer grabs the microphone and starts
blasting, I don't hesitate to quickly restore some measure of balance
to both the house and monitor mixes.

Well, that would be like mixing with the trims instead of the sliders. I
don't get that.

Of course I try to track what the musicians do with the FOH mix. But why not
just let the musician keep blasting himself with his monitor mix? Maybe
he'll start getting the idea that he's blasting when he doesn't really want
to. Maybe his mate on stage will nudge him.

If a musician starts singing louder for reasons related to the music, I
don't back him off even in the FOH mix unless things are getting out of
hand. After all dynamics are part of music. Composers put f's and p's on
the sheet music to indicate dynamics, right?

"Leoaw3" wrote in message


That depends on the purpose of the monitor mix. I work with a
monitor mix that is fixed during rehearsal. Purpose being that the
monitor mix is supposed to inform the musicians how loud to play.
If I alter it during the performance, I've messed up their feedback
on how they are singing.

Relative volume level in the auditorium is not the musician's
responsibility -- it is the FOH mixing engineer's job to make it
sound good. Granted, in small venues you often have to work with the
band (often to control drum level for example), but the reason you
have a person mixing sound live is to adjust volume levels.

Agreed.

If a person sings too loud in the monitor, it does a couple of things
-- it may or may not let them know that so they can back off, *AND*
it affects everyone else, which affects their ability to deliver a
compelling performance.

My take is that the musicians are supposed to be a team, and stay together
on stage. If they lack teamwork, IMO its not up to the mix staff to impose
it on them unless things get totally out of hand. Sitting in the back of the
room its darn hard for me to nudge a musician and suggest to him that he
settle down. But his mate on stage can and should do that.

This is compounded by the way that musicians rarely sing/play exactly
the same in the performance that they did during sound check. The
acoustics for the room are also often different as the room is filled
with people.

Agreed.

When I run live sound, I try for a pleasing set of monitor mixes
(typically we're running 3 mixes), with the variations desired by the
musicians.

Do you vary the monitor mixes during the show? If you do, how do you get
feedback from the musicians about how to vary them? I can't even hear the
monitors from where I mix.

I don't vary the monitor mix drastically during
performance, but if a singer grabs the microphone and starts
blasting, I don't hesitate to quickly restore some measure of balance
to both the house and monitor mixes.

Well, that would be like mixing with the trims instead of the sliders. I
don't get that.

Of course I try to track what the musicians do with the FOH mix. But why not
just let the musician keep blasting himself with his monitor mix? Maybe
he'll start getting the idea that he's blasting when he doesn't really want
to. Maybe his mate on stage will nudge him.

If a musician starts singing louder for reasons related to the music, I
don't back him off even in the FOH mix unless things are getting out of
hand. After all dynamics are part of music. Composers put f's and p's on
the sheet music to indicate dynamics, right?

In article writes:

My take is that the musicians are supposed to be a team, and stay together
on stage. If they lack teamwork, IMO its not up to the mix staff to impose
it on them unless things get totally out of hand.

Well, when someone blasts a mic and you're running into clipping
somewhere, isn't that "totally out of hand?" Just an occasional Cajun
yell isn't a problem, but when someone's just plain singing too loud
(usually they're not, you just have the gain too high and didn't
realize it because they didn't sing that loud during the sound check)
then you have to make a correction. That correction will usually stay
put, so it's not like you're constantly changing the monitor gain and
fighting a singer who's trying to sing expressively.

When I run live sound, I try for a pleasing set of monitor mixes
(typically we're running 3 mixes), with the variations desired by the
musicians.

Do you vary the monitor mixes during the show? If you do, how do you get
feedback from the musicians about how to vary them? I can't even hear the
monitors from where I mix.

I don't do shows (unrehearsed anyway) where I have a bunch of
different monitor mixes. I give them two at most, and the goal is that
they should hear a pretty well balanced mix. A singer who only hears
himself, the bass, and the kick drum in the monitor had darn well
better be very well rehearsed and be very consistent. You don't have
to worry about people like that. But you get a bunch of amateurs on
stage, each one telling you what he thinks he wants to hear in the
monitor, you have a mess. You give them a balanced mix (which you can
check by soloing it in the headphones) and they'll be able to do their
job. I hate to come off heavy-handed about this, but I find that it
works well more often than it gets complaints.

I don't vary the monitor mix drastically during
performance, but if a singer grabs the microphone and starts
blasting, I don't hesitate to quickly restore some measure of balance
to both the house and monitor mixes.

Well, that would be like mixing with the trims instead of the sliders. I
don't get that.

Well, it really works. But I can see that complaints of "the
preamp/mixer doesn't have enough headroom" come from people who don't
set the gain structure of the console properly. Most mixers actually
do perform best with the faders within 6 dB or so of their design
center (usually designated "unity gain" whether it actually is or not)
and the trims are there to get you into that ballpark. And generally
things need to be within 3 dB or so of each other in order to be
distinguisable in a mix. So I start the mix with the faders near their
design center and get a rough mix with the trims. That way, when I
turn all the monitor sends up to "seven" I have a reasonably well
balanced mix going to the monitors.

Sometimes I need to boost a channel more than the fader can
accommodate, like if a normally loud singer talks quietly between
songs. If I just push the fader up all the way, I may have only 6 dB
of boost and that's not enough. And the talker can't hear himself in
the monitor. So I turn the trim up - and keep a hand on it so I can
turn it back down when they start singing again. I know I'm not
returning it to exactly the same point, but it will be close enough so
there won't be a surprise, and I can touch it up once they start
singing if necessary.

Running live sound is a full time job. You can't just do a sound
check, set the knobs, and kick back to enjoy the show like the
audience does.

If a musician starts singing louder for reasons related to the music, I
don't back him off even in the FOH mix unless things are getting out of
hand. After all dynamics are part of music.

Of course, but you have to be prepared for this, and you can't abuse
the audience. "Getting out of hand" may not be the same for you as for
the musician, or the audience. But if it's too loud, they're going to
stare at you and maybe someone will tap you on the shoulder and tell
you to turn it down. They won't go up to the stage, tap the singer on
the shoulder and ask him to sing quieter.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

My take is that the musicians are supposed to be a team, and stay together
on stage. If they lack teamwork, IMO its not up to the mix staff to impose
it on them unless things get totally out of hand.

Well, when someone blasts a mic and you're running into clipping
somewhere, isn't that "totally out of hand?" Just an occasional Cajun
yell isn't a problem, but when someone's just plain singing too loud
(usually they're not, you just have the gain too high and didn't
realize it because they didn't sing that loud during the sound check)
then you have to make a correction. That correction will usually stay
put, so it's not like you're constantly changing the monitor gain and
fighting a singer who's trying to sing expressively.

When I run live sound, I try for a pleasing set of monitor mixes
(typically we're running 3 mixes), with the variations desired by the
musicians.

Do you vary the monitor mixes during the show? If you do, how do you get
feedback from the musicians about how to vary them? I can't even hear the
monitors from where I mix.

I don't do shows (unrehearsed anyway) where I have a bunch of
different monitor mixes. I give them two at most, and the goal is that
they should hear a pretty well balanced mix. A singer who only hears
himself, the bass, and the kick drum in the monitor had darn well
better be very well rehearsed and be very consistent. You don't have
to worry about people like that. But you get a bunch of amateurs on
stage, each one telling you what he thinks he wants to hear in the
monitor, you have a mess. You give them a balanced mix (which you can
check by soloing it in the headphones) and they'll be able to do their
job. I hate to come off heavy-handed about this, but I find that it
works well more often than it gets complaints.

I don't vary the monitor mix drastically during
performance, but if a singer grabs the microphone and starts
blasting, I don't hesitate to quickly restore some measure of balance
to both the house and monitor mixes.

Well, that would be like mixing with the trims instead of the sliders. I
don't get that.

Well, it really works. But I can see that complaints of "the
preamp/mixer doesn't have enough headroom" come from people who don't
set the gain structure of the console properly. Most mixers actually
do perform best with the faders within 6 dB or so of their design
center (usually designated "unity gain" whether it actually is or not)
and the trims are there to get you into that ballpark. And generally
things need to be within 3 dB or so of each other in order to be
distinguisable in a mix. So I start the mix with the faders near their
design center and get a rough mix with the trims. That way, when I
turn all the monitor sends up to "seven" I have a reasonably well
balanced mix going to the monitors.

Sometimes I need to boost a channel more than the fader can
accommodate, like if a normally loud singer talks quietly between
songs. If I just push the fader up all the way, I may have only 6 dB
of boost and that's not enough. And the talker can't hear himself in
the monitor. So I turn the trim up - and keep a hand on it so I can
turn it back down when they start singing again. I know I'm not
returning it to exactly the same point, but it will be close enough so
there won't be a surprise, and I can touch it up once they start
singing if necessary.

Running live sound is a full time job. You can't just do a sound
check, set the knobs, and kick back to enjoy the show like the
audience does.

If a musician starts singing louder for reasons related to the music, I
don't back him off even in the FOH mix unless things are getting out of
hand. After all dynamics are part of music.

Of course, but you have to be prepared for this, and you can't abuse
the audience. "Getting out of hand" may not be the same for you as for
the musician, or the audience. But if it's too loud, they're going to
stare at you and maybe someone will tap you on the shoulder and tell
you to turn it down. They won't go up to the stage, tap the singer on
the shoulder and ask him to sing quieter.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Leoaw3 wrote:


Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to 32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit integers.


Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and
that overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register
is trivial by any definition.

Leoaw3 wrote:


Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to 32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit integers.


Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and
that overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register
is trivial by any definition.

S O'Neill wrote:
Leoaw3 wrote:

Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to 32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit integers.

Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and
that overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register
is trivial by any definition.

I don't know about your computer, but mine has special instructions to do
type conversion in one cycle.

I should say that many of the 24-bit file formats are unpacked anyway, and
use 32 bits to store each 24 bit sample on the grounds that disk space is
cheap.
--scott

I miss 24-bit and 36-bit computers, though.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

S O'Neill wrote:
Leoaw3 wrote:

Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to 32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit integers.

Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and
that overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register
is trivial by any definition.

I don't know about your computer, but mine has special instructions to do
type conversion in one cycle.

I should say that many of the 24-bit file formats are unpacked anyway, and
use 32 bits to store each 24 bit sample on the grounds that disk space is
cheap.
--scott

I miss 24-bit and 36-bit computers, though.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1100956576k@trad
In article
writes:

My take is that the musicians are supposed to be a team, and stay
together on stage. If they lack teamwork, IMO its not up to the mix
staff to impose it on them unless things get totally out of hand.

Well, when someone blasts a mic and you're running into clipping
somewhere, isn't that "totally out of hand?"

Agreed.

Just an occasional Cajun
yell isn't a problem, but when someone's just plain singing too loud
(usually they're not, you just have the gain too high and didn't
realize it because they didn't sing that loud during the sound check)
then you have to make a correction. That correction will usually stay
put, so it's not like you're constantly changing the monitor gain and
fighting a singer who's trying to sing expressively.

That seems fine.

When I run live sound, I try for a pleasing set of monitor mixes
(typically we're running 3 mixes), with the variations desired by
the musicians.

Do you vary the monitor mixes during the show? If you do, how do you
get feedback from the musicians about how to vary them? I can't even
hear the monitors from where I mix.

I don't do shows (unrehearsed anyway) where I have a bunch of
different monitor mixes. I give them two at most, and the goal is that
they should hear a pretty well balanced mix. A singer who only hears
himself, the bass, and the kick drum in the monitor had darn well
better be very well rehearsed and be very consistent. You don't have
to worry about people like that. But you get a bunch of amateurs on
stage, each one telling you what he thinks he wants to hear in the
monitor, you have a mess. You give them a balanced mix (which you can
check by soloing it in the headphones) and they'll be able to do their
job. I hate to come off heavy-handed about this, but I find that it
works well more often than it gets complaints.

I mostly run 3 monitor mixes. Left stage, right stage, and pianist. I split
the stage monitors because the acoustical environments are really different
across the stage. Stage right is literally standing right over the piano, so
that mix needs little piano. Stage left is a long way from the piano and so
it gets more piano. The piano gets no piano, mostly just a little of stage
left and right mixed plus some of herself.

I don't vary the monitor mix drastically during
performance, but if a singer grabs the microphone and starts
blasting, I don't hesitate to quickly restore some measure of
balance to both the house and monitor mixes.

Well, that would be like mixing with the trims instead of the
sliders. I don't get that.

Well, it really works. But I can see that complaints of "the
preamp/mixer doesn't have enough headroom" come from people who don't
set the gain structure of the console properly.

That's not my complaint. I agree that if I got a trim or two wrong during
rehearsal as you suggested, its OK to correct it if needed. I guess that if
someone really started blasting a mic, I might even mute their mic.

Most mixers actually
do perform best with the faders within 6 dB or so of their design
center (usually designated "unity gain" whether it actually is or not)
and the trims are there to get you into that ballpark.

Agreed. I also use attenuators with really high output mics to keep the
trims near centered.

And generally
things need to be within 3 dB or so of each other in order to be
distinguisable in a mix.

Agreed. Given the total possible range of adjustment, its kinda interesting
how close you have to get to have any kind of a blend.

So I start the mix with the faders near their
design center and get a rough mix with the trims. That way, when I
turn all the monitor sends up to "seven" I have a reasonably well
balanced mix going to the monitors.

Agreed. That's about how I set levels - sliders near zero, monitor sends
near noon-2 o'clock, and trims near center, even if it takes a mic
attenuator or built-in mic attenuator switch to get there.

Sometimes I need to boost a channel more than the fader can
accommodate, like if a normally loud singer talks quietly between
songs.

That can be an issue. We tend to coach people to speak up during rehearsal.

If I just push the fader up all the way, I may have only 6 dB
of boost and that's not enough. And the talker can't hear himself in
the monitor.

Must be something else big happening at the time.

So I turn the trim up - and keep a hand on it so I can
turn it back down when they start singing again. I know I'm not
returning it to exactly the same point, but it will be close enough so
there won't be a surprise, and I can touch it up once they start
singing if necessary.

Running live sound is a full time job. You can't just do a sound
check, set the knobs, and kick back to enjoy the show like the
audience does.

Agreed. Indeed when its all over I often don't remember much about the
content of the program.

If a musician starts singing louder for reasons related to the
music, I don't back him off even in the FOH mix unless things are
getting out of hand. After all dynamics are part of music.

Of course, but you have to be prepared for this, and you can't abuse
the audience. "Getting out of hand" may not be the same for you as for
the musician, or the audience. But if it's too loud, they're going to
stare at you and maybe someone will tap you on the shoulder and tell
you to turn it down. They won't go up to the stage, tap the singer on
the shoulder and ask him to sing quieter.

My goal is zero complaints from the audience, and I usually achieve it for
months at a time.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1100956576k@trad
In article
writes:

My take is that the musicians are supposed to be a team, and stay
together on stage. If they lack teamwork, IMO its not up to the mix
staff to impose it on them unless things get totally out of hand.

Well, when someone blasts a mic and you're running into clipping
somewhere, isn't that "totally out of hand?"

Agreed.

Just an occasional Cajun
yell isn't a problem, but when someone's just plain singing too loud
(usually they're not, you just have the gain too high and didn't
realize it because they didn't sing that loud during the sound check)
then you have to make a correction. That correction will usually stay
put, so it's not like you're constantly changing the monitor gain and
fighting a singer who's trying to sing expressively.

That seems fine.

When I run live sound, I try for a pleasing set of monitor mixes
(typically we're running 3 mixes), with the variations desired by
the musicians.

Do you vary the monitor mixes during the show? If you do, how do you
get feedback from the musicians about how to vary them? I can't even
hear the monitors from where I mix.

I don't do shows (unrehearsed anyway) where I have a bunch of
different monitor mixes. I give them two at most, and the goal is that
they should hear a pretty well balanced mix. A singer who only hears
himself, the bass, and the kick drum in the monitor had darn well
better be very well rehearsed and be very consistent. You don't have
to worry about people like that. But you get a bunch of amateurs on
stage, each one telling you what he thinks he wants to hear in the
monitor, you have a mess. You give them a balanced mix (which you can
check by soloing it in the headphones) and they'll be able to do their
job. I hate to come off heavy-handed about this, but I find that it
works well more often than it gets complaints.

I mostly run 3 monitor mixes. Left stage, right stage, and pianist. I split
the stage monitors because the acoustical environments are really different
across the stage. Stage right is literally standing right over the piano, so
that mix needs little piano. Stage left is a long way from the piano and so
it gets more piano. The piano gets no piano, mostly just a little of stage
left and right mixed plus some of herself.

I don't vary the monitor mix drastically during
performance, but if a singer grabs the microphone and starts
blasting, I don't hesitate to quickly restore some measure of
balance to both the house and monitor mixes.

Well, that would be like mixing with the trims instead of the
sliders. I don't get that.

Well, it really works. But I can see that complaints of "the
preamp/mixer doesn't have enough headroom" come from people who don't
set the gain structure of the console properly.

That's not my complaint. I agree that if I got a trim or two wrong during
rehearsal as you suggested, its OK to correct it if needed. I guess that if
someone really started blasting a mic, I might even mute their mic.

Most mixers actually
do perform best with the faders within 6 dB or so of their design
center (usually designated "unity gain" whether it actually is or not)
and the trims are there to get you into that ballpark.

Agreed. I also use attenuators with really high output mics to keep the
trims near centered.

And generally
things need to be within 3 dB or so of each other in order to be
distinguisable in a mix.

Agreed. Given the total possible range of adjustment, its kinda interesting
how close you have to get to have any kind of a blend.

So I start the mix with the faders near their
design center and get a rough mix with the trims. That way, when I
turn all the monitor sends up to "seven" I have a reasonably well
balanced mix going to the monitors.

Agreed. That's about how I set levels - sliders near zero, monitor sends
near noon-2 o'clock, and trims near center, even if it takes a mic
attenuator or built-in mic attenuator switch to get there.

Sometimes I need to boost a channel more than the fader can
accommodate, like if a normally loud singer talks quietly between
songs.

That can be an issue. We tend to coach people to speak up during rehearsal.

If I just push the fader up all the way, I may have only 6 dB
of boost and that's not enough. And the talker can't hear himself in
the monitor.

Must be something else big happening at the time.

So I turn the trim up - and keep a hand on it so I can
turn it back down when they start singing again. I know I'm not
returning it to exactly the same point, but it will be close enough so
there won't be a surprise, and I can touch it up once they start
singing if necessary.

Running live sound is a full time job. You can't just do a sound
check, set the knobs, and kick back to enjoy the show like the
audience does.

Agreed. Indeed when its all over I often don't remember much about the
content of the program.

If a musician starts singing louder for reasons related to the
music, I don't back him off even in the FOH mix unless things are
getting out of hand. After all dynamics are part of music.

Of course, but you have to be prepared for this, and you can't abuse
the audience. "Getting out of hand" may not be the same for you as for
the musician, or the audience. But if it's too loud, they're going to
stare at you and maybe someone will tap you on the shoulder and tell
you to turn it down. They won't go up to the stage, tap the singer on
the shoulder and ask him to sing quieter.

My goal is zero complaints from the audience, and I usually achieve it for
months at a time.

"S O'Neill" wrote in message
...
Leoaw3 wrote:


Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to
32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU
is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit
integers.


Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and that
overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register is
trivial by any definition.

"S O'Neill" wrote in message
...
Leoaw3 wrote:


Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to
32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU
is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit
integers.


Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and that
overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register is
trivial by any definition.

"S O'Neill" wrote in message
...
Leoaw3 wrote:


Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to
32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU
is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit
integers.


Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and that
overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register is
trivial by any definition.

Well Vegas can do it. Recording multiple tracks while playing back live tens
of disparate tracks/file-types/bit-depths/sample rates mixed on it's
timeline, and outputting uncompromised video to an external monitor for
good measure. Without breaking into a sweat.

geoff

"S O'Neill" wrote in message
...
Leoaw3 wrote:


Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to
32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU
is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit
integers.


Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and that
overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register is
trivial by any definition.

Well Vegas can do it. Recording multiple tracks while playing back live tens
of disparate tracks/file-types/bit-depths/sample rates mixed on it's
timeline, and outputting uncompromised video to an external monitor for
good measure. Without breaking into a sweat.

geoff

Scott Dorsey wrote:

S O'Neill wrote:

Leoaw3 wrote:


Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to 32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit integers.

Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and
that overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register
is trivial by any definition.


I don't know about your computer, but mine has special instructions to do
type conversion in one cycle.


Ya learn sumpthin' new every day. It's been a while since I assembled.


I should say that many of the 24-bit file formats are unpacked anyway, and
use 32 bits to store each 24 bit sample on the grounds that disk space is
cheap.


And most images are 24-bit.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

S O'Neill wrote:

Leoaw3 wrote:


Yes, but the point is "overhead". Converting from 24 bit integer to 32-bit
float is a trivial operation, depending on how it is normalized. No CPU is
24-bit, so even 24 bit integers would typically be packed into 32 bit integers.

Conversion to float isn't "trivial", it takes a lot more overhead and
that overhead is variable; "packing" (?) a 24-bit into a 32-bit register
is trivial by any definition.


I don't know about your computer, but mine has special instructions to do
type conversion in one cycle.


Ya learn sumpthin' new every day. It's been a while since I assembled.


I should say that many of the 24-bit file formats are unpacked anyway, and
use 32 bits to store each 24 bit sample on the grounds that disk space is
cheap.


And most images are 24-bit.

And most images are 24-bit.

Yup, but there are a few different image formats that store the 24 bit image
data in 32-bit words for faster manipulation.

-lee-

And most images are 24-bit.

Yup, but there are a few different image formats that store the 24 bit image
data in 32-bit words for faster manipulation.

-lee-

My goal is zero complaints from the audience, and I usually achieve it for
months at a time.

Actually, I suspect we're discussing *principles* here, which are hard to
quantify without specific live audio examples. It sounds like the mixes (both
FOH and monitor) would not be all that diffierent from each other, actually,
and that we may (or may not!) vary on what is normal dynamics in a performance
(that of course you'd want to preserve), and what is an exceptional situation
that you need to react to.

My goal in running sound is similar -- I want to be "transparent" or
"invisible". If everybody is concentrating on the *music* and not even
thinking about the amplification, I'm happy. I love it when I ask folks
afterwards what they thought of the sound and they pause and say that they
hadn't even thought about it at all. Of course, its hard to measure "thoughts"
-- I haven't had any complaints in a long time too -- and this is from a crowd
with a *wide* age range.

-lee-

My goal is zero complaints from the audience, and I usually achieve it for
months at a time.

Actually, I suspect we're discussing *principles* here, which are hard to
quantify without specific live audio examples. It sounds like the mixes (both
FOH and monitor) would not be all that diffierent from each other, actually,
and that we may (or may not!) vary on what is normal dynamics in a performance
(that of course you'd want to preserve), and what is an exceptional situation
that you need to react to.

My goal in running sound is similar -- I want to be "transparent" or
"invisible". If everybody is concentrating on the *music* and not even
thinking about the amplification, I'm happy. I love it when I ask folks
afterwards what they thought of the sound and they pause and say that they
hadn't even thought about it at all. Of course, its hard to measure "thoughts"
-- I haven't had any complaints in a long time too -- and this is from a crowd
with a *wide* age range.

-lee-

Arny Krueger wrote:

Hard drive space being as cheap and readily availble as it now is, the extra
(33%) storage overhead is not a serious issue.

For a few tracks.

--
ha

Arny Krueger wrote:

Hard drive space being as cheap and readily availble as it now is, the extra
(33%) storage overhead is not a serious issue.

For a few tracks.

--
ha

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Yes, but a recording with 10 dB or more headroom is not an easy listen.

After the recording is done, you can compress any tracks that need it,
adjust mix levels etc, and normalise if necessary.
Headroom is no longer necessary in the finished product because you know
what all the levels and dynamics on the recording are.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Yes, but a recording with 10 dB or more headroom is not an easy listen.

After the recording is done, you can compress any tracks that need it,
adjust mix levels etc, and normalise if necessary.
Headroom is no longer necessary in the finished product because you know
what all the levels and dynamics on the recording are.

TonyP.

"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Yes, but a recording with 10 dB or more headroom is not an easy
listen.

After the recording is done, you can compress any tracks that need it,
adjust mix levels etc, and normalise if necessary.

Agreed. My comment was in the context of making a recording of what amounts
to being a life performance with a CD recorder and then imeediately giving
the unedited, unprocessed disc to the end-user.

Headroom is no longer necessary in the finished product because you
know what all the levels and dynamics on the recording are.

Again, exactly agreed.

"TonyP" wrote in message
u
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Yes, but a recording with 10 dB or more headroom is not an easy
listen.

After the recording is done, you can compress any tracks that need it,
adjust mix levels etc, and normalise if necessary.

Agreed. My comment was in the context of making a recording of what amounts
to being a life performance with a CD recorder and then imeediately giving
the unedited, unprocessed disc to the end-user.

Headroom is no longer necessary in the finished product because you
know what all the levels and dynamics on the recording are.

Again, exactly agreed.