Reading this thread

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=27986&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=live+sound+meters&start=0

I'm intrigued by the difference of opinion here about using meters.

Do those that shun use of the meters for reference in setting gain structure tend to come from a primarily recording background? Or perhaps touring with bands who's sound they know really well?

The majority of live sound engineers I have come into contact with tend to keep the input gain of every channel fairly similar and mix with faders to adjust output levels, as a general rule, thereby keeping the signal at a good level without unknowingly adding any gain-related artifacts. Also this way, when the band kick in much harder than they did in soundcheck, the clip indicators aren't gonna light up across the board.

I can understand mixing each channel differently when you have plenty of time and you know the band's sound well, but what if you find yourself in the unfortunate (but not unheard of) position of having to crash mix the first song of a band you don't know at all on nothing but a quick line-check whilst sending monitors from foh?

I'm not condemning either way, and let's take the using your ears thing as a given, but as gain structure is such an important part of sound, both live and studio, I would love to hear some of your thoughts and opinions when approaching this.

Coshhlocker wrote:Do those that shun use of the meters for reference in setting gain structure tend to come from a primarily recording background? Or perhaps touring with bands who's sound they know really well?

I reread that thread and didn't really get the impression anyone was shunning the use of meters. Most people were saying that they use the meters as a reference for clipping not as a reference for the overall mix.

Coshhlocker wrote:I can understand mixing each channel differently when you have plenty of time and you know the band's sound well, but what if you find yourself in the unfortunate (but not unheard of) position of having to crash mix the first song of a band you don't know at all on nothing but a quick line-check whilst sending monitors from foh?

I am not really sure what you mean by "mixing each channel differently." My input gain for each channel is always different depending on the strength of the signal source. I have never heard of anyone turning all of the gains to, say, 11 o'clock and going for it. If you mean setting all of the gains so the meters are all reading at -3 or whatever then that is fairly common.

As far as crash mixing the first song while doing monitors from foh, I did it for a number of years. Two separate boards. You get used to it and makes you better.

As far as general gain structure, thee are so many factors that go into a mix that it is difficult to make generalities. Some board preamps sound great with certain instruments when they are in the red. Some sound like absolute shit when they are pushed hard, no matter what the instrument. It really depends on the room, the band and the board.

If you are actually working at a club full time I suggest having some talented band friends of yours-with decent equipment-come in during closed hours, set up and play. Spend as much time playing with the board as you want. This way you are relaxed, no one there is going to be critical and you have the opportunity to answer every single, "what happens if I do this" question you can think of.

Jon

This is all easy. You just listen to the mix and make it sound good without clipping and just use the meters as a reference to the total power of your overall signal. If you are building your mix visually you are playing the wrong sport. Try Flash or Futbol.

This shit ain't science and if it were I wouldn't do it.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, or maybe I was just reading the thread wrongly, but what appeared to start off as a discussion about AFL meters then became a discussion about gain structure in general. It strayed from the theme of the original post so I started a new thread.

These were the statements that lead me to believe this (I'm too lazy to quote authors specifically so I'll just post 'em) :

"i am absolutely baffled by this thread. when i am soundchecking, i try to match the gains on every channel so they all peak around 0dB, then make my adjustments with the faders (i thought that was how EVERYONE did it!), giving me a nice balanced mix. "

"Personally, I would not mix this way. Matching your gain levels on every channel doesn't mean anything when you take the source volume, mic placement, the mic itself, etc. into consideration. Once again, one channel might sound great with the gain cranked and another might sound terrible. There are too many variables encountered with mixing live bands. I've never heard of "everyone" mixing the way you described. "

"channel strips generally have a peak light. you should also be able to *hear* if clipping is occurring. there is no need for even one single meter. "

Are people just referring to AFL levels? In which case I'm asking an irrelevant question.

Let me try to clarify.

The impression I get is that some people are using gain input in a creative way so that the input gain meter (if there was one) would read substantially different on each channel. I'm not talking about output level.

When I said input gain on every channel similar I was referring to the signal input level, not the actual rotary pot.

I would never even suggest building a mix purely visually.

I do work full time and although I would never call myself an expert, I would feel comfortable in the situation I described. But there are always things you can take from the way other people work. I also realise a discussion on working practices has become now a little over-analyzed.

What I was trying to convey is, that if your input levels are drastically varied, don't things like, for example, sending to monitors via pre-fade auxes become less organised, allowing you to work less quickly and efficiently?

I hope this makes some sense.

i rarely send pre-fade auxes to the mons for fear of feedback especially with things like too much reverb...most of the time my gain structures are drastically different (aside from vocals which i try and keep similar but obviously it depends on the vocalist / style etc;)
eg: lets say you are mixing a band with blaring on stage guitar levels, obviously the gain levels in this case would be substantially less than say, your snare channel, especially if the drummer isn't the hardest of hitters. i also find that in most cases and places i have worked, when using OH's little gain is needed and ill adjust with faders. i find it hard to generalise all of this and i am in no way a pro or whatever, these are just some of my experiences.

benjaminwayne wrote:i rarely send pre-fade auxes to the mons for fear of feedback

You do your Mon Mix Post Fader?
I think that is weird. Not wrong, just really, really weird.
Does the band get pissed when their monitors get quiet every time you lower something in the house?

japmn wrote:

benjaminwayne wrote:i rarely send pre-fade auxes to the mons for fear of feedback

You do your Mon Mix Post Fader?
I think that is weird. Not wrong, just really, really weird.
Does the band get pissed when their monitors get quiet every time you lower something in the house?

Perhaps he's only mixing monitors? When Ive done monitors, Ive often run a pre-fade mix or just put the faders all up at 0 if that wasnt an option. I typically find the faders on a monitor board to be a bit of a nuisance.

Coshhlocker wrote:Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, or maybe I was just reading the thread wrongly, but what appeared to start off as a discussion about AFL meters then became a discussion about gain structure in general. It strayed from the theme of the original post so I started a new thread.

These were the statements that lead me to believe this (I'm too lazy to quote authors specifically so I'll just post 'em) :

"i am absolutely baffled by this thread. when i am soundchecking, i try to match the gains on every channel so they all peak around 0dB, then make my adjustments with the faders (i thought that was how EVERYONE did it!), giving me a nice balanced mix. "

"Personally, I would not mix this way. Matching your gain levels on every channel doesn't mean anything when you take the source volume, mic placement, the mic itself, etc. into consideration. Once again, one channel might sound great with the gain cranked and another might sound terrible. There are too many variables encountered with mixing live bands. I've never heard of "everyone" mixing the way you described. "

"channel strips generally have a peak light. you should also be able to *hear* if clipping is occurring. there is no need for even one single meter. "

Are people just referring to AFL levels? In which case I'm asking an irrelevant question.

I think theyre talking about PFL levels. I always try to set each channel at around 0, dependent on the things that Barbo already pointed out above. I think that's fairly standard practice. It has nothing to do with mixing "visually" though, and more to do with 1) good sound and 2) having some capacity to actually, y'know, mix. If one channel has a PFL of -16dB and three others are at +3dB, and the rest of the mix is generally at 0dB, you immediately have 19 or so dB less room in the mix. That sucks.

I also think there was a lot of exaggeration in that thread. I use meters if theyre available. I dont need them per se, but I certainly prefer them as they make the job easier.

I also realise a discussion on working practices has become now a little over-analyzed.

That's certainly an understatement.

oh, no i don't mix post fader, i just meant that i rarely send effects like vocal verb, delays etc that on might be say, on aux 5 and 6 on a smallish rig cos most bands never ask for it and i do worry it will create feedback if i ain't careful.....i do remember one show where i did mix vocal monitors post fader because i wasn't allowed totouch the mons EQ's and the vocalist wanted specific eq'ing that was similar to my FOH mix so i thought it was the best / only option.