What is Greatness?

This one has been in the queue for weeks now. I found a really well done article by the ubiquitous Fletcher on ProSoundWeb a few weeks ago that should be required reading by the upcoming engineers that are a part of our team at Kensington. I’m going to reprint it below…you can find it for yourself here. While his perspective directly references recorded music, the same applies to the art we create as live audio engineers.

——————————–

When I was coming up as an engineer one of my mentors said something that I carry to every session: “There are two parallel universes in recorded music – greatness and perfection. At times they can touch, but they never intersect. And if you have to pick one, pick greatness”.

This was an absolutely life changing moment, and these are words I’ve tried to live by ever since.

There are times when a wrong note is very much the right note. There are times when a small timing error makes a song come to life. There are cases when an instrument or vocal being slightly out of tune makes the whole presentation seem so real, and well… great!

And then there are other times when these flaws are indeed flaws (in fact, it’s the majority of times), but still, there are those “magic moments” that pop up from time to time that are “wrong” but in the grand scheme of things they’re unrepeatable and exceptionally right.

I was hanging at a local brew pub with my girlfriend a few weeks ago and this topic came up. She loves music, but blissfully knows nothing about the process employed for the creation of recorded music product.

In an attempt to illustrate my point I referenced a project with which I’m involved that had one of these magic moments occur. To the protest of the guitar player who came in a half step off but recovered in an amazing manner, his “clam” is not only still on the recording, but prominently featured in the final mix.

My girlfriend never knew it’s a clam, and frankly, if you weren’t in the room when it was being recorded, you’d never know it’s a clam either. But to the guitar player, it was a clam, and that clam needed to be fixed.

Her point: how could it be wrong when it sounds so right? My point to the guitar player: it wasn’t wrong because it absolutely drove home the point and intention of the song.

Technically it was a clam because the guitar player had never intended to play the note, and he broke my cookies about wanting to fix it for a couple of days until the tracking session concluded.

It wasn’t until then, when the sound was broken down, that I won the battle. The clam stayed. It made the song, and most importantly, the artist (who is not the guitar player) loved it as much as I did.

Another example: a couple of years ago, I was working on a project in Nashville with a friend, and after the session one night he broke out two copies of Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon”.

One copy was the 5.1 mix, the other the original Alan Parsons “quad” mix, and my friend both on his hard disk recorder and could toggle between the two presentations with the press of a single button.

This was an amazingly eye-opening experience. Pretty much everyone has heard this album at some point, and there are countless discussions on the internet ‘engineering forums’ about the sounds on that album.

The audio presentation is often touted as being pretty close to the pinnacle of audio/sonic production. As my friend and I listened to the two mixes, the difference between the 5.1 remix and the original “quad” mix was absolutely amazing. The 5.1 sounded wonderful. All of the sounds gelled and flowed into the other, and the audio was beyond superb. I could easily see myself slipping into the old leather Lazy-Boy to be enveloped by the aural perfection that is the 5.1 presentation of “Dark Side”.

Not so fast!

The quad mix of this album has none of the politeness and aural soothing elements of the 5.1 presentation. In fact, it’s very possibly one of the most pissed off albums I’ve ever heard (including NWA’s “Straight Outta Compton” or the Sex Pistols “Never Mind the Bollocks”). It’s raw, it’s edgy, it’s gripping, it’s poignant, it’s frustrated, and it’s, in a word… GREAT!

The Alan Parsons quad mix is angry, the 5.1 mix isn’t. The 5.1 mix is about as perfect a mix as can be achieved, while the quad mix is just sheer raw emotion.

Now, without the point of reference of the original quad mix from the original production team, the 5.1 presentation is still a whole lot of fun. But when referenced to the original presentation from the original production team, we find a place where “perfection” definitely did not triumph over greatness.

And maybe that’s what’s missing from a lot of today’s music… a little slice of greatness and emotion.

Stop what you’re doing and read these!

Although I’ve never met him, I’ve learned so much from reading Dave Rat’s thoughts over the past few years on his blog (there’s a link in my blogroll if you have never read his stuff) and on various forums that I consider him an audio mentor. He released an article for ProSoundWeb last week on when hearing starts to drift and how to avoid being “EQ Oblivious”. It’s really great stuff to think about. All of us in audio or music in general have to be concerned with the longevity of our hearing. Good thoughts here.

Along the way reading this article, I ran across a few others that he’s written over the past year for PSW that are all must-reads as well. Check them out:

When Hearing Starts to Drift, How to Avoid Becoming “EQ Oblivious”

Dynamics Versus Compressed

Sometimes Sound is About Time

Grouping & VCAs

If you’ve been following me for a while, you know that one of my mixing heros is Robert Scovill. A few days ago I ran across one of his writings regarding using subgroups and VCAs when mixing and the place for both. I’ve heard this talk live but its well articulated here and worth a read. Continue on…

“While there are many new and exciting styles of groups coming online with the outbreak of digital live sound consoles, for the purposes of this article, I’m only going to concentrate on two styles: “audio sub groups” and “VCA groups.”

Given that the vast majority of consoles, analog or digital, offer these two styles of groups, I strongly encourage you to thoroughly understand the differences between them and work toward using them.  While many mix engineers tend to use one or the other, they are certainly not mutually exclusive of one another, and when used correctly and together, are a very powerful tool.

Let’s start with audio sub groups. Audio sub groups are generally either mono or stereo and, by definition, provide a summing point for a given number of inputs before they then head off to the left/right master output.  This means that any number of audio inputs can be directed through the audio sub group and the group as a whole can then be moved up or down in volume. By soloing an audio sub group, and listening in headphones, you can then monitor the fader balances of all inputs that are feeding the group, including their pan position.

For example, with the push of the group solo button on a drums group you could listen to the relative blend of all the drum mics and, in turn, affect the overall level of the drum kit in the PA system by moving the group fader without having to change the input fader positions. The input faders would still be feeding any post-fader aux busses even though the audio sub group fader would be at zero.  Additionally, because audio is actually passing through the group, it will usually offer an insert point where you can patch in equalizers or compressors and limiters which, of course, would affect the drum mix as a whole in the PA system.

This is where the difference between audio sub groups and VCA groups comes to light. A Voltage Controlled Amplifier (VCA) does not offer an actual audio path for the inputs assigned to it. Instead, once a number of inputs are assigned to the VCA fader, it essentially works as remote control of the assigned faders.  For example, if you had a blend of eight input faders and you assigned them all to a VCA group, once you move the VCA group fader down, it is exactly as if you simply reached over and pulled the actual input faders down.  The relative levels between the faders would remain the same, but the levels to any post-fader aux buses would now change by how far down in level you moved the VCA master.  VCAs, generally speaking, do not allow you to solo the group unless it is a destructive style “solo in place” because of the lack of audio passing through the group.  Likewise, it does not offer you the ability to insert external processing on the group as a whole.

So, with these concepts now in mind-I’m recommending the following to those of you who have both audio sub groups and VCA groups on your console. Use them both. But use them for different tasks.

Start by using your audio sub groups to assemble the components of your event mix into groups. For example, 1-drums-loops & percussion, 2-bass, 3-keys, 4-guitars, 5-backing vocals, 6-lead vocals, 7-pastor, 8-media.  Once done, then assign these groups to the left/right master output. Try to stay disciplined and keep like inputs in their respective groups.

Say you have a reverb unit dedicated to the drums – assign the reverb return faders to the drums group. This allows you to listen to the actual blend of the drum inputs against the reverb return while soloing the drums audio group.  Likewise, if you mute the drums audio group, you’ll no longer hear the reverb return, even though the drum inputs are still feeding it.

Now all of your VCAs are available for doing what I like to think of as “focused” mixing. Now you can assign VCAs to inputs that you need access to for any given segment of your event. They’re located in one position and available for immediate level manipulation.  Maybe you have a VCA that is simply assigned to only the kick and snare or just the cymbals, maybe even just the toms. Any of these allows you to accentuate a given fill or breakdown in a song with the movement of one single fader.

Or maybe you have the percussion assigned to its own VCA, with those inputs living as a part of the drums audio sub group. It all just depends on what you need to get to at any given time.

This is a wonderful workflow for digital consoles and even some analog consoles, in that you can program the VCA assignments dependent upon what you need to get to at any given time.  It’s all up to your imagination and, if done properly, there is rarely an excuse for missing cues because you were late finding the fader.”

Well Placed Exaggeration

From Robert Scovill’s live audio master class at Willow, a paraphrased pearl of wisdom:  great mixers enhance what’s happening…experience the music as you listen, let it talk to you musically, and enhance it as a MIX.

Live mixing is about well placed exaggeration.  Because it is an audio/visual experience, what you hear needs to match what you’re seeing.  On a recording, the audio doesn’t have to keep up with the visual at all – the visual is in your imagination.  But in live world, huge visual activity needs to match what you’re doing and seem like you’re working together with it.  For example, the spotlight hits somebody or a featured camera shot – your mix needs to change in level for whatever is featured.  When music comes back in, pull it back where it belongs.

Is a flat PA the holy grail?

In tandem with coherence, can we finally put to rest the idea that our goal when tuning a rig is to have a “flat” PA?

Below is a graphic Chris Gille found on Wikipedia that shows the equal loudness contour graph.

If you flip it upside down as pictured, it shows the relative frequency response of our ears.

As you can tell, that response changes as the level of sound is increased and do you notice something?  Our ears don’t perceive sound “flat”!  Because of this, a flat EQ curve on a PA sounds awful because all you’re doing when going for flat is getting equal energy at all frequencies.

Rather than working for flat, Scovi suggests the more important “holy grail” is linear transfer.  The goal is to have linear transfer of audio from the desk through the sound system with as little coloration to the signal as possible.  What goes in is what comes out.

In order to achieve this, the RTA is NOT the right tool to use – all it does is measure energy.  The correct meter is FFT which generates a difference curve of the PA output as measured in the room to the output straight of out the console.  When you subtract 5 dB at 400 hz on a channel, you should hear 5 less dB of 400hz actually in the house.

Coherence

(WARNING: Major sound geek talk here.  Proceed at your own risk!!!!)

Robert Scovill spent much more time in the master class at Willow this year discussing his concept of coherence then he was able to in the Thriving class last year and it really resonated with me. This one seems to get progressively more difficult to wrap your brain around the more you think about it and try to implement into your room.

The core question is can two like signals be in polarity yet out of phase? We’ll stop here for a second so you can re-read that question a few times.

The answer is obviously yes! The answer to this question is found in signal to noise ratio. I’ve always thought of this in terms of evaluating gear – low noise floor, quiet, etc. But in the world of coherence, signal represents the sound you want to hear, noise is the sound you don’t.  Two signals in polarity that are also in phase will be arriving at the listener’s ear at the same time, although they come from two different sources.  What is this called?  Time alignment.

This concept effects everything we do as engineers and paying attention to it can add a whole new dimension to your mix. Scovi suggests there are three levels of coherence and success means experiencing the perfect storm of these:

1. Sound system. This one is largely scientific – minimal destructive interaction between PA boxes for any one listener, a high signal to noise ratio in the interaction of the designed array with the room, and high signal to noise ratio in the interaction of the PA and the stage. “All instruments are exiting the sound system at the same time.”

2. Performance. Scovi suggests this one is a combination of artistic discipline and scientific challenges/conclusions. This one is more band related – everyone playing in time, good inputs and execution.

3. Mix. Coherence in this area requires attention to detail – mic placement, inputs in polarity and phase with each other, and achieving the highest signal to noise ratio possible in the mix through successful use of gating, compression, and fader moves.

He gave an interesting example of the importance of phase and time alignment/interaction that I’ll never forget. He was mixing Tom Petty or Pink Floyd (I don’t remember which) in Europe as part of a large multi-day festival. The PA sounded awful throughout the whole event and he was dreading having to step up and deal with it in making his band the best they could be. The PA was configured with two rows, 6 or 8 speakers each stacked on top of each other per side, lined up side by side with no splay at all. Because of this, he made the assumption that the primary reason for sucky-ness was phase cancellation and comb filtering.

Just before the band hit the stage, he had the guitar techs go into secret ninja mode and unplug every other cabinet in the PA, alternating top to bottom as well, along with him bypassing the house EQs. The result was magnificent – easily the best mix of the festival. The PA crew was dumbfounded at the difference and in awe of Scovi’s skills when in reality the only thing he did different from all the other engineers was value the concept of coherence. (For the record, the techs plugged all of the PA cabinets back in when his set was done!)