Sound Design Live

Build Your Career As A Sound Engineer

  • Podcast
  • Training
    • My Courses
  • Archive

SynAudCon “How Sound Systems Work” online training REVIEW

By Nathan Lively

sound-design-live-how-sound-systems-work-online-training

Bottom line: “How Sound Systems Work” is a solid introductory course that is well worth the $200 price tag.

At first I thought “too expensive”, but then I compared the cost to my first semester at the Sonic Arts Center, which is basically what’s covered in this course. Let’s see, $200 vs $4,000? Now it makes more sense.

Here’s the intro video:

Things I liked

The human hearing system is quite easy to fool. -Pat Brown

I’m a big fan of step-by-step courses, so this is perfect for me. Also, most of the lessons are videos, which is good for me since I am a better audio learner who tends to skim long passages of text. Written summaries of the videos are also provided for folks who learn through reading, but I found I didn’t need those.

I like that Brown separates the art and science of audio.

The art of audio takes place in the mixing console. Not in the post-mixer signal processing. – Pat Brown

I also picked up some facts I never knew:

  • Most of the applied electrical power is lost as heat. – Pat Brown
  • Tone control and technical filters are other ways to say channel EQ and system EQ.
  • The 3:1 rule for isolating mikes to reduce phase issues.

I failed the first quiz and immediately thought, “Shut up Pat Brown, you don’t know anything!” After going over the answers I realized that a lot of this course is getting familiar with its particular vocabulary. For example, Brown uses high Q and low Q where Bob McCarthy would use first, second, and third order.

A majority of the time I felt like what was being presented was connected with the practical work I do and I could put it to use right away.

If a lot of these topics are new to you, the forum will be very valuable. I was confused by the explanation of dB usage, so I posted a question and Brown got back to me pretty quickly.

The section on common system problems is really valuable. Brown’s advice for dealing with microphone feedback is right on the money. I was happy to hear him say never to defeat the electrical ground on a piece of audio equipment. You would be surprised at how often I still see people use an AC ground lift unnecessarily.

I appreciated his advice on speaker aim for isolation and to avoid overlap when combining elements. That is one of the most common mistakes in sound system deployment.

Things I didn’t like

Never attempt to design a loudspeaker array.

What? Designing an array is fun! And it can be as easy as combining two matched subwoofers for low-frequency control. It’s also necessary. On many events I work on, I arrive to a pile of speakers on the floor. I then have to figure out how to combine them to best fit the room and the event.

One disappointing feature of this program is that you do not have lifetime access to it. Although I appreciate that a time constraint provides motivation to get it done, I would love to be able to review it again after six months or a year.

Make sure you listen to the section on precedence effect in video clip 2 of the final lesson. This is a frequently-misunderstood idea in system tuning and is not served by a rule of thumb. Afterward, make sure you listen to Sound System Design for Small Venues with Bob McCarthy at 20:54.

Things I got excited about

I’m comfortable with the inverse square law, but the inverse distance law was a completely new idea for me. I wrote to Merlijn Van Veem to make sure Brown wasn’t trying to pull a fast one on me. Here’s what Merlijn said:

The inverse distance law (aka inverse square law) is about loss rates and is often expressed in SPL level drop per doubling of distance. Normally, SPL level drop is 6dB per doubling of distance for point sources that produce a spherical wavefront. Line arrays produce cylindrical waveforms up to a certain distance, which is frequency-dependent. Beyond that point, they revert back to point source behavior. The lows fall back first, then the mids, and finally the highs. But factor in absorption by air, which acts like a HF loss rate accelerator, and effectively, only the mids adhere to cylindrical behavior. Cylindrical wavefronts drop at only 3 dB per doubling distance. This is why poorly-tuned line arrays sound harsh, like the proverbial ice pick in the forehead. Because the lows and highs can’t keep up with the mids.

Got it.

Final thoughts

This would be a great place to start if you are new to live sound. I think you will be left with more questions, but it is a great jumping off point to help you identify what you need to learn next.

Honestly, Live Audio Is Not Based On Science

By Nathan Lively

book-review-live-audio-dave-swallow-featured-image

book-review-live-audio-dave-swallowDid you hear my interview with Dave Swallow? You should. In our conversation it was obvious that he has a ton of valuable information to share, but that information is kind of hidden in his book. Let’s dig around in the dirt and pull out the gems.

Your job as an engineer is to get the best out of what you are given, even when you are given the worst.

Bored.

Swallow spends a lot of time covering information that you can find in the user manuals for mixing consoles and outboard gear. It overshadows his personal experiences with mixing, which were the parts that I found interesting AND that I couldn’t find somewhere else. If I were to edit this book, I would cut everything but the personal experience.

I found the summary of audio basics to be too brief, and disconnected from the practical goals of the book. It would probably be better served with footnotes and a glossary.

WTF Bro?

Some parts of Live Audio are just plain misleading.

For example, the section on hearing loss prevention is misleading because he says, “You can’t wear earplugs while you are mixing because then you won’t be able to hear what you are doing,” then later mentions that molded earplugs are “worth the money.” The truth is that many artists and engineers work with molded ear plugs and IEMs and enjoy slower hearing loss and a longer career because of it.

I do really appreciate this point, though: “Don’t put anything down your ear.” It reminds me of a story I heard from a friend about new military recruits that had access to medical facilities for the first time and would excessively clean their ear canals, leaving them dry and irritated. Ear wax is normal.

book-review-live-audio-dave-swallow-line-arraySome of Dave’s comparisons of point source and line arrays are also misleading.

  1. Hardly anyone uses a pure line array with all speakers parallel anymore. So the arrays he refers to are really two different versions of a coupled point source array, with different speaker types.
  2. You can aim any speaker array poorly. Swallow writes, “Line arrays tend to create strong sound reflections off the rear wall, which muddies the sound in shallow rooms.” That doesn’t make sense. You can point a point source array at the back wall and make problems just as easily as you can with a line array.
  3. When Swallow writes, “Line arrays require a very high ceiling because they must be tall to work properly,” I think, wow, that’s way too general. Firstly, most line arrays have hardware available so that they can be ground stacked. Secondly, he is really discussing the physics of array length versus frequency response, so his offhand reference to “tall” is useless. Lastly, Swallow suggests avoiding line arrays for outdoor events because, “As much as they have the ability to not lose many decibels over a long distance, the actual power of the wavefront that is formed seems to be fairly weak, rendering the sound pretty useless in anything over a slight breeze.” Is it just me, or is that confusing? If it’s not losing decibels then why would the wavefront be weak?
  4. In another example Swallow writes, “…with the point source system, you get more volume down at the front”; why? I want more explanation!

I understand that Swallow is introducing these concepts in a way that won’t be overwhelming, but you can’t just skip to the end and lead the reader to think there is nothing more to know, that things are always one way. My advice is to take his rules of thumb with a grain of salt.

book-review-live-audio-dave-swallow-humidity-hf-absorptionAnother confusing subject is the environmental effects of humidity and temperature. Swallow’s comments on directional transmission are helpful, but he makes a big deal about temperature increasing the speed of sound and having some effect on high frequencies. I read it several times and didn’t understand what he was trying to say. Here are three important things to remember about temperature and humidity from Sound Systems: Design And Optimization:

  1. The speed of sound in air is only slightly temperature dependent. A 1% change in the speed of sound occurs with either a 5°C or 10°F change in temperature.
  2. As humidity rises, high frequency transmission improves.
  3. The high frequency loss rate is highest around room temperature and increases as temperature either rises or falls around this standard.

And one more thing that is just plain wrong: “To measure a room’s frequency response, you use a real-time analyzer (RTA).” Why is this wrong? Please read this.

Meeting Ear To Ear

And then, a saving grace! Remember in my article on controlling feedback onstage when I condemned “ringing out” stage monitors? Swallow totally agrees! See? I’m not crazy. The world is crazy!

This procedure…is extremely annoying for anyone else trying to work in the room and is considered by most industry professionals to be extremely amateurish. Instead, you should understand what the frequencies do in terms of how boosting and cutting each frequency on the graphic affects the overall sound…Do not sacrifice the sound of the system just for a little more volume.

Also, Swallow’s explanation of why graphic EQs are pretty much useless is right on the money. I’ve already beaten that subject to death on Sound Design Live.

Hey, remember in my interview with Philip Graham when he challenged my assumption that dynamic mics are more forgiving than condenser microphones on vocals? Well, read it and weep Philip:

A dynamic mic can be much more sympathetic, more forgiving to a bad mic technique…

There are some sections that a good editor should have just cut. For example, in the section on using an SPL meter Swallow describes the fast and slow response settings: “If you have a fast reading, you’ll see the numbers changing very quickly on the display, whereas with a slow reading, the numbers change much more slowly.” Really? You just wasted seven seconds of my life. I can’t get those back now.

Awesome!

So where are the good parts in this book?

book-review-live-audio-dave-swallow-la-rouxThe value of Live Audio is Swallow’s personal experience. For an example in this section on how he uses Pitch Shift:

With La Roux, I use +4 on the left side and a delay of 14ms; on the right side I use -14 and a delay of 4ms. When combined with the vocal, it gives a very unique sound and sinks the vocal into the music while still keeping it loud enough to be heard.

This is gold! I had never thought about using pitch shifting in live sound before! Why can’t the entire book be like this?

When we get into the chapter on mixing is when Live Audio starts reading like great advice and less like a bad user manual. His suggestions for  equalization, dynamics, and effects processing are very helpful. Also, the section on microphone technique is useful and gave me a lot of god ideas to try. Especially his five-mic array for piano.

I really appreciate Swallow’s suggestions for critical listening. I generally try to work really fast and have been guilty of trying to fix everything with EQ. Swallow reminds us throughout the book to walk around the venue and stage when there is a problem we cannot identify.

His best tip on soundchecks is to finish the soundcheck on the first song of the set so that everything will be set to go right out of the gate. Brilliant.

I’m glad Swallow talks about panning and stereo because I’ve long wondered why anyone would ever setup a stereo sound system when only a small portion of those people in the center will hear in stereo (see What’s wrong with stereo?). Swallow answers this question by explaining that while yes, stereo panning will produce a different result in each seat of the audience, it also produces a sense of spaciousness that everyone enjoys. And now I remember that Bob McCarthy said pretty much the same thing in our interview. Basically, stereo is here to stay because people like it and there are ways to accomplish it without sabotaging your system optimization.

Conclusions

I can see how this book might be good for a stage manager or technical director who doesn’t have experience in pro audio and may want an overview of how it all works. But if you are a sound engineer, skip to the sections with personal experience and definitely read the mixing chapter. Because honestly, Live Audio is not based on science. Swallow has toured the world making music, so when he says that something works or doesn’t, it’s because he’s been there and done that.

The Five Most Popular Posts of 2013

By Nathan Lively

sound-design-live-five-most-popular-sound-engineering-designing-posts-of-2013-sigur-ros

eBook Cover 1400px2013 was a big year around these parts. Besides publishing the Sound Design Live eBook, I created a Google+ page, a YouTube channel, and even made the podcast available as a BitTorrent! I also expanded the site to include reviews of pro audio books and hardware, as well as sound engineering tutorials and articles. Wonder what topics people were most interested in this year? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Sound Design Live’s most popular podcast interviews and pro audio tutorials and articles of 2013:

  1. Sound System Design & Optimization with Bob McCarthy: Bob McCarthy told us why graphic EQs are useless, common misconceptions about stereo, and why we must optimize our sound system design before we mix.
  2. How Much Do Live Sound Engineers Make?: Salary information for four sound engineers in the U.S., Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Greece, and Sweden.
  3. Condenser vs. Dynamic Microphones For Live Sound: Philip Graham of Ear Trumpet Labs compares condenser microphone and dynamic microphones for live sound, and discusses close miking and stage monitor feedback.
  4. From Highschool Dropout To Head Of Audio: An interview with the late Steve Brown about his journey from high-school drop out to head of audio at the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester.
  5. Condenser Microphones For Live Sound: Why are condenser microphones less common in live sound? What are the advantages and drawbacks? Listen & learn.

I hope your year was as great as mine, and that you have many fun projects lined up for 2014. I’m looking forward to another great year on Sound Design Live, so if you’d like to hear an interview with a specific individual or read about a particular subject, let me know in the comments below and I’ll make your dreams come true.

High-fives,

Nathan Lively

There’s No Such Thing As A Bad Microphone

By Nathan Lively

sound-design-live-bad-microphone-monkey

sound-design-live-animal-drumming-animatedThere’s no such thing as a bad microphone. Even a broken microphone has its uses…like making drummers happy who want mics on every element of their kit.

Bad Mic = User Error

The most common microphones in the industry, the Shure SM57 and SM58, are considered by some to be bad mics because they basically require close miking. (For further discussion, see my podcast with Philip Graham on Condenser vs. Dynamic Microphones For Live Sound.) These mics have a crazy built-in EQ curve, can handle high SPL, and are made to be kissed. Try to mic a choir with those and you’ll be disappointed. On the other hand, try to use Philip’s Edwina microphone on a rock snare drum and you’ll likely find it overloading and eventually smashed by a stray drum stick.
sound-design-live-condenser-microphone-vs-dynamic-thumbnail

Most musicians and sound engineers would love to show up at a gig and find a box full of Neumann KMS105s, but they would be pretty disappointed if that’s all they had available. Most mics are built for a specific purpose. Unless you’re Earthworks, you’re making decisions in your microphone design for a specific set of conditions. Polar pattern is really important on busy stages, for example. How susceptible is the mic to noise and wind? Don’t forget that aesthetics is really important in theatre and film.

People don’t want good sound, they want magic sound: invisible microphones that create perfect intelligibility in every  part of the room. For cheap.

I am guilty of judging equipment.

Over years of work you develop relationships with certain brands. For example, when I lived in Lisbon I had some bad experiences while using Turbo Sound systems. I can’t even remember the details, but ever since then if I walk into a room with Turbo Sound, I assume the worst. I have to remind myself that tools are just that: tools. It’s not fair to blame the quality of an entire complicated system on one link in the chain. You have to start with a good source and design everything out from there to meet the requirements of the event.

In another example, most people consider Behringer equipment to be prosumer grade (a cross between consumer and professional grades) at best, but you do see it on professional shows every once in a while. Their equipment does not have a good reputation for durability, but offers a cheap solution in a pinch. In a SIM3 seminar with Bob McCarthy, we compared the frequency response of a Behringer ECM800 ($60) to an Earthworks M30 ($650). Looking at the price and considering each company’s reputation, you would think the ECM800 is a bad microphone, right? Upon measurement, it turns out that the mic is perfectly usable in the mid to high frequencies. You probably wouldn’t want to use it to mic an acoustic bass, but it’s not bad. It’s just misunderstood.

Here McCarthy tells the story on ProSoundWeb:

[quote name=”Bob McCarthy”]Finally, at a recent SIM school in Germany a guy pulled out his Beringer mic and we compared it to the DPA 4007 using a dual mic transfer function. Everyone was prepared for a big laugh but the 25 cent mic did very well (this is the second time I have seen this so I was not too shocked.) So as much as I love to use Beringer as a punch line I will have to hold back some times and go with my old standby: Bose.[/quote]

(I have to share credit for this post with my professor Paul Kozel at the Sonic Arts Center in New York, who used to tell us in class that “there’s no such thing as a bad mic.”)

Condenser Microphone Review: Edwina

By Nathan Lively

sound-design-live-edwina-review-thumbnail

You probably know that hearing is highly susceptible to outside influence. If not, watch this Audio Myths Workshop, it’s amazing.  (The good stuff starts at 5:27, with Poppy Crum playing Led Zeppelin.)

It’s Sexy

The Edwina microphone sounds good, and its sound quality is augmented by its sex appeal. I brought this large diaphragm cardioid condenser microphone from Ear Trumpet Labs to review during a festival of mostly acoustic bands at Freight & Salvage in Berkeley, and its brass body, stainless steel bolts, and swiveling head basket made it immediately popular. I even got to do some group miking as described in yesterday’s post.

sound-design-live-edwina-review

Compared to a Neumann KSM105, the Edwina sounds more crisp and light in the high end on stringed instruments, with a more detailed and less rounded low end. This was useful for mixing a giant instrument like a piano in with an entire band. It was also helpful when distance miking groups, because the summing room reflections were less obvious.

I love the construction, which looks great and feels sturdy. It does have exposed cabling, but I’m not sure when that would be in danger. There are two things I think can be improved:

  1. It is not immediately obvious which side of the capsule is the front. It becomes clear on close inspection, but if you are in a hurry to record your podcast you might accidentally do the entire interview into the wrong side of the microphone. But then, who would do that?… (cough)
  2. The head basket is not 100% stable when finger-tight. When I placed the microphone and tightened the head basket by hand, it occasionally slipped out of place. When I tightened it with my multi-tool, there was no slipping.

Listen to a Sample

My interview with Philip Graham includes a short recording with the Edwina, starting at 20:45. (Using the built-in preamps of the Soundcraft i4, if you’re interested.)

That’s me monkeying around on the piano. ☺

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Search 200 articles and podcasts

Copyright © 2022 Nathan Lively

 

Loading Comments...