 |
|
 |
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:54:55 +0000, Laurence Payne <...@laurencepayne.co.uk
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:14:18 -0800 (PST), brassplyer
<...@yahoo.com
I'm much more annoyed by the fussy, obtrusive camera work. Just
because the bloody things CAN swoop around doesn't mean they have to,
continually.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article <...@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com
Yes and no on this last one.. Most A1's, these are the guys/gals doing
the final mix either in the studio or in the case of an awards show, most
likely in the back of a 53 foot double expando mobile, are the ones that
make these decisions. Actually, the producer and director who are sitting
down the hall and are much more concerned with the pictures can overide
what the A1 is doing, but rarely do unless it's something blatant like leaving
the host's mic off, etc. As for the A1, if you're working in a truck, they are
usually crammed into a very small space and trying to mix for surround
while having to deal with all sorts of distractions. Some remotes use a
seperate dedicated audio truck which makes life better, and these are
typically used on big music shows. One political problem is that usually,
the one guy that knows the performers mix the best, their tour sound mixer,
or even studio mixer, are NOT allowed to have anything to do with the
over the air mix. In most cases they are outright banned from even stepping
foot in the truck or control room. There are reasons for this, there's just
not physically the space to allow everyone to have their shot at doing their
own mix. Now in certain cases, for the real A list performers, they will have
it written into their performance contract that they do get to have control
over the final mix and will be allowed to have their tech producer into the
control room, etc. But that is very, very rare. Usually, a good A1 on a big
show will be around for the sound check for the A1 that is mixing for the
audience in the venue, and will takes notes etc. at that time. Or at least
get a set list, CD, etc. of the performers and spend some time figuring
out their show. In the big shows however, the A1's, etc. sometimes only
show up maybe an hour before going on the air, and have had an army
of A2's, doing all the prep work for them, and will get all their tech info
from either the A2's or the director. I've worked shows where the A1's
don't walk into their booth etc. until maybe 15 minutes before air time,
this is typical of camera op's, etc. who only get maybe a 1/2hr call time
prior to air. Typically the bigger the show, the less time spent by the
principles getting things set, because of the costs, which kinda seems
like it should be the other way around, but sadly isn't. Smaller non
network productions tend to have crews that spend a bit more time
getting things setup as there aren't such clear cut lines as to who does
what, and call times can be more liberal as the rates are much less.
So, maybe that was kinda an answer?
d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:59:34 -0800 (PST), dwgriffi <...@gmail.com
You say this like it's a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:53:58 GMT, "Bob Howes" <...@bee-tee-internet.com
"brassplyer" <...@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Well, for a start have a look at Jessica Simpson's mic technique. She's
using a very directional mic but on the chorus, every time she gets to the
slightly sustained note she holds her in-ear-monitor and turns her head so
she is "off axis" for the mic. She also moves the mic slightly farther from
her mouth.
Now, this MIGHT be just an unconsious thing...but, more likely, she's not
happy with the way she does that note and is deliberately letting the
backing singers "take the strain" on the chorus.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:30:21 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 11, 12:53 am, "Bob Howes" <...@bee-tee-internet.comwrote:
I don't hear any point where the balance of the vocals isn't off.
She's too low in the verse and the melody - i.e. her lead vocal - is
basically inaudible in the chorus.
I do hear them fix the level of the pedal steel which is barely
audible at the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:07:22 +0100, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
The mix is perfect, she integrates as a choir member and does so very well,
she IS dropped a oouple of dB's initially in the song, and one might not
have done that, but it is completely like real audio. My asumption therefore
is that it is someone with experience with classical music who is at the
controls.
The mixer has listen to real people singing without amplification, that is
how it works.
Whatever genre you play, go listen to some real concerts.
Go to some real musical events. One voice acompanied by a choir IS supposed
to integrate. Surprised how good she is btw. ... don't think I heard her
sign previously.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:33:36 -0600, MiNe 109 <...@POPaustin.rr.com
In article <...@news.astraweb.com "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
Sounds okay to me (in my non-pro opinion). Next: Stevie Wonder vs the
Jonas Brothers.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:54:08 -0500, Randy Yates <...@ieee.org
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
I don't share your opinion. That is, I think the overall balance, both
between vocals and instrumentalists, and amongst vocalists, was quite
excellent. The only thing I might change is to bring the vocals out
front a wee tiny bit more, but such decisions are not technical but
artistic.
--
% Randy Yates % "She tells me that she likes me very much,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % but when I try to touch, she makes it
%%% 919-577-9882 % all too clear."
%%%% <...@ieee.orghttp://www.digitalsignallabs.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:20:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <...@hotpop.com
"brassplyer" <...@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
One basic rule of mixing is that every vocal and instrumental voice that is
playing at any particular time should be heard.
The logic seems to me to be crystal clear - if the arranger and director
didn't want the voice to be heard, they wouldn't let it play.
If the arranger and director want the soloist/lead vocalist to essentially
sing solo all the time, they wouldn't have hired all those other people to
sing and play with her.
When the lead vocalist is singing in a choir with other voices, his/her
voice should be part of the chorus, but standing a bit above it.
Seems to me like a pretty good mix, given current styles in music.
If you think music should be mixed a certain way, mix it yourself. ;-)
An artist of Jessica Simpson's stature is probably getting some of the
better people in the business supporting her. Her mixes sound to me like
they are typical of current music of that particular genre.
If you want to get into the musical product named Jessica Simpson - she's
obviously an OK but basically mediocre musical talent whose singing and
appearance has been fluffed up so that it appears to be far more than it is
at its core. Part of the fluff up job is the fact that her voice is largely
overlaid by instruments and backup singers. That's how pop music is done in
the 21st century.
As far as the recording goes, I'm more critical about what is happening, or
more properly not happening above 3-5 KHz. Too much uncontrolled
(intermittent) vocal sibilance from the lead singer, while the tambourine
and drum kit sounds like they are playing under blankets. How much of that
is due to the audio medium used to distribute it, I don't know. Low bitrate
coding can add quite a bit of that.
That was no doubt done, in accordance with a desire for a certain outcome.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it is the result of
incompetence. Style has almost everything to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:53:05 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 11, 8:20 am, "Arny Krueger" <...@hotpop.com
I should say, you can hear her somewhat when there's no backup
singers, she's drowned out when they come in.
Listen to the two other mixes I referenced in my reply above and see
if you hear the marked difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:32:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <...@hotpop.com
"brassplyer" <...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 8:20 am, "Arny Krueger" <...@hotpop.com
But I explained the tendency towards that in another post. It's what often
happens when you hear a board mix where the FOH engineer was hearing about
the same thing as the audience. But the mix is not all that bad for me. I
hear her singing clearly all the way through.
Somewhat????
She's soloing there and strong.
if you hear the marked difference.
IMO, the Letterman mix has her a little stronger, but still in the normal
range. The Dancing With The Stars has her too strong and overbearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:43:12 +0000, Chris Whealy <...@ylaehw.sirhc
I'd venture to say that you've listened to many more studio mixed songs
than you have live concerts, and consequently, you expect a live mix to
sound like a studio mix.
Here is the studio mix of the same song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sybiUtBWdB8&fmt=18 where her vocals are
further forward (in the place you expect them)
In a studio you have the time and space to tweak and adjust things over
and over, but with a live mix you get one shot at getting right. To me,
live mixes are a far truer representation of the actual sound produced
by the singers and musicians.
Over the last 20 years or so, studio mixes have become further and
further removed from the sounds humans can actually make - to the point
that many singers nowadays cannot perform their songs live simply
because the human voice can't do what you hear on the album. With some
of these new acts, we've almost got to the point of saying "No software?
No singer!"
Anyway, who's to says the studio mix is "better" than the live mix?
Sure they're different, but don't confuse what you're used to with what
is "right".
Chris W
--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:49:41 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 11, 4:43 am, Chris Whealy <...@ylaehw.sirhc
Yes, I've heard live concerts and that doesn't have a thing to do with
it.
I expect to be able to hear the lead singer - in this case you can't.
I know what the studio version sounds like and why a studio recording
sounds different but in both cases you're supposed to be able to hear
the lead singer. A tv broadcast where the audio is coming off a board
isn't directly analagous to a live concert experience where you're
hearing ambient room or outdoor sound from monitors and from what I've
heard you're generally getting a mono mix. Everyone at home gets
essentially the same mix with the greatest variable being their home
audio system.
In all cases you're still supposed to be able to hear the lead singer.
I'll bet you a buck if you'd never heard this song you couldn't hum
the melody off the first mix I submitted.
They have pots on the boards that can be adjusted both during a sound
check and during the performance.
When the melody/lead singer (i.e. the star) can't be heard, I'll be
happy to be the one to say.
Here's a couple where they got it right. On the second one, they've
even got crowd noise mixed in and you can still hear her quite
clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k71bAGEVxJk&fmt=18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWAPdnycMMM&feature=related&fmt=18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:27:31 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <...@hotpop.com
"brassplyer" <...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I can hear Jessica very consistently on the TV clip, even during parts
where she is singing with others. I'm not a spring chicken, but I have taken
fairly good care of my ears. After reading 2 posts worth of your comments I
suspect that you may have a serious hearing impairment in the voice range.
It turns out that only some of the instruments are solidly stereo in the TV
clip. Mix one channel with the other channel inverted, and Jessica's voice
nearly disappears. The backup singers are only a little higher. The bass
and the drums are severely attenuated. The guitars and the tambourine remain
strong.
Which is IME true of the TV clip.
??????????????
Not only that, but when you do a live mix you have to balance acoustical
bleed from strong acoustical sources like the singers. There is also bleed
from the musician's monitors.
Acoustical bleed causes certain voices to be significantly attenuated in the
FOH mix because not so much amplification is needed for a balance. If the
any singer sings loudly and/or likes her monitor(s) loud, she'll be
significantly weaker in the FOH mix.
Of course, both main faders and also for the monitor mix(es).
A studio mix is far easier to control, and has far, far less problems with
bleed.
If you can't hear Jessica clearly in the TV clip, I question your
perceptions.
even got crowd noise mixed in and you can still hear her quite
clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k71bAGEVxJk&fmt=18
Better sound??? Strikes me as being kinda dark and constricted.
A completely different venue - not open air but in an studio auditorium.
There's a good chance that the FOH mix was mixed in the control room using
nearfield monitors. Thus there were far less acoustic bleed issues.
Jessica's voice is probably a dB or 2 further foreword of the backing
musicians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWAPdnycMMM&feature=related&fmt=18
Another studio auditorium gig. Jessica's voice is just plain too loud and
overbearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:49:59 +0100, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
My point about live music was about unamplified music. She sits in the choir
as she should, a member but in front and carrying, I don't know whether this
was what Chris also tried to convey. Any good mix needs to start with the
real world .... and a live mix can't disregard it as much as a studio mix
can and often does.
I want them all.
The television live version is a gawdzillion light years better and more
charming. It is enticing and embracing vs. the studio version which is
"gonna rip yer clothes off". To each his own ...
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:02:29 -0800, "Richard Crowley" <...@xp7rt.net
* Because it's TV and audio is an after-thought
* Because the audience will only hear it on 4 inch speakers
* Because producers shave the budget by reducing the audio crew
* Because directors aren't given time or access to do proper rehearsals.
* Because the skeleton audio crew is stretched beyond their capabilities.
* Because they can't hire really good live production mixers on the budget
* Because the performers can't be bothered with tech rehearsals.
How many reasons were you looking for? There are likely many more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:38:04 +1100, "Keith." <...@gmail.com
"brassplyer" <...@x10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Well for my two bit's worth it was certainly a lot better than standard
Australian OB's.
Studio mixes are for you alone,you are paying for and expect to hear the
lead performer through the ear pods.
Live mixes directly in front of an enthusiastic audience are more of a group
event,the group performs and the audience group responds.Leveling the lead
vocalist with the rest of the mix is no big deal,it is group enjoyment.
I would have been happy to be responsible for the result.
Keith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
Which mix are you listening to? The 5.1 mix, a seperate stereo mix,
or a downsampled stereo mix of the 5.1?
Are you listening to it off the network feed, or off a local affiliate
or off a cable system that has taken the affiliate feed and processed
the crap out of it?
Missing vocals are often the result of two things:
1. a 5.1 mix where the vocals have been mixed to the center channel, but
where the center channel isn't there because someone is using just right
and left for stereo.
2. A stereo mix where a ground connection has come loose, or where one
channel is out of phase and then the pair is summed to mono... so that
what you're hearing is the difference between the two channels.
The problem is that there are a hell of a lot of places for things to go
wrong between the studio and you... and most people are checking the video
at each stage but nobody gives a damn about the audio beyond making sure
the meters are moving.
You could get away with this back in the days of mono, but not any longer.
But at this point we have already taken such a huge step backwards with
the total lack of synchronization...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:28:16 -0600, Frank Stearns <...@pacifier.net
- snips -
Too sadly true. WHAT is going on?? I recently got my digital converter box and was
"enjoying" the dtv wasteland (same junk/old junk but in higher visual fidelity),
when I came across one of the "secondary" channels of a local station. The damn
audio was just shy of 2 seconds out with the video. 2 seconds? Are they kidding? Are
they blind? Deaf? Stupid? Some mix of the above? How is that much mis-sync even
technically possible?
The 20-100 mS mis-synch not uncommon over the past few years is bad enough, but this
is crazy.
It's as if the wheels of your car are half a block away -- how could anyone design
such a system (or any part of it) that allowed this in the first place and still
"worked"?
Rant off.
Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:55:10 +0100, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
Frank Stearns <...@pacifier.net
It is like a discussion I had with a musician ... "nah, we all have
recorders now", people think that if they have the equipment then - via
magic transfer from the marketing materials - they also have the skill.
See, I told you that hearing all that real music would be bad for you. It is
like when you plug the headphones directly into the mic pre, it kinda breaks
them and the recorder output sounds strangely distorted afterwards ....
listening to real people singing, real choirs and real musical instruments
also strangely influence the hearing so that recorded audio that used to
sound perfect suddenly sounds like strange pleistocene plastic replicas.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:56:29 -0500, "John O" <...@lottaspamheathkit.com
"Frank Stearns" <...@posted.palinacquisition...
Frank, you need to send that rant to the station you were watching. Too
funny.
-John O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:53:25 GMT, "Bob Howes" <...@bee-tee-internet.com
"Frank Stearns" <...@posted.palinacquisition...
All too often there's nobody dedicated to watching the output...it's
computer-switched with, if you're lucky, a single technician to monitor the
output of multiple channels (which means looking at the pictures on a
monitor, usually with superimposed bargraph meters to show the presence of
audio.
HOWEVER...next time this happens, try changing channel on your set top box,
then back again. This often clears the sort of huge sync problem you
mention. The MPEG streams for digital terrestrial often use a GOP of 40 or
even 60 frames and the home decoders have an annoying habit of locking up to
audio at the wrong end of the GOP. Cycling the channel once or twice
usually fixes it.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:45:08 -0600, Frank Stearns <...@pacifier.net
"Bob Howes" <...@bee-tee-internet.com
snips
more snips
Hi Bob -
That's quite interesting. Will give it a try. Thanks!
Frank
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article <...@posted.palinacquisition
Since I got an HDTV and new converter box I have been enjoying the channels.
Sync is often a bit off but I played with the control that corrects that. Not
always effective. I don't think I ever saw that much delay anywhere, except the digital
channels are delayed from analog. I don't think there is any analog now, all analog
gets processed digitally and looks terrible. My main complaint right now is
the audio. Commercial volume has been a serious problem, and I will eventually
correct that with a AVC.
greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:06:16 -0700, Denny Strauser <...@gmail.com
I have many complaints about delayed A/V signals. Years ago I hated the
fact that in large venues the video wasn't delayed, but the audio,
because of the laws of physics, was. This was an inherent problem that
has now been compensated for, for the most part.
Presently, especially after the Janet Jackson Super Bowl wardrobe
malfunction, ALL live TV broadcasts have a time delay to avoid
"unsuitable broadcast malfunctions." But, I have noticed with many well
funded networks, that the delay time of the video & audio don't match
up. It DRIVES ME CRAZY! I can't stand to watch when the video & audio
are not time aligned.
I also have issues with the base line-volumes that different
channels/networks/etc broadcast with. I detest having to adjust the TV
volume every time I change the channel.
Rant over for now. Need sleep.
-Denny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:18:22 -0800 (PST), WillStG <...@aol.com
On Feb 13, 9:06 pm, Denny Strauser <...@gmail.com
The broadcast chain handles digital audio fairly quickly, but
everytime a layer of video processing is added (and this could be just
about anywhere, like for a local "squeezeback") it adds a _lot_ of
latency. You probably also notice problems matching the onscreen
aspect ratios on programs that have to combine High Definition and
Standard Definition sources, like news programming. Some things are
stretched out of shape, some are letterboxed, some have wings.. No
wonder the digital roll out dead line has been pushed back to June.
That isn't changing anytime soon, so you need a TV with an option
for AGC of some kind in the Menu.
WIll Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:55:38 -0800 (PST), "bla...@aol.com" <...@aol.com
To answer the rhetorical questions about audio/video sync and
consistency of level, later in the thread:
Digital TV has a big problem with this. It's not only the separate
audio and video paths (with multiple slowdowns of the video), it's the
facts that the audio is not locked to the video, and the current
inability to process audio which is embedded in an SDI signal.
But don't lose heart: A major manufacturer has pefected a new
relocking system, where the audio and video initially receive embedded
sync signals, and these can be relocked at the transmission point. As
for level, Dolby has a new system which can even-out digital audio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:54:36 -0800 (PST), WillStG <...@aol.com
On Feb 10, 8:14 pm, brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
Just because _you_ want her louder doesn't mean much, unless you
are her manager or agent. I dunno if they took Wedge to Vegas with
them - probably local stringers, but Wedge usually mixes bands for
them. I have observed though that he usually prepares by tweaking to
match the artist's recording, and I have heard a lot of recordings
where the lead is where Jessica is in the clip, at but not above the
level of the band. I might have squashed the backgrounds a tad bit
more though, but for the typical 2 passes a mixer gets in rehearsal
with the full band, I figure Dude did a lot better than you would have
in the situation. And the mixer is expected to boost the level of the
players/singers the camera is on here and there too.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:24:05 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 11, 12:54 am, WillStG <...@aol.com
Has nothing to do with who the camera is on. The balance is just bad
throughout the song.
What "situation"? A normal tv broadcast where they're supposed to get
it right and so frequently don't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:59:27 -0800 (PST), WillStG <...@aol.com
On Feb 11, 1:24 am, brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
Look, what are you listening on? The Youtube clip just doesn't
sound like a mix worthy of this intense a rant - even on my laptop.
Really it's not, and lots of pros here are telling you the same
thing.
I think maybe you should check your monitoring path. For example,
if you are listening back to the clip using iTunes, make sure the
"surround" feature is off. That can cause all kinds of weirdness in
the center of the mix.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:44:13 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 11, 5:59 pm, WillStG <...@aol.com
Listening on a fairly beefy set of stereo speakers off YouTube. No
iTunes involved, no effects on.
I don't care what anyone's telling me, it's a lousy mix. Someone
suggested it could be a mismanaged 5.1 mix. Okay - so maybe somewhere
her vocal isn't obliterated. However it got that way, the mix as heard
on that particular YouTube clip which is simply a recording of a tv
broadcast is crap and it still represents a technical screw-up.
I don't think it's that though, as I mentioned you can hear them bring
the pedal steel up from where it is at the beginning, I think someone
just messed up.
I know what a vocal mix is supposed to sound like and that isn't
within the variances of "good". This was a performance to promote a
specific track and a specific album by this artist, there's no logical
reason for her vocal to be buried like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:18:43 -0800, "Richard Crowley" <...@xp7rt.net
"brassplyer" wrote ...
The sound on YouTube (et.al.) is screwed up *by definition*
because of the heavy-handed compression (both program
material compression and then data compression.)
Dunno know why anyone would have traditional expectations
of "quality" from any online source?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:24:01 +0100, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
It is a mix you dislike, but that does not make it lousy. You gotta grow up
to a world of people doing things differently. You are not supposed to
always agree in their choices, but instead of calling them lousy DO try to
understand them.
It is a mix you dislike, but that does not make it lousy. You gotta grow up
to a world of people doing things differently. You are not supposed to
always agree in their choices, but instead of calling them lousy DO try to
understand them.
Correct, it is the direct mix we're listening to. And it is quite obviously
a small low tech event.
No. Simply, plainly NO. You know how you like a vocal mix. In the real world
4 singing wimmen is louder than one singing woman, especially with the
latter being real singers - no detraction from the front talent, but the
back ground vox are singers, and the front vox is an entertainer.
Hey hey hey, go take a new look at that video, and look at the stage
logistics and distances and the deployed equipment. What I - and presumeable
a few other live sound guys here - like is that it is balanced like that
combination of voices work in the real world. It is a beautiful blonde in
front, but the choir are in a different genre of projection, ie. their
_voices_ project and Jessica is amplified at least 6 dB in the mix to stand
out already.
I wouldn't mind Jessica's vox channel 2 dB louder, that is about the
magnitude of what could be different, but it is not A LOT and the relevance
of that change to the mix could differ between playback system and
perceptory system.
You need to face that you might be dissatisfied with the mix beauce of
hearing damsge, how long time ago is it that you had a checkup at an
audiologist?
Agsin, thank you for taking this up, I thought she was just another bimbo.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:35:37 -0800 (PST), WillStG <...@aol.com
On Feb 15, 5:24 am, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
Well Peter Baird of "The Little Red Truck" is I hear a good guy
and a fine mixer, and everyone involved thought he did a fine job with
the Band. Now my buddy Wedge not only works at "The View" but was for
7 years Jessica's FOH mixer and Production Manager, and he thought it
wasn't badly mixed either, he was in NY taking in the feed that day.
Given his background working with Jessica you'd expect him to be the
first to say something if things weren't as they should be (although
Wedge always thinks he could have done things better than everyone
else <ghas chops.
As usual there was a lot going on, it was 103 degrees in Vegas
and the micpres for the RF mics were overheating creating all kinds of
problems, and it may have been the first time out for Jessica's
monitor guy on a PM5D, so she was a little out of her comfort zone.
But no one was critical of the mix like our anonymous
"brassplayer" friend here is, and either his monitors have a big notch
at the crossover point (which is right where Jessica's voice is
placed) or his ears do. But hey, doesn't make him a bad person, I
used to room with a drummer who was the same way, he just hit the
cymbals too hard for too long.
Although if someone anonymously criticized my work unfairly and
with such heat, I'd probably be kinda pissed off.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taaketh away... " Tom
Waits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:07:01 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 5:24 am, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
I dislike it because it's lousy.
Betcha a buck my hearing is better than yours. When I walk into a
local store that uses a supposedly ultrasonic proximity anti-theft
sensor, I can hear it. Sensitive enough for you? I have extremely
acute hearing. I can hear that her voice is better balanced in the
other mixes I referenced.
Small? One of the biggest recording artists in the world on a hugely
popular major network show. You believe this network is using low-
tech gear for their broadcasts?
Your response sounds more like a bunch of excuses, like what I'd
expect to hear from a production outfit I'd never hire again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:48:37 +0100, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
I posted my audiogram data recently. Post yours.
HF extension and threshold are different concepts. I have posted explations
of the "threshold thing" on numerous occasions. It is quite possible to have
an impulse noise damage in the upper midrange and still have th HF extension
that fits your age group. It is even - in my unskilled opinion - possible
that "age related hearing deterioration" is nonsense, it is all about
hearing damage, there is no other reason for the sensory cells to get
damaged.
Yes, her voice is louder and less natural in the other mixes. But that does
not make for better, it makes for different.
Yes. Look at the video.
Scott's law: whomsoeverpayeth is right. You didn't pay for that videoshoot,
so you don't get to decide right or wrong. An inside source has already told
us that whomsoever payeth is happy with it as is. Since you disagree with
whosoeverpayeth you are plain wrong according to Scott's law.
Also: since so many here disagree with you you should try to understand what
it is they feel is right. Go to some unamplified concerts, listen. It will
do you good.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:18:36 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 16, 2:48 am, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
Pointless cutsie-isms aside, the mix was bad.
What would do you good is looking up a story called "The Emperor's New
Clothes"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:48:56 +0100, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
Not required, you perform it excellently. Now post that audiogram of yours
since you claim to have excellent hearing.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
Have you considered taking out a mortgage on your horn, and using the
money to buy a life?
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:50:26 +0000, John Williamson <...@btinternet.com
I've been following this thread, but mainly as a listener rather than as
a full time professional sound engineer.
On a cheap laptop speaker setup, it sounds as you'd expect.
Intelligible, but not great. On a set of bookshelf speakers with a good
domestic quality amplifier and a Lexicon DAC, it sounds much better, as
expected. On a pair of decent headhones running through a good DAC and
amplifier, it sounds better still, up to the limits of the sound
encoding scheme used.
As has been said, the lead singer could possibly do with a *slight*
increase in level relative to the rest, but that's a minor criticism,
and in the artistic area of decision making, anyway. As a live ensemble
piece, it works very nicely, IMHO. The glitch with the pedal steel at
the start is acceptable, considering it is (allegedly) a live mix.
Whatever else, it seems to be a very portable mix in terms of
reproduction equipment, sounding well balanced on a range of gear, which
is an important factor when the engineer doesn't know what the sound is
going to be listened to on.
I'll paraphrase what others have said, if you can do better, why aren't
you doing the mix?
I know I'm not doing it because I couldn't do better. Well, that and the
fact that I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic.
Incidentally, the "official" music video mix linked to on the same page,
I find over compressed, and decidedly strident, even when I match the
total level as closely as possible by meter.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:05:34 +0000, Laurence Payne <...@laurencepayne.co.uk
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:50:26 +0000, John Williamson
<...@btinternet.com
That's cheap and irrelevant. Merely being a listener is perfectly
sufficient qualification for criticizing.
He didn't like the mix. It opened up an interesting discussion. His
only fault was refusing to let go of it and wanting to WIN. If he
wants to play God, he'd damn well better BE God :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:08:16 +0100, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
Laurence Payne <...@laurencepayne.co.uk
No. I started saying that and my reason for saying is that he claims that
everybody in these newgroups is incompetent.
Merely being a listener is perfectly
True.
Noo comment.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:32:33 +0000, John Williamson <...@btinternet.com
I don't deny that, my comments about the mixes I listened to were made
as a listener, not a mixer. My objection here is to the OP's apparent
attitude that a majority of sound engineers on TV are incompetent, and
trying to give the impression he could do better in the same
circumstances. It would be interesting to hear some of his work as an
engineer/ sound mixer.
My thoughts more or less exactly.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Laurence Payne <...@laurencepayne.co.uk
This is true. But it's also true that if it really bothers you all
that much, you should go out and do something about it. On the
other hand, if you get really good at doing something about it,
your rates go up and then the lowballers (and TV stations are
the worst lowballers of all where sound is concerned) don't hire
you. And that's how we got here in the first place.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:07:53 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 16, 9:05 am, Laurence Payne <...@laurencepayne.co.uk
I'm responding to others. You might notice there are others
participating in the argument. Your characterization of "refusing to
let go" - as opposed to responding - seems quite selective.
Hyperbolize much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:11:55 GMT, "Bob Howes" <...@bee-tee-internet.com
"brassplyer" <...@m42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 5:24 am, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
...and that's your opinon and you're entitled to it. If I'd done that mix I
wouldn't be totally happy with it either, but for rather different reasons
than you detail.
However, what you have to realise is that there's no right or wrong, black
or white with sound mixing. (Well, I guess feedback or a late pickup is a
definite wrong, but...) When you're sat in front of a mixer with a bunch of
channels of sound to play with and a rack of outboard processing beside you,
the range of choices is infinite and what you do is down to your perception
of how you want it to sound.
Your personal tastes are clearly biased by having heard this song first on
CD and therefore you expect every version to sound like that. Well, that CD
was also a series of choices by somebody else. They're not automatically
better and it's equally valid to blend the lead vocal with the backing on
choruses as it is to bring it out front. I've mixed both ways depending the
the material I have to work with, the style of song and what "feels" right
on the day.
All this is, of course, before we get into the technical limitations of live
vs. studio working. When I'm working in the studio it's not unusual to
spend many days on a single track. Working live, you get three minutes to
get it right and that's it. I'll go farther--if you hear a live performance
that sounds identical to the studio version....it's probably been mimed.
Oh, and you lost me when you described Jessica Simpson as one of the top
recording artists in the world. WTF?
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:55:10 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 17, 12:11 am, "Bob Howes" <...@bee-tee-internet.comwrote:
The harmony vocals drowning out the lead vocal is wrong. If by some
odd take on musical performance practices you find some reason to feel
otherwise, what can I say.
You incorrectly assume facts not in evidence. The first time I ever
head that song was on another YouTube video not long before I made my
OP. When I heard this version the first thing that struck me was -
"her vocal is too low to begin with and the harmony vocals are
drowning her out."
However, I've subsequently heard the "official" video of it also
available on Youtube which I assume is the same as the album version.
The instrumentation and arrangement is note-for-note essentially
identical to the version on the various tv promo appearances as seen
on Youtube. The common ground of the album track with the more
correctly mixed live versions is you can clearly hear her vocal. I
don't expect live performances to sound identical to the album, I
expect to be able to hear the melody.
Is there a board from which they can monitor the mix? Are there
controls to adjust the balance of the various performers? Even on
these crap cel phone recordings of live performances in different
venues, vastly different vantage points, her vocal is evident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XzwEdudJjA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grc6HT39PtQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:44:26 -0600, Denny Strauser <...@gmail.com
I've stayed out of this discussion, but have read much of the thread. If
you watch close, you'll notice that Jessica is singing off-axis at the
point that the BG Vox seem to be louder than hers. And, the BG Vox are
singing higher harmonies, which they can belt out more than lower notes.
No compression, short of ducking would correct this. The FOH engineer
would have to be riding all three Vox faders to correct for what the
performers are giving.
That's not considering the much disputed question of whether a sound
engineer should be providing sound reinforcement or sound editing. With
a whole band to be responsible for, It would be difficult to spend all
the time riding the three (or more) Vox faders. If that is what the
performers are providing as content, is not the engineer faithfully
reproducing the sound? Should we fault the engineer for the performers'
poor mic technique?
My philosophy is that the band should mix themselves. Then the engineer,
in a perfect world, can concentrate on making his instrument - the sound
system - sound good. It's not a perfect world. And there are a lot of
back seat drivers; everyone has an opinion. But that engineer has that
job. I imagine it is because the band, or their management, likes how he
does the job. Who are we to say weather he is doing a good job. He is
not doing a BAD job.
Just my opinion,
-Denny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:55:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <...@hotpop.com
"Denny Strauser" <...@reader.motzarella.org
That's one reason why we work so hard to get the monitors right.
One problem with trying to fix vocals on a second-by-second basis is that it
has to be done by ear. Tracking level changes in a mix by ear is never
instantaneous. So, there's no way that our response time won't be heard by
the audience. Its easy to over-correct and make things sound worse than they
would be without our *help*.
Also, there's no evidence that there were two mixes of the performance, one
for the live audience and one for TV. As long as TV was getting a board mix
and the mixer was sitting in the live audience or near it, the TV mix is not
going to be the best possible mix.
I suspect that there are probably two mixers for a first-rate prime time
show like American Idol or DWTS, or a flagship late show like Letterman. I
doubt that there are two mixers for a morning news/talk show.
These days, there may not even be more than one live camera man, no matter
how many TV cameras as are actually in use!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:37:56 -0800 (PST), WillStG <...@aol.com
On Feb 15, 9:07 pm, brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
So who do you hire my friend, and for what kind of gigs? Name,
job, professional experience, etc?
I mean not for for nothing, but you're being kinda pissy with guys who
are being a lot
more upfront about themselves than you seem willing to be.
Have you a horse in the race - or a personal grudge, perhaps? Or
if not, then how about a little more
personal disclosure - and a little less attitude? You do after all
hold a minority view on the matter.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:15:44 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 15, 9:37 pm, WillStG <...@aol.com
If you read my original post, my "grudge" is against the fact that I
so often hear a crap result with "pros" supposedly at the helm.
Among this very small sampling of participants maybe - which I
couldn't care less about, I also have no need to play suck-up politics
in consideration of who might see my response. I'll bet there's no
circumstance under which you'd drop names and give an objectively bad
review of their work - or even without dropping names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:43:49 -0800, "Richard Crowley" <...@xp7rt.net
"brassplyer" <...@yahoo.com
Apparently the sentiment is mutual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:43:42 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 16, 2:43 am, WillStG <...@aol.com
More hedging that has nothing to do with the fact that there are
frequently problems with sound on broadcasts.
A longtime musician who gets aggravated by frequently hearing sloppily
produced sound. And by those who like to make a lot of excuses or who
apparently can't tell when the sound is bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:02:19 +0100, "Peter Larsen" <...@hotmail.com
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
OK, so you're better than the lot here. Why are you blowing your horn then
instead of taking care of conveying the sound of an event to an audience, be
it in the same room or at home and be it live or for asyncroneous delivery?
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Peter Larsen <...@hotmail.com
Man, we've been looking everywhere for someone who can fix this crap!
And here he is!! (Whoever he is...)
Because for some reason he didn't have a gig that night. Maybe he's not
blowing his horn, much.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:28:49 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 16, 2:19 am, Chris Hornbeck <...@att.netwrote:
Of course if you read the title of the thread and my OP, you'd grasp
that my beef is that this isn't an isolated incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
Since I don't watch TV, welcome to your self-inflicted misery.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:20:48 -0800 (PST), WillStG <...@aol.com
On Feb 16, 6:28 am, brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
Well, maybe watching some of those old Lawrence Welk Show reruns
will sooth your heated temperament... Maybe some Ed Sullivan.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:16:41 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
I didn't put it up, it's someone else's video that I found looking for
that song.
But whatever the compression issues, it seems it would all get
compressed together. How is "compression" going to alter the balance
of the backup singers to the lead singer?
What's "on"? This has no bearing whatever on my original post.
Explanations are what I sought, I got a few but interesting that my
post has generated a preponderance of defensive excuse making. "Hey
man, who's this prick to complain about the audio". My original post
didn't say "and some of you are directly responsible" but some of you
are acting that way. If you crack on shitty horn players, I couldn't
care less. I've heard plenty of 'em, I don't feel some personal
investment in defending all horn players.
"Who I am" is part of the viewing audience who actually has an
educated ear.
Per you:
You've acknowledged I'm right, so to make further noise with this
inquiry about my "credentials" is a meaningless red-herring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:36:32 -0800, "Richard Crowley" <...@xp7rt.net
"brassplyer" wrote ...
Given the sorry state of TV sound in general, your whole exercise appears
to be nothing more than the decaying remains of a red herring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
Google <multiband compression audioworks.
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:50:02 -0800 (PST), WillStG <...@aol.com
On Feb 16, 9:16 pm, brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
Don't be afraid to have your hearing tested. It's a fact of life
for audio guys, and it's covered by my health insurance as job
related, if you play you got probably have it covered too. I like to
quantify things when possible, and to be artistic when possible. And
I can still hear Bank silent alarm systems too, BTW.
Too bad you lack the guts to be anything but anonymous. But
understandable, given you insulted most everyone in the room.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:19:57 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 16, 10:50 pm, WillStG <...@aol.com
And yet you can't discern a bad mix.
Don't have any reason to be anything but anonymous.
Post your verifiable home address and phone number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:22:22 -0800 (PST), WillStG <...@aol.com
On Feb 17, 10:19 am, brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
When you slag others, be a man and back up your comments with
your own reputation. To do less is pretty juvenile.
Says he who must not be named. There must be a lot of discrediting
crap around the internet about you to be so defensive. Perhaps in
this case, less offense would be a better defense.
Tsk tsk, brassplyer - you are that ex-Marching Band geek guy,
sitting on the couch yelling at the TV all the time, wondering about
the oil stains on his clothes, aren't you? And it's your Mama's
couch, I bet...
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"Thelarg print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:47:38 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 17, 12:22 pm, WillStG <...@aol.com
And just as I thought, you make some noise and static, you don't post
your home address and phone number. Gee, I figured you'd jump at the
chance to "man up".
I see some blog/forum entries under your name, all touting that you're
a "NY Audio guy", I don't see anything that suggests any particular
prominence in the industry, a website for "Will Miho A/V Production"
or even a company name.
Hey champ, you (and a couple of others) decided to take/make it
personal. I just started out bitching about something I've observed
that wasn't in any way directed at you personally. All you've
accomplished is demonstrate to me that your musical discernment is
lacking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:09:02 -0800, "Richard Crowley" <...@xp7rt.net
"brassplyer" wrote ...
Whereas you have demonstrated that your technical discernment
is at least as lacking. Since you persist in cowering in annonymity,
we only know what you have written here. We don't even know
that you are a musician at all (since anybody can use a screen alias
like "brassplayer".) OTOH, from years of conversations here, we
know that Will has many credits for both live and broadcast sound
engineering.
Perhaps people here took it personally since we have actually
had to work under those conditions. We see no evidence that
you have any experience (musical or technical) beyond the your
TV chair. We know that many of the regular posters here (who
use their real names) are also musicians. Perhaps better musos
than you are(?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:31:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <...@hotpop.com
"brassplyer" <...@h16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
Separate compressors on each channel.
Multiband compressors that independently compress sounds in different
frequency ranges.
I can tell that you don't spend a lot of hands-on time with mixing boards.
:-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:00:02 -0800 (PST), brassplyer <...@yahoo.com
On Feb 17, 9:31 am, "Arny Krueger" <...@hotpop.com
From what I gathered, the compression they were ref'ing to is of the
final mix being bounced from place to place.
To rephrase - how will compression of the final mix alter the balance
of the lead and harmony vocals?
It won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 17 Feb 2009 20:44:51 GMT, The BorgMan <...@me.net
brassplyer <...@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
Multiband compression which is frequency dependent (you know, like mpeg
encoding... which is done to every youtube video) certainly can alter the
balance of the lead and harmony vocals (or anything else for that
matter)..
--
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
The BorgMan <...@me.net
Please don't confuse multiband compression with lossy encoding. Lossy
encoding (like mpeg) can indeed screw up music tonally and it can screw
up the relationship between the individual parts, but it's not related
in any way to audio compression and shouldn't even be called compression.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 17 Feb 2009 21:47:56 GMT, The BorgMan <...@me.net
klud...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
news...@panix2.panix.com:
I'd say perceptual encoding is a type of multiband compression... but
that is a bit of a semantic argument.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|