Live Concert sound

I attended Tina Turner's concert last night and I would have to say the sound was a little disappointing. There was a piercing crunchy sound around 1.8K and a shrill in the 6K range. Even prerecorded music displayed these qualities. I don't know the make of the array system they used since I have been out of the live business for 7 years now. The venue was the Air Canada Center (Toronto) which has reasonably good acoustics. I worked on the Celine Dion tour there with Meyer MSL 5's and the sound was amazing.

Since all systems are array designs these days, do you find the fidelity any better? Yes the throw is better, and the bass seems to have better impact than in the past but, I have never heard superior hi fidelity enveloping sound. And, I have heard excellent sound even with some of the old S4 systems of 30 years ago. Arrays often sound thin and piercing to me, but again I have no experience working with them.
How do you find concert sound these days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akira

I attended Tina Turner's concert last night and I would have to say the sound was a little disappointing. There was a piercing crunchy sound around 1.8K and a shrill in the 6K range. Even prerecorded music displayed these qualities. I don't know the make of the array system they used since I have been out of the live business for 7 years now. The venue was the Air Canada Center (Toronto) which has reasonably good acoustics. I worked on the Celine Dion tour there with Meyer MSL 5's and the sound was amazing.

Since all systems are array designs these days, do you find the fidelity any better? Yes the throw is better, and the bass seems to have better impact than in the past but, I have never heard superior hi fidelity enveloping sound. And, I have heard excellent sound even with some of the old S4 systems of 30 years ago. Arrays often sound thin and piercing to me, but again I have no experience working with them.
How do you find concert sound these days?

---

I, too, attended Tina Turner's concert at GM Place in Vancouver, similar to AC Center in Toronto, a few years ago. I had the same impression about their sounds as yours. I guess they brought in their own sound system but the quality of sound was rather disappointing. Harsh HF and MF made me very uncomfortable. No one was complaining though.
I never attended the live concert before so I thought that is the normal sound at all concerts.
I decided to buy DVD music videos instead ever since.:(

Keith

In the majority of cases, the overall sound quality at concerts is probably worse than it was 10 years ago.

I put it down to the financial drive to make concerts profitable now. Record sales can no longer support a tour that loses money. Promoters want the minimum amount of gear on the road to cover the maximum audience and that means line arrays! It's all about SPL level and coverage....actual fidelity seems to be further down the list than ever! Most mix engineers seek the "smilie face" EQ curve - loads of bass and high for "impact" apparently. :o:

The days of bands touring with systems with massive amounts of headroom are over. That extra 5dB headroom may mean adding another lorry to the convoy and no one wants to pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andyoz

That extra 5dB headroom ... no one wants to pay for it.

---

Often I would like to pay for with reduced max sound pressure level. :)
____________
Peter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoerninger

Often I would like to pay for with reduced max sound pressure level. :)
____________
Peter

---

The point I was trying to make is it is always nicer to listen to a system with headroom even if the mix engineer doesn't use it. At the moment, most touring systems sound harsh on peaks such as snare drum hits, etc. With the current touring systems, the coverage and SPL is calculated and very little "headroom" is left as that costs and it's a competitive industry. Many live systems are being run to within an inch of their limits and that doesn't sound nice....!!!!

Could be her voice was just ..well past it.

But seriously,

There is alot of debate about arrays being better ..because everyone is doing it.

I think of it as lots of piss arse Bose 801's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ian Mackenzie

There is alot of debate about arrays being better ..because everyone is doing it.

---

We see alot of installs that has use line-arrays when the room clearly doesn't suite them. Because "...everyone else is doing it".

Some of these venues are also changing perfectly good analogue desks, outboard gear, etc and going for half arsed digital equipment that sounds "edgy" at best... If I had the cash, I would be buying some Midas XL4's analogue desks and mothballing them for 5-10 years

To me the line arrays invariably have a pinched midrange and that spiky upper mid that kinda pushes me to the back wall. Once again, it is all about coverage and intelligibility with the least flown weight rather than high-fi. I, for one, miss the mounds of blackwares.

Bob

Quote:

---

The point I was trying to make is it is always nicer to listen to a system with headroom even if the mix engineer doesn't use it.

---

Yes I agree, I have been to several live shows recently and have to wonder if it is in fact headroom as the issue. I have seen a couple of bands in 3 venues and it can be hit or miss in 2 of the places, both use linearrays. The third venue has what today is considered ancient. It's basicaly an 80's JBL cinema system. It uses dual 2225 and 2445 on 2360's with 18's as subs. They have always been strict there about SPL levels so when you come out no ringing ears. The sound is usually quite good.

The other 2 venues can get uncomfortably loud, to where it's just not fun without ear protection. Those systems sound quite good as long as you don't go what I call stupid loud with them. I define stupid loud as taking away from the experience and making you uncomfortable. They can get harsh sounding once you get to a certain point. Beyond that and they seem to crash in the midrange. Bass seems fine though.

I wonder if it is indeed the speakers or my ears telling me to run for cover.

Rob:)

All the contractors use the manufacturers prediction software (i.e. L-Acoustics "SoundVision") to work out the minimum no. of boxes they need to cover the venue at the high SPL's promoters want.

The two worst systems I have heard lately were The Police in Dublin (massive Claire Brothers line array system) and Bruce Springsteen (JBL line-array). The Bruce Springsteen gig was particularly painful and the layout of the line-arrays had me baffled to be honest. In addition to the normal flown arrays, there were line-arrays turned on their sides at low level behind the two side wings of the stage. That meant that Bruce was right in front of an array as he walked out to the side of the stage to interact with the audience. It's the strangest thing I have ever seen and was clearly interacting badly with the main line-arrays. Here's some photos showing what I mean. The second photo shows some smaller "fill" speakers which are normal but you can also see the top half of some rather large line-array boxes turned on there side (would like Bo's opinion on this!!).

Attachment 35329

Attachment 35330

I was also at an outdoor Neil Young gig with 30-40,000 people and there were no delay stacks so half the crowd were getting seriously compromised sound. The only reason for that is cost...live music is the industries cash-cow now.

Hell, there were times when Elvis sang through ole Scotty's amp. I doubt anybody complained, I'da loved to seen Elvis sing through Scotty's amp.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...ght_6UP_00.jpg

We need a better picture of Bill Black. Before he went to a Fender bass he played acoustic with an Ampeg amp peg through a Fender Bassman.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/h...htom29/bm2.jpg

Was watching an interesting show on the Beatles live shows.

The footage of their Shea Stadium appearances shows several Altec 15" + multicell horns distributed around the baseball pitch and that was it as far as PA for 55,000!

One of the tour guys said that the modern era of live sound reinforcement was invented about 15mins after The Beatles last shambles of a concert at Shea. No one could hear them play. Check out the way John takes the Micky in the intro to Hard Days Night in this clip :D

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=C3eBaJY3sKU

Actually, just looking back at those Bruce Springsteen photos, it appears that what I thought were mid-high line array boxes are actually subs. The VERTEC subs and mid-high boxes look virtually identical from a distance.

Mid-Highs
Attachment 35355

Subs
Attachment 35356

I"m gonna start with my belief that proper deployment of a true line array system,that has been tweeked out with a quality speaker processer,operated by a technician that can paint a sound canvas (not a fader pusher) with a hi quality analogue console will produce better sounding results than 10 years ago.

Now as for the chances of all of those pieces of the puzzle coming together verses the amount of shows out there-pretty slim :banghead:

Its not a truck pack ,budget, headroom thing on most major tours.Theres sufficent headroom in the pictured systems (not Elvis"s) to peel the skin off your face if it was operated close to 90% demands.

Venders would rather supply extra gear at no cost as opposed to cooking the gear from abusive demanding situations.Its cheaper to offer the extra gear as opposed to reconing half of your low frequency boxs.

Reality is most of the large systems run at about 30%-40% demand.Its not a headroom issue.

It could be a speaker processer programming issue if your hearing odd things.

But it is more likely clipping somewhere in the signal chain.

I feel that live sound has more akin to the fashon business than being a provider of basic gear.If its not Gucci-its not cool!

I agree with Ians and Andys obsevations that everyone is doing it.

Well lets let the lemmings follow each other over the cliffs edge.

It used to be we had to have every new piece of outboard gear to appease the lastest crop of "touring engineers" who had just read about this piece of equipment in the latest live sound wish list magazine.

Now with the latest crop of digital consoles,outboard effects have been replaced with "plug ins" reducing the F.O.H. footprint.

We did a shootout of a bunch of consoles early this year.Yamahas PM5D,P.M.5000,XL-4,AHB Mixwizard,Sound Craft Sprit, and an FBT.

Using just our ears the digital PM5D faired 4th place.Simply put the digital desks sound like shit. :barf:

Due to the nature of the beast I had to retire (sell) my XL-4 which was the best sounding desk in the shootout.It was just getting too glitchy for confident use and had already been rebuilt 4 times. :(

Consideration must be given to how hard these tools get used before stocking up on the old ones.

The vertically placed boxs behind Bruce are Vertec subs.

All manufacturers of line arrays have componet anomally issues to deal with.This is one of the many reasons why certain boxs produce that edgy,annoying midrange some people are correctly precieving.

Back to the original question I think the pontential for quality sound is better but theres a lot of things that have to be in order for that to happen in this day and age.

Oldmics

Very interesting.

I guess what I thought I was hearing as "overload" was more further up the chain than the FOH.

In Ireland, there are actually no big sound systems stored away in warehouses...all the big systems have to be shipped in from England. The cost of shipping extra boxes must be a factor in the budget? The outdoor Neil Young concert I mentioned in my previous post that didn't have the delay boxes definitely appeared to be a decision driven by cost. The d&b rig they used had to be shipped over from England and once you start involving sea haulage as opposed to road haulage, costs really escalate in this part of the world.

Your experience with the XL-4 is interesting. A well respected sound engineer in Ireland was telling me that it is so rare to use anything analogue now. He was touring recently with a band that had a tight budget. They ended up using an XL-4 purely based on cost and everyone was amazed at how good it sounded. This included non-sound people like the usual hangers on you get with tours. Everyone realised what they were hearing was different to the "edge" that alot of digital systems still have.

Sorry - late to the thread. Been out gigging, trying to mitigate what you are describing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akira

...Arrays often sound thin and piercing to me, but again I have no experience working with them.

---

They certainly can, but so can point source cabinets. It is only partially the design. All cabinets change response character with gain - just stand in monitorworld a while and compare an artist's mix at tolerable gain and then at their gain - it requires a very different EQ. Some of what you are hearing is the array, but largely it is sound run amok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andyoz

In the majority of cases, the overall sound quality at concerts is probably worse than it was 10 years ago.

---

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends. There are more shows than ever, and with excessively large systems with capabilities not possible "before" - poorly run, yes, they are worser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andyoz

Most mix engineers seek the "smilie face" EQ curve - loads of bass and high for "impact" apparently. :o:

---

I don't think it's even that simple of an EQ, Andy. At festivals, we often headline and I always drag Smaart along. I arrive hours-and-hours early to befriend the system contractors and techs, and source the routings I need to get Smaart properly in the signal path. Even before our set, I slowly bring Smaart up, not intruding on the active engineer, and then just let it sit there, in eye shot. Invariably - actually, always when there was no Smaart or similar - the response curve reveals what I thought, bad sound. Smaart is merely a tool to help you understand what you are hearing and give a clue how to "normalize" the response. At the high gain possible today, the throw of uMF and HF can get damned "efficient" - the response is not as balanced as it was at lower gain. One must adjust the output signal to adapt to that reality.

The other point too often not recognized (I think you made this too, Andy, but I cannot find the quote...) is the subs far overwhelm the mains. Excessive sub is a real bogey. It envelopes the stage area with intense LF coupling so the artists cannot hear and must turn-up, and it makes for an out-of-balanced response that is too often desired by the (younger) audiences and too many engineers. I've told many stories on this, but...

Saturday, we again headlined a small festival. As per usual, I arrrived hella early to tune the system for the day's fun, but the contractor had some issues - L/R swapped, missing R HF (or maybe it was on the L :p ) and little/no subs - the LG's were thermalling out at 50°F ambient, so there was obviously some current or severe wiring issue. I ended-up mixing the openers so the contractor and tech could sort the problems. Three-hrs later, one side of subs came up. Grinning, they assured me they would bring the other side up in-time for our set. I already didn't like the "balance" - Smaart showed +6dB for the LF, with only half the subs operating. Bad, and gonna get worse. I warned I wanted the gain on those sub amps cut in-half before our set, but was assured it would be OK and they'd get it. So, I had them leave their DSP so that it was showing the output to the subs - hopefully I could dial it back, quickly. Well, we "hit" and it was a wall of LF - subs were +12 to +18dB outa-balance with a monster peak at 80Hz. Shit. I dialed back -8dB on the outputs on the dbx (the contractor and tech went shockers :spchless: ...), and then, because I was trying to build a mix I "instructed" the tech to build me a -6dB, two-octave notch centered at 80Hz on the PEQ. Look - it sounded hella powerful and the thump was great, but to build a mix on top of that would have required at-least +9dB more gain than I was gonna give. It was too much of nothin'. Dropping those subs gave me all sorts of headroom on the console - I was at/below Unity, all night.

I agree with Oldmics - much of what you guys are describing is clipping. Clipping is never good, is unneccesary and destructive to the signal quality. If you're clipping the inputs, outputs or amplifiers, it ain't the fault of the arrays or point source boxes - it's just that you suck. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robh3606

...They can get harsh sounding once you get to a certain point. Beyond that and they seem to crash in the midrange. Bass seems fine though.

---

I'll bet you a pretty penny, the subs are not "fine". If they were lessened maybe -3, maybe -6dB, you'd find the overall gain can be dropped and much of what you describe would be less so (and not just from a pure gain perspective).

I was noticing Sat night on the drive home, my ears never ring after our shows. And, at a number of festivals this year, they have hearing protection for the fans at FOH. They stream by during the acts before and after us - but I've not had anyone come around all season during our sets. :applaud:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andyoz

...The second photo shows some smaller "fill" speakers which are normal but you can also see the top half of some rather large line-array boxes turned on there side (would like Bo's opinion on this!!).

---

Andy, I think you figured it out, and Olmics got it - those are subs. I've seen that a lot and I can't imagine what it's like on stage. Terrible idea. They are encouraging all the physical coupling possible - it must be a monster LF wave coming off that stage. No wonder the sound was difficult - they had to increase the MH/HF to exceed that coupling-enforced LF. Egads. And even with IEM, Brucie and the gang are surely using higher volume than usual - likely damaging their hearing at an accelerated rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andyoz

Actually, just looking back at those Bruce Springsteen photos, it appears that what I thought were mid-high line array boxes are actually subs.

---

:yes: :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldmics

...

---

And, I agree with everything Oldmics sez, of course. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boputnam

The other point too often not recognized (I think you made this too, Andy, but I cannot find the quote...) is the subs far overwhelm the mains. Excessive sub is a real bogey. It envelopes the stage area with intense LF coupling so the artists cannot hear and must turn-up, and it makes for an out-of-balanced response that is too often desired by the (younger) audiences and too many engineers. I've told many stories on this, but...

---

I actually think that excessive sub is behind alot of the problems. You've given a good example of this Bo.

In terms of the perceived sound quality, excessive sub energy effects frequencies much higher up the spectrum than what the subs are actually putting out. it can seriously mask detail an octave or two higher. That's why most gigs sound shit IMO. We regularly measure gigs with +15dB energy below say 150Hz. It's insane and I really wonder who are teaching the current crop of sound engineers.

Alot of venues have acoustic issues in the critical 100-500Hz range and excessive sub just makes it worse.

It's getting to the stage where I won't go to large gigs anymore. I'm trying to limit myself to 200 capacity venues with simple 2-way mid-high boxes and a pair of 18" subs. My favourite venue has d&b Q7 tops and Q-Subs and is so nice to listen to ---- they also have 100% analogue desk and outboard. :)

It ultimately comes downs to who is in the drivers seat. The tools/equipment that any A list tour brings out, properly deploys and operates can sound good.....very good. Here's a perfect example, I went to two shows within a year at the same venue the PA provider was the same and had the same rig set up the same way at each show. Front of house was different while both were digital boards one was a Digico the other was a Digidesign ( close in name but completely different boards and not the problem here). One show sounded fantastic the other sounded like it was mixed by some drunk bar band sound man, way way too much low end and kick drum, the vocals were barely audible and the rhythm guitar parts were completely lost. I walked the width of the venue and it was consistent even behind the FOH position. A different hand on the mixer would have taken care of the problem. Both shows were A list artist.

Mike Caldwell

I want to add one thing. Many times I tend to believe that the sound person gets way too involved in what the screen on the lap top is showing and they forget to listen to what is actually happening.

Good points, Andy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Caldwell

...I want to add one thing. Many times I tend to believe that the sound person gets way too involved in what the screen on the lap top is showing and they forget to listen to what is actually happening.

---

That depends.

- If Smaart (or similar) is the laptop you're referring to, there is no reason to stare at it at-all. A quick glance of the Transfer (Magnitude) function tells all, and guides to a quick remedy.

- If the laptop is acting as the interface for the DSP, there is good reason to get one's nose in there to verify and mod as needed, all the xover points, phasing, PEQ's and gains. But again, this is not a full-time or frequent need.

- If the "laptop" you refer to is that screen acting as the interface for the digital console, well then here I have to agree with you. They are incredibly consuming because of the power they avail. EVERYTHING for each "strip", buss or mix is right there on it's page. It is hell. Too much crammed onto one screen to make it all "available". I miss the quick visualization of the analigue working surface. As well, the data as presented on those screens sometimes distract. As example, IMO, every curve I've seen for the PEQ's is not visually the shape I am hearing - so I mix it by ear with the hinge-points digitally precise.

Just talking about digital desks etc, did I mention that the Midas XL-8 they used for the Led Zep gig in Dec 2007 crashed just before the doors opened. It was brown pants time for a while apparently.

I've heard that Midas are sending out a technitian on all the big tours that use XL-8's just to babysit the desk and sort it out if/when it crashes. The issues are probably sorted by now...:o:

I saw the Eagles at Madison Square Garden this summer.

Sound was VERY dissapointing. ...very thin, no dynamics, poor bass, low SPLs and just not enough equipment for the size of this venue. Apparently, from the trucks outside, they fit the entire sound system and music equipment in two 18 wheelers.

Considering what 30,00 people paid to see this concert, it was a rip-off from a sound re-production stand piont.

Bruce Sprinsten's cheapness on sound is legendary. I first met him when he played in the Steel Mill band and others at our high school in the early 1970's. Anyway, for his first big tour in the mid-1970s, he used 50 or so BOSE 901 speakers for a concert venue with 15,000 seats. Talk about poor sound!!!!!

Hello

I was referring to the lap as the system analyzer running SMAART or similar programs. DSP tweaks like crossover frequency, phase, delay should be done pre show, actually many of those functions are locked out by some manufactures. Over all system EQ adjustments during a show as needed are normal.

If your stuck on a digital board where everything is crammed on a single screen and the screen is the only way to really know where your at then...well you really are stuck with what you have to work with.

A more general comment would be engineers who get caught up and consumed by the technology and forget to listen the what there mixing.


I would be interested in Oldmics board shoot out results top to bottom!!!

Mike Caldwell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boputnam

Good points, Andy!

That depends.

- If Smaart (or similar) is the laptop you're referring to, there is no reason to stare at it at-all. A quick glance of the Transfer (Magnitude) function tells all, and guides to a quick remedy.

- If the laptop is acting as the interface for the DSP, there is good reason to get one's nose in there to verify and mod as needed, all the xover points, phasing, PEQ's and gains. But again, this is not a full-time or frequent need.

- If the "laptop" you refer to is that screen acting as the interface for the digital console, well then here I have to agree with you. They are incredibly consuming because of the power they avail. EVERYTHING for each "strip", buss or mix is right there on it's page. It is hell. Too much crammed onto one screen to make it all "available". I miss the quick visualization of the analigue working surface. As well, the data as presented on those screens sometimes distract. As example, IMO, every curve I've seen for the PEQ's is not visually the shape I am hearing - so I mix it by ear with the hinge-points digitally precise.

---

I once witnessed the resident sound engineer at a venue that had just installed a wonderful L-Acoustics rig make subjective judgements about the systems sound quality using mp3's fed into the mixer thru an iPod (seriously). :banghead:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Caldwell

A more general comment would be engineers who get caught up and consumed by the technology and forget to listen the what there mixing.

---

Yeah, agreed - and that is not limited to distractions of laptop displays... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Caldwell

I would be interested in Oldmics board shoot out results top to bottom!!!

---

He's got experience(s) most just get to read about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andyoz

I once witnessed the resident sound engineer at a venue that had just installed a wonderful L-Acoustics rig make subjective judgements about the systems sound quality using mp3's fed into the mixer thru an iPod (seriously). :banghead:

---

I've seen that and also seen guys Pink a system but only by ear. That is as subjective. Struck me as weird...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertbartsch

I saw the Eagles at Madison Square Garden this summer.

Sound was VERY dissapointing. ...very thin, no dynamics, poor bass, low SPLs and just not enough equipment for the size of this venue. Apparently, from the trucks outside, they fit the entire sound system and music equipment in two 18 wheelers.

Considering what 30,00 people paid to see this concert, it was a rip-off from a sound re-production stand piont.

Bruce Sprinsten's cheapness on sound is legendary. I first met him when he played in the Steel Mill band and others at our high school in the early 1970's. Anyway, for his first big tour in the mid-1970s, he used 50 or so BOSE 901 speakers for a concert venue with 15,000 seats. Talk about poor sound!!!!!

---

Bo$e 901s?? what a joke! John