JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques General Technical Forum Can't understand

I've run into this a few times, and I can't figure it out. Much of my experience as an engineer involves acoustic music. Somehow, this experience is viewed as not as "relevant' as my experience mixing loud rock bands.
Is there some reason why folks don't understand that dealing with one guitar, one voice is much more difficult than mixing a rock band?
Perhaps they all just look at the number of inputs (rather like musicians shopping for a studio) instead of the difficulty of getting great sound from only two mics. I don't know.
Sometimes, I just want to beat these guys with a Les Paul to see if that's "Rock'n'Roll" enough for them.

------------------
"Take 276, you know this used to be fun."
John Entwistle

Maybe these rock guys are just insecure, and they're afraid that you won't be able to perform the "turd-polishing" that their music will need to sound good.

------------------
Later,

Pat

Careful there. I'm a loud rock guy.

Mixing anything is an art. One guitar and vocal is no more difficult than a full band with tons of parts. They all have their place.

I've done both extremes, the only difference is that I've had to take more time with full band arrangements. Mostly because there is more stuff competing for attention.

Jody

You guys are hilarious! --Jean

I think some do look at the number of channels on the console and use that as their guide as to how well a person mixes. After all, we use our eyes more so as a tool of judgement nowadays. And being that we are human, sometimes we are greatly flawed in our judgements.

The thing that I find is, some of my fellow musicians do not understand consoles in general. Either through lack of interest, or honest confusion over what it can and can't do.

Using 32 or more channels doesn't validate a persons mixing qualifications. Nor does a 5 peice rock band vs a 5 peice blugrass act. The basic approach to 4 channels is no different than to 48. A person may mix one type of music better than another simply because of familiarity. Or a person may just have turned the "Suck Knob" all the way to the right by accident. From the engineer to the guitar player, no one can escape the "Suck Knob" on occasion. Well............except for me. I'm perfect.

Kris Karr

I think I've figured out your problem. Maybe there is a loose nut on the controls.

With all respect, Captain, it looks to me that you are answering one unfortunate generalization with another. I think your claim that one is more difficult than the other is far too general to hold any water.

What you say may be absolutely accurate within your own experience, but I know other professional engineers who would dispute you.

Allow me to clarify: I'm talking about mixing in a live situation here.
Point of fact: it is more difficult to get a great sound from just a guitar and a voice than from a full band (especially with the cheap pickups/DIs that a lot of people bring.) With a full band it is much easier to hide mistakes.
I mean, overly loud Marshall cabs are tough, but creating a great performance in a bad room with just two inputs, that takes magic.
Side point: I never have figured out why guitarists will spend $1000 on a good guitar and then spend $40 on a pickup. I might as well put an SM57 on the thing.

------------------
"Take 276, you know this used to be fun."
John Entwistle

I have nothing valuable to add to this discussion. Trying to learn something. But mostly I just keep thinking about the above statements by Capt. Analog and Pat--Still making me laugh! --Jean


[This message has been edited by JL (edited 06-11-2004).]

I am a bit confused here. Why would one have a pickup on an acoustic guitar if they are playing and recording acoustic? Doing it acoustic is with no amplification. And I think Shure advertizes the SM-57 as a Studio Microphone. In fact I believe many excellent recordings are and were made with Dynamic microphones, of which the SM-57 is a top Mic. If you are an engineer maybe you had better take a bit more charge. That is what I would expect you to do. Good equipment is always needed but it will never replace a good set of ears. It seems recording one guitar and one voice is almost like recording mono. Three Mic's ought to do it. One in the middle for voice and one on each side to capture the stereo effect. How much more can there be to it?

If equipment, etc, more Mic's etc. impresses a rock band more that the final sound you may have a problem. If you can't do it right then give them the gist of what has to be done and if they want something else do it. If someone comes in well prepared it will probably work, if not.....

While I have a few different mics in my arsenal {I use that term loosley} The SM57 is the industry workhorse even today. I prefer them vocally to a 58. I realize I'm probably in the minority on that.

As far as the acoustic thing and performers go. An instrument is only as good as it's player. I don't find it hard at all to mix a vocal and an acoustic. It's all up to the performer in the end once things are set. I do agree that some pickups are better than others. I don't agree that one is more difficult than the other.

Kris Karr

Please re-read my last post. I am talking about live performance in spaces large enough to require amplification. I agree that micing a guitar sounds much better than any pickup, but a DI is much easier to deal with any time there are monitors involved (especially at the levels y'all seem to need in order to hear yourselves.)

Granted, a 57 is excellent for what it is, but I doubt that many studio recordings of acoustic guitar were made with only one SM57.
I have gotten an excellent sound from a 57 on the body of a spruce-top Taylor.

Oh, I'd just be a real hit with the talent on open-mic night saying, "Your pickup sounds like crap, please turn it off."

Little things like keeping the vocal mic from squealing every time the talent aims the guitar's sound hole at it. Compensating for players who watch you carefully place the guitar mic and then immediately shove it right at the sound hole where it drones out mid bass all night. Dealing with a stereo chorus effect which sounds so cool on their CD, but doesn't work at all through the mono PA. Having that drednought resonate at just the wrong frequencies for the stage dimensions. Muting the guitar input in the half second between the decay of the final note at the time the talent unplugs the guitar.
"How hard can it be?" That's precisely the false assumption of which I speak.

I'm sorry, but your whipping a dead horse here. The bottom line is; sound work is challenging. Be prepared for chaos. Riding the fader is just part of the job. Yes, acoustic instruments can be difficult. No more so than any other. You deal with them, like you deal with the venue. Again, it's the challenges of a common soundman. If the performer walks in front of the mains, it's your job to pull the fader, re-EQ, what ever will keep the show moving, plain and simple.


Kris Karr

Welcome to live sound mixing. The way you're thread started you made it sound like it was a recording issue. NOT a performance issue.

If you really want to piss people off... Tell them you'll only mix them if they're playing a Taylor with an ES system. At least then you'll be happy. Or get a job with "professional" (meaning national level touring) talent.

Otherwise I agree with Kris. You're beating a dead horse, that's just how it is for people who don't take their craft as professionally as they pretend to. How do I know? I used to be that way, until I woke up and heard the music.

Jody

Thought we should move this up for folks. = )