My short interview last month with Dave Natale — in regard to his unorthodox graphic EQ curve — has me pondering the right ways and wrong ways of approaching live audio. As I said last month, there is no way I can challenge the technique of someone who, over a 40-year period, has a stellar and proven track record, despite their unconventional method. Regardless of the similarity of the job, most of the working and successful engineers that I know have their own methods, tricks and shortcuts to getting a great mix. In the case of engineering a show, it’s not the journey but the end result that counts. If it doesn’t sound good, the audience doesn’t care why; yet if it does sound good, they still don’t care. Unless those members of the audience are in the business of live audio, no one cares how the sound is being reinforced. A great engineer is an artist in their own right, and many great artists break with convention to achieve their final product.
Watch Where You Point that Thing!
Sometimes, breaking with convention leads to innovation. Case in point: someone like Geoff Emerick, The Beatles’ producer who broke with the tried-and-true EMI recording techniques of the era to pioneer certain approaches to microphone use and placement that we still use 60 years later. Back in the day, the EMI technicians considered close miking a drum to be wrong, but it was only wrong if they tried to mix in the same way they did with ambient microphone placement. In regard to mics and snare drums, the conventionally accepted top microphone for a snare is the Shure SM57, but I have seen engineers use condenser microphones to capture the snare sound with great success. I have even gotten a great sound by putting a Royer 121 on the top snare. Conventional wisdom would go against that technique because many engineers feel the ribbon mic can’t handle the SPL from a snare drum, but the 121 can handle high SPLs. Also, one can try to flip the microphone because that the back of the 121 gets a brighter sound quality, and that just might be the “unconventional” snare sound one is trying to achieve.
Artistically, there are no rights or wrongs in the way one mixes, as long as the final product is pleasing to the ear. Technically, there are definite rights and wrongs and, in most cases, if the technical part of the equation is wrong, then the artistic part won’t work. For example: One time I sent an engineer on a jazz gig and, as it turned out, jazz was not his forté, so he asked me for some pointers. I told him to ring out the system with the subs on a separate send and to keep the subs out while getting his initial mix. Once the preliminary mix was complete, I told him to bring in the subs just enough to get a little punch from the upright bass and kick drum. Regarding the low-end instruments, I suggested equalizing the upright bass by boosting 400 Hz (generally not a frequency I would boost) about 3 dB and to roll off 100 Hz about 3 dB. I find this method brings out the string articulation of the upright and cleans up a bit of clarity in the low-end. I also recommended boosting the kick drum at 50 Hz, rolling off a little at 400 Hz and to start by not boosting any of the highs on the channel since the attack on the kick drum for this sort of music is not usually required.
When I went to the gig to check on him, I could see he was struggling. He told me that my EQ method didn’t work and that it was hard for him to control the low end. I told him to bring the send for the subs down and he told me he didn’t have the subs separated from the rest of the system. I let him know that the reason the EQ didn’t work is that he forgot the first step in my equation which is to have the subs on their own send and add them in just as much as required. I then proceeded to roll off on the EQ from 80 Hz on downwards. It wasn’t my preferred procedure, but it did help the situation, proving that there is technically more than one way to achieve a good mix.
Breaking the rules or finding workarounds is okay, but it usually helps to know the rules before breaking them. Finding artistic ways to mix is fine as long as the board isn’t clipping or the speakers aren’t feeding back. There really is a science to what we do, despite the latitude with which we are afforded. For example, understanding that a fader is logarithmic and not linear in function would help explain why many engineers mix with their faders at unity on the console. Fader moves from the unity position can be made effectively in small increments rather than the larger movement required when the fader is further from the unity position, thus giving the engineer the best signal control. Again, this bit of audio science doesn’t mean that an engineer couldn’t mix a good show with their faders well below unity.
The Unforgivables
I have a particular way of understanding audio and engineering, which has led me to live by my “low-input / high-output” mantra. Of course, I believe this to be the right way of mixing, but as I have said previously, I have heard very unconventional mixes that sound fine, so I can forgive that artistic indulgence without categorizing it as wrong. Unfortunately, there are some things I cannot forgive.
Artistically wrapping cables makes me apoplectic. The same goes for “artistically” running cables on a stage. This is an instance where the art is in the tried and true and should not be an experiment in creative license. There is a right way to do it, period. Same goes for flying speakers. One cannot “sort of” know the weights and ceiling load; the art is in knowing the science. Flying a rig differently can end poorly (sometimes very poorly) and with many artistic lawsuits. When delaying speakers, there is a right way to do it. In regard to electric and power for an event, there is no artistic leeway! When tying into power with camlock cables, for example, it’s always green, white, black, red, blue to tie in and the reverse on the out. This is right, wrong is becoming the ground.
