Advice needed
in [Live Sound]
|
Prev: DEQ2496 Software
Next: C-Audio schematic?
From: John Williamson on 18 Jun 2008 14:57 Mike Dobony wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:12:36 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote: > >> "Arny Krueger" wrote ... >>> "Mike Dobony" wrote >>>> Scott Dorsey wrote: >>>>> Mike Dobony wrote: >>>>>> Why do you call them a dweeb? A speaker who stays in >>>>>> one spot is a poor speaker. The best speakers are >>>>>> those who are involved with the audience and >>>>>> intersperse in the crowd. They draw the audience in by >>>>>> going to the audience. This involves going in front of >>>>>> speakers. You are way to biased towards music. Public >>>>>> speaking has a whole new set of rules. This is a greta >>>>>> application for the FBD. >>>>> Because rule number one is that you NEVER walk in front >>>>> of the speakers. If you want to move around and get with >>>>> the audience, that's fine. But there are places where >>>>> you don't go, and one of them is in front of the >>>>> speakers. And if you DO go there, and it DOES feedback, >>>>> you shouldn't be surprised and start glaring at the PA >>>>> operator. --scott >>>> Okay, how do you get to the audience without occasionally >>>> getting in front of the speakers? >>> Stay behind the speakers. Most serious venues are designed so that the >>> loudpeakers are always in front of the performers. >> Or use a headset mic close to the mouth so you can increase >> the gain before feedback. And be sure to be speaking in a >> space with good acoustics so the reinforcement system doesn't >> have to work so hard. > > Being that selective is stupid for both performers and speakers, especially > those with life-altering or life-protecting messages. I've been lurking on the sidelines here, & the thought strikes me that if the message is *that* important, it's worth investing a few minutes in learning how to get the best communication possible between audience & lecturer/ performer. You can't communicate effectively if your message can't be heard, so spending a few moments with the microphone user running through the best way to get heard is well worth the effort. To be honest, it's not rocket science. If they then ignore it, you've tried. If they listen & do it right, then everyone wins. (Diplomacy is needed....) Just my 2 penn'orth. -- Tciao for Now! John.
From: Arny Krueger on 18 Jun 2008 15:30 "Mike Dobony" <sword(a)notasarian-host.net> wrote in message news:tgstqzcdr4c2$.ffxkz0hcyvcd$.dlg(a)40tude.net > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:07:37 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: > >> "Mike Dobony" <sword(a)notasarian-host.net> wrote in >> message news:kckx95e5pmi2$.1vh3gvjoi5v8c.dlg(a)40tude.net >> >>>>> Okay, how do you get to the audience without >>>>> occasionally getting in front of the speakers? >> >>>> Stay behind the speakers. Most serious venues are >>>> designed so that the loudpeakers are always in front of >>>> the performers. >>> These are NOT performers, but teachers. >> So what? The laws of acoustics apply equally to both. > So what? You don't get to say "so what" about the laws of physics. It's a lot like trying to argue with God. > Teachers shouldn't be limited by technology, > but empowered by it. Agreed, but irrelevant to any discussion of the limits enforced by the laws of phyiscs. > Limiting contact with the audience > is not empowering or effective. In my book, not loud enough, or feedback are pretty severe limits on contact with the audience. >That is why I like the FBD and compressors. ???? > Used carefully combined with using > the body as a shield between the mic and speaker and > staying as far away from the speaker as possible are > proven techniques of not crippling the teacher/speaker. How does putting the loudspeakers between the audience and the lecturer cripple? >>> Sticking to "serious venues" is not an option. >> Putting the speakers so that acoustic feedback is hard >> to avoid is not wise. > When given a choice, I agree. What about when the > equipment available and room do not allow that? Is that your situation, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? > Are you > going to be a coward and give up because you don't have > excellent conditions or are you going to use the tools > available to overcome the obstacles to the best of your > ability? I overcome obstacles but my solutions have to fit within the laws of physics.; >> The advice to use headset mics is IME, good advice. But >> it isn't a panacea. > Acoustically I agree, but logistically it would not have > been a good option at the time I purchased the lav. Frankly, I don't see a lot of real-world situations where purchasing a lav still makes sense. > A headset would have simply been ripped from my head from > centrifugal force. You mean your head was spinning that fast?
From: Mike Dobony on 18 Jun 2008 16:57 On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:30:45 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: > "Mike Dobony" <sword(a)notasarian-host.net> wrote in message > news:tgstqzcdr4c2$.ffxkz0hcyvcd$.dlg(a)40tude.net >> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:07:37 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: >> >>> "Mike Dobony" <sword(a)notasarian-host.net> wrote in >>> message news:kckx95e5pmi2$.1vh3gvjoi5v8c.dlg(a)40tude.net >>> >>>>>> Okay, how do you get to the audience without >>>>>> occasionally getting in front of the speakers? >>> >>>>> Stay behind the speakers. Most serious venues are >>>>> designed so that the loudpeakers are always in front of >>>>> the performers. > >>>> These are NOT performers, but teachers. > >>> So what? The laws of acoustics apply equally to both. > >> So what? > > You don't get to say "so what" about the laws of physics. It's a lot like > trying to argue with God. I get to say "so what" because you are ignoring the situation. Effective teachers/lectureres go INTO the audience. The use of a FBD allows much higher SPL levels. > >> Teachers shouldn't be limited by technology, >> but empowered by it. > > Agreed, but irrelevant to any discussion of the limits enforced by the laws > of phyiscs. There are tools available to "push" the limits, like compressors and FBD's. > >> Limiting contact with the audience >> is not empowering or effective. > > In my book, not loud enough, or feedback are pretty severe limits on contact > with the audience. So? The proper and appropriate use of good eqing and a FBD pushes back those limits so that the volume can be sufficient in most cases and still allow the teacher to enter the audience to interact with them. > >>That is why I like the FBD and compressors. > > ???? Do you need some elementary education in the use of compressors and FBD's? > >> Used carefully combined with using >> the body as a shield between the mic and speaker and >> staying as far away from the speaker as possible are >> proven techniques of not crippling the teacher/speaker. > > How does putting the loudspeakers between the audience and the lecturer > cripple? How do you get the loudspeakers between the audience and the lecturer when the lecturer is IN the audience, where a *good* teacher needs to be? > >>>> Sticking to "serious venues" is not an option. > >>> Putting the speakers so that acoustic feedback is hard >>> to avoid is not wise. > >> When given a choice, I agree. What about when the >> equipment available and room do not allow that? > > Is that your situation, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? It is my situation and a common situation for a real professional. If you can only mix in excellent conditions, you are not a pro. > >> Are you >> going to be a coward and give up because you don't have >> excellent conditions or are you going to use the tools >> available to overcome the obstacles to the best of your >> ability? > > I overcome obstacles but my solutions have to fit within the laws of > physics.; > And the marvel of modern electronics uses one law to push the envelop of another, much like the physics of rocketry and aerodynamics to overcome the law of gravity. >>> The advice to use headset mics is IME, good advice. But >>> it isn't a panacea. > >> Acoustically I agree, but logistically it would not have >> been a good option at the time I purchased the lav. > > Frankly, I don't see a lot of real-world situations where purchasing a lav > still makes sense. I personally prefer the headset, but see below. > >> A headset would have simply been ripped from my head from >> centrifugal force. > > You mean your head was spinning that fast? Yes, jumping, spinning roundhouse in TKD demonstrations. Mike D.
From: Mike Dobony on 18 Jun 2008 17:05 On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:57:16 +0100, John Williamson wrote: > Mike Dobony wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:12:36 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote: >> >>> "Arny Krueger" wrote ... >>>> "Mike Dobony" wrote >>>>> Scott Dorsey wrote: >>>>>> Mike Dobony wrote: >>>>>>> Why do you call them a dweeb? A speaker who stays in >>>>>>> one spot is a poor speaker. The best speakers are >>>>>>> those who are involved with the audience and >>>>>>> intersperse in the crowd. They draw the audience in by >>>>>>> going to the audience. This involves going in front of >>>>>>> speakers. You are way to biased towards music. Public >>>>>>> speaking has a whole new set of rules. This is a greta >>>>>>> application for the FBD. >>>>>> Because rule number one is that you NEVER walk in front >>>>>> of the speakers. If you want to move around and get with >>>>>> the audience, that's fine. But there are places where >>>>>> you don't go, and one of them is in front of the >>>>>> speakers. And if you DO go there, and it DOES feedback, >>>>>> you shouldn't be surprised and start glaring at the PA >>>>>> operator. --scott >>>>> Okay, how do you get to the audience without occasionally >>>>> getting in front of the speakers? >>>> Stay behind the speakers. Most serious venues are designed so that the >>>> loudpeakers are always in front of the performers. >>> Or use a headset mic close to the mouth so you can increase >>> the gain before feedback. And be sure to be speaking in a >>> space with good acoustics so the reinforcement system doesn't >>> have to work so hard. >> >> Being that selective is stupid for both performers and speakers, especially >> those with life-altering or life-protecting messages. > > I've been lurking on the sidelines here, & the thought strikes me that > if the message is *that* important, it's worth investing a few minutes > in learning how to get the best communication possible between audience > & lecturer/ performer. > > You can't communicate effectively if your message can't be heard, so > spending a few moments with the microphone user running through the best > way to get heard is well worth the effort. To be honest, it's not rocket > science. If they then ignore it, you've tried. If they listen & do it > right, then everyone wins. (Diplomacy is needed....) > > Just my 2 penn'orth. It's always nice when you have great equipment, a great room to work with, and a highly trained speaker. Then there is reality. Preparing for the worst is a wise strategy. When the worst doesn't happen, you're doing great. When the worst happens, you look great because you are prepared. I am limited by the equipment I have available. I am limited by the room layout. I have no idea how skilled the speaker is and will have other duties before the breakout sessions. There is a good likelihood that I may not be able to be there 100% of the time. It would be foolish and irresponsible to not make full use of the effective tools I have available. Mike D.
From: 0junk4me on 18 Jun 2008 17:47
John wrote: >> Being that selective is stupid for both performers and speakers, >>especially those with life-altering or life-protecting messages. >I've been lurking on the sidelines here, & the thought strikes me >that if the message is *that* important, it's worth investing a few >minutes in learning how to get the best communication possible >between audience & lecturer/ performer. >You can't communicate effectively if your message can't be heard, so >spending a few moments with the microphone user running through the >best way to get heard is well worth the effort. To be honest, it's >not rocket science. If they then ignore it, you've tried. If they >listen & do it right, then everyone wins. (Diplomacy is needed....) I would agree with John here. I was doing this before anybody had ever heard of a feedback destroyer. I spent some time working with the presenters ot help them understand the microphone and the system enough to utilize it effectively. sOme listened, others didn't. I've also used RUpert's pan technique when configured in stereo. sOUnds to me like you're still trying to use gadgets to solve human problems not easily soluble by gadgets. But then, I"ve done this to put food on the table. sEems to me you're dismissing a bunch of good advice, which is presumably why you crossposted. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad audio is heard by everyone. |