Advice needed
in [Live Sound]
|
Prev: DEQ2496 Software
Next: C-Audio schematic?
From: Mike Rivers on 18 Jun 2008 19:27 Mike Dobony wrote: > These are NOT performers, but teachers. Sticking to "serious venues" is > not an option. A teacher who doesn't understand performance isn't a good teacher. But this is getting you nowhere. If you have a bad situation, which you do, you either get an experienced operator or you get a good feedback suppressor (a $1,000 one works, a $100 one works sometimes) and take the occasional problems it introduces along with the reduced feedback. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers (mriv...(a)d-and-d.com)
From: Mike Dobony on 18 Jun 2008 23:41 On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:47:17 GMT, 0junk4me(a)bellsouth.net wrote: > 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. > And all I need to do is ignore my other responsibilities to have the time to do that, assuming THEY have time available to do that too. Much of the techniques advised, while they will work, can also work to cripple either the presenter or the volume. > 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. > Sometimes it is a problem with the venue design or low quality equipment or lack of proper equipment. I have used a dedicated FBD to get more reasonable volume in venues that were extremely audio unfriendly (hard walls with no room to get the mic and monitors away from them). It worked very well, giving us at least 15 db more volume that before with very little effect on clarity. That was after fighting to get a 15 band EQ, which gave us at least 5 more db of headroom. Compressors have been used for years to control dynamic range with great success. Both FBD's and compressors work very well for uses like my application. Of course none of it is any good if the EQ is off and none of it can cover a poorly set up system. As with many tools like this, less is more, but nothing is a disaster waiting to happen. > sEems to me you're dismissing a bunch of good advice, which > is presumably why you crossposted. > Good advice, but advice that does not address the issue. The original question, which I did not ask very well as I was rushing between projects ( I still have 2 projects remaining in addition to now setting up 3 recording stations before 5pm tomorrow), was as to the best path to use for utilizing the compressor to prevent clipping the recordings. Also the normally good advice totally ignored reality and the very real limits given to me. I would love to have the ideal room with distributed sound and highly trained presenters or enough available time to properly instruct the presenters. I don't have that and have to deal with the location, gear, time, skills presented to me. I cross posted because AAPLS has a bunch of abusive idiots and am likely to get better quality responses from RAP folks. I guess I was wrong. What was a compressor question got turned around to a bunch of nonsense about feedback.
From: Ron(UK) on 19 Jun 2008 03:58 Mike Dobony wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:47:17 GMT, 0junk4me(a)bellsouth.net wrote: > >> 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. >> > And all I need to do is ignore my other responsibilities to have the time > to do that, assuming THEY have time available to do that too. Much of the > techniques advised, while they will work, can also work to cripple either > the presenter or the volume. > >> 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. >> > > Sometimes it is a problem with the venue design or low quality equipment or > lack of proper equipment. I have used a dedicated FBD to get more > reasonable volume in venues that were extremely audio unfriendly (hard > walls with no room to get the mic and monitors away from them). It worked > very well, giving us at least 15 db more volume that before with very > little effect on clarity. That was after fighting to get a 15 band EQ, > which gave us at least 5 more db of headroom. Compressors have been used > for years to control dynamic range with great success. Both FBD's and > compressors work very well for uses like my application. Of course none of > it is any good if the EQ is off and none of it can cover a poorly set up > system. As with many tools like this, less is more, but nothing is a > disaster waiting to happen. > >> sEems to me you're dismissing a bunch of good advice, which >> is presumably why you crossposted. >> > > Good advice, but advice that does not address the issue. The original > question, which I did not ask very well as I was rushing between projects ( > I still have 2 projects remaining in addition to now setting up 3 recording > stations before 5pm tomorrow), was as to the best path to use for utilizing > the compressor to prevent clipping the recordings. Also the normally good > advice totally ignored reality and the very real limits given to me. I > would love to have the ideal room with distributed sound and highly trained > presenters or enough available time to properly instruct the presenters. I > don't have that and have to deal with the location, gear, time, skills > presented to me. > > I cross posted because AAPLS has a bunch of abusive idiots and am likely to > get better quality responses from RAP folks. I guess I was wrong. What > was a compressor question got turned around to a bunch of nonsense about > feedback. Once again this man comes in asking for advice then argues with the seasoned professionals who don't tell him what he wants to hear. Ron(UK)
From: Mike Dobony on 19 Jun 2008 08:42 On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:58:42 +0100, Ron(UK) wrote: > Mike Dobony wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:47:17 GMT, 0junk4me(a)bellsouth.net wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> And all I need to do is ignore my other responsibilities to have the time >> to do that, assuming THEY have time available to do that too. Much of the >> techniques advised, while they will work, can also work to cripple either >> the presenter or the volume. >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Sometimes it is a problem with the venue design or low quality equipment or >> lack of proper equipment. I have used a dedicated FBD to get more >> reasonable volume in venues that were extremely audio unfriendly (hard >> walls with no room to get the mic and monitors away from them). It worked >> very well, giving us at least 15 db more volume that before with very >> little effect on clarity. That was after fighting to get a 15 band EQ, >> which gave us at least 5 more db of headroom. Compressors have been used >> for years to control dynamic range with great success. Both FBD's and >> compressors work very well for uses like my application. Of course none of >> it is any good if the EQ is off and none of it can cover a poorly set up >> system. As with many tools like this, less is more, but nothing is a >> disaster waiting to happen. >> >>> sEems to me you're dismissing a bunch of good advice, which >>> is presumably why you crossposted. >>> >> >> Good advice, but advice that does not address the issue. The original >> question, which I did not ask very well as I was rushing between projects ( >> I still have 2 projects remaining in addition to now setting up 3 recording >> stations before 5pm tomorrow), was as to the best path to use for utilizing >> the compressor to prevent clipping the recordings. Also the normally good >> advice totally ignored reality and the very real limits given to me. I >> would love to have the ideal room with distributed sound and highly trained >> presenters or enough available time to properly instruct the presenters. I >> don't have that and have to deal with the location, gear, time, skills >> presented to me. >> >> I cross posted because AAPLS has a bunch of abusive idiots and am likely to >> get better quality responses from RAP folks. I guess I was wrong. What >> was a compressor question got turned around to a bunch of nonsense about >> feedback. > > > Once again this man comes in asking for advice then argues with the > seasoned professionals who don't tell him what he wants to hear. > > Ron(UK) Who don't give answers to the question given and hit on stupid rabbit trails or who rejects the limits placed upon me. Please point to a post that answers the question within the limits given me by those above me. I am not free to modify the room or move to a better location. I do not have the funds to invest in more appropriate gear. Crippling effective teaching techniques is stupid. I do not have the time to check to see if the presenters are properly trained, nor do I have the authority to interrogate them. I have to work within my authority and budget and available gear. My duties are to do the best I can with the resources I have for the speakers for whom the conference is about. Those who refuse to work within the boundaries set by their bosses are unfit for any position. Mike D.
From: 0junk4me on 19 Jun 2008 12:24
ROn wrote: >Once again this man comes in asking for advice then argues with the >seasoned professionals who don't tell him what he wants to hear. I note he's talking about a 15 band graphic. IF you must use a graphic nothing short of a 31 band is suitable for live sound applications imho. WE must remember that this is the guy who said the most important criteria for a sound guy for the church was his religion. eVen if he had no ear and little aptitude for it. YOu can google it up if you're that interested. MEanwhile, I have this to say to this cross posting dunderhead. <plunk> >Ron(UK) Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider |