speakers; size matters?

[RHA]

My mostly acoustic 4 piece band is struggling to find decent sound for live performances, mostly fairly largemunicipal hall-type rooms with 100 to 150 people and little in the way of soft surfaces. We've been running a Peavey head with 200 watts per channel at 4 ohms into Peavey pr12 speakers. We don't like to play too loud, but find that we keep boosting individual instruments/mikes to try to overcome muddy noise issues. People in the audience complain that they cannot differentiate vocals and that during the patter between songs even speaking voices are difficult to hear--not volume-wise but due to lack of clarity. We recently added an old mackie 6 channel mixer with pan and set the Peavey in stereo mode, panning the channels a bit. This provided some separation and improved the sound a bit in our small rehearsal space but I don't know if it would improve things dramatically in a larger space, and I understand there are some thorny issues surrounding a stereo house mix that we might better stay away from. I also suspect that the speakers may be too small or underpowered (sorry, don't know their power ratings offhand).

 

Wondering if 1), upgrade to decent powered 15 in. speakers would improve things, 2) whether the 200/channel Peavey is enough power for us (we're country folk/rockers with no power chords, no screaming leads, and 3 part harmonies that we want people to hear) and whether runnning a panned stereo mix might help with clarity of the mix. Also wondering how to set up powered speakers if that's the way to go; would they require a separate passive mixer or could we still use the powered Peavey as a mixer?

 

Thanks for any info.

[Craig Vecchione]

Your problem isn't the gear, it's the room. More volume will not help here at all...it'll make the intelligibility problems worse.

[preacherman672]

In highly reverberant rooms like you describe a pretty substantial mid-scoop has always helped me. Get a 31 band graphic and try some EQ. Start either by a gentle smiley face cut from about 250 through 8-10k. Boost frequencies starting at 10-12k on up to about 16k.

 

The only other thing I have found that works in highly reverberant halls (I work in churches all the time) is enough volume to overcome the reflections and you don't have the system for that.

 

Les

[gadgetx23]

scooping the mids sounds backwards to me...

 

To get more clarity in the vocals, I would BOOST the mids on those channels and if you have a mid-sweep adjustment, play with it until you get a more defining tone.

[W. M. Hellinger]

Chances are your stage volume and sheer acoustical mass is just too much (regardless of the PA).

 

By "mostly acoustical"... what exactly is that? What's the PA handling and what else is making sound? What are the 4 pieces of the 4 piece band?

 

Can you get the PA to sound GOOD with just one performer picking and singing?

 

FWIW: You are not alone. 95%+ of all the bands I've worked with in the past 3+ decades have your same basic problem. Some of it's the PA's fault, most of it's the band and the mix's fault. If you can lick this problem, you will rise to the upper

[Craig Vecchione]

In a highly reverberant room, there's no way to get a rig loud enough to 'get over' the room reflections. More volume = more reflections that reverb even more = even more mud.

 

The only answer short of changing the room's acoustics is to keep volume down to the point of minimal reflection. This can be done by using multiple speakers spaced and appropriately delayed through the room to maximize coverage.

 

The easiest answer is to perform elsewhere:thu:

[preacherman672]

In a highly reverberant room, there's no way to get a rig loud enough to 'get over' the room reflections. More volume = more reflections that reverb even more = even more mud. Not with a sizable mid-scoop. With more volume increase the mid-scoop. The mid frequency reflections will go down and the sound will be clearer. Still won't be a great sound, but clarity definately increases. The only answer short of changing the room's acoustics is to keep volume down to the point of minimal reflection. This can be done by using multiple speakers spaced and appropriately delayed through the room to maximize coverage. Using multiple time-delayed speakers is simply another way to overcome the room reflections. It works better, but is not viable for most setups. The easiest answer is to perform elsewhere:thu: Totally agree!!!!

 

Les

[preacherman672]

 

scooping the mids sounds backwards to me... To get more clarity in the vocals, I would BOOST the mids on those channels and if you have a mid-sweep adjustment, play with it until you get a more defining tone.

 

 

 

Most "mud" is found in the lower mids. Scoop these and boost the upper mids, just like you say. The "clarity" for speech and vocals is in the upper mids.

 

Les

[W. M. Hellinger]

 

Most "mud" is found in the lower mids. Scoop these and boost the upper mids, just like you say. The "clarity" for speech and vocals is in the upper mids. Les

 

Yes, the clarity is in the consonants, which rely heavily on 1KHz to 5KHz. Consonants are also difficult to clearly enunciate. Consonants are even more difficult to clearly enunciate while singing and harmonizing. Consonants are super difficult to clearly enunciate when singing your guts out 'cause you're trying to scream the vocals out over too much stage volume.

 

Consonants are so predominately important to human communication that many written languages don't even bother with including vowels in the written text.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Consonants are so predominately important to human communication that many written languages don't even bother with including vowels in the written text.

 

 

Wht th fck?

[W. M. Hellinger]

Wht th fck?

[preacherman672]

No sense arguing, it's real easy to test. Have the OP borrow an EQ, try it out, and post back. Or just boost the highs on the console and cut the mids and see if it helps.

 

 

File this under FWIW:

 

There is a guy who tours around teaching church choirs to sing. One of the "tricks" he does is sing Amazing Grace using only the consonants, and then singing it with only the vowels. It is easily recognized when sung with only the vowels. You can't tell it from a bird chirping when it's only the consonants.

 

I totally agree that consonants are vital to understanding vocals and speech. In this particular case, however, I have had great success with the approach I outlined.

 

Once again, I have no desire to argue. Let the OP try my approach. If it works, great, if it doesn't, he hasn't lost anything if he borrows an EQ or uses the channel strip.

 

Les

[2manband]

I'm of the opinion that it's mainly an acoustical/reverberation problem as well. Since I'm guessing that acoustically treating the room isn't possible, your only option would be to ensure that all of your gigs are packed full of fans so that their body mass absorbs the problematic reflections. If you can figure out a way to do this consistently - please share - I'd like to know.

[RHA]

Thanks to all for the varied and thoughtful responses. We actually did a gig a couple weeks ago with an overeager, overequipped soundguy who had, among a lot of stuff, an elaborate graphic eq. We were in a town hall type of place and the sound was awful, but perhaps that was an instance of operator error. I'll try the eq approach and report back.

 

To answer an earlier question, we've got a keyboard playing through an amp and miked to the pa; a similar setup with a Taylor T5/mandolin player; and a fiddle and an acoustic guitarist, both instruments with internal pickups and going directly to separate pa channels.

 

Thanks again to all.

[agedhorse]

 

scooping the mids sounds backwards to me...

 

I tend to agree.

 

What really needs to be done is to look at the energy decay in the room (essentially the RT-60 plot, which is reverb time versus frequency) to see exactly where the problem is. Reverb time is essentially proportional to the amount of energy build-up versus frequency.

 

THEN, reducing somewhat the amount of energy in the areas of highest RT-60 will improve the situation, but I bet the biggest offender is the spectrum between 200 and 500 Hz, where it's kind of tough to dissipate/absorb the energy. You can't take everything out, just a little bit. Try to reduce the overall volume will also help in that the overall noise floor to overcome will be lower.

[W. M. Hellinger]

You know... I've heard this for 30+ years: "The band sounds like crap 'cause of the room acoustics." uh...

 

So...

 

1) Why does a CD sound GOOD through the PA? (and yes, this CD is a basement recording without a bunch, or any, elaborate compressing or fancy wizardry.)

2) Why is nearly every room plagued with these "bad acoustics"?

3) Why is it that I've mixed other bands in similar rooms (or this same exact room) through this same exact PA, and they sounded GOOD?

4) Why is it that "this" band always blames the room acoustics... except when they play outdoors... and why is it that seemingly only outdoors they then sort-of sound reasonably ok?

5) And finally: Ok, so it's the room acoustics and PA, and ok... so better technology is needed to address this nagging problem... so here we are today, with $50K+ of some of the best PA gear money can buy, and 2 of the best soundmen in the area... and the band still sounds virtually the same as they did with the $2,500 PA.

 

After 30 years, I've come to the conclusion that yes, bad room acoustics are a problem, but virtually every room that can hold a decent sized crowd will have arguably lousy acoustics. And, yes, technology can help. But by-in-large, the real problem typically lies with the band it'self.

 

And, it's ironic. It seems like throwing money at improving the technology can actually shoot yourself in the foot. Too often, it seems like bands (in general) pay a lot more attention to what they're doing when running a marginal PA and no soundperson... but bring in a GOOD PA, and a GOOD soundman, and the band goes hawg-wild... figuring they now have a soundman who can fix it in the mix... resulting in another splatterfest.

[Craig Vecchione]

You know... I've heard this for 30+ years: "The band sounds like crap 'cause of the room acoustics." uh... So... 1) Why does a CD sound GOOD through the PA? (and yes, this CD is a basement recording without a bunch, or any, elaborate compressing or fancy wizardry.) 2) Why is nearly every room plagued with these "bad acoustics"? 3) Why is it that I've mixed other bands in similar rooms (or this same exact room) through this same exact PA, and they sounded GOOD? 4) Why is it that "this" band always blames the room acoustics... except when they play outdoors... and why is it that seemingly only outdoors they then sort-of sound reasonably ok? 5) And finally: Ok, so it's the room acoustics and PA, and ok... so better technology is needed to address this nagging problem... so here we are today, with $50K+ of some of the best PA gear money can buy, and 2 of the best soundmen in the area... and the band still sounds virtually the same as they did with the $2,500 PA. After 30 years, I've come to the conclusion that yes, bad room acoustics are a problem, but virtually every room that can hold a decent sized crowd will have arguably lousy acoustics. And, yes, technology can help. But by-in-large, the real problem typically lies with the band it'self. And, it's ironic. It seems like throwing money at improving the technology can actually shoot yourself in the foot. Too often, it seems like bands (in general) pay a lot more attention to what they're doing when running a marginal PA and no soundperson... but bring in a GOOD PA, and a GOOD soundman, and the band goes hawg-wild... figuring they now have a soundman who can fix it in the mix... resulting in another splatterfest.

 

 

Mostly, it's because the bands' guitarists love to boost in the areas that cause the most trouble, and the bands all love to play as loud as humanly possible. They probably can't hear themselves because of this, and of course, turn up to compensate, making it worse.

 

Hear that rumble above? Yes, it's the situation snowballing....

[W. M. Hellinger]

Mostly, it's because the bands' guitarists love to boost in the areas that cause the most trouble, and the bands all love to play as loud as humanly possible. They probably can't hear themselves because of this, and of course, turn up to compensate, making it worse. Hear that rumble above? Yes, it's the situation snowballing....

Well... it's a problem pretty much throughout our industry, and seems to be getting worse with advancements in technology. I see this as one of the single biggest and most pervasive problems with live "music" entertainment in general.

 

Fortunately, the solution is easy. Unfortunately, implementation is damn near impossible in many situations... but for those who can effectively address this issue, they will rise way above the average fray.

 

I also believe this is why every 10 years or so, a kid with a guitar and a 3 piece band... playing fairly simple music... that kid (and band) re-revolutionizes the industry... for awhile. Then the revolution is evolved and complicated to the point it's lost in it's underwear... again.

[RHA]

Well, I understand the problems that attend the situations you're referring to; particularly where the individual band members keep turning up the volumes to get themselves heard through the mud. And I also know that some bands will simply never sound good no matter what. I was simply seeking some advice for our particular situation, knowing that equpment doesn't matter if the original sound source stinks. I suspect we'll never hit the big time, but I do know that we sound better in smaller rooms and nobody complains about the sound quality. Just wondering if there were any equipment tweaks/improvements we might consider. Thanks for the comments.

[GZsound]

I would suggest recording some of these live gigs to see what the real problem is. The solution may be as simple as having the instruments too loud in the mix as some of you have suggested.

 

We stick a couple of small condensers about twenty five feet in front of the stage and record a stereo mix frequently to make sure the stage and instrument volume is not overpowering the vocals.

 

Since I mix from stage, it is critical that the band members keep their volume consistant from gig to gig.

 

A poor mix will sound bad no matter what the room acoustics and in rooms that echo, we simply turn the instruments down to get more vocal clarity.

[preacherman672]

 

Thanks to all for the varied and thoughtful responses. We actually did a gig a couple weeks ago with an overeager, overequipped soundguy who had, among a lot of stuff, an elaborate graphic eq. We were in a town hall type of place and the sound was awful, but perhaps that was an instance of operator error. I'll try the eq approach and report back. To answer an earlier question, we've got a keyboard playing through an amp and miked to the pa; a similar setup with a Taylor T5/mandolin player; and a fiddle and an acoustic guitarist, both instruments with internal pickups and going directly to separate pa channels. Thanks again to all.

 

 

 

I would personally try the channel strip EQ on the vocals first. Get there early and set up with the band. Start with the high shelving about 3 o'clock, mids at 10:30. Alternately cut and boost the mids to see what works. It is most of the time easier to get the sound you need without drastic cuts/boosts but don't be afraid to cut and boost massively if that's what it takes. I have boosted the highs 15db on the channel strip before to get a usable sound. Don't let someone come by the board, look at your EQ without hearing anything, and tell you "you've got the mids/highs boosted/cut too much/little". Listen with your ears, not your eyes.

 

If you have a reverberant wall directly behind you DO NOT face the keyboard and guitar amps toward it. IME this really muddies up the sound with the reflected backwash. Cross stage or behind is a much better choice IME.

 

Hope it works out for you,

Les

[W. M. Hellinger]

 

In a highly reverberant room, there's no way to get a rig loud enough to 'get over' the room reflections. More volume = more reflections that reverb even more = even more mud.

 

Well... there does become a point where more volume works... if you can stand to be in the same room. It's like filling a bucket with a hose. A 1/2" hose with 30psi works ok. A 3/4" hose with 30psi works better. A 1/2" hose with 100psi just blows the bucket across the yard. A 3/4" hose with 100psi blows the bucket further and faster across the yard. Ok... well, let's get a bigger hose and more PSI. So... the 1" hose and 200psi blows the bucket into the neighbor's yard, but there's some residual water left in the bucket. Well... come to find out: A 2" firehose and 200 psi and a stop motion camera will show that for an instant there actually is a fair quantity of water in the bucket... if the bucket is turned just right while it's being launched into the next county.

 

Somewhere around 15KW to 20KW of real spanky PA will be capable of getting the vocals out over most any backline gear, regardless of the genre, venue, and the room acoustics. I know... I've done it.

 

Was anybody left in the room besides the band? No. Was the band finally happy with the "sound"? Well... yes. Was it marketable? Well... maybe.

[6Imzadi]

Mark, that's an awesome image!

 

 

I also had a room that was a high ceiling and it reflected something terrible.

I overcame the reflection with more direct sound from the PA. The PA had to be loud, however. It did work though.

 

I hated that room

[preacherman672]

Well... there does become a point where more volume works... if you can stand to be in the same room. It's like filling a bucket with a hose. A 1/2" hose with 30psi works ok. A 3/4" hose with 30psi works better. A 1/2" hose with 100psi just blows the bucket across the yard. A 3/4" hose with 100psi blows the bucket further and faster across the yard. Ok... well, let's get a bigger hose and more PSI. So... the 1" hose and 200psi blows the bucket into the neighbor's yard, but there's some residual water left in the bucket. Well... come to find out: A 2" firehose and 200 psi and a stop motion camera will show that for an instant there actually is a fair quantity of water in the bucket... if the bucket is turned just right while it's being launched into the next county. Somewhere around 15KW to 20KW of real spanky PA will be capable of getting the vocals out over most any backline gear, regardless of the genre, venue, and the room acoustics. I know... I've done it. Was anybody left in the room besides the band? No. Was the band finally happy with the "sound"? Well... yes. Was it marketable? Well... maybe.

 

If you have a hard hitting drummer and marshall stacks it really gets loud

 

I can get over 1 full Marshall stack with my rig in very reverberant hall. But if he's got in on 11, it's gonna do some hearing damage. Strangley some people like it that way

 

A well tuned acoustic set of drums sounds pretty horrible in a highly reverberant room. I've heard of people tuning their drums "for the room" if it is in a place where the drums stay (a church for instance) but I've never HEARD it work.

 

Les

[Dogoth]

I'd agree with most of the points already made (keep the volume down, try to eq out some of the problems etc..). Every time I'm stuck with an acousticly poor room I find that instrument and speaker placement is much more critical. The direction of the source changes how the room reacts a lot (at least from the mids on up). Also as a rule I've found that a much tighter patterned speaker box usualy helps (watch where you aim them). with a tighter pattern you may be able to aim toward the least offensive surfaces (less uncontrolable spatter). SR is always about compromise and in an acousticly bad room you will never get great sound (sometimes the best you can do is try to make it better).