the live band or live show engineer in the studio

[pounce]

while i mostly do live sound, i also do some studio stuff. mostly just jobs i want to take, which is nice.

i have found that i like to work in the studio a little like it's a live show. i concentrate on the feel of the band together. i like to work quickly and make things happen quickly. like a live show. except with overdubs!

in fact, i often cringe when i see or read about engineers who seem to really slow things down to monotony with multiple takes and vibe killing geekyness. it's not about the engineer or about perfection, it's about a good performance. as such, working with a band like it's a live show (sort of) and not trying for perfection actually gets me more naturalistic results.

i suppose i sound a little albini-like in this regard. i have no interest in beat correcting everything, in autotuning large portions of takes, or of secretly replacing parts. i'm kind of anti all of that. i certainly can do all sorts of correction, including timing and pitch, but with a focused importance on getting the band to play like a band things just sound more right to me. partially because i'm used to hearing live bands. and i can live with a little looseness or a mistake here or there if the performance is good. that stuff doesn't bother me. also, i don't usually prefer to listen to overproduced pop crap, so i don't have any musical sensibilities that drive me to me a studio nazi performance control freak. i simply let the folks do what they do and try to capture and mix it without fucking it all up.

so while live guys are looked at and treated like the red headed step child in the studio world, i'd also like to think that bringing a real live experience and working quickly in a studio are valuable things lost by the tweaking nellies in DAW land.

[DigitMus]

With the caveat that some styles of music are hyper-produced (some would say over-produced - Pop, HipHop, Electronica, some Metal sub-genres etc.), I would say that more traditional "band oriented" music [Blues, Jazz, Folk, Americana, straight ahead Rock'N'Roll...] could benefit greatly from the Live Engineer mentality and work habits in the studio.

You'll find little argument that the best recordings "capture the moment" and the best thing an engineer can do is not let the recording process interfere with a good performance. That and not completely futz-up the sound :very happy: . A live AE (if he's any good) always accomodates the band, and doesn't make them accomodate him. He's used to hearing "the Big Picture" and keeping track of multiple sound sources simultaneously. Since he's used to mixing in real time with no second guessing, there's no "fix it in the mix" mentality he'd rather ride a fader than rely on automation/compression to make it right.

In short, the tracking session will probably be much closer to the band's "comfort zone", which usually leads to better performance, which means better tracks.

On the flip side, a good studio engineer thrown into a live FOH gig can find himself obsessing over some small detail, and lose track of the whole (even if only once in a while, this can sure create "cringe" moments).

Scott

[weedywet]

While there are many areas of overlap, there IS also a whole different set of skills involved in studio recording.


just like even really great recording engineers can't walk into a live sound position and be REALLY good at it without learning the ins and outs.


You're also conflating engineering with PRODUCING.
in many cases (used to be almost all), the studio engineer is not the one "in charge' of the session, as far as making the sort of choices you are arguing against.

When the producer says "that's not right, let's do it again" it doesn't matter what aesthetic you, as the ENGINEER, bring to the session.

I'm not at all a Beat Detective, Auto-Tune, MIDI, sampling, fix and replace everything type of producer/engineer

but that doesn't mean that I make every record live in the studio either.
A record, unlike a live performance, lasts forever.
Eventually, all the little things get NOTICED.

Part of the job of producing is determining which things should be fixed and which things are best left warts and all.

[bunnerabb]

I sort of started with recording audio before I got into live.

I have a similar approach to both but I certainly do love rewind.

If I'm engineering, I shut up and tweak for the producer.

If I'm wearing both hats, strap in. I want the performance and I'll beat it with a huge stick to get it.

[bunnerabb]

While there are many areas of overlap, there IS also a whole different set of skills involved in studio recording.


just like even really great recording engineers can't walk into a live sound position and be REALLY good at it without learning the ins and outs.

Boy howdeh.

The FOH cat in the venue up the street from my house just got a Yam digi desk.

I taught him how to set up New York stems for live.

He was like a kid in a candy store. :)

[weedywet]

Now you need to teach him why digital desks sound like crap.
:Twisted:

[pounce]

While there are many areas of overlap, there IS also a whole different set of skills involved in studio recording.

Part of the job of producing is determining which things should be fixed and which things are best left warts and all.

yes, i didn't mean to confuse the definitions of engineer and producer. i often have to play both roles. many folks i know in studios around here do as well, so while i agree about the differences, they aren't always in play for me at work.

my only point was that there could be benefits to assuring that a session has the fun and real vibe of a show, and hits an appropriate pace that doesn't feel bogged down by the technical minutia of a DAW or it's operator. fast moving sessions with bands really playing together has struck me as being a very good thing.

[DigitMus]

Weedy - I hear ya, there are different skills involved. I've done both (or maybe I should say all 3 - live AE, studio AE and producer) for the last few decades (well...it has been about 5 years since I took a FOH gig).

I guess the main point I was circling around is that the workflow of a GOOD live engineer is an asset in studio situations. I'm not saying he should usurp the producer's role. As a producer, I'd rather hire an AE with a lot of live experience than one who's solely a "studio rat". A lot of the latter types, if the producer says "I'm looking for XXXX style drum sound - set it up and call me when you've got something for me to listen to" will spend half a day or more. They guy who's had some years at FOH will usually be there in 1/4 the time, and can make adjustments more quickly if the producer says "that's nice BUT..."

I call it the "Gearslut mentality" . The studio engineer tends to want to use all the cool toys, whenever he can find an excuse. He might get stellar results, but the guy who can just move a mic a couple inches, or bump 2 db at 3.2khz will get there with less disruption to the session, and usually with no APPRECIABLE difference to the overall sound of the recording. ( Sure, if you solo the rack tom that Mr. Studiogod spent 1/2 hour selecting and trying 3 different mics on, then changing out the preamp before declaring it "perfect!" it might outshine Mr.Getitdone's tom by a few percentage points, but once the whole kit and the rest of the instruments are up, Mr Producer won't be able to hear an iota of difference.)

Scott

[weedywet]

you guys are just talking about GOOD engineers.


I don't hire "live sound" engineers generally to work in the studio... but I also don't hire guys like you describe who get caught in minutiae or take all day getting a drum sound.

in fact, I'd suggest that a guy who really KNOWS studio recording is more likely to get the sound I want more quickly... not less.


I just think the generalisations about "studio engineers" aren't fair. Or accurate, for any large percentage of them.
Like most generalisations... more cliché than realistic.

[clicktrack]

you guys are just talking about GOOD engineers.


True...definitely true.


I just think the generalisations about "studio engineers" aren't fair. Or accurate, for any large percentage of them.
Like most generalisations... more cliché than realistic.

Yes, it is a generalization, but one that my experience has shown true.


in fact, I'd suggest that a guy who really KNOWS studio recording is more likely to get the sound I want more quickly... not less.


I don't know if I'd go THAT far. Here's why:


As most of you know, I run a mobile truck service. We do gigs from small bands & recitals to broadcast gigs. It is, literally, the bridge between studio work and live work. Depending on the gig, the show producer or the band manager may want a specific mixer and have us only provide the truck as a control room.

In this circumstance, I become the in-truck assistant.

Now, because I do mix the majority of the gigs we do, I get an interesting perspective on being in the chair versus assisting. Many a time I pick up a new idea or trick by watching someone else's approach to situations that happen on a live gig.

One of the things I HAVE noticed is the difference in how people approach things based on the environment they are used to. Live guys do tend to fair better and faster than studio guys. Yes, this is a generalization, but like stereotypes, generalizations form from some root of truth.

The reason why I disagree with that last comment, Weedy, is because, by the nature of the studio environment, you naturally have less pressure to "get it done right, and get it done NOW". By NOW I mean in the 2-3 minutes you have to get a full drum sound in an environment full of factors that you have absolutely no control over. The studio environment allows you to sit and tweak, in an environment that you have full control over. As a result, you have a built-in luxury. If you are USED to this luxury and if you rarely HAVE to get the sound quickly, you CANNOT easily flip modes.

Working that quickly isn't something you snap into...it comes from a lot of learned methods and habits. I've watched many guys who "recorded the band's album" do an adequate-to-good job, but either slow down the entire production or loose sight of the big picture. However, if the FOH guy for the same band were to come in, he can put up a solid mix in, what seems like seconds. Its not that the studio guy isn't a good mixer. The FOH guy just knows what to focus on first and foremost to get the basics up.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Knowing how to handle bleed. Knowing what will get lost in the wash and what to do to bring it out...or more importantly, knowing that, in the big picture, fussing over it will simply be a waste of time considering the little it will actually add. These are qualities that don't get fostered in a studio environment and, by watching the work habits of "studio-guys" versus "live guys", I have to disagree with the idea that the studio guys can get a sound faster.

I'm not saying it CAN'T happen. I'm just saying, from my experience, that guys who spend most of their time in the studio TEND to take longer.

[bunnerabb]

I'm not saying it CAN'T happen. I'm just saying, from my experience, that guys who spend most of their time in the studio TEND to take longer.

Learning your craft with a gun to your skull is a really amazing motivator.

[Bob Olhsson]

A great studio engineer or producer never gets in the way of the performance. Many a hit record has been the first take before anybody ever got "sounds" together.

There's no way a would be live or studio engineer can really begin to know what to do without serving an internship. While many of the tools are the same, the goals, priorities and bag of tricks required are completely different. The same is true of audio for picture.

[pounce]

in my case, my live experience brings me an approach which creates a more live-like and lively spontaneous approach while working with musicians. i just thought the speed and concentration of fun and performance were good things that could be learned live and brought to a studio. obviously they are different disciplines. calling frequencies quickly, solving problems quickly, getting mixes (especially monitor mixes) up quickly, and roughing in a mix/gain settings to keep things rolling are good things you can learn at live shows. and i find them helpful in the studio. treating them as a whole band, and creating moments of performance - not simply tracking - are what i mean. it's what good engineers should be able to do. in this case i'm simply suggesting that some of these skills can come from the live situations and be used to everyones advantage in a studio.

[G cubed]

One important fact: There are no retakes in live sound. Just this past summer I ran a gig with a well established zydeco band. The lead singer/accordian player was last to arrive just minutes before show time. I had run sound check with everyone else and had his stage area ready for him to just plug in and play. His set up was short and sweet. He was running a wireless on the accordian. He set the receiver on his monitor and the show began. As soon as the music started a horrendous buzz and red lined across the board. I quickly punched out the accordian input and told my assistant to run him a mic I'd left on the side of the stage. We abbreviated the first set to just a couple songs and I went up to figure out what the hell had happened. As it turned out the wall wart he was using to power the receiver was not the right one. It was loose fitting and the vibrations from the monitor he had it sitting on were causing it to short out. We remedied that situation with a proper wall wart that the sax player was carrying and the show went on. Afterwards, he told me that the original had cracked or frayed and that someone had given him the improper one promising that it would work. It never ceases to amaze me when accomplished musicians show up with stage rigs that look like they've created from "Tru Value" weekly specials.

[weedywet]

There are no "retakes" in live sound... but there is also no endless REPLAY of any flaws.

[G cubed]

Live = 50% talent + 70% delivery.....Charisma

[Dr. Bob]

I gotta chime in on Click's side...

Maybe it's because we both run remote rigs... (though on far different scales)... but I've had good "studio rats" in the big chair who have absolute panic in their eyes when it's 2 hours to showtime and can't seem to get it together during sound check.

I've seen the same situation with bands who are just starting a new tour and their FOH or monitor mensch just can't quite cut it... Because they've spent the last few months (to years) in the studio where they have hours to tweak the hell out of things.

Now I will say that I've seen some pretty damn good "studio rats" do some amazingly cool shit on a live console too. But I can count those dudes on one hand, and not get close to including the good ol' opposable thumb.

I've also had a couple of times where the "producer" was a "Live Guy" who's killed the tracking quality because he wanted to paint things to "tape" because it sounded good to him... that I knew were either going to sound like ass, or should have been painted naked.

I know that when I start looking for interns and contract AE's, part of what they will need to bring to the table is either live experience or a stint as a working musician.

The reality from my chair is that live music can (and
99% of the time) does have a few zits and the occasional wart. So what? It has life and an energy that cannot be duplicated any other way - and the guy I want on the faders needs to be able to handle the pressure of getting it captured... warts and all.

[clicktrack]

There are no "retakes" in live sound... but there is also no endless REPLAY of any flaws.


You're right...thats why our mantra in the live world is "You only get one chance to get it right".


The live world is an interesting juxtaposition in the world of sound. On one hand, you have the pressures of getting it done in a live production environment. So, from that aspect, you take on the hat of a FOH or Monitor guy. Fast, quick, dirty.

From the other hand, though, the result of your work will be listened to over and over again. The audience doesn't have a rewind button to review what the FOH/Monitor guy did. The audience, however, due to the quality of studio recordings, expect a studio-level of sound from the live recording. So from that aspect, the job has to be meticulous, & painstaking.

Where is the line drawn? I dunno. I agree that the studio guy may have the ability to get a perfect sound, but most of the shows I've worked have little room for the time that most studio guys need or want.

I'd love to spend more time moving that mic exactly just-so. But when there's a 30-second changeover from a rock band to an contemporary band with a 30-voice choir, you gotta choose what you're going to spend each and every one of those seconds doing. Who is better equipped to get a pretty good sound faster?

Everyone thinks they can mix or record live. Until they do it. Even in this day and age of laptops making the process easier, its still something that requires more thought than "just pushing play".

Some of my clients have given us work because exactly that...they CAN do it, but they would rather hand it off to someone doing it for them so they don't have to think about the things involved.

Again, these aren't absolutes...these are just my own personal thoughts based on things I've seen. Nothing more.

[AxeSlash]

And then there's the "I just recorded the band on my brand new Cubase LE rig!" guys who turn up to do their first gig as FOH engineer for the band...

They're fun.



And there's nothing wrong with digital consoles. Anyone who says that they "sound like ass" obviously hasn't spent enough time with them (Ok, granted, the cheap and/or old digi desks ARE shit). They have their quirks, but I can usually get something BETTER out of a digi desk than an analogue. More options, more flexibility. More toys ;)

[dwoz]

Here's a perspective, one of many:


FOH is primarily about managing CHANGE, managing CONTINGENCIES, and managing PRIORITIES, in a situation where FOH itself is a factor causing the situation at hand.

Studio is primarily about managing EXPECTATIONS, managing QUALITY.

Sure sign of a FOH guy in a tracking situation? He's moving faders during the take. Sure sign of a studio guy in a live situation? He isn't.

dwoz

[Dr. Bob]

Mobile/remote tracking is about managing CHANGES in EXPECTATIONS because the QUALITY of the CONTINGENCIES has changed because of an UNFORSEEABLE change in PRIORITIES.

Sure sign of a mobile tracking engineer? He's riding faders, but just the one's that are pushed to the limits of acceptability or somebody grabbed the wrong mic.

(He's also the poor hair ripped out bastid that's quietly cussing under his breath and sweatin' like a ho' in church... the WHOLE show!)

:icon_eek:

[clicktrack]

(He's also the poor hair ripped out bastid that's quietly cussing under his breath and sweatin' like a ho' in church... the WHOLE show!)

:icon_eek:


LMAO

[weedywet]

And there's nothing wrong with digital consoles. Anyone who says that they "sound like ass" obviously hasn't spent enough time with them (Ok, granted, the cheap and/or old digi desks ARE shit). They have their quirks, but I can usually get something BETTER out of a digi desk than an analogue. More options, more flexibility. More toys ;)


much more "flexibility and options"

much worse sound.

we can, and do, disagree.
that has nothing to do with how much "time" I spend with them.
I've been around long enough to hear pretty quickly when something's BASIC sound quality is poorer than something else's.

[pounce]

digital versus analog belongs in a different thread

i've heard good digital and i've heard bad analog, so it could go either way. in big rigs, a digital board like a PM1D or digi venue won't likely be the lowest common denominator of the sound system.

i think (on good gear) the difference is slight, and this is splitting hairs in a gearslutz stylee. i'd take a good digital board over a shitty analog one just like i'd take a decent midas or cadac over a shitty digital board.

it's not that fidelity doesn't matter. i just think that right now those blanket statement of analog versus digital aren't useful or instructive. is a yamaha digital board worse than a pm4k? i dunno. or is it a midas heritage 3000 that we are using for comparison. there is good and bad in the digital and analog worlds with respect to live sound. in the studio i'd pick even more carefully.

[weedywet]

gee it belongs either "in another thread" or at "gearslutz"

can you be any MORE dismissive?:Coolio:

[bunnerabb]

AFAICT, 80% of the audience in a live setting has no idea about the overall quality of the mix nor the detrimental aspects of the gear and what artifacts it may introduce.

This is a drag.

I mix for the 20% that CAN, and they all seem to go home happy.

I'd no more turn my nose up at a M7CL-48 than I would at a Midas 3000. You have to be able to swim in almost any depth when the water starts evapourating from the pond. Ask bubba's neighbour's fish.

[Dr. Bob]

I'm with pounce, this isn't a gear thread.

This was originally about live guy's tracking styles of living with warts versus the pure "studio rat" tendency towards tweaking the life out of things.

Sure, DAW's enable that mindset, but back in the day, a steady hand, razor blade and grease pencil did the same... only slower.

My style of tracking is a hybrid I spose... I'm just breaking into my first full on PT rig. So, now I have the capabilities (but obviously not yet the skill-set) to do the type of editing I want to... e.g. cleaning up some of the trash and smoothing some of the warts.

I actually prefer to track my rhythm section live - at once. Then go back and lay everything else down. If it's my call on production, I won't punch any more. I'd rather edit two tracks that were live as opposed to hacking the hell out of a track with 32 punches.

Tracking live remote work... you just have the reality of the stage and you can only concentrate on capturing the performance. Now THAT's a gas! It's frustrating as hell sometimes... but it's probably the coolest gig there is... and I don't give a shit whether it's with a digital console or an analog console. You do the gig with the gear you got, and you do the best damn job you can. That's what you're being paid for.

[trumpetboy]

I've read most of this thread, not all of it. So if I repeat something anyone already stated, forgive me. Here goes.

I have never worked as a studio mixer or producer. My experience is live mixing. And in that experience, there are so many factors in live mixing most folks don't think about.

The environment of the venue is not a constant like a studio. Acoustics in a live venue change by the minute. Most sound checks are done with an empty room, theatre, stadium, etc.

When the venue is filled with hot bodies, that affects how the sound travels. Plus, those bodies absorb sound that earlier bounced off hard surfaces. Then there's the problem with humidity and barometric pressure. Those factors are never the same from the beginning of a live show to then end. If they were, then no one would need a mixer for a live show. Just set the levels and eq during sound check and walk away.

Live mixing is a living, evolving animal during any given performance. It's even worse when working out doors.

When I first came in contact with an automatic mixing board in a studio, I thought it was a lazy way to get a result. I later realized it was a great tool to memorize levels, compression and eq on any given track so the producer and mixer can move on.

But, such a tool doesn't always work quite so well in a live situation. Mixing live should be a hands on job from beginning to end.

The great, Rock 'N" Roll Hall of Fame sound engineer, Bob Heil is a master at what he does but I've seen him mix a live show and he sucked at it. Forgive me Bob.

He did what I've seen other studio mixers do during live shows. Kind of pay attention to the stage, talk to people around him or her, then notice they missed a cue. Punch in the mic on that missed cue then scramble to try to eq and set the dB for that cue only to miss it completely. (I happened to be one of the people that distracted Bob.) I desperately wanted to take over for him at the board. (It was a Dave Brubeck concert being filmed for a PBS special.) Fortunately, there was a mobile recording studio team, also friends of mine, on the spot and they could take the tapes back to the studio to turn out a decent sound track for the special.

My point is, as I sweep up the names I just dropped, :Wink: automation doesn't really work in a live situation. A live mixer must baby sit the board without distraction.

Just my two cents.

Now, what was the question?

TB
:grin:

[pounce]

i'm just saying that

http://womb.mixerman.net/showthread.php?t=4120&highlight=digital

is a good "why use digital mixers or not" thread for that ever popular topic. might as well keep threads on topic.



i think things get gearslutty when a discussion focuses more on the tools being used than on the technique and philosophy applied to the job. this thread was intended to be about how live show experience informs a persons studio sensibilities. there is an interesting article in the november EQ about robert kashut and his work with fleetwood mac, both live and in the studio. it's precisely the kind of thing i was thinking of when i was posting.

[clicktrack]

I
My point is, as I sweep up the names I just dropped, :Wink: automation doesn't really work in a live situation. A live mixer must baby sit the board without distraction.


Thats not 100% true.

Have you ever recalled a set on a multi-performer gig 30 second change-overs on an analog desk? It can be done, but its not the most fun thing in the world to have to do.

Running with full scene automation in live is just plain nuts, IMHO. However, recalling the basic scene as you left it at sound check is invaluable in those circumstances. Once you hit the "recall" button, though, don't think you're gonna sit back and enjoy until the next recall. The idea here is to use the tool and then go back to your ears...as you said, its a dynamic world, and what worked at soundcheck MOST LIKELY has changed by the time the band goes on.

But this IS getting away from the topic at hand...
When it comes to operation, what do live guys do that doesn't work in the studio?

Vice-versa...what do studio guys do that doesn't work in the live setting?

What techniques can one pull from the other to improve the sound of what each are trying to do?

Riddle me this, gents :).