Sound f/x Need sweeter/thicker sound

[Subby]

Hi everyone!

I have been doing sound engineering semi-professionally for live musicals now for a number of years (OK, on and off for over 20...) and I seem to have plateaued in my skills. I no problems with equipment, setup, or basic equalization, and getting a good sound, but am looking for some advise on getting over one hurdle.

I have a good mix and EQ in the musical I am working on now. However, when I compare the sound quality to the profesisonal CD, my sound seems to lack fullness/richness and, to a lesser extent, some level of sweetness. I do have a 31-band EQ setup on my mic mix to help with tone and feedback control, PLUS the full EQ per mic channel that the LS9 board provides me, PLUS I have one FX processor setup on the mix with a short reverb to try and add thickness, but I still don't have the sound I am looking for.

So, here are some questions:
- to get the sweetness, I want to boost the HIGH shelving freqs above 8kHz, but I get too much hiss on the 'S's. I'm thinking I should switch the channel's HIGH eq control to a Q/FREQ/GAIN mode and just boost the ????? freqs. Any comments would be appreciated.

- The bigger question - how do I get a thicker, RICHER sound? I've done as much as I can with EQ, i.e. boosting the 100-25 Hz range to get a nice, thick sound, and have played with the various controls on the reverb FX to get some additional 'thickness', but nothing like I hear on the CD of the original broadway recording (that a producer gave to me and said that was the sound they are looking for). What other FX's and/or FX's settings can people suggest?

FYI - here are my reverb settings:
REVERB TIME = 0.3 SEC
INITIAL DELAY = 0 MS
HI FREQ. REVERB TIME RATIO = 0.2
LO FREQ. REVERB TIME RATIO = 0.3
DIFFUSION = 1 (SCALE OF 1 TO 10)
DENSITY = 10%
DELAY BETWEEN EARLY REFLECTIONS AND REVERB = 0
BALANCE BETWEEN EARLY REFLECTIONS AND REVERB = 0% (ALL REVERB)
HIGH PASS FILTER = THRU
LOW PASS FILTER = 5 KHZ
GATE = OFF

Any suggestions would be appreciated!
Thanks
John

 

[dvsDave]

Out of curiousity, how are you applying the FX? Do you have an FX pot per channel, or are you applying wholesale to the final output?

 

[BillESC]

I suspect your feedback eliminator may be the problem, taking out too much of the information. Try the system without it.

 

[Subby]

Out of curiousity, how are you applying the FX? Do you have an FX pot per channel, or are you applying wholesale to the final output?

Send to FX's come on a per channel bases, pre-EQ pot sends to a seperate mix, with the returning wet signal mixed back into the overall main mix at the stereo L/R point, i.e. last mix point before exiting board for PA's and speakers.
'

 

[Subby]

I suspect your feedback eliminator may be the problem, taking out too much of the information. Try the system without it.

There is no feedback eliminator/destroyer in the setup, just a graphic EQ. I have a good EQ, and don't really want to add any more of low end back in because it starts to sound muddy. May be able to add high end back in some for 'sweetness', but that's it.

 

[Jsamuels201]

Do you have High pass or Low pass filters on the individual mics or the system as a whole? If you're cutting out too many frequencies with those that could be the problem.

 

[Dionysus]

No mention made to the music itself, pre-recorded I presume? The tracks given with the show?
How do they alone compare to the desired sound?

Question, what Effects unit are you using?

If you have access to a second unit, why not apply a broad-stroke light effect to the track and a different stronger effect to the vocals. When you EQ to eliminate feedback, you are also essentially "flattening" or "deadening" the room as well. Thus effect is trying to simulate an artificial room sound to make it sound better.

For a musical I sometimes tailor more than one vocal effect (for songs that are supposed to sound quite different).

I don't know what musical you are doing to make specific suggestions, and much depends on personal taste and the desired end product.

 

[DaveySimps]

One thing you did not mention is how many lav mics you are running, what kind, and what type of placement you are using. The Broadway cast recording, are typically edited and mastered, so no matter what you do, they will always sound richer and of better quality because they are doing it after the fact in a studio. They also use very expensive mic elements, wireless systems, and boards. Even with the best cast, your gear will have an effect on the over all sound, not to mention the acoustical aspects of your performance space. They also mic the heck out of the show, where many educational, community, or semi-pro shows cannot afford to mic 45 speaking / singing parts, plus a full pit.

Awhile back, I was having issues with a few songs in a show. After listening and speaking with musical director about it, we added 2 mics to members of the chorus who were not previously directly miced. This really helped to fill out the sound in this instance. Many times, it just comes down to the talent on stage. In a educational / community, or semipro setting, often times, your performers just do not have the training to really be a triple threat.

Having used an LS9 for a few years now, I concur with your thoughts on the high end EQ. I have inserted a parametric EQ before on my lav mic outs. That really helped me have better control, compared to the graphic eq.



~Dave

 

[museav]

Send to FX's come on a per channel bases, pre-EQ pot sends to a seperate mix, with the returning wet signal mixed back into the overall main mix at the stereo L/R point, i.e. last mix point before exiting board for PA's and speakers.
'

Pre-EQ probably also means pre-fader, thus the effects will not track with any channel level changes unless you also adjust the corresponding send. It also means that the EQ you apply for a specific source is not applied to the effects related to that source.

Remind the producer that as Dave noted, the original Broadway recording was probably a multi-track recording that was then possibly heavily post-produced, it may have parametric EQ, multi-band compression/limiting, effects, etc. applied to every channel as well as to groups. Also, how does what you hear if you monitor the mix compare to what is heard in the space? Chances are that you are dealing with a different stage, listening environment and systems and thus different multiple mic, mic and room, mic and system, system and room, etc. interactions that they did. And that may be your situation, there may be a number of factors involved in getting the same sound, some of which may be outside your control.

I agree that a multi-band parametric EQ can be much more useful in addressing specific changes than a graphic EQ that has fixed filter center frequencies and bandwidth.

 

[Subby]

Do you have High pass or Low pass filters on the individual mics or the system as a whole? If you're cutting out too many frequencies with those that could be the problem.

LPF's and HPF's at both levels. I will try opening these up a bit and see what happens.

 

[Subby]

No mention made to the music itself, pre-recorded I presume? The tracks given with the show?
How do they alone compare to the desired sound?

Question, what Effects unit are you using?

If you have access to a second unit, why not apply a broad-stroke light effect to the track and a different stronger effect to the vocals. When you EQ to eliminate feedback, you are also essentially "flattening" or "deadening" the room as well. Thus effect is trying to simulate an artificial room sound to make it sound better.

For a musical I sometimes tailor more than one vocal effect (for songs that are supposed to sound quite different).

I don't know what musical you are doing to make specific suggestions, and much depends on personal taste and the desired end product.

Actually, no, the music is live rehersals. Although, the LS9 has allowed me to record the direct outputs (pre-EQ, pre-HPF, pre-everything) to a USB thumb drive. I've been recording individual solos during rehersals then using that material as a playback to do mixing/EQing when I don't have access/signals from the cast. However, using the recorded material is not the same because the room effects, i.e. mics pic up a lot, are not included, but this does give me some material for starting with.

As for the effects used, I am using the LS9's 'Stage Reverb' with the settings posted above in an earlier post. Its a short reverb, otherwise things sound echo-ee. I think this is the "broad-stroke light effect" that you mention, but I do have access to another effects block so if you have any suggestions as to what to try, please let me know.

I think you hit it on the head with the EQ deading the room. I can toggle the EQ on and off and hear things brighten up when off, so I will try to loosen my EQ controls that I have set up for feedback.

Good stuff. Thanks.

 

[Subby]

One thing you did not mention is how many lav mics you are running, what kind, and what type of placement you are using. The Broadway cast recording, are typically edited and mastered, so no matter what you do, they will always sound richer and of better quality because they are doing it after the fact in a studio. They also use very expensive mic elements, wireless systems, and boards. Even with the best cast, your gear will have an effect on the over all sound, not to mention the acoustical aspects of your performance space. They also mic the heck out of the show, where many educational, community, or semi-pro shows cannot afford to mic 45 speaking / singing parts, plus a full pit.

Awhile back, I was having issues with a few songs in a show. After listening and speaking with musical director about it, we added 2 mics to members of the chorus who were not previously directly miced. This really helped to fill out the sound in this instance. Many times, it just comes down to the talent on stage. In a educational / community, or semipro setting, often times, your performers just do not have the training to really be a triple threat.

Having used an LS9 for a few years now, I concur with your thoughts on the high end EQ. I have inserted a parametric EQ before on my lav mic outs. That really helped me have better control, compared to the graphic eq.

~Dave

Hi Dave,
Yes, reminding the producer that the broadway recording was mastered in a studio was the first comment when he gave me the CD. You can hear a fair amount of effects on it to richen the sound.
As for the mics, I am unfortunately having to use one of my least favorite lavs, the Sennheiser ME 2's, of which I have 6 on 6 cast members. I believe that's why I have to deaden the room so much with the EQ to control feedback, the ME 2's have such a high sensitivity (V/Pa). This is also why using recorded material is not the same as doing it live, the recorded material does not have the mic's picking up the FOH sound real time.
Would love to have some better mic elements, as using the ME 2's are part of my problem, requiring EQing heavier than normal to deaden the room for feedback control.

Thanks for the input!
John

 

[Subby]

Having used an LS9 for a few years now, I concur with your thoughts on the high end EQ. I have inserted a parametric EQ before on my lav mic outs. That really helped me have better control, compared to the graphic eq.

~Dave

Do you mean better feedback control? How many bands did the parametric EQ have? I am assuming you had to use high-Q's to really narrow in? I thought a 31 band grapic EQ had the best resolution?

John

 

[DaveySimps]

In your last two posts, you mention having to use more than desired EQing to help control feedback. Any chance you have the ability to adjust your main speakers to help to try and alleviate this? I know this in and of itself can open a whole new can of worms, but several little adjustments might yield the results you are looking for. Just an additional thought based on your last two posts.

~Dave

 

[Subby]

Pre-EQ probably also means pre-fader, thus the effects will not track with any channel level changes unless you also adjust the corresponding send. It also means that the EQ you apply for a specific source is not applied to the effects related to that source.

Remind the producer that as Dave noted, the original Broadway recording was probably a multi-track recording that was then possibly heavily post-produced, it may have parametric EQ, multi-band compression/limiting, effects, etc. applied to every channel as well as to groups. Also, how does what you hear if you monitor the mix compare to what is heard in the space? Chances are that you are dealing with a different stage, listening environment and systems and thus different multiple mic, mic and room, mic and system, system and room, etc. interactions that they did. And that may be your situation, there may be a number of factors involved in getting the same sound, some of which may be outside your control.

I agree that a multi-band parametric EQ can be much more useful in addressing specific changes than a graphic EQ that has fixed filter center frequencies and bandwidth.

I agree, the broadway recording had a lot more processing power than I have available. Comparing monitor mix to the space, there is a difference, the space is more lively, even with my EQ's in place.
In regards to the parametric EQ's, I have 4 on each mic via the LS9's input channels, but it seems I always need more than the 4 bands I have. I'll put a graphic EQ on the mic mix and adjust the bands that are common across all mics, freeing up the parametric EQ's for other trouble freqs. How many band parametric EQ's are you talking in your "multi-band parametric EQ" setup on the whole mic mix? I can see how having variable freq and bandwidth would be better than using a graphic EQ, i.e. eliminating what you want without taking out any desired freqs.

Thanks!
John

 

[DaveySimps]

Do you mean better feedback control? How many bands did the parametric EQ have? I am assuming you had to use high-Q's to really narrow in? I thought a 31 band grapic EQ had the best resolution?

John

I really depends on the situation. I feel in general, the use of a parametric EQ gives you greater flexibility in situations like yours where you are talking about fine and specific adjustments, as opposed to sweeping curves.

~Dave

 

[Subby]

In your last two posts, you mention having to use more than desired EQing to help control feedback. Any chance you have the ability to adjust your main speakers to help to try and alleviate this? I know this in and of itself can open a whole new can of worms, but several little adjustments might yield the results you are looking for. Just an additional thought based on your last two posts.

~Dave

Hi Dave,
Yes, I could adjust the main speakers, but they have been tuned for the room/flat response. I have done this at other venues, but it does open up the worms, especially if you have sound effects that need playing back. If I adjust the speakers for my mic mix (which is what I am using the LS9's onboard graphic EQ for), then the sound of the playback effects would be altered in a negative way. I prefer to leave the speaker EQ for a flat response and taylor the signal going into that as needed, i.e. mics can be mixed one way, band another, ... If you mean moving the speakers, not an option at theis venue, they are hard mounted above the procedium. In other spaces, I have played extensively with speaker placements to get the best sound and completely understand how important speaker placement/direction is.

Thanks
John

 

[DaveySimps]

Ya, it is really sounding like you might be almost at the threshold of the best sound you might be able to get out of your particular situation. Been there, it is very frustrating.


~Dave

 

[avkid]

What you need is some tube preamps or a classic analog console.

 

[FMEng]

It sounds to me like you are trying to manipulate the microphones way too much. Once you have applied much EQ to get more gain before feedback, you've lost quite a bit of flexibility to get the sound just right. You can't put back what you took out for feedback control. See if you can get enough gain with a little less EQ being employed.

A 31 band EQ is more like a meat cleaver when what you might need is a scalpel. For feedback control, what you want is narrow notches, not 1/3 octave chunks. While much has been said about the perceived negatives of feedback eliminators, they work and are generally less harmful than trying to do the same on a graphic EQ.

Furthermore, I've never met any lav mic that can provide truly natural sound. They are a necessary but evil compromise, due to less than ideal placement, body resonances, surface reflections, high self-noise, etc.

It really isn't fair to compare the CD to what you can achieve in a live situation. An ME-2 isn't going to sound like a Neumann no matter what you do.