Setting sound levels, theatre and live band mixing
Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 09:35 pmmike raine33 posts in thread
Setting sound levels, theatre and live band mixing
Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 09:35 pmBeing relatively new here, I was having a ramble around assorted forums when I came across a post that dwelt on the topic of sound levels in theatre. I noticed that it was locked, so I was unable to add my thoughts there, which, instead, I will do here. If this is a breach of this forum's etiquette, someone might let me know.
The start of that other discussion was this summary:
"In summary:
1. Your cd player will have a nominal line output, it may be fixed at 774mV as it is not usually a 600 ohm feed, but a 10Kohm feed (domestic).
2. Set the slide fader to 0dB which is the black line at the 3/4 mark (3/4 of 1 volt is 775 mV)
3. Set the main fader to 0dB which is the black line at the 3/4 mark (3/4 of 1 volt is 775 mV)
4. Adjust the channel gain which is usually a rotary knob so you get 0VU on the desk output meter.
5. Adjust you power amp input level, usually a rotary know, for the desired sound level in the theatre.
You now have the ideal compromise between best signal to noise (getting rid of the hiss) and not running out of headroom (distorting the sound coming out of the speakers."
I had a read of the link that the post also referred to.
The basis of my remarks stems from a couple of decades of live and studio sound mixing, so I have reasonable experience and expertise in the area.
My thoughts are these:
1 The principle behind the summary above and the Yamaha article is sound; i.e. optimise the gain structure from the source as much as possible. The aim of this principle is to maximise the signal to noise ratio. All elements in a signal path generate some noise, the effect is cumulative, and a maxxed-out power amp at the end of the chain will reveal all this clutter magnificiently.
2 However, there are some difficulties in the practical application of this principle, the main one being access to a power amp's level controls, if it has them (not all do). If the power amp is co-located with mixing desk, there is no problem of access. There is another problem, though. Long speaker cables from back of the hall (or thereabouts) to front of house speakers result in considerable energy and signal loss. The result is that the power amp may have to be driven harder to make up for this loss, therefore increasing the understory of noise. It is no accident that on music stage rigs, the amps are co-located with the speakers, not the desk, to minimise high-energy cable lengths.
3 Furthermore, over the last decade we have seen a huge increase in the use of active speakers, where the power amp is built into the speaker cabinet (which, unsurprisingly, is where the level controls are located).
4 In the past, power amps were bulky, heavy and noisy. They make great boat anchors. Current technology has resulted in smaller, lighter and virtually noise-free power amps (and active speakers). The importance of managing a venue's sound levels by manipulating the amp's controls is not as critical as it may have been once.
5 Within the fraternity of sound engineers with whom I'm acquainted, the common practice is to set the power amp levels to maximum, and to control overall level from the mixing desk's master control (which hovers around 0db). All audio peripherals (e.g. graphic EQs, compressors and so on) are set to unity gain (0 db), and are left alone.
6 Though this is a common practice, it is not universal. There are times when you know that you don't need the amp's full power. For example, I was mixing with my desk plugged into an in-house system that had so much power behind it that I would have been trying to mix with the bottom couple of millimetres of fader movement, which is just plain silly. So I set the power amp levels at a quarter, which was all that was needed for that particular job. There are also some rigs that are past their prime and very noisy . . . and again you have to balance between getting an adequate level without introducing too much noise.
7 I note that the Yamaha article talked about setting signal levels as high as possible to maximise signal to noise, but with the warning to avoid tape saturation or digital distortion. This notion has been in vogue for many years, but is not nearly as relevant these days. Current technology has reduced the intrinsic noise significantly, tape is rarely used, and 24 bit digital recording has increased the inherent dynamic range such that it doesn't really matter how low the signal is. The aim now is not so much to reduce noise, but to make sure that there is plenty of headroom for mixing.
8 If I were to recommend a general practice for setting levels, it would be this:
a) Set power amp to max
b) Set master fader to unity.
c) Set a desk input channel's trim to deliver the best signal without peaking
d) Bring the channel fader up to the desired level.
e) Only if the channel fader can't give a reasonable working range (i.e. it's too loud when it's nearly at the bottom) would I adjust power amp levels.
9 However, each venue is different, as is each sound system, so any practice has to be tailored to the combination.
Finally, one of my greatest thrills is to set up a rig, wind up the amps, return to the desk and listen to the absolute quiet. Then I put on a CD or something . . . and there it is, clean , crisp, undistorted and immensely satisfying.
Yamaha and Rane
Thu, 23 Apr 2009, 06:31 pmI stand partially corrected, but totally unrepentent.
I blinked, momentarily taken aback, at your unequivocal and uncompromising statements. Had I been mistaken? It's quite possible; I often am.
So I did further investigation, and I do note that a number of audio authorities (e.g. Yamaha and Rane) recommend the method you so cogently outlined, i.e. aiming for unity gain throughout the signal path, with final master volume level being set at the power amp, and I note also there are some advantages in doing so.
Armed with this information I went on an internet voyage of investigation, contacting my engineering acquaintances (mainly in Australia and the US) to get their perspective.
They too were aware of this idea of final level setting using the power amps. But, interestingly, none have adopted it. I have yet to find a single engineer that does not, as a matter of course, wind the power amps fully up. It's possible they could all be in error, and it is also possible that different practitioners will emerge.
I note, though, that both practices emphasize the importance of gain staging, and that the only difference is where the final level is set. In essence there is little difference except for this power amp stage.
But I note also that the level control on an amp is just an attenuator; it is not a gain-setting control. In other words, if it was a car, turning the knob clockwise is more like taking the handbrake off rather than pressing the accelerator. It it is, in effect, turning the amp less 'down'. Amps are designed to run unattenuated, and will do so happily and without complaint . . . after all, that's what the power amp in your home stereo does. The volume control adjusts the pre-amp, not the power amp.
I note also the increasing use of digital signal processors and speaker management systems that sit between desk and amp, and which do a fine job of keeping the signal under control. I use two twin digital EQs and signal processors.
I agree that when mixing rock bands, managing a residual noise level may not be as critical, because of the nature of the music. However, most of my work is not mixing rock bands. Most of it is mixing acoustic acts (for example, folk festivals), and when some doe-eyed singer is singing softly and soulfully about a long lost love, the last thing an audience wants to hear is the cicada-like buzz of a 50 cycle hum affronting their ear drums.
I too have had my share of noisy systems, and I agree that getting the source right and following this through the system is how you deal with them. I also agree that luck should not be part of the process. But there is no luck involved in matching a mixer's output to a power amp's input . . . they are designed to match (unless they are old valve-driven relics from a darker and less hospitable age).
So, in the end, I acknowledge the value of following the practice recommended by Yamaha et al, and I'm not going to argue with anyone that does so. I might even try it myself one day. I might even be pleasantly surprised. However, I have never experienced poor signal quality or noise with my own rig. I've never blown an amp or a speaker, and even when driven hard, I've enjoyed clear, undistorted sound. There is no imperative for me to change my ways.
This bit is not technical, but explains my approach to mixing. I think it is a bit like flower arranging. Each flower presented for arrangement has its individual beauty. The flower arranger's task is to create an integrated, visually pleasing whole from the sum of these individual blooms. Mixing is the same for me; creating an aurally pleasing soundscape for the audience in which all the individual elements of musicianship come together in a cohesive whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.
It's problematic trying to do this with a dodgy rig and a poor understanding of how its machinery works.
There are many wise pieces of advice about setting up systems. For example, running all power off the one outlet to avoid earth loops, keeping signal and power cables apart and so on. These are all beneficial, and no harm comes from following them. Most of them, though, are unnecessary. I have found that in most venues these days the power is very clean, and you can plug the amps in from an outlet near the stage, and the mixer from somewhere else in the venue, and there is no loop-generated hum. On the occasion when I don't, I happily run a power cable to the desk alongside the multicore, again with no problem.
My biggest noise issues stem from light dimmers (specially flourescent light dimmers), but, by using balanced cable througout the system, even thse are minor irritations.
- ···
- ···
- ···