Topic: Loud / Amplified shows: diminishing returns?

[voltronic]

As someone who only records acoustic / classical music, I've been wondering what benefits (perceived or real) tapers of loud / amplified music get from the really high-end gear.  To clarify: I have heard the difference in acoustic music when using Schoeps, DPA, Sound Devices, Nagra and other products of similar quality.  What I don't understand is the improvement in recording amplified music using the top-level stuff, as opposed to "inexpensive but very good" level gear such as AT853s, small portable recorders, etc.  Stereo imaging is one example, as I can hear how nicely Schoeps cards can do that in an acoustic recording, but lots of PAs are mixed in mono.  Full disclosure: I've had really bad PA engineering at almost every amplified concert I've been to in the last 10 years, so that may be influencing my thinking.  I know there are very good FOH people out there, but I haven't been lucky enough to get one.

Is it simply a matter of buying the best gear you can afford, even if you don't "need" it?  Having recently been struck with Gear Acquisition Syndrome, I can relate to that.  Or, does the professional level equipment really give you significant audible benefits?  If so, what are they?

I understand I may be opening a can of worms here, and please know I mean no offense.  It's just something I've been wondering about since I joined up here. I'm also not trying to make sweeping generalizations; just expressing my ignorance on the subject and wanting to learn.

[bombdiggity]

I record mostly unamplified music but do have my run-ins with PA's and even some really loud shows/festivals. 

To me it comes down to a few things:

First and foremost it's the tonal difference.  I have run my SP's and Schoeps side by side enough times to know that the Schoeps are always better regardless of any sorry state of sound at the source.  Nevertheless relative to the diminishing returns: a turd also can't be polished much.  Some shows where either rig is easy enough to run I'm totally fine with just using the SP's since the difference will be too marginal to bother with more weight or trouble or potential damage. 

When one does need to try to correct issues in post the starting point is in a better place with better gear.  There may be some exceptions where it really doesn't matter though (like deliberately distorted or over the top sorts of music).  I will say that when something is really wrong it will seem worse in a raw state from good mics.  Problems in the mix or recording can be more glaring with a raw recording from better mics.  If I know it's a really boomy, cavernous space the SP's have a sort of natural low-end shelf that will at least initially result in a potentially more pleasing sound and I like their overall tone well enough (esp. relative to that sort of ambient space) and just want to kick back and take it easy at the show it can be less work to just use them on something that may not be that important to me. 

Higher end gear can usually handle much louder incoming signals.

In theory I might agree I'd not have bought high end full size gear if I only planned to 007 from the back of arenas, but I bought what I thought sounded best out of the gate and later got the smaller mics for easy use in sensitive situations.  My taping habits have dramatically changed relative to what they were in the past and what I thought they would be when I got back in, but all things equal I want the better mics if anything about the show really matters to me. 

YMMV. 

[Gutbucket]

The core issue is crap in = crap out.  Once the sound is in the air it's all acoustic, regardless of how it was produced.  Placed in an environment with lush beautiful sound, better gear gear can leverage that.  Conversely, better performing gear can also make the best of compromised situations due to improved performance (such as better off-axis pattern behavior, and a smoother more linear response providing the ability to make easier corrections with EQ). 

It's just that it's usually easier to find examples of really great sounding acoustic instrument music in rooms with good sounding acoustics than it is to find really great sounding amplified stuff.

[JimmieC]

Good answers.  Sometimes better designed equipment cost more.  I think some mics and preamps have a tone to them as well, no matter how accurate they are.  I don't know, this tone might come from the off axis response of the mic and definitely stereo configuration.  For the preamps, some want to be neutral and some try to do some tweaking of the amplification of the signal (e.g, transformer, distortion of harmonics or what not, etc.).  I still say not all phantom powers are equal too.  Definitely, a difference in ADC / DAC.  How much are you willing to spend or search for some talented builders.

The other night for an amplified show, I ran ORTF so that I could use a specific mount and bodies but wish I would have ran DINa or PAS.  However, it sounds pretty good but should not have been lazy and ran another set of mics and preamp.

[bombdiggity]

I did forget the off-axis response and rejection of unwanted fields, though that can be influenced by patterns and placement as much or more than the capabilities of mics. 

I think some mics and preamps have a tone to them as well, no matter how accurate they are.  I don't know, this tone might come from the off axis response of the mic and definitely stereo configuration. 

There was another fairly full discussion of a lot of this somewhere around here.  To my ear everything has a signature and a tone (even near flat will seem to have a distinct tone relative to things that are further - or far - from flat). 

I recall one line of thought being that objectively at least in theory one could eq any mic to have the same response as any other (assuming the low end mic can handle the SPL, etc.) but that's a tall and challenging order since even the mic you might want it to be like may not record the result exactly the way you want it in any given circumstance. 

We all hear very differently too, so it's subjective, and playback also matters.  Some don't really hear fine distinctions.  I think that comes with time and experience and that leads into the Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

Presumably we pick the tone we like.  Hopefully we can land on and afford something that more often than not gets us close to how we like to hear things.     

[JimmieC]

Slightly off topic.  Additionally, to me, every mic has it's own sound to it that I get a little disappointed when people show to play with a very nice guitar, pedal board, and amp but rely on the house mic and phantom/battery box to sing through.  The mic normally an old cheap mic that had been dropped how many times.  Then they will ask for more vocals.  If I was a performer, I would have my own mic, phantom, preamp, and compressor for vocals.  I don't know may be over kill but at least you would have control of your vocal sound too.

[voltronic]

^ You'd think this would be common, at least with big-name artists.

A further tangent: I wonder how many big-name (or not-so-big-name) artists are involved in making sure their audience hears them the way they intend to be heard.  I'm thinking of my most frustrating concert experience recently.  Stevie Wonder in Philly last year.  Vocal mix was fine, backing keyboards and strings also fine.  Anything in the bass register so muddy and distorted as to have zero pitch definition, just a rumble.  The absolute worst: Stevie's piano and keyboards were nearly inaudible in the mix.  I wasn't the only person who heard this crime against some of the best music of our time.  I was having many thoughts of violence towards the FOH engineer.  It also was not the venue, having heard Lenny Kravitz and Aerosmith there before and the sound was loud but mixed very well.

[dabbler]

I mainly go to loud rock and metal shows, and often the expectation is the audience and FOH wears hearing protection; so sometimes shows will sound better with highs and upper midrange cut down in the recordings a bit.

Either that or the FOH people have lost so hearing anything that sounds good to them sounds terrible to people with healthy ears

Anyhow, loud shows often have quiet sections, even if it's a few seconds.  That's where gear with low self-noise and large dynamic range makes a difference.  And as other stated: high volume levels will readily find more weaknesses in any chain: the stage amps + PA, room acoustics, mics, battery box, recorder can all fall apart at high volumes.

In fact, I might've even encountered cases were recording with better gear can expose problems in PAs where low-level distortion wasn't audible before.

[voltronic]

The monitor section of the rider is usually longer than the PA section, which shows you the artist's focus:  they want to make sure it sounds good for them.  Making it sound good for the audience is your problem ("the PA shall have sufficient power and number of speakers for all seats to hear the show at loud volume without distortion").

That's very sad to hear, but I guess it explains a lot.

I don't think I've been running into problems with the capabilities of the PA itself, but with the capabilities and/or choices of the engineers.  Another recent example: Aloe Blacc opening for Bruno Mars.  Blacc's set was plenty loud, but the mix was nicely balanced and enjoyable to listen to.  Then Bruno Mars took the stage.  I expect them to jack the levels somewhat for the headliner, but it was an insane level adjustment with massive distortion throughout his entire set, other than the ballad numbers.  Even with my earplugs in it was unbearable.  I spent my time trying to decide if they set the limiters way too aggressively and it clipped everything, or if the voice coils in the speakers were bottoming out from being overdriven.  Clearly, two different engineers for the two acts, but using the same PA, at least the same amps / speakers.

[aaronji]

I recall one line of thought being that objectively at least in theory one could eq any mic to have the same response as any other (assuming the low end mic can handle the SPL, etc.) but that's a tall and challenging order since even the mic you might want it to be like may not record the result exactly the way you want it in any given circumstance. 

I don't know for sure, but the idea that you can EQ any mic to have the frequenxy response of any other mic seems kind of specious to me. As a thought experiment, if you have one mic that is down 2 dB at 100 Hz at 90 degrees off axis and 4 dB at 120 degrees and a second mic that was down 2 dB at 90 and 6 dB at 120, is it possible to EQ that frequency to equivalence? Seems unlikely to me, but maybe I am missing something...

[Gutbucket]

Correct, that aspect can not be made equivalent with EQ adjustments.

However, if the two microphones are well behaved enough, one can use EQ to achieve close frequency response equivalence on one particular axis.

[acidjack]

I think there's some truth to what you say, in this general sense: Obviously, an amplified PA system recorded at a distance does not have much in the way of detail or frequency response (except in the low-bass). So, obviously, a high-end condenser microphone cannot pick up more than what is there. But, as others have already pointed out, there's still the matter of the overall accuracy of the microphone at recording whatever IS there, and I think the preference for certain high-end condenser microphones around here goes beyond just some kind of snobbishness about what they've cost. I've owned and used most of the brands, and I think that the person who originally recommended Schoeps to me was right -- they're "good at recording PA systems." Is there less difference between an amplified rock show recorded with Schoeps vs. AT 853s compared to a symphony orchestra recorded with those two brands? Maybe/probably. But the difference is still there.

I personally think the more steep diminishing returns are experienced in the preamps and A/D stages. First of all, I'm not convinced that the A/D of any prosumer or better machine is really improved upon much by an outboard. Even with preamps, I know we all have preferences for "flavors" of sound, but I think you're really entering speculative territory there. You can run a comp and tell a difference, but it's not clear to me that the "difference" is significant enough to warrant the use of that equipment.

Conversely, it's not hard to tell the difference in a Schoeps recording, a Church Audio recording, and an internal mics recording. That doesn't mean everyone will always prefer the most expensive one (especially without EQ), but the differences in the recordings are very, very obvious.

[2manyrocks]

I have no experience recording loud amped shows.  If I have to wear hearing protection at a concert, I automatically figure the sound is going to be bad.  There is no point in destroying people's hearing just because we can and I don't care who it is that does it, I'm totally against it.

There is a difference between schoeps and at853s on choral recordings in my experience.  Huge difference in cost, however.  If I were recording a bar band amid. A bunch of drunks not sure I'd risk schoeps in that environment. 

My thought is mics and their placement have more to do with results at this point. 

[opsopcopolis]

I'm of the 90% loud shows camp.  I honestly don't think that music sounds great above 90db personally, and anywhere above95 I find it near unbearable without earplugs(I always wear them).  The biggest difference I notice in the loud settings is the rejection of surrounding noise.  Rejection of obnoxious chatter is definitely an on/off axis matter, and sometimes the more expensive mics with better off axis response don't sound as good to me as some slightly cheaper ones that don't have quite as good of a pickup in those areas.

[Gutbucket]

As so commonly stated around here, mic placement is most important.

Here's a counter argument to the bar band PA use thing-
Excellent directional microphones are generally better all around, but are are often more strongly differentiated from less good ones by their good off-axis behavior than by on-axis differences.  How well a directional microphone handles the stuff it picks up but is not pointed at (the stuff you don't want, rather than the stuff you do) may be its most critical characteristic, especially when used in a crappy environment with lots of stuff you don't want, when the direct PA sound isn't all that to begin with.  In a great sounding room with optimal microphone placement and a quiet audience, that advantage is still valuable, but is probably not as critically important to making an acceptable sounding recording.

Rejection of obnoxious chatter is definitely an on/off axis matter, and sometimes the more expensive mics with better off axis response don't sound as good to me as some slightly cheaper ones that don't have quite as good of a pickup in those areas.

You may be comparing apples to oranges if the pickup pattern of one is tighter than the other.  I'd expect that first, but it's of course possible you prefer the particular off-axis coloration of the cheaper mic, even if that was not intended by the mic builder.


I don't like over-loud.  Yet often I'm surprised at how good a recording can sound, made of something which was over-loud and didn't sound very good live, when played back at a reasonable level with appropriate EQ corrections.