When Is a Sound Good?

By: Tony Staires

When asked what “good sound” means to them, each audio engineer will give

you their take on what really counts. Unsurprisingly, opinions tend to differ quite a bit as there is no one-size-fits-all. And this is precisely what makes it so interesting to listen to mixes by respected audio engineers with different aesthetics and angles.

While they all agree that a mix should first and foremost serve the song and sound like all sonic elements it contains are there for a reason, the way to get there tends to vary. Obviously, studio mixes can be tweaked down to the last dB of EQ correction and revisited in case this change does not produce the intended result.

A house-of-worship context, on the other hand, mainly focuses on live sound reinforcement that requires a slightly different approach and gives you far less time to perfect your mix.

Also, any tweak you make has an immediate impact on the sound the audience hears. Unless, of course, the desk has a function called “Listen Sense” (or something similar) that allows operators to adjust the channel parameters “offline”, in PFL mode, using headphones, without the audience noticing what is going on behind the scenes. Once the operator is happy with the result, they can apply the changes to the live mix the audience hears.

But we are digressing here. It turns out that it is much easier to agree on what a good mix should not contain: the low end should not be boomy, the high end must not be ear-piercing, the sonic image should not be “hollow”, and all parts need to sit well in the mix without frequent gain riding, which may ruin the overall balance in a variety of respects. Also, the frequency spectrum needs to be adjusted in such a way as to avoid that the venue resonates back at you in a rather unpleasant way. This is far from easy, because an empty venue does not behave in the same way as when it is packed.

All of the above require signal processing: using EQs to focus on the important frequencies of each signal source, dynamics to ensure that all signals remain audible without dominating the sonic image when they shouldn’t, panning to improve signal separation and widen the image, and effects for sweetening. A pinch of punch may also be highly welcome.

What furthermore counts for experienced sound engineers is a console’s basic sound, i.e., without any processing at all. What happens when you throw all relevant faders open at sound check? Is the sound muddy, or muffled, at first? Do you automatically reach for the EQ and boost the 2~4kHz range, because you know from experience that this is the only way to get a relatively “natural” sound?

Some consoles on the market already “sound great” right off the bat, allowing you to focus on finetuning critical aspects within seconds rather than minutes. This would be something to look out for before deciding on a new desk. Another aspect is dynamics: what is on offer and, more importantly, how does it (alter the) sound? Should the compressor be almost inaudible at high ratio settings? Can you get it to not pump out of control? To what extent does the limiter color the sound, which may require additional EQ’ing? How accurately does the noise gate respond? And what about the expander, the de-esser and the possibility to easily implement parallel compression?

As always, quality comes at a price, which is usually worth paying, because the console has a service life of about ten years. Besides, a mixing desk worth its salt offers a host of other features that are equally indispensable. Even though some audio engineers have taken to mixing even live events in the box, i.e., on a computer, a physical mixing console cannot easily be replaced with an inexpensive fader panel that costs less than 250 dollars. The ability to perform certain tweaks simultaneously in different sections (VCA grouping, bussing, dynamics, EQ, panning, etc.) is still an exclusive feature of “real” consoles.

But there is a third way where a console manufacturer decides not to include any modulation, reverb, delay, etc., effects at all, because what sounds perfect to one audio engineer may not be what the next favors. Leaving room in the user interface for convenient, touchscreen-based, sweet-spot control of whichever plug-ins an audio engineer decides to use stands the best chance of satisfying all users. This approach furthermore has a positive effect on the desk’s purchase price.

Signal processing is too delicate a matter to skimp on breadand- butter signal processing features every operator immediately falls in love with, or simply expects. So, let’s get the basics spot-on first. Allowing users to choose their preferred vendor of effects plug-ins—and to change their minds without having to replace the console—looks like a very mindful and sustainable approach. For only you know what good sound means to you, and so you should firmly remain in control. Hope this helps…

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Staires currently works as Sales Director for the Audio and House-of-

Worship sector at Lawo North America. Previously, he was Production Director

at Granger Community Church in Indiana. Over the past 20 years, he has also

worked in production and AVL integration, with several national broadcast organizations, and as FOH and monitor engineer for Grammy and Dove Award winning artists.