How to translate tone to FOH?

[Mark's Tone]

[/I]


Please elaborate ...:encouragement:

 

[supersonic]

Well put Scott, bottom line is if you give a DI that has been well prepared, that's about as much as you can do. Even a noob sound guy surely can't stuff it up!

Present a good sound to FOH - either direct or via a mic'd amp - and they can either make it work or screw it up. No difference in the end.

Everything depends on the sound guy; running direct removes all the day-to-day variables regarding the room, the mic, the humidity, the mic placement and so on. I have my sound presented to FOH 'with velvet gloves' and KNOW exactly what i am giving them.

My discussion with sound guys that don't know me and my rig is simple - I respectfully inform them I am running direct at line level and that I'll control everything (including solo boost, etc) from stage. I suggest - respectfully - that they run the EQ flat to start on my channel and just get the level.

99.99999999% of the time over literally 500+ gigs rolling this way (Axe-FX direct-to-FOH) I've had nothing but raves and kudos; and my channel ends up flat in almost every single case. Because I know I am dialing in my tones on a reference level system and I know what works in a mix. I know that - big room, small room, live room, dead room, outdoors - what I am giving FOH is 100% dialed in and mix ready. The room has zilch effect/affect on how my amp sounds that day.

Powered monitors are merely for you to hear yourself; 80% of the time I run my monitor as a sidewash (and the other guitarist runs his conventional amp sidewash FWIW). We never have an issue hearing each other.

My sound checks are the shortest and best sound checks ever. "Guitar - stage right... (I bang some chords)... thank you..... next instrument...."

Dial your tones on a reference level system. If you know what you are doing, it is golden when you 'translate to FOH'. Every time.

It's almost like cheating.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Totally agree. I prefer real cabs and dial my sounds by putting a mic on the cab and playing through a PA with backing tracks, which results in patches that generally translate well to FOH. We record all our shows, and in my experience the sound guy's ability is by far the biggest factor. Even if you pass a "perfect" tone dialed on a reference system, the soundman still has to dial the mix properly for the acoustics of the room, and his system probably isn't very flat anyway, so he needs to know how to dial it.

I would think the most compelling reason to go FRFR is to get the tonal variety offered by various IRs, as opposed to using the same cab for all patches as I do. I don't see FRFR offering a significantly better chance of getting patches to translate to FOH. Your patches have to be designed to cut well, whatever your rig.

FRFR doesn't 'cut' or anything else; your tones do. FRFR is just how your personal monitor happens to function; nothing more, nothing less. How your actual tone works in the room depends on what you deliver and then what the sound man does with your tone *in the mix* in the room. Running direct-to-FOH ***assuming you know what you are doing*** is an extremely powerful leg up if you get it right. Not everyone can.

People get so caught up with their stage sound not realizing that if you are using a PA system, your stage sound is for you and the band alone along with the unfortunate souls up front getting beamed by your cab. You as the player need to decide if you are inspired by your cabs direct or by what you hear from your own personal FRFR. That's the major deciding 'difference' between the two approaches assuming a PA is in play for the room. It's whatever the player is comfortable working with. Not everyone can 'get with' direct-to-FOH and there is a fair amount of pre-production work that you need to do and experience/knowledge/expertise you need to wield to get ir right.

What direct-to-FOH offers that is most compelling to me is the consistency. Nail it right, have it at your disposal at every gig, in every room, from then on. It's then up to the sound man to make it work in the room.

Either way, if you have a PA and the mix goes through that to the room, you are always at the mercy of the sound man either way. Direct-to-FOH or conventional cab with a mic.

 

[Scott Peterson]

[/I]


Please elaborate ...:encouragement:

If you have any experience mixing - live sound and/or studio - then you are far more along in the expertise/skills/knowledge/understanding of what you need to have in order to make best practices running direct-to-FOH.

Think of direct-to-FOH as equivalent to using an iso-cab with a conventional rig. The mic is fixed/locked in position and no matter what room/situation you are in, you are delivering consistent tones gig-to-gig to FOH. Essentially, assuming best practices applied to creating direct-to-FOH speaker cab IR's, you are doing the exact same thing when creating/crafting direct-to-FOH tones, but you are doing it with a series of very different speaker cabs - which is why IMHO getting a handle on direct-to-FOH tone crafting is not to be taken lightly. It is why the newer generation of 'mixed' (aka 'baked in') speaker IR's are a massive step forward. You have the entire optimized and professionally done signal chain - the room, the mic choices matched to the proper mic preamps, the mic positioning and mix - all baked in and delivered: mix ready.

You don't mix on a flawed monitor mix or in a bad room if you can help it. You treat the room acoustically. You have the clearest, most honest and uncolored monitoring system in that ideal room so you can make honest and accurate mixes that will translate on the widest range of far-from-ideal speakers/rooms/listening situations. No mixing session or mastering session is done through crappy speakers in flawed rooms. Every dog has their day and the blind squirrel sometimes gets the nut; but the entire process is far less problematic if you have an accurate reference level monitoring setup in a properly treated room. My home studio was professionally treated in 2000. My studio setup is modest - Mackie 624's and JBL sub - but it is very accurate for what it is and I have it dialed in and a LOT of time working with it so I know what/how things translate. That's essential, and IMHO, very important to the process.

The same factors - accurate reference level monitoring, experienced and knowledgeable mixing ears/skills - all apply to creating/crafting your direct-to-FOH tones.

It all really comes down to proper IR's and they are the make-it-or-break-it component when you get down to it. Drop in a properly mixed IR and you are more than halfway there.

 

[Chuck Link]

Micing a cab can certainly have its issues for sure!

But you are talking about a technique, gigging with guitar cabs and micing them, that is well known to players and the crew. It may not be the absolute perfect cleanest best thing to do, but everyone knows how to do it and its one less thing to worry about putting on a show.

I do think that is changing though. But I would say most shows are still predominantly mic'ed cabs for guitars. About 50/50 with the real cabs off stage.

Once everyone, the players and the crew get used to it, having a dead consistent tone every night running direct out of the AxeFx using an XLR out, does not suck!

My crew consists of me and the guy running sound.

I get what you're saying, but I've seen several pro's that are going direct to get away from having to mic a cab. This offers a more consistent solution.

 

[barhrecords]

This offers a more consistent solution.

"consistent tone every night running direct out of the AxeFx using an XLR out, does not suck"

 

[barhrecords]

If you have any experience mixing - live sound and/or studio - then you are far more along in the expertise/skills/knowledge/understanding of what you need to have in order to make best practices running direct-to-FOH.

Think of direct-to-FOH as equivalent to using an iso-cab with a conventional rig. The mic is fixed/locked in position and no matter what room/situation you are in, you are delivering consistent tones gig-to-gig to FOH. Essentially, assuming best practices applied to creating direct-to-FOH speaker cab IR's, you are doing the exact same thing when creating/crafting direct-to-FOH tones, but you are doing it with a series of very different speaker cabs - which is why IMHO getting a handle on direct-to-FOH tone crafting is not to be taken lightly. It is why the newer generation of 'mixed' (aka 'baked in') speaker IR's are a massive step forward. You have the entire optimized and professionally done signal chain - the room, the mic choices matched to the proper mic preamps, the mic positioning and mix - all baked in and delivered: mix ready.

You don't mix on a flawed monitor mix or in a bad room if you can help it. You treat the room acoustically. You have the clearest, most honest and uncolored monitoring system in that ideal room so you can make honest and accurate mixes that will translate on the widest range of far-from-ideal speakers/rooms/listening situations. No mixing session or mastering session is done through crappy speakers in flawed rooms. Every dog has their day and the blind squirrel sometimes gets the nut; but the entire process is far less problematic if you have an accurate reference level monitoring setup in a properly treated room. My home studio was professionally treated in 2000. My studio setup is modest - Mackie 624's and JBL sub - but it is very accurate for what it is and I have it dialed in and a LOT of time working with it so I know what/how things translate. That's essential, and IMHO, very important to the process.

The same factors - accurate reference level monitoring, experienced and knowledgeable mixing ears/skills - all apply to creating/crafting your direct-to-FOH tones.

It all really comes down to proper IR's and they are the make-it-or-break-it component when you get down to it. Drop in a properly mixed IR and you are more than halfway there.

I would add, the less accurate your monitors and room, the more skill it takes. I've definitely heard killer mixes made on NS10's done in rooms that don't break the bank in sound treatments. You can learn what sounds good on the monitors you already have. But it is an acquired skill.

Accurate monitors placed correctly in a treated room does make it easier. No doubt about it.