Jeff Ream Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 And ... In our haste to blame electronics for everything, we must not that forget that front ensembles had balance problems before amps too. Too loud, too soft, too much, too little, it's not as if accoustic corps were perfectly balanced. They weren't. The difference today is we have convenient demons to blame. HH funny how I could hear pits at the top in Buffalo in 01 on thursday and be in the 9th row at finals and not have them blowing me out of my seat covering stuff up. Oh and they weren't all beating the crap out of the equipment. You want to amp, fine. get the balance and right and judges, grow a set and call out balance issues. few venues DCI goes to every year are equal to the Thunder Dome chosen for finals, yet people run all summer like it's Lucas Echo, and in many small stadiums you get blown out of the water because you dont have more than a 100 level to choose from for seating 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Here is something to consider that maybe some of the people who are critical of amplification might not have thought of. Did it ever occur to you that at times, the designers might WANT the pit to be the dominant voice? Again, there are 3 large sections in the corps. With modern writing, wouldn't it make sense that each section would have opportunities to be the focus? When the brass is playing the melody, the front ensemble and battery take supporting roles where they might play at lower volumes and it might not be too important to hear each and every note that they play. You know they are in the mix, but they are not supposed to be the focus. Is it possible that the opposite might be true? Perhaps the designers want the brass to take the supportive role from time to time, and as such, are not completely concerned with the audience discerning every single note that the brass is playing. After all, that is something all great musicians have to learn at one point or another. You have to know when it is time to be the focus, and when it is time to be the support. from time to time is fine. when the brass is wailing and you still have issues hearing them, not so much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Overall, yes balance was BETTER before amplification...period. Quite honestly, I don't think the brass EVER completely covered up the pit like the pit does (for the most part) the rest of the ensemble. I don't see how you are disregarding the pit as they are front center stage and can be clearly heard...with or without amps. If FACT I just listened to 88 BD and the pit was COMPLETELY integrated into that show and was clearly heard..without amps. Like you said outside venues will always have SOME balance issues...that stands to reason. I have a sneaking feeling the reason we don't get a TRUE GOOD dynamic contrast anymore is because the pit is simply blaring all the time as loud and louder. This comment from you is very telling. If you don't think brass lines were covering up front ensembles before amplification, then you just don't want to hear the front ensemble, because its not debatable. Most brass lines, above forte, swallow up the pit no matter what the pit does. The recordings aren't always great records of that, as the microphones were usually placed near the very front of the field. As for the front ensemble blasting out the brass line, I'll say it again, give me an example when you literally can't hear the brass line. Its not happening. Yes, there are groups that don't balance it well at times. We've already established that, but again, balance has, and always will be a challenge in our activity. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 from time to time is fine. when the brass is wailing and you still have issues hearing them, not so much Give me an example of that happening, because I've never heard it. You'd have to have those speakers pretty cranked to cover up a 60 person brassline. Now if you want to talk about the synthesizers, then I'm with you. I'm not a fan, and sometimes they do cover up the entire ensemble, but the mic'ed mallet instruments, yeah, that's just not happening. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) well the performer was in control before they plugged in, but the pro amppers say you still couldn't hear them. how hard you hit them now means a lot less than who controls the volume button So you don't understand how a microphone works. Got it. When you play something into a microphone, the microphone takes whatever sound you create and amplifies it by however much the setting on the amplifier tells it to, basically creating a consistent boost in volume regardless of what you do, meaning that if you play something very loud, it will be even louder. If you play something very softly however, the difference in sound without the microphone stays consistent through the amplifier. Yes, the soft sound will be slightly louder, but the boost in volume stays the same. That means that the performer is still in control of his or her dynamics. If levels are set well, then performers should have no problem creating dynamic contrast through the amplifiers. In short, how hard you hit the bars means exactly the same as it did before. All the amps do is provide a consistent boost to all dynamics, allowing you to actually play piano when appropriate, and still be heard, and also play a full relaxed forte, and have a presence in when the brass line kicks it into high gear. As for someone's assertion that the performer had no idea whether or not they were in balance because of the amplifiers, they didn't before amplifiers either. Nobody on the field knows what the balance sounds like in the stands, because they aren't in the stands. They just trust their staff to train them to play the correct dynamics. Edited March 26, 2011 by actucker 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actucker Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 funny how I could hear pits at the top in Buffalo in 01 on thursday and be in the 9th row at finals and not have them blowing me out of my seat covering stuff up. Oh and they weren't all beating the crap out of the equipment. You want to amp, fine. get the balance and right and judges, grow a set and call out balance issues. few venues DCI goes to every year are equal to the Thunder Dome chosen for finals, yet people run all summer like it's Lucas Echo, and in many small stadiums you get blown out of the water because you dont have more than a 100 level to choose from for seating I agree that groups are having trouble adjusting to different venues, and that it is something that needs to be adjusted, but the fact is, if you were at finals in buffalo, then there were times when you could not hear front ensembles. At the time, shows were designed differently to adjust for that. Now they don't have to be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) I understand how sound travels. I also understand some visual design. with the pit where Phantom had it, at the farthest point back they were not "just off the sideline". This also opens up fron normal pit area for visual designers to use, and it also creates a staging area for guard equipment changes so you don't have stuff strewn around the entire field. I also understand how sound travels, and yet... We keep hearing about the experience these guys have in the band world. Um..Tarpon anyone? I see more than a few bands do it in my local circuit. Hell I taught at team that was behind the back hash without amps and we projected quite well without pounding the #### out of the keys. just more tired excuses. sorry man, you typed a lot just to be shown it can and does work. The goal for modern shows (sound wise) is for the corps to sound as if we are listening to our favorite song with ear buds/headphones. What does that mean? It means that sound just flows from the ear buds directly to our ears making it seem like the sound is coming from "everywhere". There are moments when the sound between the ear buds is panned and gives us that effect of depth. What designers want to do is create that kind of effect (of listening to corps shows like we listen to our music with headphones) but on massive football field. Why this shift? Technology has made it so easy to enjoy our favorite songs in such high quality. We're spoiled with mp3's and the volume, clarity, and immersive experience they bring. I bet everyone of us love the idea of being immersed in the music we are listening to. We do that by cranking up the volume or putting on our headphones/ear buds. No one wants to enjoy a piece of music through low quality, small speakers! That isn't the ideal listening environment/situation. for live music, we have perfectly constructed concert halls that do the job of surrounding us in music with the right acoustics. In live concerts, we want the band cranked to 11, to immerse us in sound in situations where the acoustics are not perfect. That's why we want corps loud and the sound to be clear, and representative of the way we listen to music nowadays. This is part of the reason to amplify the pit. Unamplified pits, even if they can be heard as clear as day through a corps or band, have a different timbre than an amplified pit. You cannot deny that. The timbre of an amplified pit is more characteristic of what you might "want" to hear in an mp3 recording if the pit book was recorded in close range. In trying to achieve this effect we have louder/bigger hornlines, bass synths, amplification etc. It's all to replicate the "ideal" listening environment that technology (outside of drum corps) has allowed us to enjoy. Because when we flip through our ipod or CD's we only want to listen to our music at the HIGHEST possible quality level and feel completely immersed in the sound we are hearing. Jeff, I can see you blasting some of your favorite tunes in your Jetta to get the "full effect"! Edited March 26, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 The goal for modern shows (sound wise) is for the corps to sound as if we are listening to our favorite song with ipod ear buds. What does that mean? It means that sound just flows from the ear buds directly to our ears making it seem like the sound is coming from "everywhere". There are moments when the sound between the ear buds is panned and gives us that effect of depth. What designers want to do is create that kind of effect (of listening to corps shows like we listen to our music) but on massive football field. That's why we want corps loud and the sound to be clear, and representative of the music. This is part of the reason to amplify the pit. Unamplified pits, even if they can be heard as clear as day through a corps or band, have a different timbre than an amplified pit. You cannot deny that. The timbre of an amplified pit is more characteristic of what you might "want" to hear in an mp3 recording if the pit book was recorded in close range. in trying to achieve this effect we have louder hornlines, base synths, amplification etc. It's all to replicate the "ideal" listening environment that technology (outside of drum corps) has allowed us to enjoy. Jeff, I can see you blasting some of your favorite tunes in your Jetta to get the "full effect"! Uh, what? I mean, uh WHAT? Okay... If the sound is directional, it's not coming from everywhere. It's coming from a specific direction. Drum corps instruments are very directional. Woodwinds, not so directional. Sousaphones, NOT directional relative to tubas. Speakers are VERY directional. The sound radius is pretty narrow. It's less than 180 degrees at the most. There is NO way two speakers from the front are going to recreate an experience you speak of. Even Bose speakers are having problems with that past 90 degrees with a few speakers. So, if the goal is to sound like they're coming from everywhere, that's not an accurate reproduction of what's on the field. The only way to get true surround sound is by having speakers behind you. Then we can have sound coming from everywhere. Bose has this really cool TV, where the speakers are completely hidden in the TV case, and the surround sound is good, but it can NOT reproduce sound behind the listener. Could you please enlighten us on how non-modern shows were designed? I mean I'm not trying to bag on your post here, but it seems that YOU have an idea on "old" versus "new" sound producing techniques that corps have utilized that not everyone is aware of. I'd like to hear how the old show design contrast with this new design. Frankly, the pinnacle of sound production that you refer to, the iPod ear bud, is nothing more than sometimes highly compressed (56 kbps or 128 kbps) AAC recordings. While, good enough, it's not really super high fidelity. I doubt corps design their shows with THAT quality in mind. I would hope that they go for at least 256kbps, mp3s... Maybe they go for CD quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Uh, what? I mean, uh WHAT? Okay... If the sound is directional, it's not coming from everywhere. It's coming from a specific direction. Drum corps instruments are very directional. Woodwinds, not so directional. Sousaphones, NOT directional relative to tubas. Speakers are VERY directional. The sound radius is pretty narrow. It's less than 180 degrees at the most. There is NO way two speakers from the front are going to recreate an experience you speak of. Even Bose speakers are having problems with that past 90 degrees with a few speakers. So, if the goal is to sound like they're coming from everywhere, that's not an accurate reproduction of what's on the field. Yea, I said that modern listening devices allow us to be immersed in the sound. In live events we have building with good acoustics and rock bands that crank to 11 because we want to imersed in the sound. I should have been clear to say the goal isn't to be "surrounded" by sound, the goal is to be immersed in sound that is as similar as the sound/music we hear every day at live events and through our ear buds which "immerses" you. The only way to get true surround sound is by having speakers behind you. Then we can have sound coming from everywhere. Bose has this really cool TV, where the speakers are completely hidden in the TV case, and the surround sound is good, but it can NOT reproduce sound behind the listener. That's true, but the goal is not get "surround" sound, you just want an experience that immerses you in the music. We've only come to expect this from live performances because of the way we listen to music nowadays. Could you please enlighten us on how non-modern shows were designed? I mean I'm not trying to bag on your post here, but it seems that YOU have an idea on "old" versus "new" sound producing techniques that corps have utilized that not everyone is aware of. I'd like to hear how the old show design contrast with this new design. Frankly, the pinnacle of sound production that you refer to, the iPod ear bud, is nothing more than sometimes highly compressed (56 kbps or 128 kbps) AAC recordings. While, good enough, it's not really super high fidelity. I doubt corps design their shows with THAT quality in mind. I would hope that they go for at least 256kbps, mp3s... Maybe they go for CD quality? Well, first of all, I know how much you love me :D. Second of all I'm not claiming I know old sound production techniques vs. new sound production techniques in drum corps. Nor, do I know the true motivations of sound designers. I just gave my own thoughts/ interpretation of what I think is happening as drum corps enters the world of modern technology. Technology has changed the way we listen to music, its changed our expectations of what we want to hear when we hear things live. Most of the music we hear is balanced and adjusted in post production till everything about it absolutely PERFECT. Then when we listen to something live we only expect that perfect balance and volume. The expectations of live performances HAS changed. Also, the "pinnacle of sound production" is NOT the ipod ear bud. I never said that. But is the medium which most people listen to their music... through ear buds. It may not be the best but is the most widely used. It has changed the way we listen to music for sure. I don't care if you "bag" on my post, I like the discussion. But what I am telling you is the way you have been listening to music over the passed few years HAS influenced your expectations for live music. Sometimes a corps' show is ruined because of the venue its in, or because of poor balance... why? because of our expectations of the kind of experience we want from music. Ear buds/headphones, and post production editing of music have made the expectations EXTREMELY high for drum corps. And I feel that one way to meet these "immersive" expectations is to change the timbre of the pit with amplification, and magnify the sound of the corps with the synth. Is it done effectively all the time? NO! Can it? Yes, because I have heard it done effectively. People do not have all the same expectations which is why there is controversy. People don't listen to music all the same way. People appreciate different ways of being immersed in music. The goal is to find that "immersive" experience that pleases everyone... Edited March 26, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 So you don't understand how a microphone works. Got it. When you play something into a microphone, the microphone takes whatever sound you create and amplifies it by however much the setting on the amplifier tells it to, basically creating a consistent boost in volume regardless of what you do, meaning that if you play something very loud, it will be even louder. If you play something very softly however, the difference in sound without the microphone stays consistent through the amplifier. Yes, the soft sound will be slightly louder, but the boost in volume stays the same. That means that the performer is still in control of his or her dynamics. If levels are set well, then performers should have no problem creating dynamic contrast through the amplifiers. In short, how hard you hit the bars means exactly the same as it did before. All the amps do is provide a consistent boost to all dynamics, allowing you to actually play piano when appropriate, and still be heard, and also play a full relaxed forte, and have a presence in when the brass line kicks it into high gear. As for someone's assertion that the performer had no idea whether or not they were in balance because of the amplifiers, they didn't before amplifiers either. Nobody on the field knows what the balance sounds like in the stands, because they aren't in the stands. They just trust their staff to train them to play the correct dynamics. Actually it's you that does not understand amplification and amps. If you are giving a CONSTANT +10db to the instrument(s) you can never truly balance to the ensemble. No matter how soft you play..it will simply add +10 db to that "sound" in the mic. Quite honestly I have no idea WHY they simply do not use ambient noise units and set the unite to only ever be +6db to the background levels. FYI +6db is what is understood to be able to CLEARLY distinguish (human ear) something from the background noise as it were. Even then you are giving MORE db to a section that may or not be relevant to that section of music in the show. Unless the drill writers put the rest of the corps on the front sideline for every part that requires THEM to be the dominant voicing it's just not going to work well...ever. This is why BEFORE amping the drill and horn positions could compensate for the pit taking over the melodic lines and still be heard. I suppose the OTHER option is simply do NOT have the pit play when it can cover up what is relevant at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.