Unconventional Audio Mixing Techniques: A Veteran Sound Engineer's Approach

The Unorthodox Approach of a Seasoned Sound Engineer

In the world of audio engineering, conventional wisdom often dictates the methods used to achieve the perfect sound. However, there are those who have developed their own unique approaches over years of experience. This article delves into the unconventional techniques of a veteran sound engineer with 45 years of experience in the industry.

A Disclaimer: Not for the Faint of Heart

Before we dive into the specifics, it's crucial to note that the methods described here are highly unconventional and not recommended for general use. The engineer himself warns that following these techniques could potentially lead to job loss in most professional settings. These methods have evolved over decades of personal experimentation and should be viewed as an interesting case study rather than a guide to be followed.

The Unconventional EQ Approach

Graphic EQ: An Old-School Tool

Despite the prevalence of digital tools in modern audio engineering, our veteran engineer still relies on a graphic equalizer. This choice might seem outdated to some, but it forms the foundation of his unique approach to sound shaping.

The Low-End Philosophy

The engineer's EQ strategy begins with a focus on the low end of the frequency spectrum:

• 20-80 Hz: Kept flat (0 dB) to maximize low-end output from the PA system
• All other frequencies: Initially pulled down to -15 dB

This creates a baseline where the lowest frequencies are prominent, and everything else is significantly reduced.

The Process of Adding Back

After establishing this baseline, the engineer plays a reference track (specifically mentioning the James Newton Howard and Friends CD) and begins to add frequencies back in. This process is done carefully, with attention to how each frequency range affects the overall sound.

The 160 Hz Conundrum

One of the most striking aspects of this approach is the treatment of the 160 Hz frequency:

• 160 Hz is consistently kept at -15 dB
• The engineer expresses a strong dislike for this frequency, stating it sounds "horrible" on drums and most other sources

Frequency-by-Frequency Breakdown

Let's examine how different frequency ranges are treated:

• 80 Hz: Begins to slope downward
• 160 Hz: Fully attenuated (-15 dB)
• 315 Hz: Rises back up (as it's an octave above 160 Hz)
• 400-500 Hz: Continues to rise
• 630 Hz: Drops again (being an octave above 315 Hz, which is an octave above 160 Hz)
• 800 Hz to 1 kHz: Returns close to flat

The "Pain" Frequencies

A significant part of this engineer's philosophy revolves around avoiding what he calls the "pain" frequencies:

• 2 kHz
• 2.5 kHz
• 3.15 kHz
• 4 kHz

These frequencies are heavily attenuated in his EQ curve. The engineer believes that these frequencies can cause physical discomfort to listeners, especially when the volume is high.

The High-End Approach

From 5 kHz upward, the EQ returns to flat (0 dB) all the way up to 20 kHz. This allows for clarity in the high end without the harshness associated with the "pain" frequencies.

The Philosophy Behind the Madness

Loudness Without Pain

The primary goal of this unconventional EQ approach is to achieve high volume levels without causing discomfort to the audience. By removing the frequencies that the engineer identifies as painful, he believes he can push the overall volume higher without negative consequences.

Catering to a Wide Audience

The engineer cites his experience mixing for Tina Turner as a formative influence on this approach. He needed to create a mix that could be enjoyed by multiple generations of listeners, from young children to grandparents. This necessitated finding a way to deliver high-energy sound without causing discomfort to more sensitive listeners.

Improved Clarity for Drums and Vocals

According to the engineer, this EQ curve has the added benefit of improving the sound of drums and, to some extent, vocals. By removing what he calls the "cloudy" midrange frequencies and the "pain" frequencies, he believes the key elements of the mix can cut through more effectively.

Mono Mixing: A Controversial Choice

Another unconventional aspect of this engineer's approach is his preference for mixing in mono rather than stereo.

The Rationale for Mono

The primary argument for mono mixing is ensuring that every audience member hears the same mix, regardless of their position in the venue. The engineer argues that in a stereo mix, audience members on one side might miss out on elements panned to the opposite side.

Fairness to the Audience

The mono approach is rooted in a sense of fairness. The engineer believes that since all audience members have paid the same amount for their tickets, they should all receive the same audio experience.

Limitations of Stereo in Live Settings

While acknowledging that stereo can be effective in a small sweet spot ("20 ft wide in the middle of the room"), the engineer prioritizes consistency across the entire venue over the potential benefits of a stereo image.

Additional Mixing Techniques

Minimal Channel EQ

In addition to the main system EQ, the engineer uses channel EQ sparingly:

• Prefers cutting frequencies rather than boosting
• Not afraid to make significant cuts (up to -15 dB) on individual channels
• Avoids boosting frequencies on both the system and channel EQs

Preserving Natural Instrument Sounds

The engineer emphasizes the importance of maintaining the natural sound of instruments:

• Cites Alex Van Halen's snare drum as an example of a sound that should be preserved rather than heavily processed
• Compares this to Eddie Van Halen's guitar tone, which was distinctive straight from the amp

Philosophy on the Role of the Sound Engineer

The engineer's approach is rooted in a specific view of the sound engineer's role:

• Believes his job is to make the natural sound of the instruments louder, not to dramatically alter them
• Emphasizes that audiences attend shows for the musicians, not the sound engineer

Experiences with Loud Musicians

The conversation touches on the engineer's experiences with particularly loud musicians:

• Mentions MC Mars as the loudest guitarist he's ever mixed
• Cites Alex Van Halen and Vinnie (likely referring to Vinnie Paul) as particularly hard-hitting drummers

Critical Analysis of the Approach

Potential Benefits

1. Reduced Listener Fatigue: By attenuating frequencies associated with ear fatigue and discomfort, this approach might allow for longer listening sessions at higher volumes.

2. Consistency Across Venues: The mono mixing approach ensures a more consistent experience for all audience members, regardless of their position in the venue.

3. Clarity in Key Elements: The significant cuts in the midrange might allow drums and vocals to cut through the mix more effectively.

Potential Drawbacks

1. Loss of Stereo Image: Mixing in mono eliminates the width and depth that stereo mixing can provide, potentially resulting in a less immersive experience.

2. Extreme EQ Changes: The dramatic cuts in certain frequency ranges could result in a less natural overall sound, potentially altering the timbre of instruments in undesirable ways.

3. Lack of Flexibility: This one-size-fits-all approach might not be suitable for all genres, venues, or artist preferences.

4. Potential for Overcompensation: Dramatically cutting certain frequencies might lead to overcompensation in others, potentially causing issues in the overall frequency balance.

Implications for Modern Audio Engineering

While the techniques described here are admittedly unconventional and not recommended for general use, they do raise some interesting points for consideration in the field of audio engineering:

Rethinking "Standard" Practices

This approach challenges us to question why we do things the way we do. Are there aspects of conventional wisdom in audio engineering that might benefit from reevaluation?

Prioritizing Audience Comfort

The focus on removing "pain" frequencies highlights the importance of considering listener comfort, especially in live settings where high volumes are common.

Balancing Consistency and Immersion

The mono mixing approach raises questions about the trade-offs between providing a consistent experience for all audience members and creating a more immersive stereo soundscape.

The Role of Personal Experience

This engineer's methods have evolved over 45 years of hands-on experience. It underscores the value of practical experience and personal experimentation in developing one's craft.

Conclusion

The unconventional audio mixing techniques described in this article represent a unique approach developed over decades of experience by a veteran sound engineer. While these methods are not recommended for general use and go against many established practices in the field, they offer an interesting case study in alternative approaches to live sound mixing.

Key takeaways include:

• A unique EQ curve that dramatically cuts certain midrange frequencies
• A focus on removing "pain" frequencies to allow for louder overall volumes
• The use of mono mixing to ensure consistency across the venue
• An emphasis on preserving the natural sound of instruments

While these techniques may not be suitable for widespread adoption, they encourage us to think critically about established practices in audio engineering and consider how we might innovate to improve the listening experience for audiences.

Ultimately, the world of audio engineering is vast and varied, with room for both conventional wisdom and unconventional approaches. By studying diverse methods, including those that challenge the norm, we can continue to evolve and improve the art and science of sound.

Article created from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIBYcExFZ2Y