The sound at the Opry?

Miguel e Smith · Post by **Miguel e Smith** » 27 Apr 2004 1:04 pm

Sometimes (well, many times) what you hear in the house is not what is translated for broadcast. As far as I know, the house mix at the Opry is what is being sent for the telecasts, but...once the signal leaves the desk (mixing console) in the house, frequencies can be tampered with due to the nature of the many signal paths it will go through.
The guy who mixes the house at the Opry is not only a good friend and engineer but a musician with an incredible history (Elvis, The Stamps, The Gatlin Brothers, McBride and the Ride and many more). I've heard the house mixes live and he certainly features all the players, including the steel. This is a seasoned vet with great ears.
I'm not saying the broadcast audio is wonderful, just that the responsibility for what is ultimately heard on the air may not necessarily be what is sent at the initial level.

Mike

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 27 Apr 2004 2:19 pm

Miguel,

If the house mix is what is being sent over the air, this would really surprise me. The reason is, this mix is usually not suitable for any other "media" needs; such as transcribing, taping or broadcasting.

But then it could be I suppose. If so, no wonder there are so many complaints on this forum about it.

But that does not satisfy why a video of the piano player would be showing while the steel player was taking a break. (Musical break that is

)

"Turn-around" if you are from Rio Linda!

carl

Miguel e Smith · Post by **Miguel e Smith** » 27 Apr 2004 4:10 pm

You know, I'm going to ask the question to find out how the broadcast signal is derived. Many times the house mix will be summed mono if it's used this way (if it's stereo to begin with). Back in the TNN days (when it was actually The Nashville Network and was onsite at Opryland) and they would tape performances for airing, it was all recorded to a mobile truck (or the the studios behind the Opry stage area) and then specifically mixed for TV. I'd be surprised if the Opry wasn't doing something similar (such as taking the signals from the stage and mixing it for broadcast) separate from the house.

The camera work is a whole nuther monkey and I can't comment on that.

Mike

Blake Hawkins · Post by **Blake Hawkins** » 28 Apr 2004 12:52 am

I was involved in the production of live concerts at the University of Alabama for the Alabama Educational Television Network many years ago.
We did it as Carl has suggested. The "spotter" was actually a "Producer" or an "Assistant Director."
This was a person who could read music and had a copy of the score. He would cue the
"switcher" or "technical director" to the solo parts that were coming up.
These were the days before video tape and we had to get it right the first time.
The "Lawrence Welk Show" had George Cates in the control room who was responsible for the overall quality of the sound. You may not like Welk's music, but his show was well produced and the sound was always good.
Blake

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 28 Apr 2004 3:27 am

The Director shouldn't be too tied up in the tecnical aspects of switching stuff, he is the spotter essentialy, and there is a person doing switching.

But if the Director is :

Not REALLY conversant with the style of music, he shouldn't be there no matter how good a director he is.

If there is NO score, or at least a soloing order and it is done totally on the fly, then he will ALWAYS be behind the shot playing catchup. No way to avoid it.

If you add a spotter, that is just one more voice in the headphones causing clutter, the spottter IS the director. And he must know the music well.
If has not had that opportunity, again it''s catchup.

The many audio stages including mono fold down mix shouldn't affect the audio signal as much as described above.

Your speaker at home will have more affect over bandwidth and frequency balance.. Modern broadcast feeds are better in clarity and range of signal than most people's ears at the typical steelers age demographic.

The FOH ( Front Of House) mix is almost never usable as a recording or broadcast mix even in the biggest venues.

Again, if there is no soloing list or score... and who SCORES a country live show,
then it will always be both catchup and whoopsie daisy for the sound and video crew.

Sure a show like Patsy will be scored, but that's theater, not a live concert.

The FOH mixer will have the main solists sliders grouped so he can just give a nudge as things change. And he is in the room.

But if the broadcast mixer, being in a back room or van has to depend on the video feed to get his ques right, then he will always be late. Unless there is an accurate soling list.

He has to wait to SEE who is soloing, if they are too low, because he won't nesesarily hear them soloing. If the video is also late, so is his mix, but more so.

For him a spotter might be some help. But really a correct soloing order and basic song outline is essential for a live feed.

I wouldn't want to be the guy doing a Tom Morrell live feed, because Tom just decides on the fly who's taking a break and when , with a little nod or look.

When you add in the number of different unscripted acts going on in a short period of time at the Opry, with little or no rehearsal,
it is a very heavy load to deal with for vid and aud crews. IMHO.
[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 28 April 2004 at 04:32 AM.]

Miguel e Smith · Post by **Miguel e Smith** » 29 Apr 2004 7:28 am

I wish to thank David for his detailed responses and statements.
Although I don't know you personally, you apparently have experience in this area.

I will also agree that the FOH is almost never usuable as either a recording or broadcast mix and that's why I made the statement that I would be surprised if the Opry was doing this. (although the key combination of words here are "almost never" and "Opry").

I will add, however, that every stage of any audio path will certainly affect the eventual mix itself. Even in an all digital
domain, that's why (for example) one ProTools project won't sound exactly the same in another (assuming the listening/playback setup is equally comparitive). Although I still like many aspects of analog recording, it won't take many generations of that audio before even a novice can tell the difference in high-end loss.

Unless every stage was compensated for correctly, some instruments can certainly lose their position in a mix.

I'll call Tommy (FOH at the GOO) and find out the actual process just FYI.

Mike www.mikeandt.com
[This message was edited by Miguel e Smith on 29 April 2004 at 08:32 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 29 Apr 2004 8:24 am

Hi Miguel, thank you for the kind words.

My comment relative to home speakers might be applicable to moving a Protools project to another system.

If the room isn't designed and built EXACTLY the same, by the same designer and crew,
and the monitors and amp chain ditto,
it WILL sound different no doubt.

That's why we use mastering suites for final eq and leveling, because these rooms and tools are as neurotically perfect as possible and proved to be so by mixes that travel well on many systems.

I gave Brad Sarnu a CD of mine to get his feedback on my relatively new control room.
And I am very glad I did.

In addition, if for instance, you do your session with Apogee or Prism converters and go to a Protools converter later, the D to A conversion will be a bit different.

The reason highs drastically drop out in analog is 3 things.

1) the tape decks could be biased a bit differently, even if exactly the same make and model. Even if biased by the same tech in sequence the same hour.
Even different tape heads have different magnetic resonances and responce.

2.) even the smoothest analog heads cause tape wear.
ie little bits of iron oxide flake off over repeated playings. AND the heads if not demagnatised, regualrly and properly, actually can demgantize the tape. These effects are most evident and earliest in the high end.

3.) succesive generations of dubs add hiss cumulatively and raise the noise folol.

A change in imagine and placement is most likely room and speaker interaction.

On a live TV or radio feed, the weakest link is usually the earliest in the chain, the more you go toward actual broadcast the better the conversion methods and the least lossy conversion.

Hope this helped in understand the whole shooting match.

I have run and built recording studios since the late 60's, and I was a video editor and did live feeds both audio and video in NYC for several years. Classical, rap, rock, jazz.

Directing and mixing a unscripted live show like this, might be compared to playing Coltrain's Giant Steps for the 1st time without a chart.
Sure with great ears you will EVENTUALLY get the changes on time, but sure enough late for 2-3 go rounds of the form.
I WOULD guess Giant Steps on steel without a chart would be a bit harder and slower LOL

A live show... you got one time and that's all she wrote.[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 29 April 2004 at 09:30 AM.]