First, I have to mention that looking at the peculiar recent date/traffic patterns on this Blog, it has become obvious that some people are checking in to look for details on the current personal tragedy affecting my band. While all concerned sincerely appreciate the outflow of love & support that has been generated, allow me to pointedly say there will be NO DISCUSSION of the personal affairs of my band on this site. Thanks for your concern, but you can stop looking here because the recent events will NOT be addressed. It's a private and very personal matter, and I'm sure you'd want the same privacy and respect if you were in the same circumstances.

****

On a lighter note, there was an interesting question asked of us on MySpace (where we have a thisgigsucks.com page) by a music fan who was asking about PA systems...specifically old vs. new. Our audio engineer fielded that one, and we reprint here the exchange, which some people might find enlightening. I know I did. I don't know jack about PA's except they often occupy points needed for the trusses.

The original question was:

HOWS IT GOING?

THIS IS ***** LONGTIME ROCKSCENE WORKER. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

HOW DO YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT THIS NEW HITECH COMPACT P.A. SYSTEM THEY USE AT SHOWS NOW? YOU KNOW THE TWO SMALL STRANDS THEY HANG FROM EACH SIDE OF THE STAGE AND HAVE TO CRANK UP UNTIL IT SOUNDS LIKE GARBAGE.

I REALLY FEEL THAT IT KILLS THE ROCK AND ROLL ATMOSPHERE AT A SHOW TO NOT SEE THE WALLS OF AMPS AND CABINETS STACKED EVERYWHERE. WE NEED TO BRING BACK THE BIG SYSTEM THAT SHOOK OUR VENUES WHEN BANDS PLAYED A BIG SHOW WHO CAN WE TALK TO TO BRING BACK THE BIG SYSTEMS?

THIS IS REALLY HURTING THE ROCKWORLD. PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS ISSUE.



And the response was:

Hi *****,

Thanks for the question/comments; it is always nice to be aware that there are some folks out there who are passionate enough about music to wonder and question things. I will try to do my best to answer the things you have asked.

When you say Hi-tech I believe you are referring to the more "modern" PA systems that are out there. We, in the sound industry call them "line arrays". Without getting into the total propellerhead science and physics behind these things I will just explain some of the basics.

Inside of each of the hanging boxes of the modern PA there is at least one low end speaker (woofer), a couple of midrange speakers (mids), some high end speakers (highs) on a horn, and in some cases some very highs, (super tweeters). By putting the individual speakers (inside the wooden boxes) into a column it allows each component to act in conjunction with the others close to it. This lets the the mixer or system engineer cover the entire arena, club, stadium, theater etc. in a much more precise and efficient manner. Some examples of these are the JBL Vertec, vDosc, Meyer Milo, Clair I-4, Clair I-3. Most of the time the flown line array columns are supplemented by sub woofers either flown beside the PA in the air or stacked on the floor under the PA, or sometimes both.

Back in the good old days you are speaking of, most PA systems had many boxes with speakers (seemingly) haphazardly located here and there and everywhere in the array. By doing this you create distortion. Think of each speaker putting out a stream of water instead of sound. As the various streams cross and interact there would be many "crossing of the streams". An eighteen inch speaker would be interacting with the eighteen inch speaker right beside it, and then with the one twenty five feet from it, creating a strange wave. (Think of boat in the same way. Boats, 10 in a line, one after the other, keep creating the same wake. Boats 10 wide create 10 separate wakes, and they crash together violently creating turbulence. In sound we would call this turbulence "distortion".

This "distortion" is what makes older PA systems seem so loud. The "crossing of the streams" creates violent turbulence in the audio waves, and when many of them come together you get the greater apparent volume because of different arrival times, stream crossing and general flaws in the components. The "line array" has all but eliminated the crossing of the streams by putting the individual components together in such a way that they work together as one source, instead of many sources just creating volume. In actuality shows today are generally the same volume as they were in the past, its just that without the distortion shows sound "clearer" and some perceive quieter even though the SPL (Sound Pressure Level measured in decibels or db's) might be the same. (My tour last summer averaged 102db, topping out at 107db or so.)

Engineers today are under great pressure to make the shows sound closer to what the band has put out on record, even to the point of using digital consoles with all the tools and toys that the bands use today in the studio.

Now that I have hit the basics, I will get to the actual question you had. I love the line array PA. They allow the engineer to tailor a mix as well as the PA, very precisely, and since most folks in the venue are hearing the same thing he is he can be assured that he is doing his gig correctly. Now, be aware that with the precise nature of the system comes the inevitable.

More talented engineers make things sound better than less talented engineers. The PA systems today are putting out a true representation of what the engineer is putting into it. Better consoles, better equipment, with better engineers will usually create a better product.

Those are the facts. Now for the art.

Bands have an idea of what they want their show to look like. Lights, video, pyro etc, are VERY expensive to use, and if they are going to pay for them they want the audience to have the full effect of them. Big PA systems, either flown or stacked, create sight line issues, especially in arenas. So now the production manager has to either kill a bunch of seats due to sight lines, or sell them for as "obstructed view". (More on this later). What would you think if you went to, say, a Judas Priest show, and your seat, off center house right, on the side, was obstructed by the PA, and you could not see KK Downing? or the motorcycle video at the top of "Heading out to the Highway"? Sucks right? As far as seeing the "black cloud" (Big PA's are sometimes called this, a little sound guy joke), once the lights go out, you can't see it anyway.

Then there is the production of the show: Where there are lighting trusses, you usually cannot put a ton of sound motors or speaker cabs. The big PA blocks the upstage video screens for everyone in the building except the people on the floor in the center, and believe me,the band wants everyone to see it. There are some other concerns, and I will just run through these as they are all small issues, but you will see a trend.

--All those speakers require at least two more roadies

to assemble thus costing the band two salaries, perdiems

insurance, bus space, catering, hotel rooms etc.

--All those speakers, amps and cables must be transported

requiring 2 more trucks, 2 drivers salaries, perdiems etc

And don't forget fuel costs

--All those speakers require more rigging, motors,

riggers, salaries, insurances etc

--All those speakers must be moved from the truck to the

building, requiring more stagehands, (union or not)

--All those speakers require the sound company to have more

speakers, amps, cables, crossovers etc, thus charging

more for the services



Now comes the math. First you take all those "extra" costs and translate them into negative dollars, second, take away the revenue lost by the "killed" seats and translate that into negative dollars. Take these two negatives and divide it by the people that came to the gig to see their favorite band: that is how much more each person will have to pay just to cover all the costs of the "big" PA system.

Now, who to talk to about this? The band?, the manager?, the accountants?, the promoter?, the sound company? its hard to say. There are so many issues at hand that putting the onus on just one party is really hard. Believe me, the bands want happy fans, the promoter wants happy concert goers, the accountants want happy everybody, and the sound companies would love to send out the "Big Old PA"... they still own them after all.

Do I like the new PA's? LOVE them is closer. They go up faster, they require less people to work with them, they are not as heavy, and to my ear (I have been a touring sound guy for 16 years and in the business for 20) generally sound waaayyyy better than the big old PA's, in most situations. Stadium gigs are a whole other kettle

of fish.

I do hope this has been informative and in some way answered your questions. Feel free to question me, I dont mind, and keep on going to the shows, the world needs more fans and more bands.

Thanks, *****

_________



Me again.

When he wrote back, the author of the question was really happy to get both the technical and artistic considerations laid out for him.

My only addition to this conversation would be that the answer above just touched on an important issue that could be elaborated on: the 'negative dollar' math. Most people consider ticket prices already too high. If you had to add on the cost associated with the Big PA, in some cases people couldn't afford to go to shows they can attend right now. Also, with more and more production cost going to the newest video technology, you have to balence what people want vs. cost wherever you can. Consider this:

if you asked people would they rather see a)lots of speakers to get the 'old time rockshow vibe' or

b)videos and big screens that make the bands' faces visible to even the nosebleed seats, most people would pick (b), because let's face it, there are a lot more nosebleeds seats than floor seats, and they're always cheaper.

...But take it one step further: with a notable few exceptions (like the Stones, or Madonna), there is only so much you can charge for most band tickets. So if the production costs go up a whole bunch, and there's an effective cap on the ticket price the market will bear, you have to play bigger places where you can sell more seats per show. You may or may not recall the 'good old days' when to see a Big Name rock band you often had to go to a really, really big arena that might be hours away. There was a lot more driving to catch a band like, say, KISS back in the seventies, because KISS couldn't play small arenas and big amphitheatres (like they can now) and still cover the show costs.

While people like to imagine bands skip certain buildings and cities because "The show is too big" -sounds cool right? Like all the gear won't fit or something-, the ugly truth is that more usually "the room is too small", meaning there aren't enough seats to pay for the show's costs, even if it sells out, and playing multiple nights isn't always possible with touring schedules. It's NOT that the gear won't fit: trust me. We'll make it fit if they tell us it has to. That's our job.

When I was in high school my friends and I drove 3 hours to see Genesis at the Meadowlands, outside NYC. Now, Genesis could have played 5 sold out shows in Nassau Coliseum (near us on Long Island) to the same number of people, but why waste 5 touring days for the same number of fans (and to make the same money) that you could in 1 night? So if you enjoy the fact that lots and lots of bands seem to visit your city every year, remember that in the 'good old days' with only the Big PA systems in use, there used to be fewer shows in bigger rooms only. PA wasn't the only reason, of course, but it was a big part of the math, and still is.