Don't blame your audio equipment first.
As a sound engineer, you have to admit that there have been some things that have not reached the ideal state and you have accused your device. "This device is faulty," may be what you said at the time. Maybe one of your colleagues, a listener, a band member, your girlfriend would say "Why can't I hear the guitar?" or "Why is the sound so bad?" and your answer is "Well, frankly they The microphone used is rubbish," or "I can't use this console - it's not a professional device," or "Those speakers are just parallel." These must have happened to you, right? It's already I have happened to it - at that time, I answered this. But is this really the reason for the problem?
First of all, I have to say that sometimes there are problems with the equipment. Let us call it Cause 1: The device is not up to the job at hand.
I have encountered this situation several times. In the few years with the touring group, we brought our own full set of PAs, which are suitable for medium and small venues, that is to say 250 to 5,000 seats. That's a good thing, the Soundcraft Venun combo mixer, Meyer Sound speakers, nice external devices, and more. However, in some cases, due to the logistical aspects or possible contractual obligations of our venue, we are unable to use our own PA. In these cases, we will use an additional clause sent in advance, the terms are very free and broad, but rich in technical details, so that the equipment achieves the quality we expect.
I remember that especially when we were performing in the theme park, they completely ignored the terms and thought that the Mackie console they provided was better than the console in the terms. This is not attacking Mackie. However, I do think that manufacturers don't always do well in advancing the way their products adapt to actual quality.
Originally, I wanted to say, "This equipment just can't meet the requirements." Maybe it just lost a lot of good intentions and a few more enemies to me. However, the performance still has to continue. In contrast, I dealt with it, whispered a few words, re-opened my smile, and continued to do my best. Believe me, the console is not the only device that is not enough. Will better equipment have better performance? Maybe. Perhaps a certain percentage of listeners will notice the difference consciously, and most may not notice it at all. However, there is a truly quality sound source (after all, this is a big band), the quality of the equipment will definitely have an impact, we always consciously try to present the best lighting and sound team. And it is not as good as I expected.
Reason 2: It should be improper use of good equipment.
To be frank, I think this is the most common situation that any of our sound engineers should admit. Do we really know how to best use all the equipment we have at hand? If you honestly say "I have read the manual, I have discussed various things about this equipment with each individual manufacturer and I have done the test myself. And I believe I understand the input and output of this device," that's great! More people should be prepared this way. So what about the practice of using the device? I mean to test the console in the warehouse, give it some sound sources, and use a variety of functions to do some complex operations, quickly and smoothly.
When I was just getting started, read some reading about the top mixer. These guys seem to be talking about "practicing mixes and recordings", so they will calculate all the commands in advance, like every effect, every EQ conversion, mute every channel, and so on. Of course, this operation is now easier (although perhaps not intuitive) for automated CNC tables. However, there is still nothing to replace the practice.
I remember once when we encountered some problems in the performance (that is, we messed up the exciter), I once thought that "this equipment is out of order", in any case, I will not admit that it is my problem. When I went to the store again, I contacted Bob McCarthy at Meyer Sound, asked him something and told him how the speakers were connected, how the amplifiers were set up, and he said, "Why are you connecting them like this, why should the amplifier be set up like this? No wonder you have encountered some problems." He encouraged me to read the manual again - he thought I should read it first - so I started to get a little more understanding of the gain structure at the end of the amplifier/speaker. No wonder these manufacturers are turning to active speakers more and more, so friends like me are less likely to mess with them.
Another example is: I know very little about Adobe Illustrator, although I am good at Photoshop. Whenever I try to do something with Illustrator, I inevitably encounter setbacks and think that "this software is faulty," but later I tried to face myself honestly (yes - it always happens again and again) And think of it is my lack of knowledge, training, experience and practice of this software, this is the place that limits me, not the software itself.
In other words, blaming "this device is out of order" is just an excuse for our lack of skills. Unfortunately, I think this is the most common and cunning of the three reasons. We may not always do this, perhaps doing something with little or no knowledge. In fact, it reminds me of many musicians and sound engineers I have known these years. The best musicians and sound engineers at the top of the competition are modest, broad-minded and polite. Those who think they can prove their ability are often found to be reprimanding others or clamoring for "the equipment is faulty." This is my problem: If you are such an amazing engineer, why can't you let this equipment work for you? A great sound engineer can even achieve the best results with simple tools, and the next sounder, of course Not enough.
Sound engineers should improve the level of use of equipment
Reason 3: The device does need to be improved
Just as some people are end users, they are responsible for touring there, but some people have worked for manufacturers in the past 12 years. I have experienced both positions. Yes - the highest level of equipment can still be improved by some means. In fact, let me say this: all equipment defects can be improved. In addition, even if we want to have advanced amplifiers, speakers, mixers and microphones, obviously, we can't change the way different engineers operate. Of course, some devices are really better than others, at least in some applications. I think everyone will agree that the quality of the equipment has improved significantly over the past 20 years. Amplifiers are lighter, more powerful, and cheaper. The choice of equipment depends to a large extent on the application and personal choice.
But what I hope is that manufacturers should pay full attention to some of the finer aspects of the device in real-world operations. It's easy to know how easy it is to lose contact with users. It's arrogant to think of the latest features of engineering development or improved specifications as "this is what everyone wants." Maybe we want, maybe we don't want it, or maybe we would like to have some other features or changes. A common pitfall for manufacturers is to think of something "better" (ie, flat response, reduce distortion, increase bandwidth, etc.) and think that through their definition, it will improve the reality. Performance or at least increase sales. We all know that things don't always go this way.
On the other hand, I think that users always think that manufacturers will sell more parts, and all the other users think they will benefit from some of the functions or changes they propose, and the manufacturer clearly knows that things can't be done that way. In fact, I remember that during my many years at Neumann, I had customers and users coming to the trade fair to find me and told me that Neumann needed a 5.1 or surround version of the KU100 emulation human head microphone. First of all, the simulation head is a series of binaural microphones, and people only have 2 ears. Therefore, this idea of ​​version 5.1 is a bit outrageous. But more importantly, I know two things: First, these people are not sure how many KU100 we have actually sold. And by adding surrounds, the result sales are about 50% or more, and we might have lost everything because of this development cost. Secondly, in fact they may not actually buy the final product. But they are convinced that we have to launch these products.
So I have to make one point: I believe that you have a good idea of ​​how to improve your audio products at any time. You have to think about interfaces, features, specifications, and so on. However, it is important to realize that manufacturers have faced enormous challenges in meeting the requirements of our customers and producing high-quality products. Yes, our manufacturers want to produce better products, and we hope to hear your thoughts. But at the same time, we hope that you read the manual and come up with your creative use. That's the definition of engineering, isn't it? Use what you have to achieve the results you want. At the same time - we definitely need your input and look forward to it. Otherwise, the product will stagnate and the latest features will leave the lab directly. No one wants that, maybe there are people who will come up with grotesque ideas behind them, and we don't want to encourage them, right?
Led Monitor,Widescreen Monitor,Desktop Monitor,Wireless Monitor
Guangzhou Panda Electronic Technology Co., LTD , https://www.panda-3c.com