Microphones

Microphones. One of the most interesting subjects in sound reinforcement. Books have been written about its history, development and usage techniques. Talk to anyone involved in audio and you're bound to get a swell of opinions and suggestions on the type of mic to use on a particular situation. Well, I'm not here to deal with the usage or technical aspects of mics, rather, I'd like to just touch on some of my thoughts on mics in general.

Sound reinforcement, like other industries, is driven largely by the consumer market. In this market, similar products compete for attention mainly because of the consumer dollar. Well, let's face it...microphones are big business. My point in all this? There is a consistent drumming of messages in magazines and the web that say that your gig or recording will sound better if only you had 'X' mic or 'Y' mic.

Pondering over this, my thoughts turned to mic technology past and present. I've heard some pretty remarkable recordings from 1960s that rival some of the stuff I'm hearing in this decade. Mics then were pretty crude compared to today's sophisticated production techniques. I'm kinda left with the conclusion that it's more a question of technique and engineering skill rather than the gear. Besides, any recording is only as good as the talent - you can have fantastic mics, but if the talent is less than talented....there's nothing much the gear can do.

So based on the above premise, we could assume then that the type and price of the mic does not really matter if the mic sounds pretty decent. Hence then, if we had only one mic which sounded decent, and if we knew of its limitations, we could use it for almost any sound reinforcement purpose. Now, I hear a couple of alarm bells sounding here... hence, my qualifier on knowing a mic's 'limitations'. I once came across a church that kept destroying their fairly expensive condensor mics; upon further investigation, I discovered that their sound operator was stuffing these delicate mics into the kick drum! I asked why they would do such a thing and the sound operator said that he had seen me use condensor mics on the drum kit! Now, talk about lack of knowledge and misunderstanding... I usually put condensors on the overheads and hihats; never in the kick drum. Now, I have to confess that I've put a condensor mic into the kick drum for one of my recording sessions - this was a DPA 4004 high SPL mic that was capable of handling levels well above 150dB; not some normal condensor mic with a peak SPL handling of 130dB. In this case, the operator obviously had a lack of knowledge of the mic's limits and was destroying them one after another!

Anyway, back on track.... let's use the common Shure SM57 as an example. It's a dynamic mic that has a fairly frequency response and is considered decent sounding by most folks. Used most of the time as an instrument mic, it's most popular use is on snare drums and guitar amplifiers. The other popular use of this mic is as the main lectern mic for the President of the United States (pictured above). I was fortunate to be the audio operator during the President's visit to Singapore in 2006 and worked closely with the White House Communications Agency with regards to the technicals in getting the event off the ground. One of the questions that I asked the technical director was the choice of mic - surely, there are lots of better mics out there for a lectern? The TD replied that they have considered other options over the years, but one mic that has gone through all kinds of conditions from snow to rain, from scorching heat to freezing cold, and have never had an issue was the SM57. I've used the SM57 on vocals, drums, horns, pianos, guitars and even flutes and recorders. Is it the best mic for all of these situations? Nope, but it'll get the job done.

So, I guess my message to you folks out there with limited budgets, pick a mic that sounds decent, get to know its pros and cons, and you should be on your way. It doesn't have to be a Shure SM57, it can be any of the numerous mics out in the market - Sennheiser, Audio-Technica, Audix, Superlux......get out there and audition them, pick one within your budget and use the heck out of it!

Now, I've personally got a bunch of mics that range from a hundred dollars to over a thousand dollars. Believe me, you do get what you pay for most of the time. But my point is that if you only had a limited budget, almost any mic will be able to do the job. Once again, is there a mic that will do a better job? Yes. But will the cheaper mic get the job done? Most probably.

Space & Technical Planning

Careful attention to space and technical planning for a venue is crucial to successful programming. Most of the spaces that I've visited in the past year suffer from poor planning and lack of attention to critical spaces like backstage and wing areas, dressing rooms, audience sightlines, audio operator's and lighting positions. A poorly designed space results in compromises that may make the audience experience less than satisfied and probably distracted from the hall's original purpose.

Good space planning and design rely much on the designer's experience and knowledge early on in a project. In projects where these spaces are crucial, theatre planning consultants experienced in performing arts building are engaged to come out with the programming blocks of the building even before architects are engaged.

I remember a particularly high profile project - the Eugene McDermott Hall in Dallas, Texas where noted architect I.M. Pei had to share leadership duties with the late acoustician Russell Johnson. Johnson has built more concert halls than any other person in the last 50 years and is recognised as one of the pre-eminent designers of modern day concert halls. According to a biography on Pei, there was a tremendous amount of tension on that project with Johnson on areas such as aesthetics and placement of other architectural elements. At the end of the project, Pei, when asked about his working relationship with Johnson, answered, "The man has great ears, but he has no eyes." Johnson retorted, "He has eyes, but he is deaf!"

Hence, a there sometimes exists a tension between the architect and the theatre planner over good practical design and perceived needs especially when the theatre planner comes in late during a project. Now, there are good reasons to let an experienced theatre space planner lead in this area, two major ones are :

1) Experience - most theatre planners have had years of experience in the field. They do it day and night, day after day, week after week. Most have years of working in a production environment under their belt. They will be able to identify problem spots simply because they've spent time on the floor, often in poorly designed spaces, making shows work. As opposed to architects who may have be commissioned to build one or two performing spaces a year, they are involved in building projects almost exclusively throughout the year. Theatre planners don't do condos or offices.....

2) Cost savings - getting an experienced theatre planner will save costs on the long run because it's done right the first time around. My projects from 15 years ago are still in operation today. On the other hand, I've been to scores of poorly design spaces where I've had to redesign spaces and systems for the second or even third time resulting in extra costs to the client years after the project.

Now, it's important to note that I'm not saying that architects are not adept at their jobs. They are still the experts when it comes to putting a building up and making it look good. What I am saying is that, in many cases, most architects do not have enough experience to be put into a position of deciding where a space should be. Just as the M&E consultant is left to design the air conditioning system, a theatre planner should be allowed to come out with the preliminary space design before it is all integrated into the main building program.

Architect Frank Gehry during his lecture in Singapore said this of his curvy designs, "If I had for one moment neglected the programming of the space first and foremost and focussed on the aesthestic design, I will not be in business today."

I've worked with many architects who have been more than accommodating to change critical aspects of their designs to fit technical spaces and adjust audience sight lines. All I'm saying is that it needs a specialist with theatre experience to propose functional spaces rather than perceived functional spaces based on textbooks early on in the process.

So, book your theatre space planner early....