Sax on the Web Forum banner

Sax in the mix, frustration

7K views 67 replies 34 participants last post by  John Laughter 
#1 ·
I play in a rock band 'with a twist of sax' around Hampshire, Wilshire and Dorset. Our singer deals with the mix thru the PA going thru all the usual sound checks and real-time adjustments. I use a stand mic (shure 57). The prob is he puts the sax way down in the mix, probably around the level of the other vocal backing mics. To me this is too low. Even with the foldback speakers I can hardly hear myself and various sax lovers listening complain they cannot hear the sax. After a row with our singer (not recommended!) I gave up with the PA and now use my Boss guitar amp on the accoustic setting. Actually this works well and puts me in control. Anyway my view is that the sax in the mix needs to be very nearly the same vol as the lead vox mic which means I can stand well back when I need to be in the background but can move in closer for solos. But this means I have to transport the amp as well as my sop, alto and tenor .... oh, and deal with feedback probs / mic positioning. Anyways I would welcome thoughts?
 
#2 ·
Your solution seems like a good political one, but it sounds like the situation is a drag as far as band relationships go and generally, yeah...sax players don't usually haul their own amps to a gig when a PA is there already.

Your supposition, IMHO, is accurate. You should be able to go thru the board just like anyone else. And although it works well enough for you, and likely the audience...keep in mind it's likely some band members are not really hearing you given your amp solution, as it cannot possibly be throwing back your sound to everyone.

The fact that audience feedback confirms your sax was too low in the PA mix should have been enough to back up your assertion that you needed to come up.

The only other solution I would conceive of is if there would be some way to negate or turn down the sax from the monitor closest to the vocalist while keeping it in the other monitors so you and the rest of the band could hear you.

My final suggestion might be, during soundcheck: set your PA levels where you think they should be....ask the singer to have a seat somewhere in the club or venue.....have the band kick in a tune with a backing vocalist singing the lead for a couple minutes and you playing some horn....to illustrate to the lead singer that - in the audience - a higher setting for sax is actually appropriate.

Best of luck.
 
#3 ·
Problem #1: The singer is adjusting the mix through the PA for everyone.
Problem #2: See #1

Ask the singer if he would be opposed to someone else in the band adjusting his mic. level? I'd bet you'd get a "hell no" response. Realize you're dealing with a moron and live with it, or find another band.
Sorry to be blunt, but that's what it boils down to.
 
#14 ·
Problem #1: The singer is adjusting the mix through the PA for everyone.
Problem #2: See #1

Realize you're dealing with a moron and live with it, or find another band.
Singers will, in my experience, care absolutely nothing about the monitor mix except that they be dramatically louder than everything else.
You are dealing with an egomaniac who really doesn't want anyone else to be the center of the attraction. Him controlling the PA is the worst possible scenario.
Yes, perhaps. It might just be this is calling the spade a spade in this instance....
 
#5 ·
+1 to the responses above. Just a couple of additional thoughts:

I definitely wouldn't want to haul an amp for the sax when the P.A. is a perfectly adequate (and, imo, preferable) solution to your sound enhancement. As to the mic level, I don't think the level for the sax should be the same as for the singer. Almost certainly your sax input will be much louder than the vocalist's input, so it makes sense your mic would be turned down in comparison. However, you still need enough volume to be in the mix and also, as you say, enough to be able to back off the mic when playing background lines (if you do that, keep it minimal and don't play over the vocals) and then be able to move right up to the mic and be heard during solos.

If the singer has an issue with your sound on stage being too loud in the monitor mix, then as Jaye suggests, the monitor can be turned down or if the singer has their own monitor, off in that one. But you still have to be able to hear yourself. You could get a plastic 'sound back' monitor (see below) to mount on your mic and then not need to be in the stage monitors at all. Those things do work and are very inexpensive.

Finally, if the rock band is so loud that you are blowing your brains out to be heard, maybe it's time to look for a different band. Say a GOOD blues band that doesn't play so loud. But that may not be an option, especially if you like the music you're playing now and just need to solve the volume issue. Good luck.

Sound back monitor:

http://www.woodwindandbrass.co.uk/acatalog/saxophone_microphone_accessories.html

p.s. The one I got several years ago seems to not be available anymore in the U.S. (the one above is in the U.K.), but with some research you might find one.
 
#6 ·
Sound levels on stage should be such that everyone can hear each other acoustically. Let the sound reinforcement deal with what levels need to be for the room. (Yeah, just tell that to a bunch of rockers!)

Singers will, in my experience, care absolutely nothing about the monitor mix except that they be dramatically louder than everything else. They'll hassle the soundman about it. The louder they get, the louder guitar, bass and drums will play. It gets louder and louder as the gig goes on, and eventually you can't even hear yourself. That happens on every rock/R&B gig I play. It's a drag, but in a fairly unregulated environment, you have to deal with it.
 
#9 ·
Having been fighting this fight for 60 years, have someone take some phone videos while you are apparently playing so you can look at them later and see if you actually are 'getting out' or not. You are dealing with an egomaniac who really doesn't want anyone else to be the center of attraction. Him controlling the PA is the worst possible scenario.
 
#10 ·
Let the people in the audience complain that they cannot hear you, and get yourself out of the contention.

Play for the love of playing, and leave your ego at home. Not saying that you shouldn’t be proud of your playing, just suggesting that you don’t make it a negative experience for yourself. You’ve tried to change it, and here you are.

Bottom line: Find a way to enjoy it before you drive yourself away from it.
 
#12 ·
Let the people in the audience complain that they cannot hear you, and get yourself out of the contention.
Good advice.

Play for the love of playing, and leave your ego at home.
I don't see how wanting to be adequately amplified in a live mix - when you currently are not - is egoistical in any way.....

.... just suggesting that you don't make it a negative experience for yourself.
Bottom line: Find a way to enjoy it before you drive yourself away from it.
If we take OP at their word, it isn't OP who is making it a negative experience for himself. Suggesting one bend in a currently unsatisfactory situation in order to somehow to make it enjoyable, sorta sounds to me like a losing proposition....
 
#15 ·
I don't see how wanting to be adequately amplified in a live mix when you are currently not is egoistical in any way.....
No, I am not saying he is egotistical. I am suggesting that he not take it personally, and to also be mindful of making it personal. Yes, he should be heard in the mix - but if he is not, it is not something to be upset about.

If we take OP at their word, it isn't OP who is making it a negative experience for himself. Suggesting one bend in a currently unsatisfactory situation in order to somehow to make it enjoyable, sorta sounds to me like a losing proposition....
"Unpleasant" is one's personal take on a situation. For example, in this instance, people in the same venue are hearing the same music as the OP, yet they are not upset about it. Choosing not to be upset is exactly the way out of it being a losing proposition - choosing the path of being upset is what makes it unpleasant.

Bottom line: We can choose how to respond to a situation - even situations that are out of our control.
 
#16 ·
This seems to be a universal problem for sax players. It's just as bad as when you're playing through the venue's board and the club has its own "sound man". I don't see how in h3ll the singer (or anyone in the band) can mix from the stage. You need to hire someone who knows what he's doing and can do it on the other side of the room. Hauling your own amp is too inconvenient. Try playing a little softly and a few steps away from the mic during the sound check, then eat the mic during solos.

Even in studio work, you'll find yourself out of the mix if the "engineer" can't mix horns. (e.g. Ronnie Scott's solo on Beatles first release of "Lady Madonna" and Bobby Keys' solo on "Brown Sugar").

I played on eight tracks once only to find that only the trumpet and the trombone could be heard on most of the mixes, and the tenor was the middle voice!

It happens and it's infuriating.
 
#17 ·
Wear a wireless rig and go out in front of the mains when you need to hear yourself. Or stand close to a main. Walk out in the audience area and listen when you do your sound check, thats key especially if they are eq ing you. I really get the depression when you feel like the lead singer is setting it up so you can't hear yourself. If its not fun unless you get alot of money , leave and find a better situation. Ive been in very good and terrible ones. I don't need the money now so I won't suffer bad crap more than once K
 
#18 ·
I have a volume pedal and keep it around 80% then punch it up for solos. EQ pedals sometimes up the gain just enough for a solo level as well. Generally sounds guys are a pain. What really drives me crazy is that the first set is perfect but somehow the levels are completely screwed up the rest of the night.
 
#20 ·
So sacrifice your concept of sound and play a paint peeler to compete with guitar amps that go up to 12 and a vocalist going through mains??? Yeah, okay. In my experience, there's NO saxophone mouthpiece that can compete with that and if there is, I sure as hell wouldn't play it.
 
#21 ·
Buy one of those vocal process pedal. Durning sound check, keep the volume down a bit. When the band hits for real, turn it up. You can plug the mic straight into it and give the sound man... sorry, lead singer a feed from it. Your excuse is that you're playing with reverbs on your horn...

Something like this for a instance.

https://media.sweetwater.com/images/items/750/VoiceBox-large.jpg?v=77531beb5f470f81
 
#25 ·
Interesting idea...basically using a pre-amp to control the volume from your position.

THAT would be an interesting experiment, actually. I wonder if the vocalist would actually notice (during performance) whether the sax was a tad louder than he had set it on the board ? If it was brought up just a bit, even incrementally a couple times during a set....I doubt he would.

That's not a bad idea....as an end-around.

It tiptoes around the real issue of a douchebag band leader, and also makes the OP have to spend his $ to correct a situation which need not be corrected in that manner, but....
 
#26 ·
Here is a crazy suggestion:

go the other way. They don't care about the sax being able to be heard ? OK, play ppp, or even not at all (but still make believe you do) !
Maybe they would notice _that_... And then you have your argument : given the set-up, it doesn't make a big difference anyway, so why bother ?

If they don't notice, then leave.
If they notice and do not accept your argument, leave.
Last possibility is the good one...

Be ready to leave. That's a crazy suggestion.

But maybe, in this case, less is really more.
 
#28 ·
Ouch. That can’t be fun. Do you love the music?

I’ve been lucky enough to play in bands that were very dependent upon the sax.

The well has already been poisoned by the conflict. Is the singer the bandleader? If so - unless you really love the music or need the money I’d agree with the advice to leave.

If your friends/family show up at a gig and can’t hear you they aren’t going to enjoy it much.
 
#29 ·
Wanna be heard ? More cowbell.

Getting paid for showing up and not being heard? First world problems...

Tuesday morning snark. Forgive me. Or get over it. :twisted:



:bluewink:
 
#32 ·
Hey, I had the late sixties version of that setup! A Buescher tenor with a Varitone pickup on the neck (no electronics box on the bell), a Berg, and a Fender Bassman with 40 tube watts and 2 15" speakers, later one of those huge transistorized Ampegs. Never had a problem being heard.
 
#33 ·
I have two suggestions that I use regularly:

1. Get yourself an in-ear monitor setup, and pass your mic signal through it on the way to the P.A. You can get away very cheaply with such an arrangement, using basic ear buds and a small powered mixer that can blend your pass through signal with a monitor feed from the P.A. Write to me if you want the details. I have moved up to a wireless monitor rig, but keep the other setup as a contingency.

2. Get a “sound back” unit that is a plexiglass disk that mounts around the microphone. It allows you to angle sound back to your ear, and if correctly positioned you can hear yourself in the noisiest stage environment. I use this in quieter stage setups where I don’t want to use in-ears. Jazzlab has a similar device that mounts on the bell.

John
 
#35 ·
Whenever I hear a band, the best and loudest one is usually the leader and is controlling the PA. A good sound person, with a good PA system, is worth their weight in reeds (er- gold).
For the past many years I've used an Anchor monitor on a stand right behind me. It was/is strong enough to be my own PA - plus I was able to play in tune besides hearing the notes I was playing. …. Put it along side of me and it could be heard in the back of the room.
Sound carrying is a funny thing in a band. You stand BEHIND your sax, alongside off the guitar guy. HE can hear you, but all you hear is his guitar.
 
#36 ·
If your singer is doing the mix, I'm guessing that your PA is pretty basic in terms of not having separate monitor mixes, extra channels, or more "out" jacks to send the signal elsewhere. If your board is sophisticated enough to have a couple of effects loops, you can sometimes fake a separate monitor for yourself. Usually the "effects" channel has enough preamp power to run a set of earbuds. Granted, if it's a wired setup, wrangling with the earbud cable can take some getting used to, but you can actually tune your own mix, having yourself more present, less guitar, vocals, etc. or whatever you want. It was a $20 solution. You could do a bluetooth thing for maybe $50, too. If you want to invest a bit more, get yourself a wireless rig, because then you'll have your own volume control that will show up in the main mix as well. Small powered monitors are cool, too. You can get a 6" bluetooth self-powered studio monitor for less than $200, and set it up somewhere near your ears. As long as you don't create feedback, you will hear yourself just fine. Lastly, I made something out of plexiglass once that helped a lot. It was a circle (could be square, too) of about 6-8", with a hole cut into the middle. I used a toilet tank rubber gasket to line the inside of the hole, and an SM 58 fit PERFECTLY in there. Then I clamped it to the sax bell, and angled the plexi so it reflected the sound from the bell right back towards my ears. It also tends to reflect the higher frequencies as well, which is what you actually want to hear in the monitors, as regards intonation, tone, etc. Your partials are going to get eaten up by the bass and drums, so learn to put up with a "tinny" sound, because it'll be much more accurate once it makes it out of the main speakers.

That doesn't address your issues as far as the audience hearing you, though. A singer should KNOW that he/she cannot hear themselves properly while singing, due to the physical mechanics of the throat, ears and larynx. This is true for every human being on planet Earth. So he can hear you when he's not singing, and it seems loud to him, then when he's singing, he can't hear himself properly. Add a pinch of narcissistic ego, a few drops of alcohol, and you've got trouble.

I always play at about 60% of my actual volume potential during soundcheck, so I have some "headroom" when the band kicks in. I also use a setup with a LOT of opening in the mp tip, and a horn with an open sound, like MK VI, Yamaha, Yani, etc. Some rock players swear by Dukoff, because it's very powerful and bright, but I could never get more than a squawk out of that mp, no matter what the setup. (but that's just me.)

You may have to politic a bit if you want to be heard. Enroll the other band members to listen and give their opinions on whether you're too loud, too soft, etc. and then find ways to gently gang up on the singer to get things balanced out. If he doesn't get confronted heavily, he might get that the band needs a different mix for the sax to be heard. If he won't listen to anyone but himself, then I suggest either you or he needs to be replaced because he's utterly unprofessional and toxic to the future of the band. It always seems to be the singers and lead guitarists. God help you if he does BOTH.
 
#39 ·
I always play at about 60% of my actual volume potential during soundcheck, so I have some "headroom" when the band kicks in. I also use a setup with a LOT of opening in the mp tip, and a horn with an open sound, like MK VI, Yamaha, Yani, etc. Some rock players swear by Dukoff, because it's very powerful and bright, but I could never get more than a squawk out of that mp, no matter what the setup. (but that's just me.)
This is (probably) the most sensible and easiest solution short of disabling the guitarists' volume dials and putting the drummer in a sound booth onstage.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top