Fixing voice – too wide DR – using AMM or compression

[volounteer]

@MikeC

I get it quite well.

You are saying things that no way relate to what I actually said. Non sequitur red herrings are not useful.

Yes a person whispering from a distance needs more systems gain, which is best done at the channel strip.
The best way to solve that problem is with UPwards compression. Raises the voice but does not lower gain before feedback.
One way, and there are others, to achieve that is with parallel compression which you may , or may not, have heard of.
That has been used for decades and is known to work.

The dealer set up the system quite well.
The problem is understanding the voice of the folks speaking especially those with too much DR.

I realise there are limits to what can be done but we have room to make that improvement to increase INTELLIGIBILITY.
No idea where you came up with the smooth jazz thing which is not what we are trying to do at all.

Your questions are irrelevant. But if it will shut up the naysaysere: I am retired, EE degree, ABD math, PhD Computer Science, and worked as a systems engineer. And taught at 3 unis. And I can read and grok technical info quite well.
I am more than qualified to understand what is going on and what our options to improve things are.

I have worked with recording since the 60s when I was a member of AES but did not pursue audio full time as a career.
I helped with a small Behringer analog board at my last church. We now just got a new digital AH board to use at our new church.
While I did not do media mastering, the personal work I have done with a DAW to edit mix and premaster is quite applicable.

[Dick Rees]

I am retired, EE degree, ABD math, PhD Computer Science, and worked as a systems engineer. And taught at 3 unis. And I can read and grok technical info quite well.
I am more than qualified to understand what is going on and what our options to improve things are.

I have worked with recording since the 60s when I was a member of AES but did not pursue audio full time as a career.
I helped with a small Behringer analog board at my last church. We now just got a new digital AH board to use at our new church.
While I did not do media mastering, the personal work I have done with a DAW to edit mix and premaster is quite applicable.

IOW, you have almost zero experience in live sound, the field in which I began by building my own system components from kits back in the early 1960’s and continue to the present. None of your CV is applicable to the real world of live audio engineering.

[debzdoodle]

With respect…at risk of you becoming combative with me also…… if it were me, and I had folks with years of experience in the live sound reinforcement world telling me the same thing, I’d probably at least consider what they had to say. I can personally vouch for Mr. Rees who has forgotten more than most will ever learn when it comes to running sound in a live environment. Listen to what he has to say because you might find it makes sense…..

[MarkPAman]

Volounteer. Please educate me.

You said:

“The best way to solve that problem is with UPwards compression. Raises the voice but does not lower gain before feedback.
One way, and there are others, to achieve that is with parallel compression which you may , or may not, have heard of.
That has been used for decades and is known to work.”

Please explain how this works. How (on a desk that does have parallel compression) do I set this up to get more volume from a quiet performer, without getting (closer to) feedback?
How does this Upward compression work?

[DavidCo]

A good explanation for those interested in the four basic forms of dynamics: https://www.izotope.com/en/blog/mixing/expanding-on-compression-3-overlooked-techniques-for-improving-dynamic-range.html

My 2p: I don’t think this problem can be solved purely in the desk using dynamics. Some form of noise rejection is needed. Perhaps even look at a differential pair? Good old fashioned physics might be the solution here.

DC

[Mike C]

No idea where you came up with the smooth jazz thing which is not what we are trying to do at all.

That was just an analogy trying to explain yet one more time that in a live audio production setting no piece of equipment will make up for someone talking two feet or more from the mic with the mic pointed who knows where in comparison to someone talking directly into the mic.

I really hope you do not convince your church to spend money on buying more equipment, a new mixer, ect in an attempt to “fix” this.
They do need to spend some money to have someone come in who knows what their doing and go through the system front to back to make sure it’s operating as the best it can be.

[Dick Rees]

someone come in who knows what their doing and go through the system front to back to make sure it’s operating as the best it can be.

Exactly. It would seem that this entire thread is based on several questionable assumptions, little or no information on system components/deployment, program material and other salient facts.

What is the problem? One time it’s dynamic range, another time it’s lack of mic technique, then it’s voice intelligibility. These are three separate albeit interactive points of focus. There’s no “one button fixes all” solution. If anything, patiently working with the mic users over time to instill good technique is the best overall approach.

But as quoted above, any proposed remedy based on the various possible techniques assumes a competently deployed, tuned and maintained PA to be effective. Without comprehensive and specific information in these regards, everything is pretty much in WAG territory…except the bit about mic technique.

[Dick Rees]

Let’s take a look at the process and procedure here:

A major problem with ping-pong posting in quest of answers and solutions is the tendency of the initial statement (OP) to be couched in terms of the Socratic method rather than the Scientific method ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ). So rather than seeking expansion of or addition to ones knowledge, the objective tends toward seeking affirmation of ones preconceived opinion on an issue of which little knowledge or actual experience exists.

There are many “tells” in such postings. In this case the inquiry regarding the possible efficacy of using AMM and the statement that dynamic processing does not affect system headroom (GBF) indicate: 1. an unfamiliarity with Dugans algorithms and 2. a common mistake carried over by studio folk used to working “in the box” rather than a live audio scenario involving a PA system.

***content removed – personal comment that does not contribute to the thread***

[Dick Rees]

A good explanation for those interested in the four basic forms of dynamics: https://www.izotope.com/en/blog/mixing/expanding-on-compression-3-overlooked-techniques-for-improving-dynamic-range.html

My 2p: I don’t think this problem can be solved purely in the desk using dynamics. Some form of noise rejection is needed. Perhaps even look at a differential pair? Good old fashioned physics might be the solution here.

DC

David…

All well and good IN THE BOX. The link clearly speaks of this as a studio technique rather than live audio. The curious may attempt to export such studio methods to a live sound scenario, but whether or not it succeeds with active sound reinforcement is kind of a crap shoot. I work in both worlds as well as live broadcast and a good few basic processes serve across the board. But in the case under “discussion” here, such transposition results in diminished system headroom. If you have plenty to begin with, then you are in the lucky minority. If you lack headroom you’ll soon run into some pretty ugly consequences.

[mixsit]

I will offer that a large portion of amateur speakers the won’t get up on a mic is due to their uncomfort hearing themselves amplified.
Add gain and they’ll likely back off even more!
In that situation I say fine, let’s try nixing’ the foldback monitor.

[Mike C]

I will offer that a large portion of amateur speakers the won’t get up on a mic is due to their uncomfort hearing themselves amplified.
Add gain and they’ll likely back off even more!
In that situation I say fine, let’s try nixing’ the foldback monitor.

Very true.
A trick I do when I know there are going to be people getting up to speak at an event where there is a band is to put all the monitor mixes on a DCA so I can turn them all down with the shy speakers get up to make sponsor announcements, door prizes, ect….unless the band is all on in ears!!!

I also put all the band instrument and maybe some secondary vocal mics on a mute group
or DCA to bring them down during breaks and or announcements, all bands rock and roll to pop concert and orchestra.

[volounteer]

@DickRees

A+H said to use parallel compression to achieve upwards compression in one of their responses to another thread here.

We do not have a spare channel that is needed to do it that way. Although we may have to give one up to achieve it if it is more important for people to understand the speaker than care about the music.

***content removed – personal comment that does not contribute to the thread*** We are not adapting studio to live sound. We are going to use the technique that works right for our problem. Just because you do not understand UPwards compression does not mean it is wrong.

There is NO diminished headroom.
***content removed – personal comment that does not contribute to the thread***

Again you distort what I said. AMM was all new to me and I was trying to see if it could possibly be used to solve the problem when AH did not have an upwards compressor. Turns out we use those for the choir mikes so not available at all.

***content removed – personal comment that does not contribute to the thread***

We have a number of problems and side threads have arisen but the initial one was too much DR in the voices and the need for upwards compression to fix that problem. We have other problems , some fixed already, others being addressed , but the one of intelligibility due to speakers DR and the fact of the BG noise impact on intelligibility wrt average loudness needed.
note for idiots: speaker means person not the loudspeakers on the ceiling

***content removed – personal comment that does not contribute to the thread***

[volounteer]

@MarkPAmman

I have posted info on upwards compression.

But what @debCo posted does an adequate job of explaining it. If you still have question ask or PM me.

This is not something new. It has been used for decades ***content removed – personal comment that does not contribute to the thread***

[volounteer]

@DickRees

The AH description of AMM did not sound like Dugan’s algorithm for automatic mixing.
Anyway we are trying to fix one speaker’s DR at the microphone not adjust a bunch of speakers using separate mikes like Dugan did.

[Mike C]

Lets us know how it all works out for you!!! Actually someone from your church to lets know how it’s really working would be interesting!

As for the AMM I would say it’s very close to a Dugan, the three or four times a year I use/need an AMM it works very well.
The update that allows for a follow fader option was great.

[Author]

Posts