Live Audio Works @ the 2007 Grammys!

[paultools]

Listening to the Grammy mix...
The set with John Legend, John Mayer and Corrine Bailey Rae sounds great to me!

[Remoteness]

Yeah, it sounds much much better than other years past.

I wish I could have hear the percussionist playing the congas, bongos and such during that set.
He looked like he was smokin' those skins! A few other instruments were lost in the mix.

And, what about all the extra reverb and/or room tone mixed in to many of the sets?

In any event, kudos to everyone involved with the broadcast music mix.
It's 9:24PM and live audio DOES work for the 2007 Grammy telecast.

Now, we're talkin' -- You're on the right track!
Keep up the good work 'cause we're all listening!

[paultools]

Ooops...then there's the Mary J set.

Are they playing the BG Vocal tracks from an Ensoniq Mirage???

[Remoteness]

Originally Posted by paultools

Ooops...then there's the Mary J set.

Are they playing the BG Vocal tracks from an Ensoniq Mirage???

I have not heard every live music set as of yet...

I'm listening here and there, but like always I'm recording the show and, plan to review it all very soon.

[bjornson]

Maybe Ludacris could allow a small portion of the mic capsule to operate properly...

NAW.. THAZ THE SOUND!

[Matt Pneumatic]

Originally Posted by bjornson

Maybe Ludacris could allow a small portion of the mic capsule to operate properly...

NAW.. THAZ THE SOUND!

Haha!!! I hear that. He sounded sooo distorted compared to the rest of the mix. Hometeam was only going for style points on that one.

How about James Blunt making the big mistake of not using in ear monitors like everyone else this year?!? Feedback's a bitch.

[Steve Smith]

As far as the Grammys go, the show this year sounded amazing...

IMHO it is generally CRAP!

I was actually a bit stunned at how well the show went... and that the Chicks won as much as they did.

Looks like Rick Rubin will have work again next year...

["DB"]

Steve, at least we know Randy Ezratty's still working, tho it's a pain to have to pause and frame by frame to read the audio credits (as usual these days). I wonder if the amount of "room" (a little too much IMAO - that stands for in my a**hole opinion) has anything to do with having a separate mixer just for audience mics in 5.1, and if he's downstream of the music mixers (who did a pretty good job this year). A gig that's much more fun to watch than work.

[Remoteness]

Originally Posted by Matt Pneumatic

...How about James Blunt making the big mistake of not using in ear monitors like everyone else this year?!? Feedback's a bitch.

From what I remember when I worked with him; He doesn't like IEMs (or they were new to him.)

Originally Posted by Steve Smith

As far as the Grammys go, the show this year sounded amazing...

IMHO it is generally CRAP!

I was actually a bit stunned at how well the show went... and that the Chicks won as much as they did.

Looks like Rick Rubin will have work again next year...

Yeah, it's nice to be talking about little things like some instruments not making it to the mix or the fact that there was way too much room tone.

It's a lot better than last year's Grammy Wammy thread, and that is a good thing for our community.

Originally Posted by "DB"

Steve, at least we know Randy Ezratty's still working, tho it's a pain to have to pause and frame by frame to read the audio credits (as usual these days). I wonder if the amount of "room" (a little too much IMAO - that stands for in my a**hole opinion) has anything to do with having a separate mixer just for audience mics in 5.1, and if he's downstream of the music mixers (who did a pretty good job this year). A gig that's much more fun to watch than work.

Yeah, and why do the audio credits usually come after the production assistant credits?
I do not understood why audio almost always gets the back seat when it comes to credit rolls.

When it comes to television, if you don't have audio you don't have anything.

They had the 5.1 and audience mixer positions last year too. And, if I'm not mistaken, even the year before that.

IMO, it should have been a lot more dry. It was way too wet for my taste.
How about you folks -- Did you enjoy the extra reverb and room tone?
...Not every act had as much room tone.

With that said, the audience could have been a lot louder for the amount of room tone I heard in the mix.

YMMV!

[Steve Smith]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

IMO, it should have been a lot more dry. It was way too wet for my taste.
How about you folks -- Did you enjoy the extra reverb and room tone?
...Not every act had as much room tone.

With that said, the audience could have been a lot louder for the amount of room tone I heard in the mix.

YMMV!

The weird thing for rme was that it sounded like a dry mix of the band run through a ton of verb, with some crowd mixed in... really strange in that regard IMHO. Almost like a convolution verb sample of the hall.....

[Remoteness]

All I kept saying was...

"They need a little more Grammy with their reverb."

[jdmmobile]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

From what I remember when I worked with him; He doesn't like IEMs (or they were new to him.)



Yeah, it's nice to be talking about little things like some instruments not making it to the mix or the fact that there was way too much room tone.

It's a lot better than last year's Grammy Wammy thread, and that is a good thing for our community.




Yeah, and why do the audio credits usually come after the production assistant credits?
I do not understood why audio almost always gets the back seat when it comes to credit rolls.

When it comes to television, if you don't have audio you don't have anything.

They had the 5.1 and audience mixer positions last year too. And, if I'm not mistaken, even the year before that.

IMO, it should have been a lot more dry. It was way too wet for my taste.
How about you folks -- Did you enjoy the extra reverb and room tone?
...Not every act had as much room tone.

With that said, the audience could have been a lot louder for the amount of room tone I heard in the mix.

YMMV!

Steve,
Super post! I tend to like the wet in a room for live. i think having a perspective of being there when i am watching it is what draws me in. My mix approach for every room good and bad is to approach it where the vibe of the venue and crowd can be universally felt through a TV or Web. I have been meaning to scrape around the forums and see if there are any interesting post about mixing "room and audience" live to TV. <p>
I asked John H while doing a show about the balance of the audience and room in a mix. I think in general that is what makes his "live mix" so good to me. The Grammy's have Randy to portion the audiencem(5.1) mix which should work better than the TV truck handling it.
<p>I listened to a DVD of a festival not too long ago(that i had also attended) and it sound like it was recorded in a 10X10 rehearsal room. It had no life of the open air, huge loud crowd etc. Yeah, i could hear the vocals and hear the instruments in nice balance, but i own a good bit of the records from the artist playing and just wanted to hear the perspective of being there.<p>Plus it is live and performance will be measured by the record, even though the band might me moving around and such.<p>
I also recorded a festival and then got a copy of the final DVD. It was horrible. It had no crowd or live feel whatsoever. We could have recorded the bands in a green room before the show. The post mixer just didn't understand in my opinion what the content purpose was for. We have agreed to disagree about that one. He knows how I feel about the mix.
I did hear a lot of "lost" mix in the Grammy's. However, overall it was good. Even Justin..ha!
The Police were sick! Fantastic!

Jimmy
www.jdmmobile.com

[Remoteness]

I'm just saying for my taste, somewhere in between too much room/reverb and not enough room/reverb is where I like it to live. The mix should not be sacrificed so it can sound more live.

Using (creative) EQ establishing sound pockets within the audience mic mix is how you can bring out the applause and room tone without washing out the original mix. It's a simple trick that anyone can do, but YMMV.

[jdmmobile]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

I'm just saying for my taste, somewhere in between too much room/reverb and not enough room/reverb is where I like it to live..

Totally. You can't listen to a washed out band playing for sure.

What is frustrating/amazing /confusing is how great a mix can sound in the audio truck and how great it sounds in the video truck, then how it sounds once the networks distribute it to the end user. All the uplinking, downlinking, compression at the network, tweaking, etc sometimes ruins the life of the mix. However, CBS does a great job. Too bad everyone can't watch a show like that in an audio truck.

Jimmy
www.jdmmobile.com

[Shelton]

Steve,

Were you listening to the stereo mix or the 5.1?

The 5.1 was great in my living room.

Look for my upcoming article in EQ on mixing the Grammys in surround.

-Mike

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by Matt Pneumatic

Haha!!! I hear that. He sounded sooo distorted compared to the rest of the mix. Hometeam was only going for style points on that one.

How about James Blunt making the big mistake of not using in ear monitors like everyone else this year?!? Feedback's a bitch.

What is the deal? I thought the audio was pretty decent for the whole show, but didn't anyone notice that the Blunt's wireless mic was f'ing up? The microphone was never moved or touched the whole time. Why even use a wirless?

[Remoteness]

Originally Posted by Shelton

Steve,

Were you listening to the stereo mix or the 5.1?

The 5.1 was great in my living room.

Look for my upcoming article in EQ on mixing the Grammys in surround.

-Mike

I have an old school setup at home so, I heard the show in stereo.
Was the stereo mix a fold down of the 5.1 mix or a completely separate mix stem?
Also, how many folks listened to this broadcast in surround?

[Cymbals]

I listened to it in surround. They made nice usage of the back speakers.
How does the airwaves broadcast work anyway - do people with antennas get it in Dolby 2.0, or 5.1 like the folks with cable? Sorry for the dumb question to the pros.