Study Hall

Supported By

Reducing The Count: Do I Really Need That Input? How About This One?

"Once I stopped thinking about live sound in absolute stereo terms, a world of possibilities for reducing the number of inputs became quite apparent."

As a general rule, I avoid using dual mics with guitar cabinets. With a mono cab, the phasing problems usually outweigh any sonic differences of using two mics at different positions. With a stereo cabinet, it comes down to how I perceive the sound system as a whole.

I mix as much as possible in mono, trying to deliver the same sonic image for everyone in the audience. If the folks on the left side of the venue won’t hear the right cabinet of a guitar amp because it’s placed far right in the stereo mix (and vice versa), then it doesn’t make sense to employ two different sounds for a stereo effect that only for a few people located in the right spot can actually perceive.

Unless you’re using a stereo image for a particular sound effect that needs to happen within a specific song, I recommend not doubling up on guitar cabs. Again, if a wider sound is desired, try doubling the input and applying specific effects with just one input channel. I see much greater benefit in reducing phase cancellation and having a more direct, clearer sound from a single mic.

Change In Thinking

What do we perceive as a stereo source by default? Most of us likely consider a keyboard with a stereo output as a stereo source. But thinking in terms of mono, as I’ve previously described, then that stereo image is sometimes irrelevant.

For example, piano usually has the lower frequencies distributed to the left side and the higher frequencies to the right side of a stereo output on the keyboard. But mix that sound in full stereo and half of the audience might be stuck with only low-frequency information and the other half with only high-frequency information.

Why not try catching the full-frequency response from a mono output of a keyboard and then also mixing at mono to create a unified sonic image for the entire audience? You can at least try connecting only mono to a keyboard if you know that it’s primarily used for lead synth sounds or bass synth sounds. These will be by default mixed in mono anyway, so why waste an extra channel on the console?

I understand that with acts you’ve just met at a festival, this might not be an applicable solution. However, if you’re working with a specific band on a regular basis, try opening that discussion and experimenting by placing the two stereo channels in a mono position of the mix to see whether or not it creates a more uniform image in the entire listening area.

In a world of crazy channel counts with consoles that allow us to process more channels than ever possible, simplifying setup is still a route to strongly consider. By judiciously scrutinizing the input list, you may realize that you can reduce the number of inputs on the console, the number of mics (and stands) on stage, and setup time.

The biggest revelation for me in terms of deciding what to keep and what to discard was a change in my perception of live sound systems. Over time, it changes from being an oversized studio monitoring system to one with loudspeakers aimed where the people are located in a room, providing the same image for everyone regardless of where they’re positioned.

Once I stopped thinking about live sound in absolute stereo terms, a world of possibilities for reducing the number of inputs became quite apparent. Hopefully it’s a consideration you’ll think about as well, to find out whether or not it can be applied to your own work.

Supported By

Celebrating over 50 years of audio excellence worldwide, Audio-Technica is a leading innovator in transducer technology, renowned for the design and manufacture of microphones, wireless microphones, headphones, mixers, and electronics for the audio industry.