Sound on stage

[Glennpearl@xxxxxxx]

Bruce S.:

>I think as a general rule of thumb (and all-important for 
>confidence playing on stage -- in or out of pocket :), one should 
>be able to count on what one hears in the monitor as a pretty 
>good model/reflection/representation of what's being heard out 
>front -- that's what monitoring is basically all about.  

>Simply put, if you sound good in the monitor mix (*and the 
>monitor mix is valid*), you should sound good out front, period. 

Monitors levels and house levels are two different monsters.  There is much
that is pumped through our PA that is not put into the monitors (reverb,
bass, drums, and depending on the club -- all the instruments).  Also, the EQ
is different.  During sound checks (and often during the show :)) I get out
into the audience with either guitar or harp (mostly harp -- people love this
move).  There is always a major difference in sound balance b/t monitors and
house. 

If monitors and mains are to be equivalent, why do they have different level
controls on the boards?

I agree that anyone on stage running sound hasn't a very good idea of what
the amped sound is really like -- most likely, he's hearing room reverb.  By
the same token, a properly placed sound man has little to no clue what the
monitor mix is like.  He's just trying to let us hear ourselves without
feeding back (hence the EQ diff).

>Otherwise, I'd question just exactly what the monitor is for in 
>the first place -- it's certainly not just about hearing yourself 
>over everyone else, in some kind of auditory survival mode.

Its close -- its about hearing yourself in some kind of blend with the rest
of the band, but I would never rely on monitors as an representation of
overall projected sound quality.

-- Glenn