In my view, this principle also explains the general TGP antipathy to feedback destroyers with the vehemence of rejection being proportional to the user's self-impage as a vital and action participant in the sound-shaping process. What this example illustrates is the principle that, for most people, to feel invested in and happy about a product they use that involves any degree of "cooking," they feel better about it, and like it more, when they're actively contributing to it even if in a truly minor way, rather than merely using it. Then the manufacturer tried it again but, this time, it required the user to add milk, an egg, and some oil to the mix. I read some time ago in a behavioral psychology book about how when Aunt Jemima (or whatever brand it was) pancake mix was first test-marketed, it was as a "complete" mix to which the user added only water. A soundman is the best way to go but if you're stuck doing too much on your own, they can be invaluable. It's an extra layer of protection that, while it won't help if you just rely on it as some sort of miracle device (no adjustments before hand, etc.), it can save you in a pinch. But it doesn't take into account changes in the environment that occur between sound check and performance. I'd rather have the squeal for a brief moment and continue on with the song than have it be continuous and have to adjust on the fly.ĭoing as much before the performance is, of course, the best way to go. The better ones will show you visually where the problem was and allow you to use equalization to adjust that range/frequency better between songs. When adjusted correctly, they work "fast enough" (within a second or so) and dial back the range that's feeding back. I've used them and if you are in a situation where you're playing and singing and running the PA (like many of us have been in) they actually have been life-savers in a lot of situations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |