Software not cutting through mix live

[Jinkings]

Looking for some help or tips to improve the sound of my MainStage rig live. I use that on flying gigs…. My main rig is based on Nord Stage 2 88 and sounds great. With software, even with very good libraries: Keyscape, Scarbee, Ni Kontakt, Logic stock plugins…which all sound great in the studio but never translates well to live PA. Am I missing something? 
Rig specs: Nektar panorama P4, MacBook Pro running MainStage and NI Komplete Audio 6 audio interface

[Stokely]

I've noticed in general that sometimes the simpler/smaller instruments work better live.  Like my old pc361 triple strike piano, just sounded good live and was playable enough for the rock stuff I do.

Are you mono live?  That could be a factor if the nice wide stereo instruments are suddenly going through a single speaker or amp.  I usually use in-ears, stereo, live and can hear subtlety, but through a wedge (like last night) all the subtlety is lost.

[Reezekeys]

I've said before here, my older NI piano (New York) sounds better live than its replacement (Grandeur). The opposite is true in the studio, on a recording, through ears or headphones. My theory is that the Grandeur's samples – and by extension, maybe most newer high-end sampled pianos, have more resonances and maybe some ambience baked into the samples that don't work well when projected into a live space that adds its own reflections. The NY piano, while having what I consider a nice rich tone, has samples that are very close-miked and dry, and seem to cut through and work better coming out of my speakers into a room. I also make sure to notch the low-mids, as close-miking accentuates lows and we don't hear them in the same proportion when in the real world sitting at a piano and playing. So my suggestion would be to try notching those frequencies (~200 Hz) and keeping the sound dry, and see how that goes.

 

The stereo/mono thing is also a factor if that's what's going on. I almost never encounter a mono PA in my travels (and monitor my pianos in stereo via in-ears), so not a factor for me, but many of us have remarked how badly some stereo sampled pianos can sound in mono. If you monitor through a single wedge, that might account for the diminished sound quality you hear.

[ElmerJFudd]

There are mixes for solo playing and those for band playing. Most patches are designed to sound great when called up.  But in context of the band you have to ask yourself what the sounds function is in the song - are you playing bass? lead? chords/harmony?  Is the patch supposed to cut?  In what frequency range should you be boosting?  Should the patch be staying out of the way of another instrument in the arrangement?  In what frequency range should you be attenuating/cutting?  Have you taken the time to match up volume for all your patches as you go through your songs and set lists?  MainStage patch designers definitely do not do this for us.  
 

EQ, LPF and HPF are really useful tools.  As is compression.  You probably also want to use MainStage‘s stereo to mono insert. 

FOH engineer should be doing most of this for you, but they get lazy song to song.  So if you take care of it yourself in designing your patches and the jobs they are intended to do then you have a bit more control over what the audience hears. And certainly for your own monitoring.  
 

Also have you experimented comparing your MacBook’s audio out with a few different audio interfaces output?  Are you catching a line to your monitor from the DI box?  
 

 

[Al Quinn]

I experimented with a few software pianos on some gigs and found that only Pianoteq sounded and played well for me. I was surprised that Ravenscroft and Keyscape didn’t do well. I had a decent experience with Ivory but not as good as Pianoteq. Perhaps, for me, it’s a sampled vs. modeled thing as Pianoteq is modeled and the others are sampled (at least, that’s my understanding). Note that my comments only apply to playing live.

[Jinkings]

1 hour ago, Stokely said:

I've noticed in general that sometimes the simpler/smaller instruments work better live.  Like my old pc361 triple strike piano, just sounded good live and was playable enough for the rock stuff I do.

Are you mono live?  That could be a factor if the nice wide stereo instruments are suddenly going through a single speaker or amp.  I usually use in-ears, stereo, live and can hear subtlety, but through a wedge (like last night) all the subtlety is lost.

That’s my impression too. Nord sounds good in  stereo or mono because of its simple and straightforward samples. Still in live context the brighter ones works better than the prettiest 

[Tusker]

I am no sound engineer but like others in this thread I have developed a MainStage rig which can cut through a dense live mix. Reeze and Elmer have mentioned some important variables to tweak. I would simplify sounds so that they are phase coherent, reduce their dynamic range, and eq out any audio energy wasted on extremely low and high frequencies. At the end of tweaks your software rig may sound less lush but you will be heard. I would A/B your rigs till you feel comfortable with your tweaking. Your Nord Stage is also a software instrument but Nord has done this work for you. I agree it cuts like a knife. Kurzweil does a good job in this area too. Hoping this helps.

 

Sorry I missed your post Jinkings. You are on the right path. Good luck.

[Jinkings]

55 minutes ago, Reezekeys said:

I've said before here, my older NI piano (New York) sounds better live than its replacement (Grandeur). The opposite is true in the studio, on a recording, through ears or headphones. My theory is that the Grandeur's samples – and by extension, maybe most newer high-end sampled pianos, have more resonances and maybe some ambience baked into the samples that don't work well when projected into a live space that adds its own reflections. The NY piano, while having what I consider a nice rich tone, has samples that are very close-miked and dry, and seem to cut through and work better coming out of my speakers into a room. I also make sure to notch the low-mids, as close-miking accentuates lows and we don't hear them in the same proportion when in the real world sitting at a piano and playing. So my suggestion would be to try notching those frequencies (~200 Hz) and keeping the sound dry, and see how that goes.

 

The stereo/mono thing is also a factor if that's what's going on. I almost never encounter a mono PA in my travels (and monitor my pianos in stereo via in-ears), so not a factor for me, but many of us have remarked how badly some stereo sampled pianos can sound in mono. If you monitor through a single wedge, that might account for the diminished sound quality you hear.

That’s exactly the library I had the best results so far! I’m using the NY with overtones version and It’s much better than my previously attempts. Thank you very for the 200k notch!
Sometimes I monitor myself mono, even sending stereo and I know it’s not ideal. But yesterday at rehearsal room with stereo on 2 QSC still wasn’t great… I’ll try the eq tip

[ElmerJFudd]

2 minutes ago, Tusker said:

I am no sound engineer but like others in this thread I have developed a MainStage rig which can cut through a dense live mix. Reeze and Elmer have mentioned some important variables to tweak. I would simplify sounds so that they are phase coherent, reduce their dynamic range, and eq out any audio energy wasted on extremely low and high frequencies. At the end of tweaks your software rig may sound less lush but you will be heard. I would A/B your rigs till you feel comfortable with your tweaking. Your Nord Stage is also a software instrument but Nord has done this work for you. I agree it cuts like a knife. Kurzweil does a good job in this area too. Hoping this helps.

 

Sorry I missed your post Jinkings. You are on the right path. Good luck.

Another good point.  These patches are often wet as rain.  Turn that stuff way down or off to be heard.  

[Jinkings]

1 hour ago, ElmerJFudd said:

There are mixes for solo playing and those for band playing. Most patches are designed to sound great when called up.  But in context of the band you have to ask yourself what the sounds function is in the song - are you playing bass? lead? chords/harmony?  Is the patch supposed to cut?  In what frequency range should you be boosting?  Should the patch be staying out of the way of another instrument in the arrangement?  In what frequency range should you be attenuating/cutting?  Have you taken the time to match up volume for all your patches as you go through your songs and set lists?  MainStage patch designers definitely do not do this for us.  
 

EQ, LPF and HPF are really useful tools.  As is compression.  You probably also want to use MainStage‘s stereo to mono insert. 

FOH engineer should be doing most of this for you, but they get lazy song to song.  So if you take care of it yourself in designing your patches and the jobs they are intended to do then you have a bit more control over what the audience hears. And certainly for your own monitoring.  
 

Also have you experimented comparing your MacBook’s audio out with a few different audio interfaces output?  Are you catching a line to your monitor from the DI box?  
 

 

You right! I need to dedicate more to eq, filtering and compression…. Can you eleborate on the stereo to mono insert? I’ll experiment if MacBook output or other interface works better

Usually sound guy send me my monitor, so not sure if it’s only R L or a sum

[CEB]

Sounds like the same complaint I have heard some friends make about Ivory. The pianos sound lovely at home but disappear in a live band mix.   It’s why some of my live sounds are purposely a little ugly. It’s hard to beat the old Triple Strike. 

[Jinkings]

55 minutes ago, Al Quinn said:

I experimented with a few software pianos on some gigs and found that only Pianoteq sounded and played well for me. I was surprised that Ravenscroft and Keyscape didn’t do well. I had a decent experience with Ivory but not as good as Pianoteq. Perhaps, for me, it’s a sampled vs. modeled thing as Pianoteq is modeled and the others are sampled (at least, that’s my understanding). Note that my comments only apply to playing live.

I have Pianoteq 5. Steinway and Yamaha grands… I’ll try that too

[Jinkings]

12 minutes ago, Tusker said:

I am no sound engineer but like others in this thread I have developed a MainStage rig which can cut through a dense live mix. Reeze and Elmer have mentioned some important variables to tweak. I would simplify sounds so that they are phase coherent, reduce their dynamic range, and eq out any audio energy wasted on extremely low and high frequencies. At the end of tweaks your software rig may sound less lush but you will be heard. I would A/B your rigs till you feel comfortable with your tweaking. Your Nord Stage is also a software instrument but Nord has done this work for you. I agree it cuts like a knife. Kurzweil does a good job in this area too. Hoping this helps.

 

Sorry I missed your post Jinkings. You are on the right path. Good luck.

Yes!! That’s good info!! Thanks

[Tusker]

19 minutes ago, Jinkings said:

I have Pianoteq 5.

 

If you are using Pianoteq, you have a choice of output inside the plugin and I would use the monophonic one. The Pop NY Steinway reduces to mono pretty cleanly to my ears. Alternatively MainStage's Gain plugin has a Mono switch.

 

I use a high shelf at about 10K. Some people argue that high frequencies don't take a lot of energy, but to my ears the standard PA's don't reproduce anything but noise up there. Any frequencies up there are not going to be heard about the hi-hat and cymbals. So I stay focused on >200 HZ to about 10K. There are some ugly frequencies at 2.5-3K I might dip a bit and then a gentle boost at 5-6K (1-2 dB) so I can peak out above the other instruments. That works for me for pop and rock through a house PA. YMMV.

[ElmerJFudd]

1 hour ago, Jinkings said:

You right! I need to dedicate more to eq, filtering and compression…. Can you eleborate on the stereo to mono insert? I’ll experiment if MacBook output or other interface works better

Usually sound guy send me my monitor, so not sure if it’s only R L or a sum

Hello!

 

A lot of MainStage users recommending using the Gain plug-in.  It has a mono switch along with some other useful parameters that are a with way to deal with gain staging your patches. 
 

https://support.apple.com/guide/mainstage/gain-controls-lgcef2d8c650/mac

[Docbop]

Just from listening to different software piano I find the tend to go for a big full solo concert piano sound, which in a live situation will get lost because to get them heard you are bringing in too much low end.    To cut thru in live you want more mid range and upper mid's to slice thru.   You'll find a lot of the keyboard default sounds have the bright sound as their default because they know their boards are targeted for live playing.   A lot of good live sounds people complain about them being too bright and midrangee until you hear them in a band setting and then they fit right in.   A bright sound will lots of note definition is a good for PA mixer to work with to layer in and fatten up if needed for the room.   

[mate stubb]

For live playing in a rock band, uprights rule IMO (except for exposed ballads.)

 

I find a somewhat loosely tuned piano can cut without having to resort so much to EQ.

 

On my NS2 EX, I layer 2 different uprights to achieve my go to sound. The Rain Piano is an ancient sample from their first piano library that is pretty bright. I layer it with one of the more full bodied uprights (I forget which, maybe the Blue Swede). By playing with the mix of the 2 samples I can control brightness and looseness.

[yannis D]

Sometimes -as others mentioned-, a simple piano cuts better thru a mix than the 100gigabite hyper piano you use at home. Even the onboard ESX24 combined with Pianoteq (for some more realism) can be more present over a busy frequencies spectrum on stage. It's all trial and error. 

[KuruPrionz]

Add some harmonic distortion to the high frequencies. A guitar amp plugin can do this, just for one. It doesn't take much at all and it may not even be noticed in the mix other than being able to hear the piano. 

 

I do it with bass and vocals all the time. 

[Tusker]

16 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

Add some harmonic distortion to the high frequencies. A guitar amp plugin can do this, just for one. It doesn't take much at all and it may not even be noticed in the mix other than being able to hear the piano. 

 

+1 This is a really useful technique.

 

If the saturation on a guitar amp is difficult to dial in for your piano's wide dynamic range, you might consider the MainStage Overdrive at low settings. For an even  more gentle saturation, the MainStage Tape Delay is quite subtle but adds a punch (use with the delay off but with the character section on for saturation).

[Reezekeys]

Sounds like a lot of technical mazes being proposed here. I say cut lows and low-mids, then boost the overall level; you'll probably be heard just fine then. Piano in a band mix doesn't need the lows that close-miked samples have. They muddy the band mix, which is why you might be experiencing your sound getting lost -  most sound people will bring the piano level down to keep the mud out. Less lows in your sound mean you can push the overall level hotter.

[D. Gauss]

if this is rock piano and not a jazz gig and you want it to cut, much has already been mentioned....i.e.  mono for sure. less dynamics. less bass. much less reverb. also, for piano, boost 1200 to 1400hz. don't be shy about unless it's solo. boost it 'til it hurts and/or people tell you to turn down, then back off. you "could" do the elton john compression/eq trick, but it's more of an after the fact thing (mixdown) rather than while playing 'cause it feels weird playing onto it.

[Theo Verelst]

The explanation why the sound isn't very good isn't too difficult, the instruments don't sound that much like the important elements of a live piano, digital processing and the DAC will create quite horrible signal  reconstruction errors, and mid frequencies in a live setting require coherence none of the "plugins" create. At relatively low volume in  room with probably small monitors the few chords and tones that have been optimized might sound nice to the untrained ear, probably the low is a singular room resonance mode, and the rea lows and accurate highs are lost on the listener because the SPL is so low the Equal Loudness curves get in the way.

 

T

[Analogaddict]

Listen to the original and then to this… I’ve spent a lot of time trying to mimic productions. My main rule is that if a sound is “full and nice” in headphones it will not cut live without tweaking. 
 

 

You can also try adding a Strymon Deco or similar last in the chain for a bit of compression and saturation.

[stoken6]

18 hours ago, Jinkings said:

Nord sounds good in  stereo or mono because of its simple and straightforward samples

I've got to respectfully disagree. I've struggled to get Nord's pianos to represent themselves properly in a dense mix - they're great in stereo, moderate volume, in my in-ears. I've resorted to EQing them for brightness when I solo, but it's an imperfect solution.

 

12 hours ago, matted stump said:

The Rain Piano is an ancient sample from their first piano library that is pretty bright. I layer it with one of the more full bodied uprights (I forget which, maybe the Blue Swede)

I must try that, thanks Moe.

 

11 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

Add some harmonic distortion to the high frequencies.

And that! Although Nord's amp sims seem to roll-off the highs (just like real guitar speakers).

 

Cheers, Mike.

[Al Coda]

It´s possibly not a "software" vs "hardware" problem.

"Analog vs digital" might come closer.

 

When there´s  hardware instrument playing back samples and/or using physical modelling to generate sound,- what is it ?

It IS software and I don´t think there´s soooooooo much difference when using plugins, except there´s a host computer and a stock OS in between.

But there´s a (hopefully) hi-end audio interface using converters and a mixing/summing algorithm,- and I´m pretty sure, both, converters and algorithm quality make a real difference.

As an example, there are different DAW applications out there,- and they use different summing algorithms.

It affects sound quality,- and the meanwhile accepted opinion "it´s all only Ones and Zeroes" is wrong.

Summing algorithm and pan law make the difference in sound between digital applications.

 

The analog signal path is still more straightforward and delivers more punch w/o any additionlal effort.

Take a well maintained Rhodes, Wurli or Clav D6, run into a good tube amp, let it clip a bit and it will cut thru,- Hammond anyway.

Acoustic piano was always a problem because it needed to be miked and pre-mixed to go thru PA and capturing a Leslie w/ mics was often, if not always, a challenge too.

And when running an analog signal into an analog mixer, you can run that signal HOT.

I digital world, you´re always forced to be more careful because of the 0dBfs rule.

 

A digital hardware instrument might still sound better than a plugin running thru the typical "as much as possible neutral" sounding audio interface.

Every digital hardware instrument comes w/ an analog output stage at it´s end,- and there is where the magic happens even there´s the conversion in the ballpark.

 

Lot´s of processing is necessary to make a software algorithm mimiking an electromagnetic and/or acoustic instrument sound good and cut through.

Using software is all about the schlep and weight,- making a lot way easier and cheaper,- that´s the main goal,- as also coding and selling plugins became a big business.

It doesn´t make the base sound better than real deals,- and it isn´t necessary to do so for today´s music production and gigs.

The audience is used to that sound since a long time, buys CDs, streams and downloads in MP3 format etc.,- so what ?

 

Since a long time, music production is more or less a "post pro" process where everything can be edited later and the big pop music concert touring gigs making lots of money are typically backing track gigs w/ bands playing along and singers using lip sync.

 

Many years ago I already recognized, balancing the combination of software- and hardware- output volume is problematic.

Using hardware or software only is already easier.

But most plugins´ presets are drenched in FX so much to make ´em sound "good", they are unusable often not only live but also in production.

And when you bypass the FX,- the patch is crap.

 

I´d say, as long as we use this technology by whatever reason, we´ll have to be satisfied w/ it´s disadavntages and compromises.

When the production wants you to bring a laptop and lightweight controller only and is satisfied with because of saving a lot of costs,- that´s good when you got your money after the gig.

When you got lost in the mix and no one cares about,- it´s not your problem too.

In the studio or live, there´s the soundengineer being hired to deal w/ the signals in the mix.

During performance you´ll be never in the audience in front of the PA and you´ll never know how it´s sounds in the mix once the engineer puts his hands on the console and follows HIS imagination.

I´d level my patches as good as possible and be prepared to give him some signals separate when he asks for,- let´s say a group for all the pads, another for leads and a group for the base instruments like piano, ep and organ.

When playing synth-bass,- software or hardware,- a separate output channel is welcome too.

Realize analog via DA or digital only (ADAT ?) and in addition to the/your main- and monitor outs.

He´ll ask for some signal grouping only when he has enough free channels anyway.

I´d leave HP/LP filtering, limiting and EQ for the mixing engineer instead wasting time to prepare something @home never working in every environment in future.

Also have in mind, every dynamics plugin you insert into your software-mixers channels and/or busses adds latency because all good ones use "lookahead" functionality.

 

 

 

A.C.

 

 

[Aynsley Green]

Yeah, I gave up on Keyscape live years ago - by the time I fiddled with it to get it perform decently (using Thinning) and to sound right in a live mix it didn't sound any better than a Nord, and the velocity mapping was worse.
I generally avoid the laptop thing, too many moving parts, takes you out of the music.

 

18 hours ago, stoken6 said:

I've got to respectfully disagree. I've struggled to get Nord's pianos to represent themselves properly in a dense mix - they're great in stereo, moderate volume, in my in-ears. I've resorted to EQing them for brightness when I solo, but it's an imperfect solution.

 

Same, although the Piano Filters on the newer Nords do work well.
I have a Nord Stage 2 88 and a Yamaha YC88, the Nord 'White Grand' sample (their best one) is more realistic, but the Yamaha 'C7' sample (their best one) just cuts through the mix better, and their 'CFX' sample cuts like a knife. The Tone knob on the CP/YC is useful, too. And the action is great.
Controversial opinion, it's better than the Nord.

[KuruPrionz]

18 hours ago, Al Coda said:

It´s possibly not a "software" vs "hardware" problem.

"Analog vs digital" might come closer.

 

When there´s  hardware instrument playing back samples and/or using physical modelling to generate sound,- what is it ?

It IS software and I don´t think there´s soooooooo much difference when using plugins, except there´s a host computer and a stock OS in between.

But there´s a (hopefully) hi-end audio interface using converters and a mixing/summing algorithm,- and I´m pretty sure, both, converters and algorithm quality make a real difference.

As an example, there are different DAW applications out there,- and they use different summing algorithms.

It affects sound quality,- and the meanwhile accepted opinion "it´s all only Ones and Zeroes" is wrong.

Summing algorithm and pan law make the difference in sound between digital applications.

 

The analog signal path is still more straightforward and delivers more punch w/o any additionlal effort.

Take a well maintained Rhodes, Wurli or Clav D6, run into a good tube amp, let it clip a bit and it will cut thru,- Hammond anyway.

Acoustic piano was always a problem because it needed to be miked and pre-mixed to go thru PA and capturing a Leslie w/ mics was often, if not always, a challenge too.

And when running an analog signal into an analog mixer, you can run that signal HOT.

I digital world, you´re always forced to be more careful because of the 0dBfs rule.

 

A digital hardware instrument might still sound better than a plugin running thru the typical "as much as possible neutral" sounding audio interface.

Every digital hardware instrument comes w/ an analog output stage at it´s end,- and there is where the magic happens even there´s the conversion in the ballpark.

 

Lot´s of processing is necessary to make a software algorithm mimiking an electromagnetic and/or acoustic instrument sound good and cut through.

Using software is all about the schlep and weight,- making a lot way easier and cheaper,- that´s the main goal,- as also coding and selling plugins became a big business.

It doesn´t make the base sound better than real deals,- and it isn´t necessary to do so for today´s music production and gigs.

The audience is used to that sound since a long time, buys CDs, streams and downloads in MP3 format etc.,- so what ?

 

Since a long time, music production is more or less a "post pro" process where everything can be edited later and the big pop music concert touring gigs making lots of money are typically backing track gigs w/ bands playing along and singers using lip sync.

 

Many years ago I already recognized, balancing the combination of software- and hardware- output volume is problematic.

Using hardware or software only is already easier.

But most plugins´ presets are drenched in FX so much to make ´em sound "good", they are unusable often not only live but also in production.

And when you bypass the FX,- the patch is crap.

 

I´d say, as long as we use this technology by whatever reason, we´ll have to be satisfied w/ it´s disadavntages and compromises.

When the production wants you to bring a laptop and lightweight controller only and is satisfied with because of saving a lot of costs,- that´s good when you got your money after the gig.

When you got lost in the mix and no one cares about,- it´s not your problem too.

In the studio or live, there´s the soundengineer being hired to deal w/ the signals in the mix.

During performance you´ll be never in the audience in front of the PA and you´ll never know how it´s sounds in the mix once the engineer puts his hands on the console and follows HIS imagination.

I´d level my patches as good as possible and be prepared to give him some signals separate when he asks for,- let´s say a group for all the pads, another for leads and a group for the base instruments like piano, ep and organ.

When playing synth-bass,- software or hardware,- a separate output channel is welcome too.

Realize analog via DA or digital only (ADAT ?) and in addition to the/your main- and monitor outs.

He´ll ask for some signal grouping only when he has enough free channels anyway.

I´d leave HP/LP filtering, limiting and EQ for the mixing engineer instead wasting time to prepare something @home never working in every environment in future.

Also have in mind, every dynamics plugin you insert into your software-mixers channels and/or busses adds latency because all good ones use "lookahead" functionality.

 

 

 

A.C.

 

 

I don't play keyboards but I always have a Tech 21 Para Drive DI pedal with me. 

It's 100% analog, has a 3 band EQ with a quasi parametric midrange, a Sans Amp for quality harmonic distortion and most important - a Blend knob so you can adjust the amount of clean with the type of harmonic distortion that will make a signal heard in the mix. It could be run from the output of the keyboardist's computer or the soundman could run it at the board if he's somebody you know. It can be powered by phantom power, a 9v battery (lasts much longer than a gig) or a power supply. It is studio quiet, has zero latency and can be used for any instrument in a pinch and sound good. 

So there are solutions, even for digital. There is enough gain in the Para Drive to make up for running digital at "safe levels". There is both an XLR output (with a switch for Line level or Microphone level) and a 1/4" TRS output, either one will work with something or other. Swiss Army knife of DIs. 

I know Radial gets all the kudos for DI boxes on the Keyboard Corner, and they do make very good DI boxes but everybody should own one of the Tech 21 DI pedals too. Great stuff.