Tag Archives: Microphones

Two Simple Steps For Finding A Great Drum Mic

It’s both incredibly easy and very difficult.

Please Remember:

The opinions expressed are mine only. These opinions do not necessarily reflect anybody else’s opinions. I do not own, operate, manage, or represent any band, venue, or company that I talk about, unless explicitly noted.

To find a great drum mic:

1. Obtain any microphone that essentially sounds like what it’s pointed at.

2. Point the mic at a kit that sounds wonderful, and that is being played by a really excellent drummer.

Modified versions of this technique work for vocalists, guitar players, bassists…


The Weak Points

A Small Venue Survivalist Saturday Suggestion

Please Remember:

The opinions expressed are mine only. These opinions do not necessarily reflect anybody else’s opinions. I do not own, operate, manage, or represent any band, venue, or company that I talk about, unless explicitly noted.

Compared to everything else, turning sound into electricity and back again is pretty difficult.

The weakest points in your signal chain have been, and will continue to be, the input and output transducers.

(Thanks to Art Moore for the photo.)


The Loudest Sound At The Capsule Wins

A Small Venue Survivalist Saturday Suggestion

Please Remember:

The opinions expressed are mine only. These opinions do not necessarily reflect anybody else’s opinions. I do not own, operate, manage, or represent any band, venue, or company that I talk about, unless explicitly noted.

You are equpped with a brain that can perform incredibly sophisticated pattern reconstruction and noise filtering.

Microphones are not equipped with brains.

The loudest sound at the capsule wins. Every time.

You should consider the implications of this carefully.


The Curious Case Of The Miced Acoustic That Fed Back

Putting a mic in front of an acoustic guitar does NOT allow the laws of physics to be overcome.

Please Remember:

The opinions expressed are mine only. These opinions do not necessarily reflect anybody else’s opinions. I do not own, operate, manage, or represent any band, venue, or company that I talk about, unless explicitly noted.

Every so often, I’ll work on a set (or even a whole show) where I struggle. It’s why I try to remember to say, “I hope it’s not my night to suck.” I think it’s important to be honest about not being able to work miracles.

Anyway.

Not too long ago, I did a show where the opening act brought an acoustic guitar. Please note my exact words: “Acoustic Guitar.” Not electro-acoustic!

Acoustic guitar. No pickup, that is.

Luckily for me, the opening act’s set was pretty short. This was lucky because I had more feedback problems in that one set than I usually have in two-months-worth of shows. Weird rings. Phantom squeals. High-pitched ghosts that bared their teeth and then disappeared. It was embarrassing, and un-fun.

My mistake primarily lay in trying harder to make the performer happier than the laws of physics would allow. I should have gotten on the talkback and said, “I’m sorry, but I think that’s all we can get out of this setup tonight,” but I didn’t. I tried to fight my way through, and I think the end result was worse for it.

…but everything seemed okay during soundcheck. What went wrong?

The Changing Environment

Your gear isn’t the only thing with a noisefloor. (The noisefloor is the voltage or sound pressure level where non-musical information can be found. It usually sounds like hiss, or rumble, or hum, or a combination of all three.) A venue also has a noisefloor, and unlike a well-maintained piece of equipment, a venue’s noisefloor can change wildly and quickly.

In the case of the problematic set, we were fine at soundcheck. The performer was happy with the onstage blend between his voice and his guitar, and we all liked how things sounded out front.

The venue noisefloor was also about 50 – 60 dB SPLC (Sound Pressure Level, C weighted).

Between soundcheck and the actual show, a rather dramatic thing happened: A whole bunch of college-age humans arrived. Unsurprisingly, most of them were talking to each other. If I had my guess, the new noisefloor was probably between 75 and 85 dB SPLC. In “linear” terms, that’s a magnitude difference with a factor between about 30 and 300.

I’m not joking. An 85 dB SPLC noisefloor is just a bit more than 300 times louder when compared to a 60 dB SPL noisefloor. Logarithmic math is a heck of an eye-opener, I tell ya.

For a performer who’s perception of the “correct” level for their sound was formed in an empty, relatively quiet space, the addition of the crowd certainly had a HUGE effect. What’s more, I’m guessing that the total level on stage was only slightly higher (3 – 6 dB) than the level of the crowd’s conversations. Even worse, the “roar” was probably right in the critical ranges for both the guitar and the vocals.

So, of course, the performer wanted more level from the monitors. He couldn’t hear himself properly anymore – he even said so, outright.

I got on the gas with both the guitar mic and the vocal mic, and that’s when the fight start – I mean, that’s when my feedback issues took hold.

I Had A Problem, So I Added A Mic. Then, I Had Two Problems

Another issue that worked against me was that I had two mics contributing to one “loop.” There was a mic for vocals, and one for the guitar. The mics were in relatively close proximity, and being put through the same monitor.

At high gain.

See where this is going?

Essentially, the two microphones combined into a single, extremely high-gain device that was in a partially closed loop with the wedges. Of course the system was unstable. Of course it was a battle. The gain was so high that, if one of the “so much vocal power that my usual head-amp preset would be driven into hard clip” singers around town had grabbed a mic at that setting, they would have launched a monitor’s LF driver through the grill and into their face.

But here’s the thing:

Gain is proportionally related to acoustic output, but gain is NOT absolutely related to acoustic output.

That is to say, more gain will produce more volume compared to lower gain on the same signal, but the measured, acoustic sound pressure level for any particular gain setting will not always be the same. The entire acoustical and electrical signal chain is ultimately responsible for that.

So, we were running at “super hot” gain levels, but we weren’t all that loud. Unfortunately:

Undamped feedback in a loop is a product of gain, not volume. The only limiting factor that volume represents is that the system must be able to produce enough level to be audible over the noisefloor.

The performer could barely hear himself, but when the system “took off,” all of us could hear THAT just fine.

Reflection and Resonance

There are a couple of other factors that contribute to acoustic guitar feedback issues, especially when monitor wedges are involved.

The first factor is resonance. An acoustic guitar works as an acoustic guitar because of the big, vibrating box that the strings are attached to. The box works because it vibrates in response to external stimuli. The problem is that the box can’t tell the difference between the stimulus presented by the strings, and the stimulus presented by a sufficiently-loud monitor wedge. Get the wedge loud enough at the right frequency, and the resonant acoustic circuit you’ve just unleashed will ring until you do something to stop it.

In the case of the show I’ve been referencing, I don’t think we got the monitors loud enough for wedge-to-body resonance to be a real factor. What may have been a factor, though, is reflection.

Onstage feedback happens when the audio captured by a mic is output through a loudspeaker, and then re-enters the same mic. It doesn’t really matter how the audio returns to the mic – it just matters that it does. So, what do you think happens when a mic is pointed at an acoustic guitar body, which is big, and flat, and not completely absorptive, and which is also right in the path of the audio coming out of the monitors?

Yup.

The monitor audio hits the guitar body and reflects back into the mic. Sure, the lower frequencies might diffract around the guitar, or just pass through the thin walls of the body, but the high frequencies are a different story.

SQUEEEAALLL!

And, of course, the squeal comes and goes, because the guitar player is probably moving around a bit. A lot of the time, you might just barely be okay, and then the guitarist gets everything in just the right alignment…

SQUEEEAALLL!

The Upshot

At this point, the question becomes: “What can we take away from this?”

I think the main takeaway – and it applies to everybody, performers and techs alike – is that a purely acoustic guitar really can’t be expected to be dramatically louder than it already is. Perhaps even more correctly, a purely acoustic guitar can’t be expected to be dramatically louder than it is, as experienced by the microphone capsule.

As a result, if an acoustic guitar needs to be at 90 dB SPL in order to compete with a rowdy crowd, then it really needs to be making at least 87 dB SPL without any help from the PA. If, for some reason, the guitar needs to be a great deal (10 dB or more) louder than it is naturally, then we must have some way of “partially opening the loop” that includes the guitar, the mic, and the audio rig. Either that, or we have to make the guitar much louder – from the mic’s perspective – than the wedges and main PA.

The most practical way to do this is with an internal pickup, optionally coupled with a soundhole cover. The internal pickup gains some isolation by virtue of being inside the guitar body (or outside, but directly coupled to some part of the guitar), and the mic also “perceives” the guitar as being quite loud.

Because it’s, you know, inside or directly attached to the guitar. Life is pretty loud right there, just like it’s really loud inside a piano.

The soundhole cover helps by providing even more isolation from external sounds, and also by changing the resonant frequency of the guitar body. The size and shape of the soundhole is a major component in determining what an acoustic guitar sounds like, and closing the hole may just shift the body resonance to a non-problematic area.

In the end, we all need to know our abilities, and the abilities of our tools, and be aware of when we’re asking too much of ourselves or our gear. We also need to be able to look back at our problems with an analytical eye, and figure out exactly what went wrong.

Of course, I’ll probably end up trying to break the laws of physics again in six months, because I have a short memory for situations I don’t encounter every week…


No Sale

A Small Venue Survivalist Saturday Suggestion

Please Remember:

The opinions expressed are mine only. These opinions do not necessarily reflect anybody else’s opinions. I do not own, operate, manage, or represent any band, venue, or company that I talk about, unless explicitly noted.

Shopping for a personal vocal mic?

Forget about how it sounds in a pair of headphones.

Find some monitor wedges, and crank up the mic until it sounds like what you’ll need for your band. If the mic sounds bad, or you’re struggling with feedback, then it’s “no sale.”


The EV N/D 767a

A highly competent mic for a reasonable price.

Please Remember:

The opinions expressed are mine only. These opinions do not necessarily reflect anybody else’s opinions. I do not own, operate, manage, or represent any band, venue, or company that I talk about, unless explicitly noted.

This is what a 767a looks like with the “nose cone” removed.

Doug Wood (from the band Hostage and Woodshar Recording) tried to kill one of my 767a mics the other night.

Well, okay, he wasn’t doing it purposefully.

The mic stand had its boom almost fully extended, and the boom-angle was almost parallel to the floor. When you combine that situation with having the arm extended between two of the tripod legs (instead of along one of them), you’ve got a recipe for an unstable stand.

I think the whole shootin’ match went over about three times, with each occurrence sending a loud, dull “thop!” through the PA.

Hey, that’s what limiters are for. And reasonable powering.

I digress.

As he took action to very definitely secure the stand, Doug commented, “I haven’t dented your mic yet, but I’m working on it.”

So, yes, the N/D 767a can handle the inevitable accidents that occur on stage. That’s a point in its favor, but what else does the mic offer?

Sounds Good, Resists Feedback – If Used Properly

One of the first things I noticed about the N/D 767a is that it’s one of the few mics that sounds like the manufacturer got the “high end” right.

In my time, I’ve come across plenty of mics that sound dull, and I’ve come across plenty of mics that sound “overhyped.” The dull mics end up giving you that annoying, midrangey bark that just screams “old, worn out PA system from 1982.” The overhyped mics sound great when you’re standing alone on stage, sighting-in the monitor rig, but all that studio-quality top end stops being really useful when there’s an actual rock band in play. (There’s nothing inherently wrong with “air” in a vocal, but at high volume the air does little more than draw attention to itself.)

In contrast, the high-frequency component of an N/D 767a seems nicely smooth and natural, without any “FD&C Yellow #5,” as it were. This is important, because it allows the mic to have a clear and pleasing tonality without added feedback problems or “ess” sounds that cause windburn as they go by.

As a matter of course, I build an EQ preset for all my mics which is meant to “sound right in the solo bus.” Comparing presets is a sloppy metric – no argument there – but I can say that the N/D 767a is one of the least EQ’ed mics in my arsenal. To me, that says a lot about the mic being built well and voiced correctly.

These mics are designed to have a supercardioid pattern overall, and the overall implementation seems to resist feedback as well as other tight patterned mics I’ve encountered. Mounted on a stand with the correct orientation, or handheld by a competent vocalist, the 767 seems to be as trouble free as any other mic I’ve used. As with anything, you’ll need to do a requisite amount of “homework” when setting up. If you’re going to need to run at high gain, you’re also going to need to ring your monitor rig – no matter what mic you choose.

In a sense, one of the best compliments I can give these mics is that they just do what they’re supposed to do without a lot of fuss. With that being the case, there isn’t a whole lot of writing to do when it comes to the major positives of the 767a. You plug ’em in, you point ’em at something, they sound like that something, and off you go. In sound reinforcement, that’s what a mic is supposed to do.

Your Mileage May Vary

Currently, I’m convinced that there’s no such thing as the perfect mic for all situations. The N/D 767a works well across a range of applications, but there are some aspects of the unit that aren’t always ideal. It’s ironic that what amount to nitpicky concerns with the mic are what I have the most to talk about, but here we go anyway:

On the sound side, the mic’s pop-and-blast filtering seems to be just a little too “light” for a mic that people are going to be very – shall we say – personal with. The plosives and breath noise aren’t horrific by any means, but they still surprised me a bit at first. (To be fair, an appropriate-for-your-situation high-pass appears to help with this issue quite a bit, and now that I have some presets built for the mic, I don’t notice the problem much anymore.)

Tight patterned mics (supercardioid and “above”) are more finicky than their cardioid counterparts. As I said above, the feedback resistance on these units is what I would consider fit for varsity-level work. At the same time, though, that feedback resistance requires that the mic be in the correct orientation, and held the correct way. It’s my experience that tight pattern mics aren’t the right choice for people who want to combine high-gain monitoring with:

Turning every which way in a chaotic and unpredictable fashion.

And/ or working the mic at an inconsistent distance.

And/ or cupping the mic every now and then.

…and, of course, extreme practitioners of the above can’t be helped by any mic, so there’s that.

This restriction on application is by no means a failing of the 767a or any other similar mic, but it’s something to be aware of.

The physical construction of the units is nicely engineered, with everything fitting tightly. The XLR connector is what I would call “slightly recessed,” which necessitates a notch in the mic body so that the cable end can latch. This is hardly an issue in itself, but it becomes one when the internal assembly is rotated away from the notch. The XLRF on your cable will still mate with the mic’s pins, but the cable won’t latch. A good pull on the cable can result in the corresponding channel going silent – and in this case, the highly engineered construction becomes a hindrance. It would be a simple matter to rotate the internal assembly to match the notch if I could figure out how to do so without breaking the mic, but there’s only so much teardown that I’m confident in doing. N/D 767a mics just aren’t as user-serviceable as other stage transducers, and so they’re a little intimidating when you expose what internals you can.

Yeah, yeah, I should just Google for a teardown guide. I know.

Anyway.

My last nitpick is with the foam insert for the 767a’s grill. I can understand that there’s probably a good reason for it, but I also think that EV overcomplicated the whole thing. The actual insert is a small piece of foam that’s held in place by a tabbed, fabric ring. It doesn’t take very much to cause the ring to separate from the foam, and its easy to get the tabs bunched up. Getting the whole assembly back to factory stock is not a trivial thing. I’ve tried, and I can’t quite pull it off. This might not be a big issue for folks who rarely open their mic, but if you need to wash out your mic grills regularly, it’s a bit of a concern. The upside is that a “sorta fit” seems to work as well as an exact fit, but I just don’t see why over-engineering the pop-filter insert was so necessary.

Nitpicks Aside

The reason to go into detail about my little “dings” on these mics isn’t to discourage you from considering them. Rather, the point is to help you make an informed decision. I really like these mics, but I don’t want to give anybody the idea that they work miracles. No mic can do that, but you wouldn’t know it to read some of the reviews out there.

So…

I highly recommend the EV N/D 767a. They’ve earned a first-choice spot in my mic collection, and – in my opinion – they’re quite worth the small price premium over the industry standard. (You know, the thing with the model number of 58. I’m “Shure” you know what I mean.) To borrow the words of Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation, they aren’t perfect, but what is?

If you’re shopping for mics, put these on your short-list of contenders.


Buying A Vocal Mic

Sound quality is important, but it’s not at the top of the priorities list.

Please Remember:

The opinions expressed are mine only. These opinions do not necessarily reflect anybody else’s opinions. I do not own, operate, manage, or represent any band, venue, or company that I talk about, unless explicitly noted.

As a live-audio tech, I’m often the guy who supplies all the mics. As such, I end up picking microphones that work for me in a variety of situations. My “favorite pets” are usually the transducers that work without a fuss on 90%+ of whatever they get pointed at. It really isn’t about what’s stunningly stellar for any particular vocalist or instrument rig, because there isn’t time to figure that out directly.

What you might think, then, is that buying a mic for yourself as an individual vocalist would be an exercise in different priorities. At an intuitive level, it makes sense that you would put most of your effort into finding a transducer that sounds amazing when coupled with your voice.

…and of course, you don’t want to pick a mic that makes you sound bad, or is downright painful to listen to.

But…

What’s not intuitive is that you will probably be best-served by satisfying a different list of priorities. That priorities list is basically the same one that a pro-audio human uses – it’s just that you meet it in ways that are specific to you, instead of ways that are generally applicable.

Priority 1: Gain Before Feedback

The most beautiful sounding mic for your voice is completely worthless if you can’t be heard. The most durable mic on Earth isn’t worth a dime if you’re completely and unintentionally buried in the mix. The mic that you could afford “right now” that squeals like a pissed-off toddler and howls like a talkative husky? It just effectively made the spendier mic even more expensive.

The most important thing to look for in a mic for stage-vocals is that it, when coupled with your performance style, can have sufficient gain applied for you to be heard clearly – both onstage and out front.

A complete discussion of everything that effects GBF is beyond the scope of this article. However, there are some rules of thumb that can help you narrow things down a bit:

  • You don’t need to worry about the microphone’s sensitivity or overall output. You can think of mic sensitivity as a sort of fixed, pre-preamp gain. It doesn’t necessarily buy you greater feedback rejection. It dictates how much preamp gain is required to get the mic output up to a voltage that’s good for other devices…and that’s it.
  • You do need to think about the mic’s polar pattern. Mics with tighter patterns, like supercardioid and hypercardioid models, can be more resistant to feedback when used correctly. The tradeoff with a tighter pattern is that it’s easier to cause feedback by “cupping” the mic, and you have to be much more careful not to move “off axis” during your performance.
  • You also need to think about where the mic’s capsule is placed. Certain mics achieve better GBF by putting the capsule very close to the grill – it’s just basic physics. The tradeoff is that you only get the benefit of this placement if you are willing to park your face right on the mic. If you’re not willing to do this, then any benefit of “right up on the grill” capsule placement is lost.
  • You don’t necessarily need a mic with “laser flat” frequency response, but you should try to find a mic where the response is “smooth.” Feedback problems are exaggerated by mics with narrow peaks in their response, because the peaks are disproportionately disposed to ringing compared to the frequencies around them. If a mic has a “response peak” or “presence boost” that’s been designed into the capsule, it’s best if the peak or boost covers a wide area – say, two octaves or more.
  • Even though a flat response isn’t imperative, you should be wary of mics that are overly “hyped” in one frequency range or another. If a monitor or FOH rig also has proportionately higher gain in the same frequency range, you may experience problems. VERY exaggerated response can cause feedback even if the live-sound rig doesn’t have higher gain in the same range.

Priority 2: Reliability

I chose “reliability” over “durability” because I think there’s more to this factor than just being able to handle wear and tear. A reliable mic stands up to being transported and accidentally dropped, but it also “just works” without being finicky.

The second most important thing to look for in a stage-mic is that it should be resistant to accidents, and require as little external or specialized equipment as possible.

So – what does this mean?

Well, for one thing, it means that condenser mics are less reliable than dynamic mics. It’s not that a condenser mic can’t be made to be quite durable. The drop in reliability comes from the condenser needing phantom power to work. It’s possible to be in a situation where you don’t have phantom available for the mic. It’s also possible to have phantom, and forget to engage it. The mic may be rock-solid, but it becomes effectively less reliable.

(This isn’t to bag on condenser mics, by the way. A condenser may, in fact, be the right mic for you. You just need to be aware of the downsides.)

There are, of course, all kinds of other considerations. If a mic needs a special, odd-sized clip to fit on a stand, it’s effectively less reliable. If its XLR connector has trouble mating with certain mic cables, the microphone is effectively less reliable. If the mic has a switch that’s a little too easy to disengage, the unit is effectively less reliable. If the mic has extremely high or low sensitivity, it’s effectively less reliable.

You might say that another way to express “reliability” is “resistance to unexpected events.” If you can cover the unexpected events by carrying more equipment (a mic pre with phantom power, your own cables, spare mic clips, etc), then you can increase a finicky mic’s reliability.

For the record, the most reliable stage-vocal mics are dynamic units with thick, metal cases, and capsules with sensitivities of roughly -55 dBV/Pa (about 1.7 – 1.8 mV). They require no phantom power, stand up to abuse, and work with the gain ranges available from most preamps.

Priority 3: Great Sound

This might seem like an obvious factor, but it still bears some discussion. You have to think about which mics will sound great on your voice, and in the performance situations that you find yourself in the most. A mic that sounds fantastic when you listen to it in headphones is great – if everybody’s going to be listening to it in headphones. A mic that sounds divine at the venue you only get to play at once a year isn’t a good choice if it’s unflattering through the PA and monitor rigs you play through every other weekend.

Further, a mic has to work well with your performance style. This is similar to the considerations involved with GBF. If the unit is breathtakingly beautiful only when you’re right on it, and you almost never get right on the mic, then you should probably pick something else. On the flipside, if you always have your face planted on the grill, and the mic sounds terribly muddy when you do, then you might want to pick something else.

I should definitely point out that you can be VERY surprised by what works well and what doesn’t. Some folks think that the only way to get a great vocal is with a super-spendy mic, but I once heard Katie Ainge sing at a coffee shop with an inexpensive mic connected to a keyboard amp.

It was one of the most beautiful and perfect vocal sounds that I’ve ever heard.

So…How Do You Test For These Priorities?

The actual nuts and bolts of figuring out which mic is right for you look like this:

  • Do some research, either empirically or online. If you play at a bunch of different places with different mics, make note of when you could hear yourself, were feedback free, and you liked the overall sound.
  • Most mics can’t be returned once purchased, so either borrow or rent the units you’re interested in.
  • At rehearsal, try the different mics you’ve gathered up. Feed the signal through a monitor wedge to find out which ones are feedback resistant while sounding as nice as possible.

Recommendations

To help narrow down the bewildering array of choices to be had in the vocal mic arena, here are a few transducers that I’ve had decent experiences with:

Shure SM-58 – I’m really not a fan of the 58, but that doesn’t make it an invalid choice. Most 58s that I’ve run across have ended up sounding muddy, with a rolled-off top end, but there are some voices that they’re just perfect for. The SM-58 has a cardioid pattern, workable GBF, and is capable of surviving a LOT of punishment. SM-58s seem to be slightly more forgiving of shaky mic technique than some other products.

Shure Beta 87a – These are mics that Stonefed carries with them for road shows. I would characterize them as “pretty okay.” In certain situations, we had some issues with feedback at very high frequencies (in the range of 15kHz). Their clarity can border on “whininess” in some situations, and they have more mud than I think a condenser ought to have. I’d probably cut these mics more slack if they weren’t $250 a pop – to me, that’s a lot of money for something that isn’t my favorite. The “a” units are supercardioid, so you need to stay on axis and avoid cupping the grill.

Sennheiser e835 – Bought singly, an 835 costs about as much as an SM-58…but I’ll take an 835 over an 85 any day of the week. These mics seem to have far less of the “Shure-standard mud,” coupled with a crisp top end. That same crispiness may be a bit much, depending on your tastes. GBF on these mics has rarely been a problem for me, but every so often I’ve had some trouble with ringing at low frequencies. An 835 is a cardioid device.

Sennheiser e822s – A major advantage of the e822 is that you can still find it in packages for about $50 a unit. These mics are surprisingly good for the price. I personally own a handful of them, and they have been just as reliable as more expensive units. I personally prefer the sound of these mics over that of an SM-58, but they do still have a bit of mud and garble to manage. The GBF on an 822 seems to be comparable to other mics I’ve used – sometimes even a bit better. Sennheiser e822 units are cardioid.

Audix OM5 – These mics are VERY crisp. So crisp, in fact, that you can really tear people’s heads off if things get loud. On the other hand, I’ve heard these mics deliver live vocals that sounded like a world-class studio recording. Their GBF is definitely “pro-grade,” although their marketing might make you expect miracles that they can’t deliver. OM5s are hypercardioid, so they’re best for people who aren’t shy about sticking their face to the mic.

Electrovoice N/D767a – The 767a is one of the few mics I’ve heard that seems to get the top end exactly right. They have nice clarity without being overhyped. The bottom end of the frequency response is okay, but these mics do seem to suffer from breath noise and plosives more than some others. They don’t display as much muddiness as other mics, but some situations will still require a good bit of EQ. The GBF on these supercardioid mics seems to be on par with other, professional level units.


Some Handy Mics

A video where I discuss the pros and cons of some of my most-used microphones.

Please Remember:

The opinions expressed are mine only. These opinions do not necessarily reflect anybody else’s opinions. I do not own, operate, manage, or represent any band, venue, or company that I talk about, unless explicitly noted.