Running dual sound cards

I discovered something useful. You can run two sound output devices from a single computer. Lemme 'splain why that might be useful for a KJ. Or for a DJ, for that matter.

When running karaoke, it is really good to fill the dead air between songs with background music. Most of the sophisticated karaoke hosting programs support this feature. But to my knowledge, none of them really support it well.

They all give you some means to add in a bunch of songs that will be brought up when a singer finishes, and that will fade out before the next singer starts. They also have the option of starting each time with a different song which is kinda nice.

As fabulous as this feature is, they don't offer the kind of playlist tools that you get with a normal mp3 player program. For example, they don't allow you to import playlist from another program. They don't allow you to search mp3s from within their program. They don't allow you to randomize the playlist. For me, these would be great features, but I realize that the folks doing KJ programs have a pretty limited market, so they can't have a really huge budget for progammers. We have to accept what we can get.

But I still want the feature.

My first approach was to bring along my iPod. I would plug it into the second stereo input from my mixer, and just leave the iPod playing all night. In between singers, I need to remember to fade out and fade in. Ehhh... I got used to it. The dead air reminded me if I happened to forget to start the music up.

But this meant that I need to bring my iPod, and that I had to plan ahead with the proper playlists on the iPod. It made it a bit awkward to add songs on the fly --- if I got a request, or if I thought there was a great song to slip in.

Then I discovered something kinda neat. You can get two sound cards to work at the same time on your computer.

I started by adding a USB sound card to my laptop. I bought this one from my good friends at TigerDirect. As I write this, the price is $25.

Sabrent USB SND8. I suspect that there are numerous similar devices that will allow the same functionality.

When you plug this into your USB port it becomes the default sound device. When you start a program that plays music (like your karaoke hosting program), the music will be fed out this device. So, a cable from this USB device will go into your mixer as the karaoke channel.

The laptop's normal sound output (the headphone output) can still be selected by other programs, though, provided they have the smarts to allow you to select an output device. Winamp is one music player that can do this. And the basic price for Winamp is very reasonable. It's free. (If you plan on doing any ripping or burning of regular CDs, then pay the $20 for the Pro version.)

Here is how to configure Winamp to avoid the default sound output device (which will be the USB device whenever it is plugged in) and switch over to the normal laptop device:

If music is playing, stop it.
Click on "Options" in the WINAMP box. Select "Preferences".
On the left hand side, scroll down under the heading "Plug-ins" and select "Output".
On the right hand side, select "Nullsoft DirectSound Output".
This will bring up a box. Select the "Device" tab (it will probably already be selected. At the top, just to the left of "Refresh", there is a pull down menu. Click the little triangle at the right of this box to see the options.

One option will be "Primary Sound Driver". This is whatever default device you have. As I said, when then USB device is plugged in, this will be the default.

A second option will have the word USB in it. On my computer, this says "Speakers (3- USB Multi-Channel Audio Device". This would allow Winamp to play sound through the USB device. This is not what we want, since the karaoke program will default to this.

A third option for output will be the native sound output device for your computer. On mine, it says "Speakers / Headphones (IDT High Definition Audio Codec".  This is the one you want. Select this one, and the music that Winamp plays will be sent to the normal headphone jack of your computer. Connect this to a second channel on your mixer, and now you can use the mixer to select between Winamp and your karaoke host program.

I don't know what other programs will allow you to select the sound output device. There may be karaoke hosting program that would allow you to select, there may be other sound players.

If you are a DJ, and are switching over to a laptop library, you could use this same sort of setup. You could use one music player (iTunes or whatever you want) to feed the club music and the other music player (Winamp?) to run your headphones. This way, you can preview the music before starting it with the first player. Yeah... not quite all the functionality of full scale DJ software... but it's a cheap start.

I hope this was useful.  :)

John the Revelator

So you wanna be a karaoke host? ( Part 6: Karaoke system amp)

First part of karaoke system tutorial         Previous part            Next part

There is a big question when putting a karaoke system together. How big? How many watts do you need?

Naturally size matters. Especially if you are a guy. More horsepower... more terabytes in your iPod... more watts in your karaoke system. All that stuff. I think it's part of the natural selection process. Male peacocks with the biggest tail feathers are the most successful at attracting mates, and so it is with KJs and watts.

But how much do you really need?

Bad news
The bad news is that watts are expensive and that you probably need a lot of them.

In an earlier post on how bands got their names, I reported that Deep Purple once held the Guinness record for the loudest band. The record is currently held by KISS, with a performance that reached 136 decibels. For reference, hearing damage starts at around 120 decibels, and the "threshold of pain" is above 130. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a reference to that wattage for that concert.

Just how expensive is an amp?  The chart below is a plot of dollars per watt for a series of amps that I trust from an online vendor that I trust. As a rule of thumb, divide the wattage in half and add thirty. If you figure you need 500W, then the amp will cost about $280. I made this chart, by the way. Did I mention that I am a mathematician?

 
In future generations, this rule of thumb will become known as Seymour's Rule of Amp Pricing. In future generations, this rule of thumb will be obsoleted by inflation, and eventually, by technology. This is in accordance of Seymour's Rule of the Obsolescence of Rules.

Enthusiasts of the history of science will recognize a similarity of this rule to Stigler's law of eponymy, which states that "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." This law was first discovered by Robert Merton, so naturally, it was named after Stigler.

Enough digression. Here is an important corollary of Seymour's Rule of Amp Pricing. It is more cost effective to buy a single amp with twice the power than it is to buy two amps.

For example, the Crown XLS 202D sells for $200 and generates 300 watts. I could get 600 watts if I buy two of them, and it would cost me $400. Alternately, I could buy the Crown XLS 602D, which is rated at 600 watts, and it would cost me $300. Not only is the bigger amp cheaper, but it is less total weight and less to schlep around.


Watts and specs
Before we talk about how many watts a KJ needs, we need to set some ground rules about specing of amps. The problem is, it is confusing.

First, there is the issue of the units that one uses. Some manufacturers spec out their amps in terms of watts peak-to-peak and some use watts RMS. Peak to peak numbers are given when a manufacturer wants to artificially inflate their specs, since peak-to-peak numbers are almost six times as large as RMS numbers.

Another very helpful way that a manufacturer can confuse a prospective KJ is to speak in terms of total power rather than watts per channel. Another bad thing. Well... it's actually not all that terrible. If an amp has two channels (i.e. stereo), you just add the watts RMS. Just be careful when reading the specs.

The next confusing thing is exemplified in a spec on the Crown XLS 202D: "330W/ch @ 2 ohms, 300W/ch @ 4 ohms, 200W/ch @ 8 ohms, 660W bridged mono @ 4 ohms, 600W bridged mono @ 8 ohms." Depending on which number you look at, the amp could be rated at anywhere from 200 watts per channel to 660 watts per channel.

Isn't this deceptive advertising? Actually, not at all. The specs merely reflect the power output that you get with different configurations of speakers. You just have to know a bit about your speakers in order to properly read the specs. In particular, you need to know a bit about ohms.

Ohms
To clarify right off... I am not talking about the kind of oms involved in transcendental meditation.

Speakers are generally described in terms of their resistance, which is measured in ohms. What does that mean?  Well, I could explain it, but the simple explanation requires some explanation of electronics, and the correct explanation says that ohms are actually meaningless when you talk about speakers.

So, let's just say that a typical speaker is 8 ohms and forget the details. Generally speaking, if the speaker has one woofer, it will be 8 ohms. Not always, but usually. If you plug one speaker into each channel of the amp, then the spec from the amp that is relevant is the "watts per channel at 8 ohms" number. In the case of the Crown amplifier, this relevant number is 200W.

With this particular Crown amp (and with most decent amps, for that matter) you can plug two 8 ohm speakers into each channel without blowing up the amp. How can you tell if an amp will blow up with two sets of speakers?

When you plug two speakers in, the resistance (that is, the ohms) of the speakers gets cut in half. If you plug two 8 ohm speakers into each channel, the load for each channel becomes 4 ohms. And now the applicable spec on the amplifier is "300W/ch @ 4 ohms". Just by virtue of the fact that the amp has a power rating for 4 ohms, you know that you can plug in two 8 ohm speakers.

So... hmmmm.... we doubled the number of speakers and the power went from 200 watts per channel up to 300 watts per channel?  That doesn't seem fair! We didn't get twice the power.  :(

I agree that it's not fair, but it's reality. There is a certain amount of inefficiency when you plug two speakers into the same channel. And this leads to another important point: It is more cost effective to run a single set of speakers per channel.

These important points lead in the same direction. Buy a bigger amp, dude, and use a single set of speakers.

That said, I am going to make a case for plugging in multiple sets of speakers. You probably have noticed this, but the closer you get to a speaker, the louder it is. If I have one speaker, and try tomake it loud enough on the opposite side of the room, it will necessarily be too loud near the speaker. If I add a second speaker, with proper spacing, the overall sound levels are more consistent around the room. Each set of speakers that I scatter throughout the room makes the sound level more even.

In a larger room, I will run with two sets of speakers to get this evenness.

Caveats
For the more technically adept: I need to clear some stuff up. I have made a whole bunch of simplifications in describing this stuff above.

When I talked about the resistance for speakers plugged into the same channel, I was assuming that the speakers had the same resistance. The formula is more complicated if the speakers have different resistances.

Another simplification is thatI have assumed that the speakers are combined in parallel, rather than in series. If you go out of your way with a soldering iron you could combine speakers in series. But, if you use standard plugs and cables in the way they were intended, your speakers will be in parallel.

The third simplification was in my discussion of using multiple sets of speakers. I neglected to say that if the listening areas of the speakers overlap, you will get dead spots from phase cancellation. Analyzing this is very complicated. Don't go crazy with it.

Yet another simplification was that I completely avoided talking about the bridged mono mode for an amp. Let's agree to ignore this. Well... unless you get a passive subwoofer. Then I recommend bringing in a sound pro just to make sure.


How many watts do I need?
Boy... good question.

"It all depends" is a good answer, although probably not all that useful. But of course wattage requirements do depend on a lot of things. I should be honest, though. The real reason I say "depends" is to avoid having to accept any responsibility for my actions.

The first big question to ask is whether you want to do outdoor gigs. If a gig is outdoor, the PA is going to be a lot less efficient. A lot. I mean, a lot. There is nothing to contain the sound, so it will just get lost. Most importantly, the bass will get lost. My opinion... if you are playing a gig outside, you should look into adding a subwoofer. You only need one because the stereo effect is less pronounced at low frequencies. But you do need one.

Another important variable is the efficiency of the speakers. I will discuss this in the section about speakers.

(Now I will actually get down to giving some advice.)

The wattage requirement also depends on the size of the venue. Here is one advisor that gives a specific number: "If you intend using the machine at parties or small social events you will need at least 80 watts (2 speakers at 40 watts each)."  Sounds pretty cool. We can get off really cheap!

I am not so excited about 80 watts. The only gig that I have run where 80 watts is sufficient is my New Year's Eve party. This is maybe 20 people, in my living room. And we are generally somewhat older, so we don't need to have music quite so loud. And with 80 watts, the music doesn't interfere much with conversation.

Musician's Friend has a "PA System Buying Guide" that I recommend reading. They offer some advice on power requirements that I find more reasonable:

"The size of the venue you play in can help you determine the continuous power handling (wattage) your system will need. For example, smaller gigs, conferences, lectures, and outdoor meetings may need about 350-500 watts, while club bands, garage bands, and mobile DJs may need 500-1,000+ watts."

 
Here is a different expert who gives a number in terms of people. If we assume that karaoke fits into the category of "bands and average size venues", then 3 to 4 watts per person (in the audience) is recommended. So, if there are 50 people listening to karaoke, you need something like 150 to 200 watts.

The karaoke pundits put a slightly larger number on it. The number tossed about in this forum is around 10 watts per person. So, if you have a venue with 100 people, then they might recommend 1,000 watts.

The Crown amp that I mentioned above (the XLS 202D) puts out 200 watts per channel into a pair of 8 ohm speakers. So, with one set of speakers, you get a total of 400 watts. With two sets of speakers (the equivalent of one 4 ohm speaker per channel, the amp will put out 300 watts per channel, for a total of 600 watts.

I have this amp. I have run gigs where 400 watts (with one set of speakers) is fine. I have had other gigs where 600 watts (two sets of speakers) falls a bit short... I wind up pushing the amp a bit harder than I would like.

For larger gigs, I now bring one set of passive speakers (speakers that run from the amp) along with one set of active speakers (speakers with their own amps). My active speakers are the Behringer B212A speakers, that put out 250 watts each. Thus, I get a total of 400 watts from the passive speakers and 500 watts from the active, for a total of 900 watts. Still, I sometimes feel I would like to push a bit more. I have my eye on a Crown XLS 802D...

So, I am gonna agree with that range of 200 to 1,000 watts. To make most customers happy, I think a KJ should be set up to deliver something like that amount of power. o make the KJ happy, you need to push toward the other end.

Now for the weaselwords. If you are running outdoors, you should really consider getting a subwoofer. And more power. And if you are running a large club, then you will probably need a whole lot more power, but (my experience) large clubs usually have their own sound system. And they will usually allow you to hook into their system.

Copyright (c) 2010, John Seymour

Jewish Christmas songs, addendum

 I had a blog post at the end of last year entitled "Jewish Christmas Songs". I missed one.

Buck Ram (born Samuel Ram) was a Jewish producer, composer, arranger and manager. He is best remembered for his association with the Platters, who did not become successful until Ram became their manager. He wrote numerous hit songs for them, including "Great Pretender", "Magic Touch, "Only You", and "Twilight Time".

When Ram was 16, he wrote a poem that he entitled "I'll Be Home For Christmas". He wrote this poem for his mother while he was away at college, and left it with Walter Kent and James "Kim" Gannon. They later turned this into a song. Ram's name appeared on the credits when Bing Crosby recorded the song. Later credits omitted his name, but a lawsuit put his name back.

So why did a Jewish kid write a Christmas song for his mother?  I haven't found the answer to that.

Walter Kent, incidentally, was also Jewish.

Wiki entry on Buck Ram
Answers.com entry on Buck Ram
Another great bio on Buck Ram
Wiki on The Platters
Wiki on "Only You"

Looking for karaoke in Milwaukee?

Which came first, the doobie or the brothers? How bands got their names

How did they get their name?  I have compiled a short list of interesting stories about the origin of a few band names from my era.

Alice Cooper
I figgered it's a pretty safe bet that Alice Cooper was not his given name. So, how did he come up with the name? There are a number of stories. Take your pick. One story has it that the name was from a Ouija board session when Vincent Furnier (Alice Cooper's real name) found out that he was the reincarnation of a witch by that name. That certainly fits his persona, but it was likely just made up to culture that persona.

Cooper revealed once that he just made up a name that would go with "a cute and sweet little girl with a hatchet behind her back."

Two other stories about the source of the name have to do with fictitious characters. There was a character in Mayberry RFD by the name of Alice Cooper, and the mother of Betty Cooper (from the Archie comic books) was named Alice. Betty was my favorite. Veronica was too high maintenance. 

Buffalo Springfield
You would think this might be someone's name. Or maybe that is has something to do with the singer Dusty Springfield? Wrong on both counts. Buffalo Springfield was a group that included Neil Young and Stephen Stills, later to be half of the group Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young.

There was a steamroller parked outside of the place where three of the band members lived. The nameplate on this steamroller said that it was manufactured by the Buffalo-Springfield Roller Company of Springfield, OH. This is interesting, since a steamroller played an important part in the career of yet another famous rockstar, John the Revelator.

Deep Purple
The band Deep Purple was once listed in the Guinness Book of Worlds Records as the loudest band. When you hear the name, you can't help but think about hard rock. But connoisseurs of the old standards might remember another "Deep Purple". This was a gorgeous song written for piano in 1933, with the lyrics beginning "When the deep purple falls over sleepy garden walls..." The kind of song that your grandmother probably loved. Surely there can't be a connection between the two? Well, there is a connection. Founding member Ritchie Blackmore had a grandmother. This grandmother wanted to hear the band play her favorite song. And her favorite song was Deep Purple.

Doobie Brothers
When we were in high school in the mid 70's, we would snigger whenever someone mentioned "The Doobie Brothers". We all knew what it meant. But our parents and teachers just thought that "Doobie" was their last name. And we sniggered.

But while I sniggered, I also wondered. Which came first, the doobie or the brothers? I could see two possible scenarios: 1) They could have started out with the name "a bunch of guys who like to get together to play music and smoke some weed". This name would necessarily need to be shortened, so they would incorporate the slang for "joint" into their name. or 2) They started with the name just cuz it was cool or something, and then somebody said "hey, what should we call this thing we smoke to get high? Let's call it a doobie, since the guys in the Doobie Brothers get high too".

For those wondering, the doobie came first, then the Doobie. They actually never had the official name "a bunch of guys who like to get together to play music and smoke some weed". The first name was Pud, which is British for dessert.

So, where did the word doobie come from? Good question. It could have been from the "Mr. Do Bee" character in the TV show for preschoolers Romper Room.

Or it might have been from the scatting that Frank Sinatra did at the end of his rendition of "Strangers in the Night". Or - my favorite urban legend, cuz I made it up myself - it may come as a result of a quote by the pop icon and author Kurt Vonnegut:

To be is to do - Socrates
To do is to be - Sartre
Do Be Do Be Do - Sinatra 

The Doors
Everyone knows this, right? The Doors took their name from the book "Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley. The book recounted an experience that Huxley had with mescaline, a psychedelic drug from the peyote cactus. Mescaline, as Huxley told, helped clean his doors of perception so that he could be enlightened.

Jim Morrison, lead singer of the Doors had his owns doors of perception permanently closed at the age of 27, from a probable drug overdose.

Did Huxley die of an overdose?  Huxley was on his deathbed from cancer of the larynx. He asked his wife to administer LSD and he died several hours later. Was this an overdose? You decide.

Jethro Tull
One would think that Jethro Tull was the name of the flute player who brought classical music into the band. Not so. The flautist with Jethro Tull was Ian Anderson. The original Jethro Tull was a British inventor around the year 1700 who developed a device for planting seed and a horse-drawn hoe.

Was this a play on the idea of heavy metal?  Probably not. The name was suggestion by an employee of their booking agent, who happened to be a history buff. They had been changing the name of the band repeatedly. This name stuck because they actually got a second gig with this name!

John the Revelator
John the Revelator is one of the most innovative and influential karaoke hosts of our time, having pioneered the use of an inflatable guitar to augment the cheesy riffs in karaoke backup tracks. In addition to his phenomenal skill with karaoke equipment, with karaoke software, and his uncanny ability to know just where on the floor a mic cable should go, the Revelator is a tireless advocate of karaoke in the greater Milwaukee area. His website with a listing of every single karaoke venue in Milwaukee is pure poetry to the karaokephile.

In the early 90's, John the Revelator applied his prodigious mathematical genius to the production of the single most flawless karaoke song ever sung, "Steamroller Blues". Those who have heard this live will surely count this as a life-changing experience. He has followed this up with an equally life-changing version of "Minnie the Moocher". Today, people can be seen swooning when he performs "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You" in a manner that would make Frankie Valli cry.

Anthony "Sven" Chojnacki had this to say about the Revelator: "John the Revelator? Yeah. He's ok I guess." High praise indeed.

Where did such a luminary acquire his nom de plume? Was it a misspelling of "John the Realtor"? Does it have to do with the revelry that the Revelator inspires? Does it harken back to the Book of Revelation? An ancient blog, recently unearthed, may provide some clues as to the source of this enigmatic but strangely haunting name.

Johnny Paycheck
Donald Lytle is a country singer best known for the song "Take This Job and Shove It". It may seem obvious that he changed his name to try to grab a bit of Johnny Cash's fame. Lytle has a different story. He says that he took the name of a boxer from the 40's.

Led Zeppelin
Keith Moon and John Entwistle (from the Who) were potentially going to join with Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck (from the Yardbirds) to form a supergroup. Moon commented that this would go over like a lead balloon. Or maybe like a lead zeppelin. Or maybe it was Entwistle that said it. Read the account in Wiki. Another account said that Moon said "lead balloon", and Entwistle said "lead zeppelin". Either way, the name resurfaced, with the "a" in "lead" dropped so that the Americans would not pronounce it "leed". Jimmy Page was the only one of this group of four musicians who became part of Led Zeppelin.

cool image stolen from Maria Nikishyna's blog

Lynryd Skynyrd 
Leonard Skinner was a gym teacher in Jacksonville, FL. He believed in discipline, and he believed in sending young would-be rockers to the principal's office if their hair touched their collars. When looking for a name for their group, these would-be rockers decided to immortalize their gym teacher with a little different spelling: Lynryd Skynyrd.

That was in 1970. It wasn't until the mid-70's that Skinner heard about Skynryd. At the time, he couldn't even recall the long-haired trouble maker students. 

Marilyn Manson
Brian Warner took his first name from the starlet Marilyn Monroe, and his last name from the murderer Charles Manson. Ok, that's a little creepy.

Charles Manson actually wrote some music, and The Beach Boys recorded one of the songs without giving tribute to Manson. 

Pink Floyd
"and by the way, which one's Pink?" This is a line from the Pink Floyd song "Have a Cigar". David Gilmour of the band explains that this was a common question that fans would ask, assuming that there must be someone in the band named Pink. The name Pink Floyd came from two blues musicians, Pink Anderson and Floyd Council. The group was forced to change their name from Tea Set when they heard of another band by that name.

The other group didn't make it big, by the way. A punk group with a raucous name like that does not instantly start cranking out platinum albums? Go figger. The link to the last.fm page on Tea Set says that a group named "Scrotum Pole" has a similar sound. I really can't see why a punk group with a name like that did not hit the big time. There is so much injustice in the music industry.

Steely Dan
Walter Becker and Donald Fagen got their name from the book Naked Lunch by William Burroughs. One website on band name origins goes so far as to state that "Steely Dan is the nickname given to a giant steam-powered dildo." To paraphrase Mark Twain, "the rumors of my dildo have been greatly exaggerated."

The book contains the phrase "Steely Dan" twice. The first reference says that it is a strap-on rubber penis. The other reference is rather vague. Sorry to let the steam out of you guys!

Although I myself did not finish the book when I tried to read it a few years back, the book has had some influence on culture. The alternative country group Clem Snide takes it's name from Naked Lunch.

Strawberry Alarm Clock
You would think that there has to be a good story behind the name Strawberry Alarm Clock. Evidently not, cuz I haven't found any explanation. On second thought, maybe it's just some silly name somebody came up with. 

Three Dog Night
This is an easy one. In the Australian aboriginal culture, one would curl up with the dogs at night to keep warm. The colder the night, the more dogs you needed. A three dog night is pretty darn cold.

Uriah Heep
No doubt all rock music fans will immediately recognize that Uriah Heep was the unctuous character in the Charles Dickens' novel David Copperfield. Today the reference seems very obscure, but this British band was christened by this name in 1969, and February of 1970 was the 100th anniversary of this extremely prolific British author. England was abuzz with Dickensia at the time. 

Wet Willie
For the benefit of anyone who did not go to Junior High school, a wet willie is when you wet your finger an stick it in someone's ear. Just to be gross. The Wiki article on the band does not mention how the band got its name. Nor does their official website. Now, wouldn't you think a band whose name is associated with sticking your saliva into someone else's ear would work hard to either bolster or refute that association.


Other resources
In my prolific research for this post, I came across two websites similar to this one. While both sites list more bands than I do, but, needless to say, neither is as entertaining as my own. Indeed, I find it hard to believe that there could be another webpage as entertaining as this one. When I finish reading every page on the web, I will submit another post.

http://library.thinkquest.org/4626/rock.htm
http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/music0_name.html

Looking for karaoke in Milwaukee?

So you wanna be a karaoke host? (Part 5: Mixing it up)

First part of karaoke system tutorial         Previous part            Next part

A mixer, in it's simplest form, is just a box that combines the signals from one or more mics along with a music signal in order to create a single signal to send to your amp. That's all it really is, but somewhere along the way it got more complicated.

This article is orgamized in such a way as to start you off thinking it is all gonna be really cheap, then suggest that it will really be more, and then finally leave you at the point of "how can I afford not to go all out?"

Taking it simple (CHEAP) first
Let's have a look at the simplest (and cheapest) options for a mixer. Along the way, we will see the features that get added for a price.

One of the simplest mixers is exemplified by the Nady MM-141, which sells for $30.

This particular mixer will combine four mics into one, with a separate volume control for each mic, and then another overall volume control.

Wow. What else could someone possibly want?  Seems like this is all you would need for a mixer. Pipe this into a a set of active speakers, or into an amp and speakers and you are all set. Well, except for a few things. Most importantly, the music.

Let's say that you are running your karaoke show with a laptop. You have the karaoke music coming out of your laptop, but where is it going? Your laptop speaker output should go to the mixer. The job of any self-respecting mixer is to combine the music with the voices of the singers and allow you to balance one against the other.

It would seem at first glance that this cute little mixer has you covered. Four inputs? That sounds like three mics and one input for the music. Cool.... Except.

The inputs for this mixer are mic inputs. They are (go figger) designed for mic level inputs. Your computer puts out a different signal level, called "line level", which is suitable for headphones and amplifiers. I will discuss the difference between these two levels in another section of this tutorial ("Tying it all together"). Suffice it to say right now that to balance the music and the mics, you would need to turn the music all the way down and the mics all the way up. Once you get it balanced, you really don't have much breathing room left to adjust either music or mics during a show.

Oh yeah, and then there is the issue about stereo. The inputs to this simple mixer are mono. To connect stereo up to this, you need to take two of the inputs, one for each channel. And the output of the mixer is also mono, so you have lost the stereo effect. That might not be an awful thing. I would argue that while stereo is a nice thing to have, it is not crucial for karaoke.

But still, I do not recommend this mini mixer for karaoke. 

Bringing in the music
There is another cheap solution that will allow you to mix in a mic: your computer. Sound cards on computers often have a place to plug in a mic. Within the sound card, there is a mixer that will combine the mic input with the music that your are playing, and send this out the line out of the computer.

Which is pretty much what we want, right? Well... once again I intend to try to pop your "I can get my karaoke gear real cheap" bubble.

There is a lot of variability in the quality of mic inputs on a sound board, and this is especially true on  the sound card for a laptop. These inputs were designed for the speaking voice, not for singing. If your mic input is not good enough, you could go with an external sound card. This device (Sabrent USB 7.1 CH 3D) plugs into a USB port and provides two mic inputs. It sells for $24. 

I have one of these. Perhaps I am missing something, but there does not appear to be separate volume controls for the two mics. But in my opinion, a bigger problem is that the volume controls for this box are  software controls. To adjust the volume of the mic, you must first bring up the volume control window, and then adjust it with the mouse.

While this may seem pretty easy just talking about it, but you probably won't think so the first time someone screams into the mic. Why do people do that? I don't know. But they do, and when they do, you need to be right there on the volume control to assert your own dominance. You are in control. You are the alpha KJ.

The solution to both of these problems is to use the two boxes together. I should clarify. The solution to the problem of separate controls for the two mics and of mouse controls is to use the USB sound card and the mini-mixer. All your mics would plug into the mini-mixer and the mini-mixer would plug into the Sabrent sound card.

I don't have a solution to the problem of people screaming into the mics.


While this setup (mini-mixer and USB sound card) would (should) all work just hunky-dory, I'm not going to recommend it.

But before I move on, there is one cool thing you can do with a USB sound card. You can have two sound outputs going at the same time: one for KJ and the other for DJ. I will talk about this in a future blog. 

Mixing it up for under $100
I found five mixers for under $100 that I would call "adequate" for karaoke. True to my noncommittal ways, I am not going to recommend any of these mixers.

When I say adequate, I mean "don't come crying to me when you decide you want something bigger and better". When I say adequate, I mean "base level functionality". (Also, when I say adequate, it also brings back some bad memories of what she said after the first time I "did it". I mean, after the first time I did karaoke, of course.)

Behringer XENYX 1202

Mackie 402VLZ3

Nady SRM10X
Peavey PV6
Yamaha MG102C

What are the base level functionalities?
In my opinion, there needs to be at least two mics, so the mixer has to have at least two mic inputs. When  running with two mics, the KJ has one mic and the singer the other. When two people get up to sing, the KJ passes the mic to the second singer.

There must be at least one stereo, line level input to plug the computer sound output into.

There must be separate volume control for each input. It is imperative to have a volume control on each mic because of the huge variation in volume between people.

There must be a stereo main out (for the club speakers) and then a second output. This second output might be called monitor out or control room out. These outputs must each have a volume control. This second output will be used to run a monitor speaker or two. A monitor is a speaker that sits on the floor, pointing toward the singer. This speaker allows the singer to hear their own voice. In my opinion, a monitor speaker is absolutely essential.

In a pinch, you can use a headphone output to run the monitor speakers. A few of the mixers above have only this as a second output. This is not as good as a real output, but it allows us to achieve base level functionality.

Additional features
So, if I limit myself to spending $100 on a mixer, what great features might I miss?

More mic inputs - To me, it just seems a bit pedestrian for the KJ  to be exchanging the  mic back and forth with the singers, so I think you need a lot of mics, and hence a lot of mic inputs. I normally run with three mics just for the singers. If I am running the gig with another KJ, I will have two additional mics. I don't know if I mentioned this or not, but I am a fabulous karaoke host.

Second stereo line input - Hey, did you know you can hook your iPod into a mixer?  And that it will sound good?  I always bring some sort of mp3 player with me whenever I run a gig. It can provide background music between singers. Just leave the iPod running and bring the volume up on that channel between karaoke songs. Also, the iPod can provide music while you are setting up or tearing down. You can pack up the laptop while you still have tunes going. Finally, having the iPod always ready can help you avoid complete humiliation if the karaoke software crashes. To run an iPod like this, you need to have a second stereo line input.

Sliders - Sliders are just cool. I like sliders. It makes me feel like I am Scottie, running a transporter. I like a mixer where the main output volumes are all controlled via sliders rather than knobs that you turn.

Special effects - This feature is often written "Special FX". (If you are cool, or if you want people to think you are cool, you will also abbreviate effects  as FX.)  Special effects can make a mediocre singer sound great. In order to get that true American Idol sound, you really need to add a little reverb to a voice. Or that's the thought. On the other hand, reverb can make it more difficult to control feedback. It also will take some learnin' to go from "ewwww.... that's sounds like too much reverb" to "wow!  is that Dannie Gokey?"

Bass and treble on mic input - A bass and treble control on each mic input allows you tailor the sound to the person's voice. When I use these, it is most likely to turn down the treble on a shrill voice.

Bandpass equalizer on output - All rooms are different, all speakers are different, songs are different, quiet sound needs more bass. All these require that you have some control over the equalization of the final output. Having five channels is nice. Seven? Gee I dunno. Do you need it? Do you have time to tailor it for each gig, or will they always be set to whatever you used at the last gig?

Level set LED indicator - My mixers have little LEDs next to each mic input to tell me when the signal level is starting to get too high. I try to keep the signal level just below the point where this LED flashes.

More better mixers
Here are some examples of mixers that I would consider pretty darn good for karaoke. They all run from $200 to $300. Note that the basic price difference has to do with the number of inputs.

This is the Mackie ProFX8, selling for $230.

Here we have Yamaha's MG124CX, coming in at $290.

And here is the Peavey PV14, with a price tag of $300.

Which to buy?  I dunno. I have two Mackie mixers (one a little bigger than the ProFX8, and one a little smaller -- both older models), and I have one Yamaha powered mixer that is real old. I use the Yamaha mixer most often, simply because it has the built in amp. Convenience. I think I like the mixer functionality a bit better, but partly that's just my own familiarity.

Running a mixer
Mixers have a lot of buttons and switches. It will necessarily take a while to learn how to run the crazy thing. I will save that long discussion for another blog, but I will motivate the discussion a bit.

If the volume of a singer is too high, you could ask the singer to sing quieter. You could ask the singer to hold the mic further from their mouth. You could lower the gain knob right next to the input plug. You could lower the bass, midrange, and treble controls for that mic. You could lower the AUX or the Main for that mic. You could lower the main mix volume. Or, you could lower the volume on the amp. All of these will serve to lower the volume of the singer. Which is the correct one to adjust?

When I first started running a mixer I found that my knobs would run away by the end of the gig. Eventually, certain knobs would be pushed all the way one way. I didn't know how they got there, except that every time I adjusted a knob I was doing something that made sense. The thing is, I knew what each of the knobs did, but I did not have a coherent strategy for adjusting them.

There is some artistry to running a mixer and there is some science. I will go into that deeper in another blog. 

Copyright (c) 2010, John Seymour

So you wanna be a karaoke host? (Part 4: Microphony for karaoke)

First part of karaoke system tutorial         Previous part            Next part

Ok, so, I was checking out the mics before a show. The club manager, Mike, was standing at the end of my row of mics. I spoke into the mic at the end and said "mic three". I spoke into the next mic and said "mic two". Then "mic one". I stepped over and looked into the manager's face and said "Mike zero". He laughed. He's a good guy. I make dumb jokes.

Trying to sell you on buying a decent mic
The requirements for a karaoke microphone are fairly simple. It must be rugged and it must not make decent singers sound bad. Oh, and it's gotta be cheap. Not much to ask! Oh yeah, one more thing: it's gotta make people look cool.

Rugged is important. Karaoke singers routinely abuse the mics. They spill beer on them, blow cigarette smoke into them, spit on them, drop them, scream into them, swing them by their cords, and every once in a while, they throw them. So you either must buy really cheap mics and consider them disposable, or you must get mics that can stand the abuse.

Really cheap mics, of course, make people sound like they are singing into a really cheap mic. Sometimes maybe that's the effect you are going for, but I'm guessing not. (Then again, this is karaoke. I mean, get real.)

Cheap mics do two things that expensive mics won't do. Well, besides being inexpensive. Cheap mics will give you a really cool "singing into a can" sound. Chicks dig that. Cheap mics will also "bottom out" - that is, they will distort badly when you sing too loud. Again, chicks dig this. There was an evolutionary advantage to this. Guys that could sing loud were just plain better at scaring away saber-toothed tigers.

Seriously, I bought a cheap wireless lapel mic for my wife (the Gypsy Songstress) for her singing gigs. It was less than $20, which was great. It sounded lousy. Which was not great. Not much of an evolutionary advantage there. I invested in a more expensive wireless mic... still not excellent sound quality, but I was only willing to put $100 into it. I'm cheap. Which is another evolutionary disadvantage for me.

How do you know if a mic is a cheap mic? Well, the price is one give-away. And the case... is it plastic? If a mic has an attached cord, rather than a detachable cord, it is likely to be lower quality. How about the plug? If it comes with a quarter inch plug or 1/8" plug (as shown below), it is likely not high quality.

Professionals use mics with what is called an XLR connector, shown below. This sort of connector and cable will reduce the chances of an unwanted hum sneaking into the system. Why? Read the post on "Tying it all together".

Decent quality mic
There are two common types of mics: dynamic and condensor. A recording studio engineer or member of Aerosmith or the guy in the music department at WalMart might tell you that you need to buy a condensor mic. Arguably, some of the best mics are condensor mics.

But for karaoke, there are reasons to go with a dynamic mic. First, condensor mics tend to be a bit more fragile than dynamic mics. Second, condensor mics need what is called "phantom power". You need to run a high voltage (but very weak) signal to the microphone for power. A decent mixer will give you this signal, but if you have an indecent mixer, you may not even be able to use a condensor mic.

Dynamic mics may not be the highest quality, but, let's face it, this is not a recording studio. This isn't even Summerfest. (Interesting thing here... I sang at Summerfest once. They had a karaoke stage. Great fun. I thought I sounded pretty good. Too bad the audience couldn't hear how fabulous I sounded inside my head.) My own opinion is that a decent dynamic mic will give you a pretty good sound.

As I have said in this tutorial, I am not about to recommend equipment, like for example, the Shure SM58. I would not think of saying anything like the Shure SM58 is a mic that gives an excellent sound and really holds up to any sort of abuse. And I certainly won't mention that I own six of these puppies. I don't. I own seven.

 
The Shure SM58 sells for $99. Shure won't allow them to be sold cheaper. If you are buying a new mic for less, then it's probably a cheap knock off. And it's likely that it does not have the sound quality or durability. I found a very good description of how to tell a real SM 58.

You may ask if I paid $99 for my Shure mics? I bought several used mics on eBay for less. I think at least one of them was a knock-off. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

Omnidirectional versus cardioid
If you happen to use a mic other than the SM 58, you should know one very important distinction about mics. This is more important than all my useless drivel about cheap versus expensive and dynamic versus condensor.

Microphones are designed to either collect sound from all directions (omnidirectional) or to collect sound preferentially from one direction (unidirectional, cardioid, or hyper-cardioid). Omnidirectional mics are great for studios, but are a big problem if they are used with PA equipment. The problem is feedback.

Think of a movie scene where someone steps up to talk into a microphone. The guy who puts the sound togerther for the movie will cue up a stock sound clip of feedback. There will momentarily be a weee-ooow. This sound is the universally accepted indication that what you will hear next is coming from a PA system. I've started noticing this in movies. Totally ruins the movies for me. 

We have all heard feedback. Feedback is that high pitched squeal that occurs when a sound is picked up by the mic, amplified and sent out to the speakers, and then picked up again by the microphone only to get amplified even further, and so on. Kinda like rumors of Sarah Palin running for president. Feedback, like Sarah Palin in the White House, is generally not considered a good thing.

One good way to assure that you will always get lots of feedback is to use an omnidirectional mic. If for some reason you or your patrons don't appreciate loud shrill noises that completely drown out the singer and the music, then I would recommend using a cardioid (or hyper-cardioid) mic.

The cardioid mic, when pointed directly at the singer's mouth, will not be particularly sensitive to the sound coming from the speakers, and feedback will be avoided. At least until the singer decides to stop pouring beer into the mic and point the mic directly at the main speakers. Wow. That's cool. A good reason for you to have one hand at all times on the volume control for the mics.

By the way singers, point the mic at your mouth, ok? Unless you wanna look cool. It looks cool to hold the mic above your mouth, pointed down at your toes. It just doesn't sound as good. Oh, and close your eyes, too.

Another way that a singer can absolutely guarantee that they generate lots of the sort of ear-splitting feedback that the audience will love is to cup the microphone. I don't quite know why, but some people mistake the ball at the end of the mic for a handle. They will wrap their hand completely around the ball of the mic so as to keep any of their lovely voice from being heard. The part of their voice that does make it into the mic will make them sound like they have their head deep in a toilet bowl. This also drives chicks wild.

On top of this, cupping the mic will disturb the very carefully engineered sound pattern of the mic. And because of this, I guarantee there will be feedback. But damn! People really look cool when they use the mic ball as a handle.

While I am on the subject of feedback, lemme put in a plug for my post "Speakers - getting those karaoke vibrations going". This post talks about how to position speakers to avoid feedback.

Keeping one hand on the volume control
Feedback is one reason to keep monitoring the volume on the mics. Another reason is that singers come in all shapes and sizes. And their voices do as well. Most audio engineers have the luxury to set mic volumes before the show. A karaoke host is paid the huge bucks because he/she must be constantly raising the volume for timid voices and dropping the volume for people with huge or excessively annoying  voices.

As you get used to your equipment, you will learn how to adjust bass and treble for each singer. I have noticed that some people sound great when you boost the bass a little, and for some people you really need to cut out some of the highs. Some people need to cut out the highs. But that's a whole 'nother subject.

Keeping the mics straight
If you run your karaoke show with only one mic, then you don't need to read this section. Of course, in my opinion, every professional karaoke host will have three mics on stage available for the singers and at least one mic for the host. But, I don't want to criticize others. BTW, I have three mics on stage available for the singers and at least one mic for the host.

If you have decided that you want to be considered a great karaoke host, then you will have several mics so that the guy and the gal each have a mic when they sing "I Got You Babe" or the naughty version of "Summer Nights". And when you have that duet singing, you will invariably need to individually adjust the volume to balance the two singers.



When I first started this great job, I put colored electrical tape on each of the mics. After the first night, I realized that I needed to put different colors of tape on the mics if I was going to tell the difference. (It really doesn't take me long to figger this stuff out. Who says I'm not the sharpest crayon in the shed?) So, the second night I wrapped different colors of tape on each mic. And I put matching tape on the ends of the mic cables.

This was great, but I eventually came to a better solution. I now put the colored tape on each end of the mic cables, and nothing on the mics. This way, I don't have the problem of trying to match the color of the mic with the color of the cable when I set up. And another bonus... when people hold a mic with tape on it, the tape will eventually slide and people's hands will get sticky. Gross.

Wireless vs wired
Another popular option for karaoke mics is the wireless mic. This mic saves time setting up, since you don't need to run the cables. There is one less cable for singers to trip on, which is good. And the singer is free to wander around the room so that they can hit on various people in the audience.

This last thing can be good or bad. Some people in the audience, believe it or not, don't appreciate some random singer hitting on them when they are trying to concentrate on drinking their beer. Go figger. People who like getting drunk shouldn't hang out at karaoke bars. Ummm.. wait. I take that back. I keep forgetting what the whole point of karaoke is.

Another bad thing about a singer wandering around through the bar with a mic is that they will be out there where the main speakers are loud. Just in case you kinda missed the whole section on feedback, this can be a problem.

Another downside to wireless mics is that, for the same quality of mic, wireless mics will be more expensive. The wireless version of my favorite Shure SM58 runs about $600. I don't have one, by the way. If I did, I would not use it for karaoke. (Note, you can find the "handheld transmitter" for a bunch less, but you still need to buy the little box that receives the signal from the mic.)

Batteries for your wireless mic
Here's a little tip about batteries. The handheld part of the wireless mic needs a 9V battery. The battery generally runs out after one night of karaoke... you need a fresh battery for every gig.

This is expensive and also a bit disturbing if you happen to have any "green" thoughts about the proper disposal of batteries. You might immediately think ":rechargeable batteries", but I have a caution. Don't use NiCad rechargeables. You just won't get any kind of battery life out of them. They won't make it through a show. I recently discovered a new type of rechargeable battery, the Ni-MH battery. To my delight, these batteries are relatively cost-effective, and they do hold a charge long enough to make it through a show.

Copyright (c) 2010, John Seymour

Was Marvin Gaye?

My wife wants to know the answer to this music question: Was Marvin Gaye, but was George Strait?

Is Barry White? Is Clint Black?
Was Al Green? Was James Brown? Was Macy Gray?
Does Stevie Wonder if Tom Waits?
Did your dog chase the Eddie Rabbitt?
Is James Blunt?
Is Marty Wilde?
Could Johnny B. Goode?
Is Gary Wright?
Is Patty Loveless?
What is the Ray Price? Did Johnny pay Cash?  Or was it Johnny's Paycheck?
Is Charlie Rich?
Can you write LeAnn Rimes on the Patti Paige while on the Jefferson Airplane?
Is Brad Paisley?
Does Wilson Pickett?
Is Neil Young?
Is Helen Reddy?
Is Aaron Tippin?
Was Merle Haggard?
Who jumped off Jimmy Cliff into Billy Ocean and swam to Dinah Shore?
Are there Muddy Waters in the Johnny Rivers?
Does McFly?
Have you seen Fiona's Apple?
Is Robin Thicke?
Did you visit the Elton John or the Olivia Newton-John?
Do you prefer Donna Summer, Fallout Boy, Johnny Winter, or Bruce Springsteen?
Do you know the John Legend?
Was Nick Lowe, and was Tom Petty?
Is Taylor Swift?
Does Kid Rock?
Was B.B. King? Is Ringo Starr? Is ZZ Top?
What did Amy Grant? Did Tina Turner?
Did you celebrate Billie Holiday?
Did Diana Kraal up Faith Hill to hear Sheryl Crow?  Or down into Frankie Valli?  Along Rascal Flatts?
Is Carrie Underwood?
Is Liz Phair?
Does the Meatloaf at the Jimmy Buffet?
Is Keith Urban?
How did Bonnie Raitt?
Did Mitch Ryder in the Van, Morrison? Or did Clay Walker?
Was Louie's Armstrong?
Is Mary Chapin a Carpenter? Did she use the Percy Sledge?
What did Chuck Berry?

But really, was Marvin Gaye?

Looking for karaoke in Milwaukee?

Flickr stops accepting uploads

Yahoo! has announced today that it will stop accepting uploaded images to it's very popular website Flickr. Images will still be available for viewing and download, but new images can no longer be accepted. Benjamin Netanyahu, the founder of Yahoo! explained that "On April 1, 2010, we received an image of a purple frog wearing a beret and eating banana cream pie. This image was the last possible image, given the finite number of combinations of bits that are possible in a digital image." Netanyahu expressed his regret, but added that if you have a photo you wish to upload, you should first find the image on their site by using their ultra-hyper-mondo image search tool. "Your image is already there. Just go find it."