Rolling Stones Superbowl Sound By ABC Was Attrocious

[Woochifer]

i had a co-worker who was at the game and he said they sounded great (and he was in the nose bleed seats). he tivo'd the game and watched it this morning and said it was abc who screwed things up- they even talked about the sound on some sports shows.

Has anyone had a chance to compare the HD 5.1 sound feed with the analog stereo feed? I remember that the two-channel analog feed sounded really bad on a few of ESPN's HD simulcasts (and presumably the same crew worked on ABC's production last night).

[drseid]

Has anyone had a chance to compare the HD 5.1 sound feed with the analog stereo feed? I remember that the two-channel analog feed sounded really bad on a few of ESPN's HD simulcasts (and presumably the same crew worked on ABC's production last night).

I can't speak for the 2 channel, but the HD 5.1 feed was the one I heard.

I understand the comments by some about the difficulties in setting up a live performance on the fly, but this was definitely a *very* bad audio job by ABC (I don't think any live performance could possibly be setup this poorly). While I don't really like the Stones and I did not care for their performance no matter how good the sonics were, *no one* deserved the audio butcher job ABC did.

---Dave

[EdwardGein]

First off, they didn't just improvise and record them cold turkey. ABC must have set their equipment up at least 24 hours ahead of time and ran through sound checks till they got the balance & sound right. For example, when I did record producing a decade ago, I only did one live album but we were set up many hours ahead of the performance and levels were tested, etc., till we had the proper balance way in advance. It's not like ABC just set their mikes up etc. at the start of the game. And we're talking million dollar equipment here. I really hope the idiot in charge of this loses their job. There is absolutely no exuse for this.

[Woochifer]

First off, they didn't just improvise and record them cold turkey. ABC must have set their equipment up at least 24 hours ahead of time and ran through sound checks till they got the balance & sound right. For example, when I did record producing a decade ago, I only did one live album but we were set up many hours ahead of the performance and levels were tested, etc., till we had the proper balance way in advance. It's not like ABC just set their mikes up etc. at the start of the game. And we're talking million dollar equipment here. I really hope the idiot in charge of this loses their job. There is absolutely no exuse for this.

Hersh/Ed -

None of us have any idea about the actual production preparation, and how much time they had for sound checks, etc., so it doesn't matter what procedures are normally undertaken to record a live concert, because this is the Super Bowl, not a Stones concert. First and foremost, we're talking about a football game. All of these other considerations with the halftime show are secondary at best. That's why the whole stage has to be assembled and dismantled in only a few minutes, and why nearly every other Super Bowl I've watched featured almost entirely canned pre-recorded music. We're not talking about a full-blown Stones concert with a few football plays sprinkled in as a diversion. If ABC took their time to setup the mikes and production booth, they would presumably focus more on getting the audio right for the actual game, right? If the audio problems occurred with the game itself, then that would be a bigger problem.

[markw]

I had no beef with the sound. It was, after all, a stadium event and never expect much from them. Secondly, the music and sound was less of an issue and the spectacle was the main thrust, and that they delivered.

God bless 'em for till being able to move like that and draw a crowd and may they continue to do so until nature takes it's course but, in my opinion and taste, they have long since stopped being musically significant and are a living relic of a long gone era.

When I want to hear the stones I know and love, I'll drop on one of those funny, flat, black things that are about 12" across with a little hole in the middle and spin at 33 1/3 rpm.

[EdwardGein]

Believe me heads will roll! When U2 played the sound was flawless & I doubt their stuff was prerecorded. I can't comment on Paul McCartney except it also sounded great- total seperation of instruments, volume levels were correct, etc. The fact that this was done live in a stadium is no excuse for terrilble, it wasn't even mediocore, sound. Actually, while I admit I don't have an engineer's technical knowledge, I think everything, except the drums was digitally recorded anyway, so there shouldn't have been that terrible muddy sound. Again, keep in mind that this is the NFL's & ABC's apex event of the year with a huge amount of money invested & when you do something like that, you don't have shoddy sound quality for the half time show.

[toenail]

I listened to the Stones in DD5.1. Aside from a few level matching problems like a guitar solo being somewhat muted or lead vocals too quiet at times the show seemed as expected. The bigger issue for me was that Mick did what most do in that situation and sprinted around the stage so much that he started sounding like an out of breath aerobics instructor. BTW, it was quite kind of ABC to switch the pre-game Mick interview with Robin Roberts to low definition.

[Woochifer]

I can't speak for the 2 channel, but the HD 5.1 feed was the one I heard.

I understand the comments by some about the difficulties in setting up a live performance on the fly, but this was definitely a *very* bad audio job by ABC (I don't think any live performance could possibly be setup this poorly). While I don't really like the Stones and I did not care for their performance no matter how good the sonics were, *no one* deserved the audio butcher job ABC did.

---Dave

Hmmm, I think that might be a big part of the discussion, because I heard the audio in analog two-channel and it did not sound noticeably bad. It wasn't great, but it didn't sound any worse than other stadium shows that have gone out live over broadcast TV, especially one using a rig that has to be assembled and disassembled in only a few minutes. I guess that's why (aside from marching bands) almost all football halftime shows use canned music and a minimum of actual live performance.

[EdwardGein]

My comments were based on the 5.1 digital audio feed. To be honest, on the past few years I've been amazed at the incredible sound quality coming out of live musical performances on TV & this one was absolutely rock bottom. The blessing is, if there performance was as bad as people are saying here, the bad sound for me disguised all that, as I just couldn't bear to really listen it was so bad.

[Digiti]

I am not an RS fan but I felt the sound was atrocious. There was no depth or presence in the sound on Mick's voice or the band in general. It sounded like an old mono recording very poorly recorded. At the very least I have to give Mick credit for singing live and not lip-synching to a recording. Last year's McCartney concert was superb in comparison. Heads should roll for this; to use a very bad expression in today's world. Incidentally I was listening to the DD 5.1 feed.