What is it that roadies are saying nowadays that sounds like “sibalence… sibalence”. What is the word? Why are they saying it? When did this become popular?
They’re probably saying “sibilance,” which is a linguisitic term for “s” or “sh” sounds. Hollering “sibilance” lets them know how the “s” sounds come through on the mikes as those are sounds which can be distorted on PA systems.
Diogenes as usual, in my experience, has it right. I was just, tonight, hanging out with a buddy who is a record producer. He is remixing a bunch of Cure tracks to 5.1 surround sound - he has been friends with Robert Smith of the Cure for years and mixed Disintegration and other CDs. I was asking him a bunch of questions about production - mainly about the use of compression and EQ. At one point, he played a vocal track with nothing on it - just Robert Smith singing “Prayers for Rain”. He showed me that, in order to make the vocal ready for 5.1, he need to first put a “noise gate” for lower bass tones, so the vocal would not crowd the bass and kick drum. Then, he needed to put a limiter on the top end of the vocal track, because sibilants - “s” and “sh” sounds - would peak at 4,000 hertz and blow the EQ of the overall vocal.
It was tremendously educational for a novice music fan, and a nice coincidence for this thread…
What? Roadies don’t go one-TWO, TWO-TWO, TESTING, TESTING, one TWO any more?
Gawd I used to run a PA and I can’t quite remember why we did this (it was a while back). I think it’s because it’s high frequency part of sibilance (or indeed teSSSt) that will trigger the monitors/mikes to feed-back.
Usually what you’re trying to do is get the monitors as loud as possible, that’s just below the sound level where they feed-back.
They’ll still be drowned out by the guitarist tho’.
We always use “Cicely Tyson” 'cause that’s a lot more fun than “tessssting.”
Re:
Get you some of them in-ear monitors. Emerson good stuff!
Theyre trying to prove they’re not Ephraimites.
Not disputing that Diogenes is correct. Sounds put through the PA are designed to let the person mixing the live sound achieve a flat response. That is why every live sound mixer carries a tape (usually a CD now) that is their reference point for the sound system. I am very surprised to hear that anyone is producing noticable sibilance below 5K (I have never found any intrusive sibilance below 6K) because vocals below this level don’t have the sonic overload to stuff up anything. Usually sibilance is compounded by the fact that it is common to give the vocals a kick at 6K to provide some presence.
Tell him to keep it coming, I’m anxiously awaiting the remaster of Disintegration 
Good answers so far. To add a little: there is also a sound processor (or, these days, a module or preset built into a multi-processor) called a de-esser that is used to take out the overpowering sibilant sounds. Sibilants and plosives (one-TWO, one-TWO, CHECK) direct a blast of air directly at the mike’s pickup so there’s special gear designed to knock back the resulting sound spike.
Put your hand in front of your mouth and compare vowel sounds (aaaah, ooooh, eeeee) to plosives (buh, puh). Remember to remove your hand when done or people will think you’re weird.
Compressors and limiters also smooth out the overpowering volumes when you’re too close to the mike, and other situations with sudden loud noises. This is fun stuff to play with.
Next week, the vocoder.