Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
Hi, Sometime before the end of this year we will have the opportunity to
go to an island in the Pacific, with the purpose of making decent recordings of the local music. I have many questions because it is about 25 years since I did any studio recording and about 15 years since I stopped mixing live gigs. Things have changed a lot and I have spent the last few months getting more up-to-date on what is available. A combination of budget restrictions, portability and power restrictions made me think something like a Korg D32XD might be the best compromise. http://www.zzounds.com/item--KORD32XD We'll be relying on generators and solar panels. The music might be sold through the web, but primarily on tape and Cd distributed by individuals mostly, as it is already done like this throughout melanesia. It will be a sort-of co-operative venture, with artists retaining control and getting all revenue after costs. I'll try to keep this short, just one more of the many questions is, the cost of property is ususally very high, but here we could make it very cheaply. The locals build their houses from local materials, and a traditional house is often round: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/qb/articles/...ges/4-2hut.jpg The walls would need to be thicker, maybe straw-bale, but what do people think of this? Would a round design be good acoustically? I think there are advantages to it. Rectangular is equally possible. This will do for now, if anyone's interested, including ideas on aspects not mentioned in this post, reply here or on email. (minus the notthisbit) Thanks |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
sav wrote: Hi, Sometime before the end of this year we will have the opportunity to go to an island in the Pacific, with the purpose of making decent recordings of the local music. I have many questions because it is about 25 years since I did any studio recording and about 15 years since I stopped mixing live gigs. I hate to try to give advice to someone who starts out a posting like that, but I didn't want you to feel like you were being ignored. A combination of budget restrictions, portability and power restrictions made me think something like a Korg D32XD might be the best compromise. That's a pretty cool gadget, but whether it would be what you need depends a whole lot on what you'll be recording. I don't expect that you're going to be doing much in the way of studio recording there - you might dedicate a hut for working, but you aren't likely to get people who will be overdubbing parts. Until you start expanding it, the DX32XD is only an 8-track recorder. While it might be convenient to record a group with 8 mics and separate tracks, this is overkill for that. The other risk is that everything is all in one box and if anything fails, there's a pretty good chance that you'll be out of business. I doubt that your budget will allow you to carry a spare. If you plan to live there for a few years, set up a production facility, and do all the work over there, that's a justification for a full-out workstation like this (though I'd still recommend having a spare). But if you're going to do field collecting, bring your recordings home, and do the busy work under more controlled conditions, I think it would be a waste and a risk. What else have you looked at, and have you considered using a laptop computer for your basic recorder? That's something that you can scale to the size of the project, and laptop comptuers are cheap enough so that you can carry a spare. Would a round design be good acoustically? I think there are advantages to it. Both advanatages and disadvantages. It's all workable. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
Mike Rivers said the following on 05/03/2006 01:12 pm:
sav wrote: Hi, Sometime before the end of this year we will have the opportunity to go to an island in the Pacific, with the purpose of making decent recordings of the local music. I have many questions because it is about 25 years since I did any studio recording and about 15 years since I stopped mixing live gigs. I hate to try to give advice to someone who starts out a posting like that, but I didn't want you to feel like you were being ignored. Well, thanks for replying... what did I do wrong?! A combination of budget restrictions, portability and power restrictions made me think something like a Korg D32XD might be the best compromise. That's a pretty cool gadget, but whether it would be what you need depends a whole lot on what you'll be recording. I don't expect that you're going to be doing much in the way of studio recording there - you might dedicate a hut for working, but you aren't likely to get people who will be overdubbing parts. Until you start expanding it, the DX32XD is only an 8-track recorder. While it might be convenient to record a group with 8 mics and separate tracks, this is overkill for that. The other risk is that everything is all in one box and if anything fails, there's a pretty good chance that you'll be out of business. I doubt that your budget will allow you to carry a spare. Most of the music is already westernized, (though they might think otherwise--the missionaries' bad taste) 'island beat' is similar to reggae. I reckon we could use 'modern' methods and do something really interesting. There are singers who travel round the islands doing gigs; the ones I've met are pretty well familiar with (or open to) working with overdubs and so on. There would be times, I hope, for recording real tribal stuff, but then I'd go out with a minidisk or something like that. What I imagine for the studio is to get people to come there, make a rough mix then do each track individually. For that I think 8 track would suffice, but then there is the possibility of putting on live gigs and recording them, or maybe just recording 'live' in the studio. In that case, the extra module would be good. I'd probably have to do all of that and see what goes down best. If you plan to live there for a few years, set up a production facility, and do all the work over there, that's a justification for a full-out workstation like this (though I'd still recommend having a spare). But if you're going to do field collecting, bring your recordings home, and do the busy work under more controlled conditions, I think it would be a waste and a risk. What else have you looked at, and have you considered using a laptop computer for your basic recorder? That's something that you can scale to the size of the project, and laptop comptuers are cheap enough so that you can carry a spare. I did look at that first. I like computers for making web pages, doing email and other stuff, but I never really got to like them for audio recording. I'd still need a half decent desk, I couldn't fiddle with a mouse moving faders, but the automation is attractive. Maybe a separate desk and HD recorder? I've seen some you can hook up to a computer, and get similar features (but better) to the all-in-one, but this looks expensive. I'd like to have a way to control from the computer but have the automated mixdown and so on, and have some real controls. Bear in mind this is all new to me (ssl desks were but a dream when I was last doing this) and there are so many different things around. I read things like http://studio-central.com/phpbb/view... c&highlight= "computer sequencer or hardware recorder?" and end up agreeing with both sides. Am I right in thinking that to get similar performance to a dedicated HD recorder I'd need a pretty expensive computer system, and thus would be in much the same price bracket as with the separate HD and computer used only for control? sorry, I really should have had more concrete ideas before posting, but that is half the problem. We could probably allocate about 5000 dollars on gear, maybe 6 if you include mics and all the bits. Would a round design be good acoustically? I think there are advantages to it. Both advanatages and disadvantages. It's all workable. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
sav wrote: I hate to try to give advice to someone who starts out a posting like that, but I didn't want you to feel like you were being ignored. Well, thanks for replying... what did I do wrong?! Nothing overtly wrong, but when someone starts out in the "I used to know what I was doing" and then says he hasn't done anything in the field for years, often the posting gets passed up. Some of us get too quicky accused of being "condescending" when trying to give advice to one who on one hand appears to have some knowledge and on the other hand seems to be a complete novice wanting to start on a big project. Forgive me if I sound condescending, whatever that really means. Most of the music is already westernized, (though they might think otherwise--the missionaries' bad taste) 'island beat' is similar to reggae. I reckon we could use 'modern' methods and do something really interesting. There are singers who travel round the islands doing gigs; the ones I've met are pretty well familiar with (or open to) working with overdubs and so on. Well, that's a different story. I've heard recordings of music like that from places like you're going (I can't cite specifics because I don't own any but you've probably heard them) and most of them are made in studios. I guess somehow or other the artists find the way to get to a studio instead of waiting for the studio to come to they. Are you familiar with the project that Henry Kaiser and David Lindley did in Madagascar 20ish or so years ago? They brought down Yamaha's digital multitrack workstation of the day (tape based, 8 tracks, cost about 5 times what this Korg costs) and, actualy brought two of them. Henry Kaiser has lots of money. It was quite an involved project with David and Henry playing with the local musicians. I like computers for making web pages, doing email and other stuff, but I never really got to like them for audio recording. I'd still need a half decent desk, I completely agree. But a computer makes a pretty good recorder with some nice editing capabilities and some processing if you need it. The combination of a computer and an analog console gives you a lot of flexibility, and also gives you more work-around paths if something goes wrong. While it's a little more trouble to set up than an all-in-one workstation, troubleshooting is easier (hell - troubleshooting is POSSIBLE). If you lose a channel in the console, there's almost always another one you can use. If you use a Firewire A/D/A to interface to the computer and that goes south, it's a lot cheaper to get another one shipped in than to ship your Korg back to the US for service. You can do a quick "all the faders up all the time" bounce to stereo in the computer while you're coiling up the mic cables, and hand the musicians a rough CD. And if you're working with a partner, you might be able to split the workload with one of you doing editing and cleanup work on one computer while the other is laying new tracks. the automation is attractive. Maybe a separate desk and HD recorder? I've seen some you can hook up to a computer, and get similar features (but better) to the all-in-one, but this looks expensive. Stand-alone hard disk recorders never really caught on - they were always on the tail end of computer technology, which was always cheaper. I have a couple of Mackie recorders here and I love them. The HDR24/96 with its graphic interface lets you do all of the editing tricks that you can do in ProTools (easier, I think, probably because I'm used to it) and it's dedicated to the task so you don't have to build it from assorted computer hardware, digital audio hardware, and software packages. But if you want one, you need to find a used one. They're not that hard to find, and they're cheap enough so you could take an extra one as a backup. Fostex still makes one, as does Alesis, and while they all sound as good or better than each of the others g I don't think any of them are as slick or well thought out as the Mackie. You can do some volume automation on the Mackie but I rarely use it other than to adjust the level of a punch-in to match the rest of the track or to mute short passages where I might want to pull the fader down but am likely to forget. Am I right in thinking that to get similar performance to a dedicated HD recorder I'd need a pretty expensive computer system, and thus would be in much the same price bracket as with the separate HD and computer used only for control? The Mackie hard disk recorder has a 400 MHz Celeron motherboard at its heart. That's not very fancy. The computer is the cheapest part of putting together a computer-based recording system. You can make do with inexpensive software and many people do, but there are good rasons why some people spend $2K for Nuendo or Sequoia, or go with a $25K ProTools system with its dedicated DSP hardware. And of course the audio interface to the computer is very important, and that goes from trivially cheap to outrageously expensive. But at least you have some choices and you don't have to live with what a single manufacturer says you want. It does take some research, and the cooperation of a good dealer in order to get what you need. You may have to buy some stuff, try it out, and exchange it for somthing more suitable. A good dealer would let you do that. sorry, I really should have had more concrete ideas before posting, but that is half the problem. We could probably allocate about 5000 dollars on gear, maybe 6 if you include mics and all the bits. Hmmmm . . . . Well, that's about one mic, or maybe two or four. You'll need monitors, and don't forget mic stands and cables. That's stuff that you can't get along without. Perhaps you should start making your budget from the outside going in, and see how much you have to spend on the actual recording and mixing gear. With a budget like that, the Korg for $3K makes more sense, but you're limited in how you can work with it. Have you seen one in the flesh? Maybe you should visit a dealer who has one on display, look at all the gozintas and gozoutas and mentally plan out out some sessions to see if they'd work. And then look at how the controls work and see if you'd be comfortable working with it. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
Scott Dorsey said the following on 05/03/2006 03:55 pm:
sav wrote: I'll try to keep this short, just one more of the many questions is, the cost of property is ususally very high, but here we could make it very cheaply. The locals build their houses from local materials, and a traditional house is often round: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/qb/articles/...ges/4-2hut.jpg snip The round design tends to be bad acoustically because you now have one huge dominant room mode. The good thing about this construction, though, is that it's actually pretty transparent at low frequencies because the walls flex a little and act like diaphragms. If I had to build a studio this way, I would consider making the place more elliptical, or extended like the traditional Hawaiian buildings rather than more Maori style. Reckon they'd have no problem with just about any shape. Do you mean a sort of oval shape? What would be the best shape, or do you know a good site I could read about this? This will do for now, if anyone's interested, including ideas on aspects not mentioned in this post, reply here or on email. (minus the notthisbit) What really matters, though, is that this is the sort of room that the music is normally played in, and therefore this is what it's _supposed_ to sound like. So even if there are room problems, some of those problems might be things you want to preserve. I'll definitely remember that, if only to use it as an excuse! |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
sav wrote:
Right, yes. they'd be better off with someone still in the business. Still for now they'll make do with me. It'll be fun anyway. Once I get to grips with whatever we end up with, I could produce a good sound before so I can do it again. Even at this level the gear is better than anything we had. I suppose I should go and get a better idea of what we want first, but there's no-one here to discuss it with and the good web content is almost drowned out by the advertising s/n ratio. I think you'll be surprised. In a lot of ways, the gear at that level isn't as good as what you might have been used to. On the bottom end of the market, microphones have improved a lot, and the numbers on the recorder have improved a lot too, but the convenience and ergonomics have gone down. And under field conditions, that's pretty important. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
sav wrote: Yes, they'd all know about the place and come over. These things take time, but some sort of 'scene' should arise around it if we take a fairly hands-off approach and let people experiment a bit. We could get some 'cool' things like an electronic drum kit which would increase the kudos of the place, and make the job a lot easier too, when it was used. Lots of possibilities. This is sounding less like a field recording trip and more like where you're going when you retire and what you'd like to do when you get settled there. Nothing wrong with that of course if you like the place and like the music. But different from what I thought when I read your first post. Maybe something like a Yamaha 01V96 You don't like mixing with a mouse? You're going to hate that console's user interface. It's pretty hard to use. I wouldn't recommend the new Mackie dxb yet (I'm supposed to get one to play with but it hasn't happened yet) but the old dxb digital console is one of the easiest to use that's come along. Too bad that was discontinued too, in favor of a whole new design rather than just an upgrade. Those go for peanuts on eBay these days. That would definitely be worth getting two of if you're going that far away from the home base because they're getting close to the end of their support life. OK I'll do some shopping around. this is helping though. I feel bad about hassling a dealer I have no intention of buying off though. Unless they can equal the web prices. When it comes to new gear, most of the big dealers will match legitimate web prices. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
Hmmmm . . . . Well, that's about one mic, or maybe two or four.
Sav, I dont know about laying out a lot of cash for Neumann mics to take to the pacific islands. I just got done listening to some Nashville early string bands and some Library of Congress archives that were recorded back in the 20's or 30's on some very rudimantary equipment and they sound great. My point being the most important thing is to get the best performance on tape (or HD) whatever you use and if you bring too much it may hamper the effort. -alan |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
greggery peccary .@. wrote:
Hmmmm . . . . Well, that's about one mic, or maybe two or four. Sav, I dont know about laying out a lot of cash for Neumann mics to take to the pacific islands. I just got done listening to some Nashville early string bands and some Library of Congress archives that were recorded back in the 20's or 30's on some very rudimantary equipment and they sound great. My point being the most important thing is to get the best performance on tape (or HD) whatever you use and if you bring too much it may hamper the effort. No, lay out a lot of cash for Sennheiser MKH series mikes instead. They will be MUCH more reliable in high humidity. Ask the Bishop Museum for their current recommendations. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
Scott Dorsey schrieb:
sav wrote: Reckon they'd have no problem with just about any shape. Do you mean a sort of oval shape? What would be the best shape, or do you know a good site I could read about this? Ethan Winer has an excellent site on studio acoustics, but I don't know if he has much about elliptical or round rooms. In any case, the fact that the walls aren't a complete seal is going to reduce the importance of a lot of that stuff. Where are you located? Can you actually sit in a similarly-built structure and get a sense of what it feels like? You can always take a trip to the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawaii.... it's a tourist trap, sure, but it has a whole lot of different style buildings with typical Pacific construction methods. Clap your hands, talk, try and listen to the room. You'll find they are much more dead than you'd expect a room with standard block or frame construction of the same size. This will do for now, if anyone's interested, including ideas on aspects not mentioned in this post, reply here or on email. (minus the notthisbit) What really matters, though, is that this is the sort of room that the music is normally played in, and therefore this is what it's _supposed_ to sound like. So even if there are room problems, some of those problems might be things you want to preserve. I'll definitely remember that, if only to use it as an excuse! Hey, it worked for Alan Lomax. --scott I just want to add some bad experiences I had to make with modern African rondavels (cement walls about 1.5m high and grass roofs)... really awful reflections... :-J |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=FCrgen_Sch=F6pf?= wrote:
I just want to add some bad experiences I had to make with modern African rondavels (cement walls about 1.5m high and grass roofs)... really awful reflections... It's the cement walls that do it. And because the place is round, ALL of the room modes are on the same frequencies. And all of the high frequency reflections all go right into the center of the room. This is pretty much the worst possible case for acoustics. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
jschoep wrote: I just want to add some bad experiences I had to make with modern African rondavels (cement walls about 1.5m high and grass roofs)... really awful reflections... It's the cement walls that do it. And because the place is round, ALL of the room modes are on the same frequencies. And all of the high frequency reflections all go right into the center of the room. This is pretty much the worst possible case for acoustics. You could have parallel concrete floor and ceiling! :-) |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Recording in a Remote(ish) Area
Scott Dorsey schrieb:
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=FCrgen_Sch=F6pf?= wrote: I just want to add some bad experiences I had to make with modern African rondavels (cement walls about 1.5m high and grass roofs)... really awful reflections... It's the cement walls that do it. And because the place is round, ALL of the room modes are on the same frequencies. And all of the high frequency reflections all go right into the center of the room. This is pretty much the worst possible case for acoustics. --scott Exactly. helped myself in placing the musician close to the wall, directed a cardioid from the center of the hut towards him (I didn't have a hypercardioid with me) and fixed a piezo on his instrument. Result was not too bad. :-J |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
DNC Schedule of Events | Pro Audio |