[Mike Rivers]

On 7/30/2011 11:00 AM, hank alrich wrote:

I use pieces of insulation jacket left over from assembling cables cut
to a length that allows the plug to go only so far into the jack. The
sleeves slip over the plug, preventing insertion past the pont where the
sleeve makes contact with the jack.

That's clever. You have to cut the sleeve to just the right
length so that the ring contact of the jack is on the end
part of the V in the plug so that it's pulling the plug in,
but before the plug is in far enough so that the ring
contact is centered over the notch and often not bottoming
in there.

You can custom-fit them for your own mixer, but the length
might be different by a millimeter or so for different jacks.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:
LEs writes:
But there are a lot of plug in the
inserts and take whatever you get from foh guys out there,
and they're charging to do this.
When I was doing it, I wasn't charging much if anything.
I don't know how they can
guarantee their work, but they are. I don't know how you
can assure the client you'll get anything usable that way.
You can't. Look - the idea is for that to be a "guerilla"
recording. Part of that is adapting the recording
process to what's going on rather than the other way 'round.
It works just fine.
But then, the clients who pay them don't know any better.
IT's an alright approach if you're on tour, have your own
sound person, and multiple shots at getting something good,
but otherwise I'd shoot for much better reliability.
Reliability was much more of a trade item than it
would be for you. You're doing this for a living - I
wasn't.
The people I always did it for were aware of the risks,
ran their own sound and really just wanted either
clips for the Web, CDs for their own or some such. If
it didn't work for some reason ( usually environmental
issues ), we'd redo it if they wanted, or I was able to
filter out the ugly in post.

That can work for you, and does for many. wHen I did that
sort of thing I was usually running foh too, and again it
was take what we could get. IT can work, but you need to
plan your work, and work your plan as much as possible.

I steered a church to a buddy of mine that does this kind of
thing, and got a bit of a piece of the action. That's best
I could do for 'em in that environment.
HE needs the dough and the percentage doesn't hurt me any.



I was kicking the tires on this as a business model ( with
the intent of adding gear as need be to improve the obvious
limitations of the way I was doing things ) and I concluded
that people would rather spend 3x the money to buy stuff and DIY
than pay even a modest amount to have it done. They would not
*execute* on that premise - they never finished anything - but
that didn't matter.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com




--
Les Cargill

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sat 2011-Jul-30 12:48, Arny Krueger writes:
24 channels of even really cheap stuff stops being cheap.

YEp, that it does.

It's not that bad. Any 1/4"-1/4" TS snake works fine. A 1/4"TS to
1/4"TRS would be even better.

I generally make my own cabling of this kind.

The best policy, you know what you've got that way. Proper
strain relief, tested, etc. etc.

I'd be surprised if more than 8 channels was ever needed. If it is,
then fewer spots and ambients.

Depends on the room and the music. There is only one way to get
anything like good sound out of our echo chamber/church sanctuary
and that is careful close micing.

OR just careful placement g.
snip
Pared down as much as I can - 17 channels. Interesting, over the
past 4 years the number of instruments has gone up and the number
of mics has gone down..

YEp, you know what you need to get the sound. I note 17
channels. That many actual tracks individually captured or
are you submixing elements during capture?




Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 7/30/2011 11:00 AM, hank alrich wrote:

I use pieces of insulation jacket left over from assembling cables cut
to a length that allows the plug to go only so far into the jack. The
sleeves slip over the plug, preventing insertion past the pont where the
sleeve makes contact with the jack.

That's clever.

It's the blind pig finds an acorn theory in practice.

You have to cut the sleeve to just the right
length so that the ring contact of the jack is on the end
part of the V in the plug so that it's pulling the plug in,
but before the plug is in far enough so that the ring
contact is centered over the notch and often not bottoming
in there.

You can custom-fit them for your own mixer, but the length
might be different by a millimeter or so for different jacks.

Yep, though the ones I used worked with various Mackies and my old
Soundcraft 200.

(BTW, the Soundcraft is now approx 25 years old and is till working, now
down in Texas.)

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

I was kicking the tires on this as a business model ( with
the intent of adding gear as need be to improve the obvious
limitations of the way I was doing things ) and I concluded
that people would rather spend 3x the money to buy stuff and DIY
than pay even a modest amount to have it done. They would not
*execute* on that premise - they never finished anything - but
that didn't matter.

They bought a lot of stuff and built the production equivalent of a
guillotine.

Hey, saved a bunch of egg crates from the dump.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Les wrote:

You push the TS jacks in at "half-click" and hope for the best. That's
why TRS is better. It puts the tip of a TS in contact with the ring and
tip of the TRS insert jack.

I use pieces of insulation jacket left over from assembling cables cut
to a length that allows the plug to go only so far into the jack. The
sleeves slip over the plug, preventing insertion past the pont where the
sleeve makes contact with the jack. This makes insertion quick and
accurate and helps to stabilize the connection physically.



That's going in the tips file... .

Cool. I sometimes play for tips.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
Les wrote:

You push the TS jacks in at "half-click" and hope for the best. That's
why TRS is better. It puts the tip of a TS in contact with the ring and
tip of the TRS insert jack.

I use pieces of insulation jacket left over from assembling cables cut
to a length that allows the plug to go only so far into the jack. The
sleeves slip over the plug, preventing insertion past the pont where the
sleeve makes contact with the jack. This makes insertion quick and
accurate and helps to stabilize the connection physically.



That's going in the tips file... .

--
Les Cargill

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sat 2011-Jul-30 18:12, Les Cargill writes:
Reliability was much more of a trade item than it
would be for you. You're doing this for a living - I
wasn't.
snip
That can work for you, and does for many. wHen I did that
sort of thing I was usually running foh too, and again it
was take what we could get. IT can work, but you need to
plan your work, and work your plan as much as possible.

I steered a church to a buddy of mine that does this kind of
thing, and got a bit of a piece of the action. That's best
I could do for 'em in that environment.
HE needs the dough and the percentage doesn't hurt me any.

I was kicking the tires on this as a business model ( with
the intent of adding gear as need be to improve the obvious
limitations of the way I was doing things ) and I concluded
that people would rather spend 3x the money to buy stuff and DIY
than pay even a modest amount to have it done. They would not
*execute* on that premise - they never finished anything - but that
didn't matter.

THis is as I find it also. I'm shooting for higher end,
either broadcast or those wanting a get it this time get it
right recording. THis church came to me kicking tires, I
told them I'd charge them a fee to consult with their
leadership and their sound guy about how to do a recording
they could then sell as a fundraiser. tHey didn't like
truck price. I told 'em I'd knock the fee off the truck
price for the consultation. I looked around, no good
isolation in another room to be had, so I steered a buddy to them, and that's how I actually get paid on that one. A
couple hours consultation, a buddy of mine gets the job,
they can take it to one of the local studios with a good
control room and a daw for mixing then on to mastering if
they choose. IT's all praise band stuff, and the only
things I do where I can't get isolation are fully acoustic
and then I attend rehearsals a couple of times and we tweak
the setup ahead of time.

FUnny but the tire kickers who would really rather diy call
me, I offer them a consultation at a reasonable price and
about ten percent seem to take me up on that. tHose are
probably the ones that even though they're going to go the
diy route are really serious about getting something
finished and out there.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[[email protected]]

LEs writes:
hank alrich wrote:
Les wrote:
You push the TS jacks in at "half-click" and hope for the best.
That's why TRS is better. It puts the tip of a TS in contact
with the ring and tip of the TRS insert jack.
I use pieces of insulation jacket left over from assembling
cables cut to a length that allows the plug to go only so far
into the jack. The sleeves slip over the plug, preventing
insertion past the pont where the sleeve makes contact with the
jack. This makes insertion quick and accurate and helps to
stabilize the connection physically.
That's going in the tips file... .

IT sure did here! Thanks Hank.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Richard Webb" wrote in
message ...
On Sat 2011-Jul-30 12:48, Arny Krueger writes:
24 channels of even really cheap stuff stops being cheap.

YEp, that it does.

It's not that bad. Any 1/4"-1/4" TS snake works fine. A 1/4"TS to
1/4"TRS would be even better.

I generally make my own cabling of this kind.

The best policy, you know what you've got that way. Proper
strain relief, tested, etc. etc.

I'd be surprised if more than 8 channels was ever needed. If it is,
then fewer spots and ambients.

Depends on the room and the music. There is only one way to get
anything like good sound out of our echo chamber/church sanctuary
and that is careful close micing.

OR just careful placement g.
snip

One can only play that approach so far.

Pared down as much as I can - 17 channels. Interesting, over the
past 4 years the number of instruments has gone up and the number
of mics has gone down..

YEp, you know what you need to get the sound. I note 17
channels. That many actual tracks individually captured or
are you submixing elements during capture?

None.

No surprise, the recording mix is vastly different from the live sound mix,
and keeping the latter going is as much as I can do during the performance.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Les Cargill wrote:

You push the TS jacks in at "half-click" and hope for the best. That's
why TRS is better. It puts the tip of a TS in contact with the ring and
tip of the TRS insert jack.

I use pieces of insulation jacket left over from assembling cables cut
to a length that allows the plug to go only so far into the jack. The
sleeves slip over the plug, preventing insertion past the pont where the
sleeve makes contact with the jack. This makes insertion quick and
accurate and helps to stabilize the connection physically.

You should learn to solder, Hank. ;-)

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Les Cargill wrote:

You push the TS jacks in at "half-click" and hope for the best. That's
why TRS is better. It puts the tip of a TS in contact with the ring and
tip of the TRS insert jack.

I use pieces of insulation jacket left over from assembling cables cut
to a length that allows the plug to go only so far into the jack. The
sleeves slip over the plug, preventing insertion past the pont where the
sleeve makes contact with the jack. This makes insertion quick and
accurate and helps to stabilize the connection physically.

You should learn to solder, Hank. ;-)

G! Yeah, I can solder, but this was quick, effective, and used stuff
that would ordinarily have been tossed.

I was surprised how well it worked.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Richard Webb" wrote in
message ...
On Sat 2011-Jul-30 12:48, Arny Krueger writes:
24 channels of even really cheap stuff stops being cheap.

YEp, that it does.

It's not that bad. Any 1/4"-1/4" TS snake works fine. A 1/4"TS to
1/4"TRS would be even better.

I generally make my own cabling of this kind.

The best policy, you know what you've got that way. Proper
strain relief, tested, etc. etc.

I'd be surprised if more than 8 channels was ever needed. If it is,
then fewer spots and ambients.

Depends on the room and the music. There is only one way to get
anything like good sound out of our echo chamber/church sanctuary
and that is careful close micing.

OR just careful placement g.
snip

One can only play that approach so far.

Pared down as much as I can - 17 channels. Interesting, over the
past 4 years the number of instruments has gone up and the number
of mics has gone down..

YEp, you know what you need to get the sound. I note 17
channels. That many actual tracks individually captured or
are you submixing elements during capture?

None.

No surprise, the recording mix is vastly different from the live sound mix,
and keeping the latter going is as much as I can do during the performance.

If I find a problem when pulling from someone else's FOH setup via
inserts or directs it is almost always that they haven't left enough
headroom to get a delicious signal through the chain.

This was driven home recently not in a recording situation but at a live
performance where a very good sound operator who had been mixing Shaidri
and me in a particular venue had to be out of town for another gig. He
was replaced by a genuinely world-class operator. From the first sound
out of the monitors I could tell we had better sound. When I examined
the difference at the console it was all about the input sensitivty
settings. The first guy didn't push into clipping but the trim was
visually at about 1 o'clock. Trims for the second guy were at about 11
o'clock.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[[email protected]]

On 2011-07-31 (hankalrich) said:
big snip

are you submixing elements during capture?
None.
No surprise, the recording mix is vastly different from the live
sound mix, and keeping the latter going is as much as I can do
during the performance.
If I find a problem when pulling from someone else's FOH setup via
inserts or directs it is almost always that they haven't left enough
headroom to get a delicious signal through the chain.
This was driven home recently not in a recording situation but at a
live performance where a very good sound operator who had been
mixing Shaidri and me in a particular venue had to be out of town
for another gig. He was replaced by a genuinely world-class
operator. From the first sound out of the monitors I could tell we
had better sound. When I examined the difference at the console it
was all about the input sensitivty settings. The first guy didn't
push into clipping but the trim was visually at about 1 o'clock.
Trims for the second guy were at about 11 o'clock.

Uh huh! That's why I don't like pulling from inserts when
I"m not operating foh. IT's about headroom, *all* through
the chain. THose other stages can play do makeup gain if
they have to, but it's about considering what's going to
happen from the channel trims onward. IT's partially due to
being a blind op, but I've always been conservative with
setting gain structure because I might not have enough
tactile or audible vu to watch everything as closely as an
op would who's flying by the light bars or meters. I go for
a little headroom throughout while minimizing noise. I want
to pull my signals from as close to the source as possible
for a good recording. THis means a bit of isolation from
the performance, either in my remote truck control room or
another room somewhere. THis means I"m not the cheapest guy
you'll find, and I probably don't work as much as some other
folks might, but that's what it's about.


Regards,



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
IF you are running both the FOH sound AND recording, everything is much
easier IME.

If you have eight hands and two heads, sure. Frankly, it's hard enough to
worry about just one mix at a time.

Not for me, I can't imagine why I would want to mix the recording real time
whilst also mixing FOH. The whole point of my recording multi-channel is so
I can re-mix later at my leasure. Of couse a FOH output is also recorded
seperately for reference and as backup.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2011 11:00 AM, hank alrich wrote:

I use pieces of insulation jacket left over from assembling cables cut
to a length that allows the plug to go only so far into the jack. The
sleeves slip over the plug, preventing insertion past the pont where the
sleeve makes contact with the jack.

That's clever. You have to cut the sleeve to just the right length so that
the ring contact of the jack is on the end part of the V in the plug so
that it's pulling the plug in, but before the plug is in far enough so
that the ring contact is centered over the notch and often not bottoming
in there.

You can custom-fit them for your own mixer, but the length might be
different by a millimeter or so for different jacks.


Right, and all that just to save making up a few dedicated leads that only
require fairly inexpensive T/S and TRS plugs anyway. I can't see the point
in risking it myself.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
It's been said elsethread, but you half-click the 1/4" TS so that
it makes contact with both the tip and ring.

Right, never wanted to do that on the grounds that it may pop out and I get
no recording, or worse still, it pops all the way in and the channel goes
missing from FOH as well! All it takes is a little knock, although I do
admit the second more dire possibility can be eliminated by using plastic
sleeving. Something I never bothered with since TS, TRS plugs and single
core cable aren't all that expensive IMO.
The people really doing it on the cheap are usually just recording stereo
out from the mixer "rec out" phono sockets, and don't have multi-channel
recording interfaces anyway.

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 7/30/2011 11:00 AM, hank alrich wrote:

I use pieces of insulation jacket left over from assembling cables cut
to a length that allows the plug to go only so far into the jack. The
sleeves slip over the plug, preventing insertion past the pont where the
sleeve makes contact with the jack.

That's clever. You have to cut the sleeve to just the right length so that
the ring contact of the jack is on the end part of the V in the plug so
that it's pulling the plug in, but before the plug is in far enough so
that the ring contact is centered over the notch and often not bottoming
in there.

You can custom-fit them for your own mixer, but the length might be
different by a millimeter or so for different jacks.


Right, and all that just to save making up a few dedicated leads that only
require fairly inexpensive T/S and TRS plugs anyway. I can't see the point
in risking it myself.

Trevor.

The approach took less than five minutes and the cost was zero. I know
how to solder, have plenty of well-built cables. This worked perfectly
multiple times, period. If someone comes crashing into the FOH board all
bets are off regardless of connectors.

When something works repeatedly free beats fairly inexpensive,
especially considering relative invested time.

Nowadays I'm generally taking direct outs via lovely cutom cables I
built of Mogami and Neutriks to feed the 2882_DSP. Since there's no free
lunch the new point of fragility is the Firewire cable.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
It's been said elsethread, but you half-click the 1/4" TS so that
it makes contact with both the tip and ring.

Right, never wanted to do that on the grounds that it may pop out and I get
no recording, or worse still, it pops all the way in and the channel goes
missing from FOH as well! All it takes is a little knock, although I do
admit the second more dire possibility can be eliminated by using plastic
sleeving. Something I never bothered with since TS, TRS plugs and single
core cable aren't all that expensive IMO.

The sleeve thing worked fine every time for me. It stabilized the
connection such that a little jiggle didn't hassle the connection.
Return on investment was phenomenal.

Then remove the sleeve and I have the orignial cable in hand.

The people really doing it on the cheap are usually just recording stereo
out from the mixer "rec out" phono sockets, and don't have multi-channel
recording interfaces anyway.

This was to feed the DA88.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Mike Rivers]

On 7/31/2011 4:00 PM, wrote:

IT's partially due to
being a blind op, but I've always been conservative with
setting gain structure because I might not have enough
tactile or audible vu to watch everything as closely as an
op would who's flying by the light bars or meters. I go for
a little headroom throughout while minimizing noise.

Sometimes, not looking at the meters is an advantage. People
seem to get worried when the meter only goes to mid scale
and don't seem to notice that it's already loud enough. Or
they don't know that they can adjust the input sensitivity
of the power amplifiers or input and output levels at the
crossover or in-line equalizers.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/1/2011 2:40 AM, Trevor wrote:

I can't imagine why I would want to mix the recording real time
whilst also mixing FOH. The whole point of my recording multi-channel is so
I can re-mix later at my leasure.

And the reason why I want to mix the recording while the
show is going on is because it's rare that the performance
is worth the time to mix it from the multitrack. It might be
worth doing for your own shows, but I don't usually have
clients who are willing to pay for multitrack mixdown time,
and I rarely get paid enough for the live gig to cover some
multitrack mixing afterward.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/1/2011 2:44 AM, Trevor wrote:

Right, and all that just to save making up a few dedicated leads that only
require fairly inexpensive T/S and TRS plugs anyway. I can't see the point
in risking it myself.

Well, you can have only so many cables before it becomes
overwhelming. I had a DB25-TRS snake that I modified by
tying the tip and ring together so I could use it with mixer
insert jacks, then forgot to look at the label and spent
half an hour trying to figure out what was wrong when I
tried to use it to get a few balanced TRS outputs over to a
DB25 input.

Radio Shack has a 1/4" stereo-to-mono adapter that does the
job, #274-1520. I don't like to put the strain of an extra
couple of inches of stiff adapter on to a jack, but heck,
most of the time it's on someone else's mixer anyway. g


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
"Les wrote in message
...
It's been said elsethread, but you half-click the 1/4" TS so that
it makes contact with both the tip and ring.

Right, never wanted to do that on the grounds that it may pop out and I get
no recording, or worse still, it pops all the way in and the channel goes
missing from FOH as well!

You can't say *in general* what will happen ( all inserts are
not created equal ) but from what I saw, unless somebody bumped
the thing, it wasn't likely.

The group here seems to be circling back to the perceived unreliability
of that connection. I won't disagree - it's not defensible in talking
about it, but the risk is probably lower than you'd think.

All it takes is a little knock, although I do
admit the second more dire possibility can be eliminated by using plastic
sleeving. Something I never bothered with since TS, TRS plugs and single
core cable aren't all that expensive IMO.

No, they are not. I reserved that effort for when it
became more of a serious thing - which never happened. The
last thing I need is another batch o' cables that don't get
used frequently.

The experiments were "are people even interested in live recordings of
these bands" and "how low a profile can I have for recording."
The answers were "no - if it cuts into their beer money" and "very."

They (mostly) didn't want to fool with it.

The next step would have been to set up a deal with the guy
who runs a local studio/rehearsal space and tighten up all the
loose elements. He'd rather use his studio space, though - his
perception is that his flow is based on utilization of that.

The people really doing it on the cheap are usually just recording stereo
out from the mixer "rec out" phono sockets, and don't have multi-channel
recording interfaces anyway.


Right - and once the H4 class of handheld recorders became the norm,
it didn't much matter.

Trevor.



--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

Trevor wrote:
"Les wrote in message
...
It's been said elsethread, but you half-click the 1/4" TS so that
it makes contact with both the tip and ring.

Right, never wanted to do that on the grounds that it may pop out and I get
no recording, or worse still, it pops all the way in and the channel goes
missing from FOH as well!

You can't say *in general* what will happen ( all inserts are
not created equal ) but from what I saw, unless somebody bumped
the thing, it wasn't likely.

I think it's far more secure than the Firewire connection I use now
while fine cables feed the interface. Even given my own opinion there,
I've not yet lost a recording due to a Firewire interruption.

The group here seems to be circling back to the perceived unreliability
of that connection. I won't disagree - it's not defensible in talking
about it, but the risk is probably lower than you'd think.

All it takes is a little knock, although I do
admit the second more dire possibility can be eliminated by using plastic
sleeving. Something I never bothered with since TS, TRS plugs and single
core cable aren't all that expensive IMO.

No, they are not. I reserved that effort for when it
became more of a serious thing - which never happened. The
last thing I need is another batch o' cables that don't get
used frequently.

The experiments were "are people even interested in live recordings of
these bands" and "how low a profile can I have for recording."
The answers were "no - if it cuts into their beer money" and "very."

They (mostly) didn't want to fool with it.

The next step would have been to set up a deal with the guy
who runs a local studio/rehearsal space and tighten up all the
loose elements. He'd rather use his studio space, though - his
perception is that his flow is based on utilization of that.

The people really doing it on the cheap are usually just recording stereo
out from the mixer "rec out" phono sockets, and don't have multi-channel
recording interfaces anyway.


Right - and once the H4 class of handheld recorders became the norm,
it didn't much matter.

Right. I often snag an FOH mix via the H2. I really should make a with
built-in pads, but I generally find some two channel output available
and an operator who understands what I mean about leaving tons of
headroom going into the Zoom.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/2/2011 1:25 AM, hank alrich wrote:

Right. I often snag an FOH mix via the H2. I really should make a with
built-in pads, but I generally find some two channel output available
and an operator who understands what I mean about leaving tons of
headroom going into the Zoom.

Time to trade it in for an H2n (already!). It has a real
record level control, just like I told them it needed. They
finally caught on with the H4n.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Mon 2011-Aug-01 09:45, Mike Rivers writes:
IT's partially due to
being a blind op, but I've always been conservative with
setting gain structure because I might not have enough
tactile or audible vu to watch everything as closely as an
op would who's flying by the light bars or meters. I go for
a little headroom throughout while minimizing noise.

Sometimes, not looking at the meters is an advantage. People seem
to get worried when the meter only goes to mid scale
and don't seem to notice that it's already loud enough. Or
they don't know that they can adjust the input sensitivity
of the power amplifiers or input and output levels at the
crossover or in-line equalizers.

IF they don't know that much they don't need to be fooling
with the audio. That's why all those adjustments are there.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Right, and all that just to save making up a few dedicated leads that
only
require fairly inexpensive T/S and TRS plugs anyway. I can't see the
point
in risking it myself.

The approach took less than five minutes and the cost was zero. I know
how to solder, have plenty of well-built cables. This worked perfectly
multiple times, period.

Fine, I just worry about they time they don't, but you get to make your own
choices.


When something works repeatedly free beats fairly inexpensive,
especially considering relative invested time.

Sure something can work repeatedly until the day it doesn't. The question is
whether you care about the fact it is guaranteed to be less reliable. How
much so, and whether YOU care is a choice only you can make for your
circumstances.
I know what I choose though.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
I can't imagine why I would want to mix the recording real time
whilst also mixing FOH. The whole point of my recording multi-channel is
so
I can re-mix later at my leasure.

And the reason why I want to mix the recording while the show is going on
is because it's rare that the performance is worth the time to mix it from
the multitrack. It might be worth doing for your own shows, but I don't
usually have clients who are willing to pay for multitrack mixdown time,
and I rarely get paid enough for the live gig to cover some multitrack
mixing afterward.

Right, for those cases I simply provide an unedited 2 track mix from the rec
out phono sockets on the mixer. Then IF they want higher quality I can go
back to my multi-track recording and remix/edit it at their expense.
*IF* I can't justify doing it later, I can't possibly see how I could
justify having someone do it in a "quiet room" as originally suggested, at
the gig???

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Right, and all that just to save making up a few dedicated leads that
only
require fairly inexpensive T/S and TRS plugs anyway. I can't see the
point
in risking it myself.

The approach took less than five minutes and the cost was zero. I know
how to solder, have plenty of well-built cables. This worked perfectly
multiple times, period.

Fine, I just worry about they time they don't, but you get to make your own
choices.


When something works repeatedly free beats fairly inexpensive,
especially considering relative invested time.

Sure something can work repeatedly until the day it doesn't. The question is
whether you care about the fact it is guaranteed to be less reliable. How
much so, and whether YOU care is a choice only you can make for your
circumstances.
I know what I choose though.

Trevor.

Once upon a time I chose to buy a brand new 1" Studer. All this computer
**** is piddly in comparison. OTOH, it's much easier to move around even
if the Studer was a VUT model.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Once upon a time I chose to buy a brand new 1" Studer. All this computer
**** is piddly in comparison. OTOH, it's much easier to move around even
if the Studer was a VUT model.

Right, a few cables are MINIMAL cost in comparison.
And isn't it wonderful that a cheap computer/interface combo can provide
better performance than the Studer, whilst being much easier to cary around,
and far cheaper to run than buying 1" tapes!!! :-)
I sure wish I had the current level of digital recording 30 years ago and
never bought Revox, Otari, Uher and Tascam tape machines, and mountains of
tape. :-(

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/3/2011 12:44 AM, Trevor wrote:

Right, for those cases I simply provide an unedited 2 track mix from the rec
out phono sockets on the mixer. Then IF they want higher quality I can go
back to my multi-track recording and remix/edit it at their expense.

But this means you're doing the multitrack recording anyway,
"on spec." That's OK if you want to take the equipment and
can get the feeds (much easier if you're doing the live
sound support, of course), and don't mind storing the data
until you either get the job to mix it, find the time to mix
it for your own enjoyment, or decide you'll never use it and
dump it (or store it).

*IF* I can't justify doing it later, I can't possibly see how I could
justify having someone do it in a "quiet room" as originally suggested, at
the gig???

That's a different story. If you can get a quiet room to set
up, and you have the gear, you can do a separate live mix
for the recording. That almost always works better than
taking the PA mix, particularly when there are electric
instruments on stage that don't need much or any support
from the PA system.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Once upon a time I chose to buy a brand new 1" Studer. All this computer
**** is piddly in comparison. OTOH, it's much easier to move around even
if the Studer was a VUT model.

Right, a few cables are MINIMAL cost in comparison.
And isn't it wonderful that a cheap computer/interface combo can provide
better performance than the Studer, whilst being much easier to cary around,
and far cheaper to run than buying 1" tapes!!! :-)
I sure wish I had the current level of digital recording 30 years ago and
never bought Revox, Otari, Uher and Tascam tape machines, and mountains of
tape. :-(

Trevor.

I dunno. We just mastered a product from tapes mixed in 1979. Beyond
decent storage no effort or expense was incurred keeping the tapes
usable. I doubt that the hard drives I mix to now will play well in
thirty years if all the attention they get is decent storage.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
Right, for those cases I simply provide an unedited 2 track mix from the
rec
out phono sockets on the mixer. Then IF they want higher quality I can go
back to my multi-track recording and remix/edit it at their expense.

But this means you're doing the multitrack recording anyway, "on spec."
That's OK if you want to take the equipment and can get the feeds (much
easier if you're doing the live sound support, of course), and don't mind
storing the data until you either get the job to mix it, find the time to
mix it for your own enjoyment, or decide you'll never use it and dump it
(or store it).

Right, I always record when I'm doing FOH, it only takes me a few more
minutes to set up, I use the computer for a spectrum analyser anyway, and
storage is no longer a real issue given the cost of hard disks now. I also
store to DVD/s for backup.


*IF* I can't justify doing it later, I can't possibly see how I could
justify having someone do it in a "quiet room" as originally suggested,
at
the gig???

That's a different story.

Nope, it's the one I was responding to.

If you can get a quiet room to set up, and you have the gear, you can do a
separate live mix for the recording.

Well I could in many venues, but then I'd need another person. I'd rather do
it later myself.

That almost always works better than taking the PA mix,

Right, the whole point of my recording multi-track as well as FOH mix.

particularly when there are electric instruments on stage that don't need
much or any support from the PA system.

Not for me. I simply add mics to any instrument amps, drums etc for
recording, even if I don't need to add it to FOH. I like having the abilty
to push that fader up in FOH if I need to anyway, especially for solo's. I
only ever record concerts where I'm not doing FOH when the artist brings
their own regular mix engineer and I'm doing the rest of the setup.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
And isn't it wonderful that a cheap computer/interface combo can provide
better performance than the Studer, whilst being much easier to cary
around,
and far cheaper to run than buying 1" tapes!!! :-)
I sure wish I had the current level of digital recording 30 years ago and
never bought Revox, Otari, Uher and Tascam tape machines, and mountains
of
tape. :-(

I dunno. We just mastered a product from tapes mixed in 1979. Beyond
decent storage no effort or expense was incurred keeping the tapes
usable. I doubt that the hard drives I mix to now will play well in
thirty years if all the attention they get is decent storage.

Given the cost of a 1" Studer and the cost of tape, (let's not even consider
the cost of temperature/humidity controlled storage for tape if you expect
to use it in 30 years, many didn't make it that long) you could transfer
files to a new hard drive every year (and even pay someone to do it for
you), and still have a LOT of change left over!
(Not to mention a lot more storage space :-)

For that I am very grateful!

Trevor.

[david correia]

In article ,
"Trevor" wrote:


"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
And isn't it wonderful that a cheap computer/interface combo can provide
better performance than the Studer, whilst being much easier to cary
around,
and far cheaper to run than buying 1" tapes!!! :-)
I sure wish I had the current level of digital recording 30 years ago and
never bought Revox, Otari, Uher and Tascam tape machines, and mountains
of
tape. :-(

I dunno. We just mastered a product from tapes mixed in 1979. Beyond
decent storage no effort or expense was incurred keeping the tapes
usable. I doubt that the hard drives I mix to now will play well in
thirty years if all the attention they get is decent storage.

Given the cost of a 1" Studer and the cost of tape, (let's not even consider
the cost of temperature/humidity controlled storage for tape if you expect
to use it in 30 years, many didn't make it that long) you could transfer
files to a new hard drive every year (and even pay someone to do it for
you), and still have a LOT of change left over!
(Not to mention a lot more storage space :-)

For that I am very grateful!

Trevor.



What you fail to note is that Hank's tape was never copied. It's
original. And it's still doing it's job.

Of course spinning hard drives won't be found in people's houses in
2041. They'll likely be viewed in much the same way as Hank's 1" machine
is today. You'll be copying over multiple storage formats just to be
able to play a note.

And do you think Pro Tools 19 or whatever takes its place will still
open PT 5.31 multitrack data? And how about all those iLok protected
plugins? I bet Autotune will still exist ; In fact there will be a
Michael Jackson & a Frank Sinatra plug in. How would you like John
Lennon or Sandy Denny singing background vocals for you? Yessss.

I wonder what technology is gonna be like in 30 years. I likely won't be
around to see it, tho. If you go back to 1981 & take a look, it's quite
a revolution that has taken place. Too bad humans haven't really changed
much. We is still pretty dumbos.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Trevor]

"david correia" wrote in message
...
What you fail to note is that Hank's tape was never copied. It's
original. And it's still doing it's job.

Nope, I noticed that alright. I also noticed how many tapes from the
seventies and eighties haven't survived. I also noted how much the Studer
cost and how much the tape cost. I think I spelled that all out very clearly
if you care to re-read what I wrote.


Of course spinning hard drives won't be found in people's houses in
2041.

Who cares now that we can make *infinite* IDENTICAL data copies, on whatever
media is yet to be invented, whenever we need to, something you CANNOT do
with analog tape!!!!


They'll likely be viewed in much the same way as Hank's 1" machine
is today. You'll be copying over multiple storage formats just to be
able to play a note.

I wonder how many analog tapes and tape players will have survived by 2041??
ALL archive libraries are busy transferring material to DIGITAL so it can be
archived without further loss for as long as deemed worthwhile, on as many
copies as necessary, in as many locations as desireable. NONE of which can
be done with original analog formats. One fire and the original is gone
forever! And any analog back-ups are of lesser quality.


And do you think Pro Tools 19 or whatever takes its place will still
open PT 5.31 multitrack data?

I surely think that ALL digital audio formats are sufficiently simple
structure that the DATA can be transferred without loss, and any new program
necessary to convert formats to whatever is required at any future date,
will take a competent programmer no more than a few hours. Maybe that
doesn't include you, but I know I can.


And how about all those iLok protected
plugins?


You seem to have a problem discriminating programs from data. NO live
recording I have ever made relies on plugin's to recover the data, does
yours? If so, simply re-render each track now while you still can.


I bet Autotune will still exist ; In fact there will be a
Michael Jackson & a Frank Sinatra plug in. How would you like John
Lennon or Sandy Denny singing background vocals for you? Yessss.

Not sure what that has to do with the topic under discussion?


I wonder what technology is gonna be like in 30 years. I likely won't be
around to see it, tho. If you go back to 1981 & take a look, it's quite
a revolution that has taken place.

Well that was my point, I for one am glad it is no longer necessary to buy
1" Studer tape machines at HUGE expense to get decent multi-track
recordings.


Too bad humans haven't really changed
much. We is still pretty dumbos.

So true for many.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/3/2011 11:49 PM, Trevor wrote:

I always record when I'm doing FOH, it only takes me a few more
minutes to set up, I use the computer for a spectrum analyser anyway, and
storage is no longer a real issue given the cost of hard disks now. I also
store to DVD/s for backup.

To me, that's a lot of work and expense that I'm not getting
paid for. If it was a group that I particularly liked and I
wanted to keep a recording for my personal listening
enjoyment, I might do that, but not "always."

I usually bring a stand-alone spectrum analyzer though
usually I only use it as an SPL meter.

If you can get a quiet room to set up, and you have the gear, you can do a
separate live mix for the recording.

Well I could in many venues, but then I'd need another person. I'd rather do
it later myself.

Sure, you can do that if you have to do both jobs yourself.
Your primary responsibility, of course, is to the audience,
so you need to pay full attention to that. I find that this
takes enough concentration so that I have zero time to pay
attention to a recording. The advantage of having someone
else work the recording setup, even if it's multitrack that
will be mixed later. That way you can hear problems that
might be fixable which don't affect the live sound and avoid
bringing back useless or troublesome tracks. But if your
recording is just on the basis of "maybe I can use it" then
you do whatever makes sense for you.

I'm not arguing that keeping the recording and sound
reinforcement totally independent is the only way to do it,
that's how people who have to be sure to do a first rate job
at both tasks do it.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 8/4/2011 2:05 AM, Trevor wrote:

I also noticed how many tapes from the
seventies and eighties haven't survived. I also noted how much the Studer
cost and how much the tape cost. I think I spelled that all out very clearly
if you care to re-read what I wrote.

Tapes from the 70s and 80s that haven't survived usually
didn't survive because the owners didn't think they were
worth saving. Record companies used to throw away or re-use
master tapes all the time back then.

The recorder and tape was already paid for and there was no
cost after the recording was made. No time to copy to
another medium, no cost for another medium, no worry about
the project file format no longer working on a 30 year newer
version of the program, no need to worry that a 30 year old
program that you saved along with the tape will run on a
modern computer.

Tape can be physically damaged, but so can hard drives and
optical disks. Tape does have some fidelity loss over time,
but unless the oxide falls off (and this has indeed
happened) the tape can still be played many, many years
after it was recorded. People don't tell us about hard
drives that won't play because they're not old enough yet.
But wait another ten years and you'll start hearing stories.

Who cares now that we can make *infinite* IDENTICAL data copies, on whatever
media is yet to be invented, whenever we need to, something you CANNOT do
with analog tape!!!!

I care, because it's one more thing I have to do for which
I'm not getting paid. Hey, if your time is free, how about
painting my house?

I wonder how many analog tapes and tape players will have survived by 2041??

We have a pretty good track record so far.

ALL archive libraries are busy transferring material to DIGITAL so it can be
archived without further loss for as long as deemed worthwhile

Tha'ts archive libraries. It's their JOB, and people working
there get paid to do those transfers. Since their job is
also to be able to play anything that they have in storage,
it's more cost effective for them to store digital copies in
a single standard format and maintain the media than it is
to store multiple analog formats and maintain the equipment
to play them. What you do with your own personal archive is
up to you. How you pay for it is also up to you.

And do you think Pro Tools 19 or whatever takes its place will still
open PT 5.31 multitrack data?

I surely think that ALL digital audio formats are sufficiently simple
structure that the DATA can be transferred without loss, and any new program
necessary to convert formats to whatever is required at any future date,
will take a competent programmer no more than a few hours.

The universal format currently is broadcast wave files,
mostly 24-bit, mostly at 96 kHz sample rate. This preserves
the audio content, but if you have a set of multitrack files
which resulted in a final production, saving just the audio
data doesn't save edits, processing, or the mix. This is
what's standing in the way of moving a project from, say, a
Pro Tools studio to a Nuendo studio, to a Logic studio, to a
Reaper studio. A revived production created from nothing but
the original WAV files will be a new mix and won't be
identical to what originally was issued from those files.
That's not what an archive does.

You seem to have a problem discriminating programs from data. NO live
recording I have ever made relies on plugin's to recover the data, does
yours? If so, simply re-render each track now while you still can.

This is one way of making an archive version that's more
universal. But still, you can't accurately re-create a mix
without the file that instructs the DSP what do do when, and
without the DSP (the right DAW program) to do it.

Well that was my point, I for one am glad it is no longer necessary to buy
1" Studer tape machines at HUGE expense to get decent multi-track
recordings.

That's no, This was then. If there was a clear advantage to
using analog tape, then they'd still be making analog tape
decks. Sure, the world is changing. We get some things
better and some things worse out of it. The upside is lower
cost and (if you spend enough money) better first generation
fidelity. The downside is how difficult it can be to play an
obsolete format, and how quickly a format becomes obsolete.
We've had 2" 24 track recordings for 40 years and it's not
dead yet.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:

Given the cost of a 1" Studer and the cost of tape, (let's not even consider
the cost of temperature/humidity controlled storage for tape if you expect
to use it in 30 years, many didn't make it that long) you could transfer
files to a new hard drive every year (and even pay someone to do it for
you), and still have a LOT of change left over!

Right, but no one does. That's the problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Anahata]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 07:31:22 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote:

The universal format currently is broadcast wave files, mostly 24-bit,
mostly at 96 kHz sample rate. This preserves the audio content, but if
you have a set of multitrack files which resulted in a final production,
saving just the audio data doesn't save edits, processing, or the mix.

If you're arguing for analog storage, you can't save mixing and
processing info with that either. Saving a copy of the mix alongside the
multitracks is the nearest you can get with digital or analogue, except
that with digital there's some chance that if you also store the mix
information there *might* still be software in the future that can read
it.

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444