[Paul[_13_]]

I'm thinking of getting a multi-core laptop for Cubase LE4, for
remote
recording live bands.

But I've heard people not recommending laptops for this job for
certain reasons.

Perhaps times have changed?

[Mike Rivers]

On 7/27/2011 3:47 PM, Paul wrote:

I'm thinking of getting a multi-core laptop for Cubase LE4, for
remote recording live bands.

But I've heard people not recommending laptops for this job for
certain reasons.

There's a lot of wisdom to that advice. It's not about the
power of the computer - that part is easy these days, but
rather than laptops are what they are and there's not much
room for upgrading or swapping parts if something doesn't
work right. If you'll be recording bands, you're probably
interested in multitrack recording, which means a
multi-channel audio interface for the computer, which, at
this point, means Firewire or USB2.

Most of the hardware you can get for that is limited to 8
mic/line input channels unless you get a mixer along with it
(you may or may not have one now) like a Mackie 1640i or
PreSonus StudioLive. Some 8-channel I/O boxes can be
cascaded with others from the same manufacturer in the same
family or can be expanded with something like an 8-channel
mic preamp with ADAT optical output.

Some of the things you're likely to run into are
incompatibility between the computer's Firewire port and the
audio device, incompatibility between the hardware's driver
and the operating system, and general (and not necessarily
obvious) tweaking of the computer to eliminate crackles,
stutters, and crashes. There are no guarantees that
everything will work smoothly the first time, and/or every
time. Whatever you buy, the manufacturers, guaranteed, have
never tested exactly that setup. And you're the system
engineer and troubleshooter.

These things can, and do work, but you need to be sure that
you have the reliability, which means doing a lot of testing
before you start doing work for anything but your own
amusement. At least make sure that your new computer has an
ExpressCard slot so you can get an external Firewire
adapter, and that it has enough USB ports so you can connect
an external disk drive if you desire. It's not usually
necessary nowadays - you can probably record successfully on
the computer's internal drive, but if you'll be working on
your recordings on a different computer, just being able to
move the drive from one to the other is handy. Don't bother
to look for a computer with a Firewire port. Better to not
have a bad one to get in the way.

Understand, too, that computers "progress" much faster than
audio hardware. Lots of stuff that works under Windows XP or
Mac OS 10.5 or so doesn't work at all, or as well, under the
most recent versions of those operating systems. Again, you
can't be sure until you try.

If you're clever, you might consider, rather than getting a
laptop, assembling standard components (unless you're
looking at a Mac) in a rack mount case. You can make a rig
that's only a little less portable than a laptop, use as big
a monitor as you want with it, and exchange parts easily if
you have, say, a Firewire incompatibility or need to add
more memory, or a larger (or second) internal disk drive.



--
"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]

Paul wrote:

I'm thinking of getting a multi-core laptop for Cubase LE4, for
remote
recording live bands.

But I've heard people not recommending laptops for this job for
certain reasons.

Perhaps times have changed?

What are the consequences of failure?

If there is a dropout, will you:

1. Have to use a performance from a different day?

2. Not notice it?

3. Lose the contract?

4. Lose the contract and pay a substantial fee?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Wed 2011-Jul-27 16:44, Scott Dorsey writes:
I'm thinking of getting a multi-core laptop for Cubase LE4, for
remote
recording live bands.

But I've heard people not recommending laptops for this job for
certain reasons.
Perhaps times have changed?

What are the consequences of failure?

A question he needs to answer. IF other than

If there is a dropout, will you:

1. Have to use a performance from a different day?

2. Not notice it?

IF #1 then use your laptop. WIth #2, good luck with that!

3. Lose the contract?

IF that one, then go with something more reliable, a
dedicated solution.

4. Lose the contract and pay a substantial fee?

if #4 use a stand alone system and a backup!


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.

[Meindert Sprang]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...
They can work flawless, flakily, or not at all.

Google for user experience. Failing that, the only way to ensure
reliability
is to try the particular setup, and pound on it for hours.

I don't think that would be a good idea. People tend to make a lot of noise
about things that *don't* work and much less about things that do work.

Meindert

[Mike Rivers]

On 7/28/2011 5:42 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:
They can work flawless, flakily, or not at all.
Google for user experience.

And there you'll find all of the above. It's really of no
use unless there's a unique, common problem with a
particular computer, and that's more likely to be something
fundamental, not a quirk with audio software or hardware.

the only way to
ensure reliability is to try the particular setup, and pound
on it for hours.

Yup.

I have never actually lost a take. But experienced concert
recordists, such as John Atkinson with his Stereophile
label, record with multiple redundancy spread across
different computers.

Experienced concert recorders such as Mike Rivers leave the
computers at home and take dedicated recorders. Not only is
it less to carry and less trouble to set up, but there's
also less you can do to screw them up.

Unless you are in the big money league, laptop recording
could work very well for you -- provided you pound the hell
out of the setup.

Even if you're in the big money league, laptop recording can
work very well. The SADiE LRX2 is an excellent USB-based
recording interface, but it costs quite a bit more than your
MOTU or M-Audio or Mackie box. It also runs with dedicated
software, which goes a long way toward making a robust system.

Latency issues are statistical in nature.

Latency is usually of no concern for remote recording unless
you're trying to simultaneously do live sound reinforcement
with the same equipment.

Once "flawless" is obtained,
there is no further gain in "quality" with a fast machine.

That's important to recognize. But many people insist on
doing everything on a single computer, either for perceived
budget issues, space issues, or the occasional actual need
for mixing in the field. For mixing, particularly when using
processing plug-ins, a more powerful computer becomes important.


--
"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

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 27, 7:43*pm,
(Richard Webb) wrote:
On Wed 2011-Jul-27 16:44, Scott Dorsey writes:

* * I'm thinking of getting a multi-core laptop for Cubase LE4, for
remote
recording live bands.
* * But I've heard people not recommending laptops for this job for
certain reasons.
* * Perhaps times have changed?
What are the consequences of failure?

A question he needs to answer. *IF other than

If there is a dropout, will you:
1. Have to use a performance from a different day?
2. Not notice it?

IF #1 then use your laptop. *WIth #2, *good luck with that!

3. Lose the contract?

IF that one, then go with something more reliable, a
dedicated solution.

4. Lose the contract and pay a substantial fee?

if #4 use a stand alone system and a backup!

Regards,
* * * * * *Richard

Not for contract, but wouldn't mind making a few bucks
recording some local bands. Rigorous testing sounds like
a good idea.....

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 27, 1:24*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/27/2011 3:47 PM, Paul wrote:



* * * I'm thinking of getting a multi-core laptop for Cubase LE4, for
remote recording live bands.

* * * But I've heard people not recommending laptops for this job for
certain reasons.

There's a lot of wisdom to that advice. It's not about the
power of the computer - that part is easy these days, but
rather than laptops are what they are and there's not much
room for upgrading or swapping parts if something doesn't
work right. If you'll be recording bands, you're probably
interested in multitrack recording, which means a
multi-channel audio interface for the computer, which, at
this point, means Firewire or USB2.

Most of the hardware you can get for that is limited to 8
mic/line input channels unless you get a mixer along with it
(you may or may not have one now) like a Mackie 1640i or
PreSonus StudioLive. Some 8-channel I/O boxes can be
cascaded with others from the same manufacturer in the same
family or can be expanded with something like an 8-channel
mic preamp with ADAT optical output.

Some of the things you're likely to run into are
incompatibility between the computer's Firewire port and the
audio device, incompatibility between the hardware's driver
and the operating system, and general (and not necessarily
obvious) tweaking of the computer to eliminate crackles,
stutters, and crashes. There are no guarantees that
everything will work smoothly the first time, and/or every
time. Whatever you buy, the manufacturers, guaranteed, have
never tested exactly that setup. And you're the system
engineer and troubleshooter.

These things can, and do work, but you need to be sure that
you have the reliability, which means doing a lot of testing
before you start doing work for anything but your own
amusement. At least make sure that your new computer has an
ExpressCard slot so you can get an external Firewire
adapter, and that it has enough USB ports so you can connect
an external disk drive if you desire. It's not usually
necessary nowadays - you can probably record successfully on
the computer's internal drive, but if you'll be working on
your recordings on a different computer, just being able to
move the drive from one to the other is handy. Don't bother
to look for a computer with a Firewire port. Better to not
have a bad one to get in the way.

Understand, too, that computers "progress" much faster than
audio hardware. Lots of stuff that works under Windows XP or
Mac OS 10.5 or so doesn't work at all, or as well, under the
most recent versions of those operating systems. Again, you
can't be sure until you try.

If you're clever, you might consider, rather than getting a
laptop, assembling standard components (unless you're
looking at a Mac) in a rack mount case. You can make a rig
that's only a little less portable than a laptop, use as big
a monitor as you want with it, and exchange parts easily if
you have, say, a Firewire incompatibility or need to add
more memory, or a larger (or second) internal disk drive.


Thanks for your response. I have the Tascam US-1641, which
boasts 14 simultaneous inputs (16 if you include optical input), which
should be enough for my needs. It uses USB 2.0.

You mention "general tweaking of the computer to eliminate crackles,
stutters, and crashes". Well, with Cubase LE4, I have digital
skipping with my desktop computer as well! I'm gonna have to
do some research, to see if it's a tweaking issue, because supposedly
a Pentium 4, 3.0GHz, 2.5Gigs RAM should be good enough.

[Scott Dorsey]

Paul wrote:

Not for contract, but wouldn't mind making a few bucks
recording some local bands. Rigorous testing sounds like
a good idea.....

The recorder itself is cheap. There's no reason not to use a standalone and
a backup.

The converters are even cheap these days.

It's the preamps, splitters, cables, and microphones that are so expensive.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Eric Toline[_2_]]

On Jul 27, 3:47*pm, Paul wrote:
* * *I'm thinking of getting a multi-core laptop for Cubase LE4, for
remote
recording live bands.

* * *But I've heard people not recommending laptops for this job for
certain reasons.

* * *Perhaps times have changed?

Don't know if this will help but look up "boom recorder" by vosgames.


Eric

[Paul[_13_]]

On Jul 29, 3:46*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/28/2011 5:42 PM, Soundhaspriority wrote:

They can work flawless, flakily, or not at all.
Google for user experience.

And there you'll find all of the above. *It's really of no
use unless there's a unique, common problem with a
particular computer, and that's more likely to be something
fundamental, not a quirk with audio software or hardware.

* the only way to

ensure reliability is to try the particular setup, and pound
on it for hours.

Yup.

I have never actually lost a take. But experienced concert
recordists, such as John Atkinson with his Stereophile
label, record with multiple redundancy spread across
different computers.

Experienced concert recorders such as Mike Rivers leave the
computers at home and take dedicated recorders. Not only is
it less to carry and less trouble to set up, but there's
also less you can do to screw them up.

Unless you are in the big money league, laptop recording
could work very well for you -- provided you pound the hell
out of the setup.

Even if you're in the big money league, laptop recording can
work very well. The SADiE LRX2 is an excellent USB-based
recording interface, but it costs quite a bit more than your
MOTU or M-Audio or Mackie box. It also runs with dedicated
software, which goes a long way toward making a robust system.

Latency issues are statistical in nature.

Latency is usually of no concern for remote recording unless
you're trying to simultaneously do live sound reinforcement
with the same equipment.

Once "flawless" is obtained,
there is no further gain in "quality" with a fast machine.

That's important to recognize. But many people insist on
doing everything on a single computer, either for perceived
budget issues, space issues, or the occasional actual need
for mixing in the field. For mixing, particularly when using
processing plug-ins, a more powerful computer becomes important.


That Sadie product looks like the ultimate remote multi-track
laptop recorder. Too bad I'm poor, and only have the Tascam US-1641,
which has 14 simultaneous inputs (16 if you include optical input),
which
should be enough for my needs. It uses USB 2.0.

It looks like I should just get the most powerful laptop
I can afford, try Reaper with the US-1641, and test the
hell out of everything....

[Mike Rivers]

On 7/29/2011 10:32 AM, Paul wrote:

You mention "general tweaking of the computer to eliminate crackles,
stutters, and crashes". Well, with Cubase LE4, I have digital
skipping with my desktop computer as well! I'm gonna have to
do some research, to see if it's a tweaking issue, because supposedly
a Pentium 4, 3.0GHz, 2.5Gigs RAM should be good enough.

This kind of tweaking mostly means finding things running on
your computer that are constantly checking to see if they
have anything to do, and turn them off. Turn off your
networking. That will get rid of one constant interrupter
and will make you feel more comfortable about turning off
your virus scanner, another continuous interrupter. Screen
saver, too.

Look up DPC Checker.



--
"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]

Richard Webb wrote:

But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.

Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the cost of
the insert cabling. You still need to add some ambient mikes and some
spot mikes that the PA guys won't be adding. And you don't get good
monitoring... not without running much longer cables to a quiet room
somewhere, and that means balancing the insert lines...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Fri 2011-Jul-29 10:39, Scott Dorsey writes:

Not for contract, but wouldn't mind making a few bucks
recording some local bands. Rigorous testing sounds like
a good idea.....

The recorder itself is cheap. There's no reason not to use a
standalone and a backup.

RIght, and that backup can be your laptop, or the laptop
with a standalone if money's tight, since you might already
have the laptop.

The converters are even cheap these days.

INdeed this is true.

It's the preamps, splitters, cables, and microphones that are so
expensive. --scott

THIs is true. IF the truck rolls running a backup recorder
24 tracks worth is easy enough done, my 24 track feed is
already designed for it.

But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.


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.

[[email protected]]

LEs writes:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.
Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the
cost of the insert cabling.
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.
YEs it does, and I"ve done that, when I was running foh as
well.

snip
And you don't get good
monitoring... not without running much longer cables to a quiet
room somewhere, and that means balancing the insert lines...

True. What I've been able to do in the past was
arrange short soundchecks to verify that what's
there is useable. it's just a compromise inherent that
that process, though. There's always EQ in
post - or even redubs.

WHen those are available. AS I said elsewhere, there are
lots of folks doing that, fairly low cost too. I like to
work with some separation though, which means even if I
don't take the truck I want my long snakes and a split. A
couple of nearfield monitors and a power amp will do for
monitoring along with the phones, I can even use those short
sound checks better.

I've done it without, but then I was working sound regularly
for the band I was recording, same system, and sometimes
even same rooms, just different occasion.

GOing in cold to the performers and the venue both though I
like my options open with the split, snakes and some
isolation, as much as I can get g.



Richard webb,

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Richard wrote:

But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.

Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the cost of
the insert cabling.

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

You still need to add some ambient mikes and some
spot mikes that the PA guys won't be adding.

Right - more on the snake means less of those.

And you don't get good
monitoring... not without running much longer cables to a quiet room
somewhere, and that means balancing the insert lines...
--scott


True. What I've been able to do in the past was
arrange short soundchecks to verify that what's
there is useable. it's just a compromise inherent that
that process, though. There's always EQ in
post - or even redubs.

--
Les Cargill

[Frank Stearns]

Les Cargill writes:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Richard wrote:

But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.

Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the cost of
the insert cabling.

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.

Er, well, not quite, if we're talking getting the signal from *inserts* (single jack
with unbalanced signal flow-through from T to S), you MUST have TRS on the FOH
console side -- otherwise, with TS, you short their signal path to ground at the
insert jack. Not sure they'd be overly happy with that.

Now, if you're talking direct outs, you're probably okay with TS-TS -- assuming the
console Dir outs are buffered. And, ideally, the D.O.s are pre fader, pre eq. Good
luck with all that. (Wait till you ask them to go inside and cut the trace or solder
the jumper that gets the D.O. to pre-everything. Ha!)

Ideally, if you're using the insert jack, put a little jumper between the T and S
lugs on your plugs that go to the insert points; TS on your recorder end is fine.

With that little "Y" right in the plug, there's an immediate signal flow-through at
the insert jack; makes the PA guys a little more secure with you plugging stuff into
their system. Unbalanced, yes, so keep the jumpers very short to your system. If you
induce hum or RF into their system with this loop, you can bet your plugs will be
flying out of their console at near light speed.

All this assumes high levels of trust.... I have established this with a few PA
companies in town on those rare occasions when I'm taking additional channels not
covered by the splitter, but it took a while and some dress rehearsals to convince
them that yes, my system was polite and well-mannered when talking to theirs...

If you own both the FOH and the recorder, you're ahead of the game, but you still
want to keep it clean and not shoot yourself in the foot.

Good luck with it,

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

On 2011-07-29 said:
snip
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.
Er, well, not quite, if we're talking getting the signal from
*inserts* (single jack
with unbalanced signal flow-through from T to S), you MUST have TRS
on the FOH console side -- otherwise, with TS, you short their
signal path to ground at the
insert jack. Not sure they'd be overly happy with that.
Now, if you're talking direct outs, you're probably okay with TS-TS
-- assuming the
console Dir outs are buffered. And, ideally, the D.O.s are pre
fader, pre eq. Good
luck with all that. (Wait till you ask them to go inside and cut
the trace or solder
the jumper that gets the D.O. to pre-everything. Ha!)

INdeed, and a lot of these bargain basement consoles don't
even offer direct outs.

Ideally, if you're using the insert jack, put a little jumper
between the T and S
lugs on your plugs that go to the insert points; TS on your
recorder end is fine.
With that little "Y" right in the plug, there's an immediate signal
flow-through at
the insert jack; makes the PA guys a little more secure with you
plugging stuff into
their system. Unbalanced, yes, so keep the jumpers very short to
your system. If you
induce hum or RF into their system with this loop, you can bet your
plugs will be
flying out of their console at near light speed.
All this assumes high levels of trust.... I have established this
with a few PA
companies in town on those rare occasions when I'm taking
additional channels not
covered by the splitter, but it took a while and some dress
rehearsals to convince
them that yes, my system was polite and well-mannered when talking
to theirs...

Unless Paul is in the situation where he owns the pa as
well, or is known to the folks who do there's probably going
to be a bit of resistance to him just plugging in. I know
back in my sr days if I didn't know you I really didn't want
to take a chance.

wHat you choose to use as your recording machine is only
part of the equation here. Scott and Frank are giving you
the straight dope here Paul.





Richard webb,

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

[Mike Rivers]

On 7/29/2011 9:36 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you
price the cost of
the insert cabling.

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.

Yes, customized on the TRS end with the tip and ring tied
together so it can go all the way into the Insert jack and
complete the signal path. Or were you thinking of a jumpred
TRS-TRS snke with a resistor built into the Insert end to
provide a balanced source, if you guessed the output
impedance of the Insert Output correctly?

But what do you do if you find that the Insert jack is
already occupied with a plug to a piece of outboard gear?
Then you'd need a "tap" cable. If I did more of this work,
I'd make up a patchbay with a row of normaled jacks for the
send and return, with a recording output for each channel,
maybe even with a switch for each recording output to select
whether it comes before or after the outboard processor.

Trouble with a rig like that, or any rig for that matter, if
you're not providing the PA yourself, is getting the
confidence of the house engineer that whatever you're
connecting to his system won't cause a problem for him. He's
the one the audience stares at if a channel goes down or
something starts humming. You're invisible.


--
"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 7/29/2011 10:21 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:

Er, well, not quite, if we're talking getting the signal from *inserts* (single jack
with unbalanced signal flow-through from T to S), you MUST have TRS on the FOH
console side -- otherwise, with TS, you short their signal path to ground at the
insert jack. Not sure they'd be overly happy with that.

There's the "half way in" trick where the tip of your TS
plug connects to the ring contact of the Insert jack without
breaking the normal connection. That used to work pretty
well when mixers used real Soundcraft panel mounted jacks,
but these new (mostly Chinese) board mounted jacks don't
grip the plug very snugly and you can get an intermittent
contact. I never liked that idea but it's common enough so
that it's entered netlore and you'll find it in just about
any mixer manual.

Ideally, if you're using the insert jack, put a little jumper between the T and S
lugs on your plugs that go to the insert points; TS on your recorder end is fine.

I think you mean tip and ring.


--
"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]

In article , wrote:

INdeed, and a lot of these bargain basement consoles don't
even offer direct outs.

Postfader direct outs are the most insidious things ever.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Fri 2011-Jul-29 19:25, Scott Dorsey writes:
I wrote:

But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.

Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the cost
of the insert cabling. You still need to add some ambient mikes and
some spot mikes that the PA guys won't be adding. And you don't get
good monitoring... not without running much longer cables to a quiet
room somewhere, and that means balancing the insert lines...
--scott

YOu and I know this. Does he? I see a lot of lowballers
don't even do that these days, and they work for cheap.
MEmphis area has half a dozen I know of.


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.

[Frank Stearns]

Mike Rivers writes:

On 7/29/2011 10:21 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:

Er, well, not quite, if we're talking getting the signal from *inserts* (single jack
with unbalanced signal flow-through from T to S), you MUST have TRS on the FOH
console side -- otherwise, with TS, you short their signal path to ground at the
insert jack. Not sure they'd be overly happy with that.

There's the "half way in" trick where the tip of your TS
plug connects to the ring contact of the Insert jack without
breaking the normal connection. That used to work pretty
well when mixers used real Soundcraft panel mounted jacks,
but these new (mostly Chinese) board mounted jacks don't
grip the plug very snugly and you can get an intermittent
contact. I never liked that idea but it's common enough so
that it's entered netlore and you'll find it in just about
any mixer manual.

I'm with you. The "half plug" thing always gave me the heebee jeebees. The first
time I ran into that several years back after the cheaper consoles starting showing
up all over, I said "no way" and made up some of those T-R "Y" on a TRS; with a TS
on the other end.

Ideally, if you're using the insert jack, put a little jumper between the T and S
lugs on your plugs that go to the insert points; TS on your recorder end is fine.

I think you mean tip and ring.

D'oh!!! You are so right. T-R/Tip-Ring. Tip-ring. Must be past my bed time.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

In article , wrote:

INdeed, and a lot of these bargain basement consoles don't
even offer direct outs.

Postfader direct outs are the most insidious things ever.

So very true. How on earth did that become something of a standard, let alone in
any given console line?

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Frank Stearns wrote:
Les writes:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Richard wrote:

But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.

Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the cost of
the insert cabling.

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.

Er, well, not quite, if we're talking getting the signal from *inserts* (single jack
with unbalanced signal flow-through from T to S), you MUST have TRS on the FOH
console side -- otherwise, with TS, you short their signal path to ground at the
insert jack. Not sure they'd be overly happy with that.


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.

Inserts are normally closed, anyway - you're "tee"ing that connection.

I've never run into gear where that would be a problem. We're
mainly talking Mackie bar band PA class gear - ultra low
budget ( and frequently for no charge ).

Now, if you're talking direct outs, you're probably okay with TS-TS -- assuming the
console Dir outs are buffered. And, ideally, the D.O.s are pre fader, pre eq. Good
luck with all that. (Wait till you ask them to go inside and cut the trace or solder
the jumper that gets the D.O. to pre-everything. Ha!)

Ideally, if you're using the insert jack, put a little jumper between the T and S
lugs on your plugs that go to the insert points; TS on your recorder end is fine.


Ideally.

With that little "Y" right in the plug, there's an immediate signal flow-through at
the insert jack; makes the PA guys a little more secure with you plugging stuff into
their system. Unbalanced, yes, so keep the jumpers very short to your system. If you
induce hum or RF into their system with this loop, you can bet your plugs will be
flying out of their console at near light speed.

All this assumes high levels of trust....

Absolutely.

I have established this with a few PA
companies in town on those rare occasions when I'm taking additional channels not
covered by the splitter, but it took a while and some dress rehearsals to convince
them that yes, my system was polite and well-mannered when talking to theirs...


If I was doing bigger systems, I'd have a real splitter. As it is,
these were normally bands I knew personally, and there was no need for
any formality.

If you own both the FOH and the recorder, you're ahead of the game, but you still
want to keep it clean and not shoot yourself in the foot.

Good luck with it,

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/29/2011 9:36 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you
price the cost of
the insert cabling.

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.

Yes, customized on the TRS end with the tip and ring tied together so it
can go all the way into the Insert jack and complete the signal path. Or
were you thinking of a jumpred TRS-TRS snke with a resistor built into
the Insert end to provide a balanced source, if you guessed the output
impedance of the Insert Output correctly?

But what do you do if you find that the Insert jack is already occupied
with a plug to a piece of outboard gear? Then you'd need a "tap" cable.

I would probably not use it, then. I have never seen an insert
actually used in anger. I'd figure something else out. I
usually carried a mic preamp or two, which could be used to
"wye" a critical mic into the recorder.

But hey, I once did an entire "album" using nothing but the
bassist's vocal mic as the only "overhead" because the snake wasn't
big enough to provide another. Of course there were four tom
mics... each more useless than the next.

Came out pretty good, really. I say "album" - I doubt any of them
ever went beyond the free CDR phase. Nowadays, they'd use a
camera or H4.

If I did more of this work, I'd make up a patchbay with a row of
normaled jacks for the send and return, with a recording output for each
channel, maybe even with a switch for each recording output to select
whether it comes before or after the outboard processor.

Trouble with a rig like that, or any rig for that matter, if you're not
providing the PA yourself, is getting the confidence of the house
engineer that whatever you're connecting to his system won't cause a
problem for him.

Yep. Wasn't a problem in the limited cases I actually did this, though.
I phoned the FOH guy ( if there even was one ) and we went over
the details.

He's the one the audience stares at if a channel goes
down or something starts humming. You're invisible.



I never caused an outage. If they didn't want to risk it,
I didn't do the thing. If the contacts had been sloppy on a
strip insert, I wouldn't have plugged there - used something else (
like an aux send ). You can tell when you're setting up.
Most of those insert jacks had never been used.

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.

Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the cost of
the insert cabling.

Make your own, not expensive at all.


You still need to add some ambient mikes and some
spot mikes that the PA guys won't be adding.

Frankly I find overuse of audience noise annoying anyway. The only real
problems arise if there are guitar amps etc. that are not miked.


And you don't get good
monitoring... not without running much longer cables to a quiet room
somewhere, and that means balancing the insert lines...

If you have no control over what comes out of the mixer inserts, why do you
need quiet monitoring anyway?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.

Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the cost of
the insert cabling.

It's not that bad. Any 1/4"-1/4" TS snake works fine.

NOT if it's a single TRS insert, plugging a T/S plug into a TRS insert is
going to ground the return side of an insert. If you have seperate
send/return sockets or direct outs instead you're OK.


A 1/4"TS to 1/4"TRS would be even better.

Nope, better to short Tip and Ring at the mixer end IF you are using single
unbalanced TRS inserts like most small mixers.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
Postfader direct outs are the most insidious things ever.

So very true. How on earth did that become something of a standard, let
alone in
any given console line?

Well IF you are ONLY using the mixer for recording, they are fine. Obviously
for use in a home studio set up, NOT for recording FOH multitrack.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

You still need to add some ambient mikes and some
spot mikes that the PA guys won't be adding.

Frankly I find overuse of audience noise annoying anyway. The only real
problems arise if there are guitar amps etc. that are not miked.

I personally like some room sound. Not audience noise, but actual reverb
from the room.

And in small club jobs, there is always a whole lot of backline that
isn't in the PA. Often when stuff IS in the PA, the mikes are not in
an optimal place for recording or they are really dreadful mikes.

And you don't get good
monitoring... not without running much longer cables to a quiet room
somewhere, and that means balancing the insert lines...

If you have no control over what comes out of the mixer inserts, why do you
need quiet monitoring anyway?

Because you will find a hum, or P-popping, or a snare rattle, or something
else that isn't evident in the loud and bad PA sound in the hall but is
painfully evident in the recording.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 7/30/2011 1:12 AM, Les Cargill wrote:

You push the TS jacks in at "half-click" and hope for the
best.
Inserts are normally closed, anyway - you're "tee"ing that
connection.

I've never run into gear where that would be a problem. We're
mainly talking Mackie bar band PA class gear - ultra low
budget ( and frequently for no charge ).

I have several Mackie mixers and only with the oldest and
newest ones are the "half in" connections even vaguely
secure. A plug in any 1/4" jack on the Onyx 1220 on my
workbench is only secure when it's all the way in. I think
the hole in those is slightly oversize and the shaft of the
plug wobbles around.


--
"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 7/29/2011 11:25 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Postfader direct outs are the most insidious things ever.

I agree, but you'd be surprised at how many people complain
about pre-fader direct outputs. I guess they don't really
want to bother actually mixing the tracks that they capture
from a live show.

--
"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

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
You still need to add some ambient mikes and some
spot mikes that the PA guys won't be adding.

Frankly I find overuse of audience noise annoying anyway. The only real
problems arise if there are guitar amps etc. that are not miked.

I personally like some room sound. Not audience noise, but actual reverb
from the room.

I might bother it was it possible to get room ambience without annoying
audience noise. And if the room ambience was actually worthwhile.


And in small club jobs, there is always a whole lot of backline that
isn't in the PA. Often when stuff IS in the PA, the mikes are not in
an optimal place for recording or they are really dreadful mikes.

So put your mics there too.


If you have no control over what comes out of the mixer inserts, why do
you
need quiet monitoring anyway?

Because you will find a hum, or P-popping, or a snare rattle, or something
else that isn't evident in the loud and bad PA sound in the hall but is
painfully evident in the recording.

And if someone else is running the FOH sound and mixer, what are YOU gong to
do about it anyway? Of course I would always run a spectrum analyser to make
sure I'm not introducing hum/noise etc. and warn the FOH sound guy if HE is.

IF you are running both the FOH sound AND recording, everything is much
easier IME.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Trevor wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

And in small club jobs, there is always a whole lot of backline that
isn't in the PA. Often when stuff IS in the PA, the mikes are not in
an optimal place for recording or they are really dreadful mikes.

So put your mics there too.

I do. Consequently, I wind up running a lot more channels out to the
truck than are going into the PA console.

If you are dependent on using the preamps on the PA console, it's still
possible to do this with the assistance of the PA operator, just using
a block of channel strips that he isn't using for the main mix, but
this can require some politics.

If you have no control over what comes out of the mixer inserts, why do
you
need quiet monitoring anyway?

Because you will find a hum, or P-popping, or a snare rattle, or something
else that isn't evident in the loud and bad PA sound in the hall but is
painfully evident in the recording.

And if someone else is running the FOH sound and mixer, what are YOU gong to
do about it anyway? Of course I would always run a spectrum analyser to make
sure I'm not introducing hum/noise etc. and warn the FOH sound guy if HE is.

If someone else is running the FOH sound, he's working with me to get a job
done. If he's not working with me to get a job done, I might just go up
and talk to the drummer or add another mike of my own taped to the PA
vocal mike. It's much, much easier when everyone is on the same team, though.

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.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

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.

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

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Richard wrote:

But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.

Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the cost of
the insert cabling.

24 channels of even really cheap stuff stops being cheap.

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.

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.

Choir - 4 mics, 2 of which are a coincident pair
Electronic instruments - 4 direct boxes
Piano - 1 mic
Violins - 2 mics
Cello or Cellos - 1 mic
Flutes - 1 mic
Viola - 1 mic
Trumpet - no mic, depend on spill of which there is plenty
Trombone - as above, player isn't so good so if he gets a little lost...
French horn - 1 mic
Bassoon - 1 mic
Lead vocal - 1 wireless mic

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..

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sat 2011-Jul-30 07:18, Scott Dorsey writes:
snip

Frankly I find overuse of audience noise annoying anyway. The only real
problems arise if there are guitar amps etc. that are not miked.

I personally like some room sound. Not audience noise, but actual
reverb from the room.

INdeed, gives some life and all those other cliches, which
are true nonetheless.

And in small club jobs, there is always a whole lot of backline that
isn't in the PA. Often when stuff IS in the PA, the mikes are not
in an optimal place for recording or they are really dreadful mikes.

THis is true also.

And you don't get good
monitoring... not without running much longer cables to a quiet room
somewhere, and that means balancing the insert lines...

If you have no control over what comes out of the mixer inserts, why do you
need quiet monitoring anyway?

Because you will find a hum, or P-popping, or a snare rattle, or
something else that isn't evident in the loud and bad PA sound in
the hall but is painfully evident in the recording.

THis is true, and I really like to avoid the loud and bad as much as possible. 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. 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.
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.


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.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
"Les wrote in message
...
But, I'd bet dollars to donuts Scott that he's planning on
just grabbing signals off the inserts of whatever the foh
board is, quick dirty and cheap.

Even that turns out to be not all that cheap when you price the cost of
the insert cabling.

It's not that bad. Any 1/4"-1/4" TS snake works fine.

NOT if it's a single TRS insert, plugging a T/S plug into a TRS insert is
going to ground the return side of an insert. If you have seperate
send/return sockets or direct outs instead you're OK.


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


A 1/4"TS to 1/4"TRS would be even better.

Nope, better to short Tip and Ring at the mixer end

That's a lot easier with a TS to TRS snake than it is
with a TS to TS.

IF you are using single
unbalanced TRS inserts like most small mixers.

Trevor.



--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Richard Webb wrote:
On Sat 2011-Jul-30 07:18, Scott Dorsey writes:
snip

THis is true, and I really like to avoid the loud and bad as much as possible.
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.

It was all weekend warrior stuff. Weekend warriors
have more trouble getting everybody scheduled than
anything else. They would also be more likely
to be intimidated by the studio experience. They
also had limited budget. These are people who probably
would not have recorded at all otherwise.

It wasn't very *professional*, but it was very
production That approach has since been made
obsolete by the advent of the H4 and Youtube
video.

And I stand by the results, even though you might get
hash from the ice machine now and again.


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.

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

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.



Richard webb,

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