Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. ;-) |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"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. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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 |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
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." |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote MultitrackRecord
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
RAM and multitrack recording | Pro Audio | |||
Multitrack Recording for Mac? | Pro Audio | |||
Any experience with Rain Recording laptops? | Pro Audio | |||
Hd and multitrack recording | Pro Audio | |||
PC Recording vs Standalone multitrack recording | Pro Audio |