Recording live concerts?

[Mr.Will]

Hi guys,

Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for some tips on how to
get the best out of recording live. Just had an amazing concert at a
festival, and even had it recorded properly by a company saying they
specialise in this sort of recording. Sadly we have the whole concert split
into six digital tracks that seem quite poor in terms of quality. Two of the
tracks are from the desk to the PA(but PRE-MIX so everything is the same
level, including this awful reverb), then 2 tracks are from the crowd which
seem to have this autolevel set on them (so the volume goes up and down) and
then another two tracks from near the speakers which have the bass guitar
very loud.

What we have is listenable for us as a group to check out, but not something
we can put up on the web or use.

Is it true that to record a live concert properly you essentially have to
have another mixing desk and another set of mics etc? What should I look for
in a company that says it specialises in this sort of work? Im a bit
despondent because I had hoped to get this concert well recorded........

any replies are much appreciated

Mr.Will

[Mr.Will]

"Mr.Will" > wrote in message
news:BoE%n.249280$w51.142160@hurricane...
> Hi guys,
>
> Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for some tips on how
> to get the best out of recording live. Just had an amazing concert at a
> festival, and even had it recorded properly by a company saying they
> specialise in this sort of recording. Sadly we have the whole concert
> split into six digital tracks that seem quite poor in terms of quality.
> Two of the tracks are from the desk to the PA(but PRE-MIX so everything is
> the same level, including this awful reverb), then 2 tracks are from the
> crowd which seem to have this autolevel set on them (so the volume goes up
> and down) and then another two tracks from near the speakers which have
> the bass guitar very loud.
>
> What we have is listenable for us as a group to check out, but not
> something we can put up on the web or use.
>
> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you essentially have to
> have another mixing desk and another set of mics etc? What should I look
> for in a company that says it specialises in this sort of work? Im a bit
> despondent because I had hoped to get this concert well recorded........
>
> any replies are much appreciated
>
> Mr.Will
>

Sorry guys, for further info too
the lineup is 2 vocalists, djembe (mic), drumkit, bass guitar, rhythm guitar
and lead guitar. There are also various ethnic african instruments that have
line in DIs throughout the show.
One noticeable thing is that the instruments that are accoustically loudest
(djembe and lead guitar) dont go through the desk much at all, so they are
low on the desk tracks.

Mr.Will

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.Will > wrote:
>Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for some tips on how to
>get the best out of recording live. Just had an amazing concert at a
>festival, and even had it recorded properly by a company saying they
>specialise in this sort of recording. Sadly we have the whole concert split
>into six digital tracks that seem quite poor in terms of quality. Two of the
>tracks are from the desk to the PA(but PRE-MIX so everything is the same
>level, including this awful reverb), then 2 tracks are from the crowd which
>seem to have this autolevel set on them (so the volume goes up and down) and
>then another two tracks from near the speakers which have the bass guitar
>very loud.

A better way is to record direct splits off of all of the mikes, plus the
ambient mikes for the crowd. But the way they are doing it, you can get
good results IF the PA is good in the first place... though it sounds like
they grabbed a something weird instead of the raw board mix.

>Is it true that to record a live concert properly you essentially have to
>have another mixing desk and another set of mics etc? What should I look for
>in a company that says it specialises in this sort of work? Im a bit
>despondent because I had hoped to get this concert well recorded........

Well, it depends a lot on the concert. If it's a classical concert with no
PA, it's a matter of putting up two mikes in the right place and going. If
it's a stadium rock concert, it's a matter of pulling splits off the PA and
throwing up some ambient mikes. If it's a club gig, you will have to mike
some of the instruments that aren't normally miked by the PA folks. In all
cases, finding the right place to put the mikes is nontrivial.

If the ambients are really, really good, you can build the whole mix around
them. From my perspective, I think the first job of the recording engineer
is to get the ambients to be really really good.

>any replies are much appreciated

Find a live recording you like from some place in the UK. Find the guys
who did it. Hire them. Or ask a local studio for who has a truck in your
area.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

Mr.Will wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for some tips on how to
> get the best out of recording live. Just had an amazing concert at a
> festival, and even had it recorded properly by a company saying they
> specialise in this sort of recording. Sadly we have the whole concert split
> into six digital tracks that seem quite poor in terms of quality. Two of the
> tracks are from the desk to the PA(but PRE-MIX so everything is the same
> level, including this awful reverb), then 2 tracks are from the crowd which
> seem to have this autolevel set on them (so the volume goes up and down) and
> then another two tracks from near the speakers which have the bass guitar
> very loud.
>
> What we have is listenable for us as a group to check out, but not something
> we can put up on the web or use.
>
> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you essentially have to
> have another mixing desk and another set of mics etc? What should I look for
> in a company that says it specialises in this sort of work? Im a bit
> despondent because I had hoped to get this concert well recorded........
>
For the sort of concert you describe, then a separate desk and mic setup
is pretty much essential. You'd need microphones to match all the ones
you've got on stage, as well as spots for the acoustic instruments. You
could try a pair near to the main speakers to reduce the numbers instead
of mic'ing everything up.

You could try taking feeds from your desk to a multi-channel recorder by
splitting the mic feeds or using the effects sends as has been discussed
here recently, but your sound engineer would have to be happy about the
gear you're connecting to his desk. You'll still need extras for the
acoustic stuff, too.

Another cheap thing to try is a couple of PZMs on the back wall or side
walls, which often sound better than they've got any right to.

I daresay Mr Webb will have much better ideas, as he does this all the time.

For a classical concert, I often put a pair above and just behind the
conductor, with another pair for room sound towards the back. There
*may* be a sweet spot in your hall where you can hang a pair of mics and
get the balance right, though it's unlikely to be good enough for release.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers]

Mr.Will wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for some tips on how to
> get the best out of recording live. Just had an amazing concert at a
> festival, and even had it recorded properly by a company saying they
> specialise in this sort of recording. Sadly we have the whole concert split
> into six digital tracks that seem quite poor in terms of quality. Two of the
> tracks are from the desk to the PA(but PRE-MIX so everything is the same
> level, including this awful reverb), then 2 tracks are from the crowd which
> seem to have this autolevel set on them (so the volume goes up and down) and
> then another two tracks from near the speakers which have the bass guitar
> very loud.

There are probalby as many ways of recording a concert as
there are concerts. For your setup, it sounds like the
person recording it had the right idea but the wrong
implementation. I've done some recordings at folk festivals
where I've recorded the PA mix with audience mics, or mics
back at the mixing console, added in, but I wouldn't be
inclined to give the client an unmixed PA recording, a
back-of-the hall stereo recording, and a near-the-speakers
recording. That doesn't make any sense.

If I were doing this for hire, I'd probably record each mic
or DI on its own track, including whatever mics were used
for the drum kit (hopefully a reasonable number, like maybe
three or four), a pair of ambiance mics, and a stereo mix.
The stereo mix wouldn't necessarily be the same as the PA
mix, particularly if it was a fairly small venue where, as
you suggest, the djembe and lead guitar are loud enough so
that they're loud enough for the audience without much
amplification.

What I'd give you is the stereo mix, and tell you that since
it was done on the fly, it might be possible to make a
better mix from the multitrack recordings. You could listen
to that to evaluate the quality of both the recording and
the performance. Then you could decide what to do. If the
mix was good enough for wantever purpose you had in mind, If
you wanted to try to improve the mix, that's billable time.

If you wanted to save the raw tracks and perhaps mix them
later or use them with some fresh overdubs, that would be
negotiable. Not that it's any more trouble to give you those
tracks since there're already recorded, but unless it's part
of the agreed-upon price, you're getting value added to the
on-the-fly stereo mix. Of course if the recording was free
(or part of the festival deal) then you get what you pay for.


--
"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

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-15 (ScottDorsey) said:
<snipped original quote>

>Well, it depends a lot on the concert. If it's a classical concert
>with no PA, it's a matter of putting up two mikes in the right
>place and going. If it's a stadium rock concert, it's a matter of
>pulling splits off the PA and throwing up some ambient mikes. If
>it's a club gig, you will have to mike some of the instruments that
>aren't normally miked by the PA folks. In all cases, finding the
>right place to put the mikes is nontrivial.
There are so many variables that it's hard to say, in
hindsight and from what information MR. Will gave us, but it
seems to me that the folks doing the recording were just
grabbing signals from the mixing desk from wherever the foh
engineer would let them plug in.

THis is why I won't bring a recorder out and just hang it
off the inserts of the foh desk. I can't guarantee any
results from this.

IN fact, if it's anything but a classical type gig where
there is little to no sound reinforcement involved I won't
compromise on the setup. This means if you're gonna rock 'n
roll or anything else involving sound reinforcement of
instruments you're going to pay the rate for the remote
truck. I've had people question this frequently in fact
when shopping for rates. I get asked "why will you do the
church choir with piano for half or a third of your rate
with the truck but want to charge me that big price for
recording my band?"

<snip>

>Find a live recording you like from some place in the UK. Find the
>guys who did it. Hire them. Or ask a local studio for who has a
>truck in your area.

Another poster in this thread mentioned I'd probably chime
in here, but I have little else to add other than what Scott
stated, because he's right on it. HOWever, quality work
with results that you can use isn't going to be cheap. IF
you're a performer, and you want your set recorded, which is
my assumption for MR. Will then you'll want to coordinate
with the sound reinforcement providers and whomever you
might hire to do your recording. They need to work together.
Quality work chances are in MR. Will's situation is going to
entail splits off the microphones that the foh is using, and
additional mics for ambience, and possibly instruments not
handled by foh if it's a club date. Having the recordist
show up at the last minute and tell foh "uh we need you to
use our splitter, and we need ... " isn't going to get you
any results. Even for the lowball "hey man can I plug into
your board ... " trip they're going to need to cooperate,
and communicate. IF I'm the foh guy and somebody comes up
and says to me "uh yo bro we'd like to hang our multitrack
recorder off your inserts and ... " they're probably going
to be told I"m not authorized to allow them to plug in
*anything* at all. Especially if it's not my system and I"m
hired to run it. sHould there be further discussion or an
attempt to plug in I"ll probably be enlisting the help of
security to have said person removed from the premises post
haste. SO, the first step to getting a good recording,
however it's done, is a bit of communication and
coordination.

I don't know enough about MR. Will's specifics to comment,
except to echo Scott's thoughts that they grabbed a mix off
some weird point at the mixing desk, and would guess that
MR. Will's act was not one of the headliners, and the
recorder brought in a recording rig and had to take the luck
of the draw as to where the foh engineer would plug his
system in, maybe with a couple of live mics thrown in.
I'm guessing the recorder told Mr. Will and company he was
kind to the budget.

THere's a reason those of us who do this sort of thing
aren't cheap. Lots of pre planning going on before we even
show up, and lots of details to consider when it's show time
for the performers, as noted above.

Better luck next time.



Richard webb,

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr.Will > wrote:
>Sorry guys, for further info too
>the lineup is 2 vocalists, djembe (mic), drumkit, bass guitar, rhythm guitar
>and lead guitar. There are also various ethnic african instruments that have
>line in DIs throughout the show.

If they go into the PA console, they go onto the tape. If they have a DI
going into the PA, the recording folks might want to add a mike as well,
depending on how many channels they have available and how cluttered the
stage already is.

>One noticeable thing is that the instruments that are accoustically loudest
>(djembe and lead guitar) dont go through the desk much at all, so they are
>low on the desk tracks.

If they actually have mikes on them, it doesn't matter how much is in the
mains because the recording guys should be splitting the microphone feeds
before they ever make it to the PA console.

Sometimes things like percussion instruments aren't miked at all, since they
aren't needed in the PA. When that happens the recording crew needs to add
stage mikes on those instruments.

Sometimes the PA guy will want one kind of mike, the recording guy will want
another. When that happens, you use two mikes.

Sometimes the PA guy wants to put the mikes right up inside the drums,
which gives him better gain before feedback, but the recording guy wants
to pull back and get more of the sound of the instrument. So then you use
two mikes.

But we're now living in an era of almost unlimited channels... there's no
reason for the recording guy not to just record everything possible and
deal with it later, save the limitations of labour and setup time.
--scott

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.Will" > wrote in message
news:BoE%n.249280$w51.142160@hurricane

> Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for
> some tips on how to get the best out of recording live.
> Just had an amazing concert at a festival, and even had
> it recorded properly by a company saying they specialise
> in this sort of recording. Sadly we have the whole
> concert split into six digital tracks that seem quite
> poor in terms of quality.

> Two of the tracks are from the
> desk to the PA(but PRE-MIX so everything is the same
> level, including this awful reverb),

IOW, there is no intentional mix at all in them.

> then 2 tracks are
> from the crowd which seem to have this autolevel set on
> them (so the volume goes up and down) and then another
> two tracks from near the speakers which have the bass
> guitar very loud.

I can't imagine a worse selection of tracks. :-(

> What we have is listenable for us as a group to check
> out, but not something we can put up on the web or use.

> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you
> essentially have to have another mixing desk and another
> set of mics etc?

Absolutely not!

> What should I look for in a company that
> says it specialises in this sort of work? Im a bit
> despondent because I had hoped to get this concert well
> recorded...

The usual best way to record a live concert is to view the concert itself as
an exercise in capturing as many clean independent tracks as are relevant,
and do the mixdown later on using a DAW. This allows you to do as much as
possible with minimal attention during the perforamnce while taking
advantage of 20-20 hindsight.

You've usually got a lot of good raw material from the inputs to the FOH
mixer, and the FOH stereo mix itself can possibly be a valutable resource.
FOH mixes are usually less-than optimal because they are balanced for the
FOH speaker system, but at least they were balanced for something.

As Scott may be suggesting, you may also want to add some mic feeds that
are strictly for the recording, such as a coincident pair of mics located
near the front of the audience area. They get their own pair of tracks.

If you have loud acoustical instruments such as drums, you may also want to
add micing for them that never get fed into the FOH mix. They get as many
tracks as you have mics or there may be some submixing of them with the
results on a dedicated set of tracks.

You don't need a full duplicate of the FOH mixer for this unless you use it
as a low-cost way to get a collection of mic preamps. You may tap into the
inputs of the FOH mixer using a set of transformer-coupled mic-level
splitters, or you may tap into insert loops or direct outputs from the
console at line level.

It sounds like what you were provided by these alleged specialists is
probably less musically useful than a skilled recordist could get with a
well-placed coincident pair and a stereo recorder, or even just a 2-channel
recording of the main outputs of the FOH mixer.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-15 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>One noticeable thing is that the instruments that are
>>accoustically loudest (djembe and lead guitar) dont go through the
>>desk much at all, so they are low on the desk tracks.
>If they actually have mikes on them, it doesn't matter how much is
>in the mains because the recording guys should be splitting the
>microphone feeds before they ever make it to the PA console.
>Sometimes things like percussion instruments aren't miked at all,
>since they aren't needed in the PA. When that happens the
>recording crew needs to add stage mikes on those instruments.
>Sometimes the PA guy will want one kind of mike, the recording guy
>will want another. When that happens, you use two mikes.
>Sometimes the PA guy wants to put the mikes right up inside the
>drums, which gives him better gain before feedback, but the
>recording guy wants to pull back and get more of the sound of the
>instrument. So then you use two mikes.
>But we're now living in an era of almost unlimited channels...
>there's no reason for the recording guy not to just record
>everything possible and deal with it later, save the limitations of
>labour and setup time.

Agreed, and, for reasons MIke Rivers and MR. Dorsey stated,
this is why some pre planning and communication are crucial.
THis is why people that do what I do are considered too
pricey often for the lowball world which is the current
industry. I"m going to endeavor to get you a usable stereo
mix on the fly, but provide the raw tracks for you to
manipulate in another control room at another facility later
if you choose, or just the raw tracks to process at your
leisure. That's part of what we'll work out ahead of time.
Every gig is different, and everybody involved has his/her
own priorities. As a performer yours is providing a quality
performance to the paying customers in the seats, and to the
recording if you're having one done. THe sound
reinforcement folks have their priority, the paying butts in
the seats, and monitoring for the performers. tHe recording
guy's priority is getting a quality recording. SOmetimes
the recordist will either have to compromise with the sr
folks, or go his own way, i.e. the sr folks want the
percussion captured with one mic and technique, recordist
prefers another. The archives of this group will give you
plenty of fodder for consideration when engaging someone to
capture your next performance. Look over the archives, get
recommendations from studios near you on whom to engage, and
spend a bit of time communicating with whoever you hire to
do this.





Richard webb,

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

[Mr.Will]

> wrote in message
...
>
> On 2010-07-15 (ScottDorsey) said:
> <snipped original quote>
>
> >Well, it depends a lot on the concert. If it's a classical concert
> >with no PA, it's a matter of putting up two mikes in the right
> >place and going. If it's a stadium rock concert, it's a matter of
> >pulling splits off the PA and throwing up some ambient mikes. If
> >it's a club gig, you will have to mike some of the instruments that
> >aren't normally miked by the PA folks. In all cases, finding the
> >right place to put the mikes is nontrivial.
> There are so many variables that it's hard to say, in
> hindsight and from what information MR. Will gave us, but it
> seems to me that the folks doing the recording were just
> grabbing signals from the mixing desk from wherever the foh
> engineer would let them plug in.
>
> THis is why I won't bring a recorder out and just hang it
> off the inserts of the foh desk. I can't guarantee any
> results from this.
>
> IN fact, if it's anything but a classical type gig where
> there is little to no sound reinforcement involved I won't
> compromise on the setup. This means if you're gonna rock 'n
> roll or anything else involving sound reinforcement of
> instruments you're going to pay the rate for the remote
> truck. I've had people question this frequently in fact
> when shopping for rates. I get asked "why will you do the
> church choir with piano for half or a third of your rate
> with the truck but want to charge me that big price for
> recording my band?"
>
> <snip>
>
> >Find a live recording you like from some place in the UK. Find the
> >guys who did it. Hire them. Or ask a local studio for who has a
> >truck in your area.
>
> Another poster in this thread mentioned I'd probably chime
> in here, but I have little else to add other than what Scott
> stated, because he's right on it. HOWever, quality work
> with results that you can use isn't going to be cheap. IF
> you're a performer, and you want your set recorded, which is
> my assumption for MR. Will then you'll want to coordinate
> with the sound reinforcement providers and whomever you
> might hire to do your recording. They need to work together.
> Quality work chances are in MR. Will's situation is going to
> entail splits off the microphones that the foh is using, and
> additional mics for ambience, and possibly instruments not
> handled by foh if it's a club date. Having the recordist
> show up at the last minute and tell foh "uh we need you to
> use our splitter, and we need ... " isn't going to get you
> any results. Even for the lowball "hey man can I plug into
> your board ... " trip they're going to need to cooperate,
> and communicate. IF I'm the foh guy and somebody comes up
> and says to me "uh yo bro we'd like to hang our multitrack
> recorder off your inserts and ... " they're probably going
> to be told I"m not authorized to allow them to plug in
> *anything* at all. Especially if it's not my system and I"m
> hired to run it. sHould there be further discussion or an
> attempt to plug in I"ll probably be enlisting the help of
> security to have said person removed from the premises post
> haste. SO, the first step to getting a good recording,
> however it's done, is a bit of communication and
> coordination.
>
> I don't know enough about MR. Will's specifics to comment,
> except to echo Scott's thoughts that they grabbed a mix off
> some weird point at the mixing desk, and would guess that
> MR. Will's act was not one of the headliners, and the
> recorder brought in a recording rig and had to take the luck
> of the draw as to where the foh engineer would plug his
> system in, maybe with a couple of live mics thrown in.
> I'm guessing the recorder told Mr. Will and company he was
> kind to the budget.
>
> THere's a reason those of us who do this sort of thing
> aren't cheap. Lots of pre planning going on before we even
> show up, and lots of details to consider when it's show time
> for the performers, as noted above.
>
> Better luck next time.
>
>
>
> Richard webb,
>

Hi Richard, many thanks for that. We were the headline act for Sunday -
festival wasnt a huge one (500 people), but some of the greatest djembe
masters were there etc - and the recording company was reccomended to me.
I expected the mobile setup like what you listed, but yes everything you
said about them plugging into the desk was exactly what happened.
Fortunately we have another bigger (15,000) open air event in
September......I guess I just have to research better, yours and the others
opinion being the first step of that research!

Mr.Will

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Mr.Will" > wrote in message
>news:BoE%n.249280$w51.142160@hurricane
>
>> Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for
>> some tips on how to get the best out of recording live.
>> Just had an amazing concert at a festival, and even had
>> it recorded properly by a company saying they specialise
>> in this sort of recording. Sadly we have the whole
>> concert split into six digital tracks that seem quite
>> poor in terms of quality.
>
>> Two of the tracks are from the
>> desk to the PA(but PRE-MIX so everything is the same
>> level, including this awful reverb),
>
>IOW, there is no intentional mix at all in them.

It is what happens when people pull from an aux buss that they THINK is
postfader, in an attempt to get the main board mix, but actually use an
aux buss that is not postfader.

This happens because people don't have proper monitoring in the field and
so they can't tell what is going to tape until it's too late.
--scott


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

[John Williamson]

Richard Webb wrote:
> John Williamson writes:
>> For the sort of concert you describe, then a separate desk and mic
>> setup is pretty much essential. You'd need microphones to match all
>> the ones you've got on stage, as well as spots for the acoustic
>> instruments. You could try a pair near to the main speakers to
>> reduce the numbers instead of mic'ing everything up.
>
> RIght, but that's still not going to capture adequately what doesn't need reinforcement, i.e. lead guitar and some
> percussion as MR. Will noted.
>
True. But I was thinking more of using the pair on the mains (Or a feed
from the FOH mix) to save having to mic up what's going through the desk
already, then spotting the acoustic stuff. It may save setting up half a
dozen mics in a hurry.

>> You could try taking feeds from your desk to a multi-channel
>> recorder by splitting the mic feeds or using the effects sends as
>> has been discussed here recently, but your sound engineer would
>> have to be happy about the gear you're connecting to his desk.
>> You'll still need extras for the acoustic stuff, too.
>
> RIght, and this is why advance planning is crucial.
>
If not even more important.

>> Another cheap thing to try is a couple of PZMs on the back wall or
>> side walls, which often sound better than they've got any right to.
>
>
> rIght, if this is an indoor venue <grin>.
>
<Grin>

>> I daresay Mr Webb will have much better ideas, as he does this all
>> the time.
>
> POsted to this thread echoing others, as the bases had been
> pretty well covered by the time I saw it. Thanks for the
> vote of confidence though <grin>.
> tHis is the epitome of Mr. FLetcher's axiom:
>
> "pre production planning prevents **** poor performance."
>
Blimey, have you got any "p"s left in your computer? <Grin>

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson > wrote:
>Richard Webb wrote:
>> John Williamson writes:
>>> For the sort of concert you describe, then a separate desk and mic
>>> setup is pretty much essential. You'd need microphones to match all
>>> the ones you've got on stage, as well as spots for the acoustic
>>> instruments. You could try a pair near to the main speakers to
>>> reduce the numbers instead of mic'ing everything up.
>>
>> RIght, but that's still not going to capture adequately what doesn't need reinforcement, i.e. lead guitar and some
>> percussion as MR. Will noted.
>>
>True. But I was thinking more of using the pair on the mains (Or a feed
>from the FOH mix) to save having to mic up what's going through the desk
>already, then spotting the acoustic stuff. It may save setting up half a
>dozen mics in a hurry.

You can use a FOH feed in a pinch if your track count is limited, but the
FOH mix will generally be unbalanced in most small concert hall situations.

The bigger the hall is, the more of the audience sound is coming from the PA
and the less from the backline, the more the FOH feed sounds like a solid
and complete mix.

Sticking mikes on the mains is bad. PA speakers just never sound very good.

If you have enough tracks, though, or a recording mixer in a truck with
decent monitors so you can cut a good 2-track recording mix, you are much
better off taking splits.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

JOhn Williamson writes:
<big snip>

>> This is the epitome of Mr. FLetcher's axiom:
>> "pre production planning prevents **** poor performance."
>Blimey, have you got any "p"s left in your computer? <Grin>
NOpe, that pretty well covers the waterfront, as they say
<grin>.


Regards,




Richard webb,

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



Great audio is never heard by the average person, but bad
audio is heard by everyone.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-15 said:
<big snip>

>> THere's a reason those of us who do this sort of thing
>> aren't cheap. Lots of pre planning going on before we even
>> show up, and lots of details to consider when it's show time
>> for the performers, as noted above.
>> Better luck next time.

>Hi Richard, many thanks for that. We were the headline act for
>Sunday - festival wasnt a huge one (500 people), but some of the
>greatest djembe masters were there etc - and the recording company
>was reccomended to me. I expected the mobile setup like what you
>listed, but yes everything you said about them plugging into the
>desk was exactly what happened. Fortunately we have another bigger
>(15,000) open air event in September......I guess I just have to
>research better, yours and the others opinion being the first step
>of that research!
Glad I could be of help. No way I could even bid on the
gig, this rig sure can't drive across the big pond, but you
can have a look at the url referenced in my sig and have a
look for something similar. Even if the control room isn't
anything other than the interior of a van or something
similar, some isolation with monitoring, good splits and
knowledgeable tech folks are what you need. TAlk to the
festival organizers and their sound folks too about this.
Maybe other acts would like a recording too and those of you
who wish one can share the costs, get tracks to take
elsewhere for later production if necessary. How long have
you got to develop a game plan before this larger festival
date?





Richard webb,

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

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

John Williamson writes:
> For the sort of concert you describe, then a separate desk and mic
> setup is pretty much essential. You'd need microphones to match all
> the ones you've got on stage, as well as spots for the acoustic
> instruments. You could try a pair near to the main speakers to
> reduce the numbers instead of mic'ing everything up.

RIght, but that's still not going to capture adequately what doesn't need reinforcement, i.e. lead guitar and some
percussion as MR. Will noted.

> You could try taking feeds from your desk to a multi-channel
> recorder by splitting the mic feeds or using the effects sends as
> has been discussed here recently, but your sound engineer would
> have to be happy about the gear you're connecting to his desk.
> You'll still need extras for the acoustic stuff, too.

RIght, and this is why advance planning is crucial.

> Another cheap thing to try is a couple of PZMs on the back wall or
> side walls, which often sound better than they've got any right to.


rIght, if this is an indoor venue <grin>.

> I daresay Mr Webb will have much better ideas, as he does this all
> the time.

POsted to this thread echoing others, as the bases had been
pretty well covered by the time I saw it. Thanks for the
vote of confidence though <grin>.
tHis is the epitome of Mr. FLetcher's axiom:

"pre production planning prevents **** poor performance."

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.

[Mr.Will]

> wrote in message
...
>
> On 2010-07-15 said:
> <big snip>
>
> >> THere's a reason those of us who do this sort of thing
> >> aren't cheap. Lots of pre planning going on before we even
> >> show up, and lots of details to consider when it's show time
> >> for the performers, as noted above.
> >> Better luck next time.
>
> >Hi Richard, many thanks for that. We were the headline act for
> >Sunday - festival wasnt a huge one (500 people), but some of the
> >greatest djembe masters were there etc - and the recording company
> >was reccomended to me. I expected the mobile setup like what you
> >listed, but yes everything you said about them plugging into the
> >desk was exactly what happened. Fortunately we have another bigger
> >(15,000) open air event in September......I guess I just have to
> >research better, yours and the others opinion being the first step
> >of that research!
> Glad I could be of help. No way I could even bid on the
> gig, this rig sure can't drive across the big pond, but you
> can have a look at the url referenced in my sig and have a
> look for something similar. Even if the control room isn't
> anything other than the interior of a van or something
> similar, some isolation with monitoring, good splits and
> knowledgeable tech folks are what you need. TAlk to the
> festival organizers and their sound folks too about this.
> Maybe other acts would like a recording too and those of you
> who wish one can share the costs, get tracks to take
> elsewhere for later production if necessary. How long have
> you got to develop a game plan before this larger festival
> date?
>

Hi Richard
Its September 19th
www.sambamela.co.uk is the festival! Could be we tie into the organisers who
want merchandise for the event and promo etc. also for the TV networks who
are filming.

Mr.Will

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-15 said:
>> knowledgeable tech folks are what you need. TAlk to the
>> festival organizers and their sound folks too about this.
>> Maybe other acts would like a recording too and those of you
>> who wish one can share the costs, get tracks to take
>> elsewhere for later production if necessary. How long have
>> you got to develop a game plan before this larger festival
>> date?
>Its September 19th
>www.sambamela.co.uk is the festival! Could be we tie into the
>organisers who want merchandise for the event and promo etc. also
>for the TV networks who are filming.
HEy there ya go! Plenty of time, about two months. IF
there's networks see what they're doing for audio capture,
talk to the other acts, the event organizers, etc. Lots of
ways to get what you need. FIrst, research your options, if
the network folks aren't bringing a remote truck or
something similar for the broadcast. IF you find they're
just doing a hope and pray with a board feed, research your
options with the guidance Scott Dorsey myself and others
have provided, find out who can give you the best options
and what they have to get for their services. HEck the
broadcast folks might appreciate a good remote truck for the
audio as well if they're not providing one, at least if they
only have to underwrite part of the cost. still plenty of
time yet, but it's going to take some legwork on your part
looks like.

HOpe I've been of help, and good luck with the event. EVen
if you can't get what you would like to have in the
recording, concentrate on putting on the best possible show
for the butts in the seats, because if they left saying they
had a good time and enjoyed your show others will show up at
a later date at your other performances, and will buy your
studio recordings. THis sounds doable, especially with the
lead time you've got.

Regards,





Richard webb,

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

[Mark]

>
> HOpe I've been of help, and good luck with the event. *EVen
> if you can't get what you would like to have in the
> recording, concentrate on putting on the best possible show
> for the butts in the seats, because if they left saying they
> had a good time and enjoyed your show others will show up at
> a later date at your other performances, and will buy your
> studio recordings. *THis sounds doable, especially with the
> lead time you've got.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard webb,
>
>

Don't forget to record at least 2 channels of ambient audience
applause etc. This is important for a concert recording and something
PA guys don't need or do.. You can even use a little portable Zoom or
something for this...

Mark

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> A better way is to record direct splits off of all of the mikes, plus
> the ambient mikes for the crowd. But the way they are doing it, you
> can get good results IF the PA is good in the first place... though
> it sounds like they grabbed a something weird instead of the raw
> board mix.


I use a Phonic Helixboard that sucks each channel off to firewire, while
operating essentially as an analogue live mixer.

Quality not sexy uber-fi, but gives better fidelity than many (most?) live
multitrack recordings from last century. The one's I bought at least ...

And very convenient. Of course could be acheived equally with more esoteric
(and expensive) hardware.

geoff

[Mr.Will]

> wrote in message
...
>
> On 2010-07-15 said:
> >> knowledgeable tech folks are what you need. TAlk to the
> >> festival organizers and their sound folks too about this.
> >> Maybe other acts would like a recording too and those of you
> >> who wish one can share the costs, get tracks to take
> >> elsewhere for later production if necessary. How long have
> >> you got to develop a game plan before this larger festival
> >> date?
> >Its September 19th
> >www.sambamela.co.uk is the festival! Could be we tie into the
> >organisers who want merchandise for the event and promo etc. also
> >for the TV networks who are filming.
> HEy there ya go! Plenty of time, about two months. IF
> there's networks see what they're doing for audio capture,
> talk to the other acts, the event organizers, etc. Lots of
> ways to get what you need. FIrst, research your options, if
> the network folks aren't bringing a remote truck or
> something similar for the broadcast. IF you find they're
> just doing a hope and pray with a board feed, research your
> options with the guidance Scott Dorsey myself and others
> have provided, find out who can give you the best options
> and what they have to get for their services. HEck the
> broadcast folks might appreciate a good remote truck for the
> audio as well if they're not providing one, at least if they
> only have to underwrite part of the cost. still plenty of
> time yet, but it's going to take some legwork on your part
> looks like.
>
> HOpe I've been of help, and good luck with the event. EVen
> if you can't get what you would like to have in the
> recording, concentrate on putting on the best possible show
> for the butts in the seats, because if they left saying they
> had a good time and enjoyed your show others will show up at
> a later date at your other performances, and will buy your
> studio recordings. THis sounds doable, especially with the
> lead time you've got.

Easy Richard,

Yes thanks to you and Scott (and of course all the other contributions on
here).
The whole point for me was as you say to perform well, thats my role.
Thats why I got a company to record the show - I dont like having that stuff
in my mind when its time to play.
It was only when we got those mixes back, I demanded for the original wavs
that they recorded so I could try to salvage it.

Everything you pointed to has been a big help for me - I meeting the tv
people over the next couple of weeks so will see what they have to say.
I also saw your site, and your reccomendations on here, so will be looking
for companies who at least talk in the same terms.

Many many thanks again!

Mr.Will

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> You can use a FOH feed in a pinch if your track count is limited, but
> the FOH mix will generally be unbalanced in most small concert hall
> situations.

Supplementing with an omni pair above the stage and some kind of stereo pair
in the room comes to mind.

> --scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_3_]]

Mr.Will wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for some tips on how to
> get the best out of recording live. Just had an amazing concert at a
> festival, and even had it recorded properly by a company saying they
> specialise in this sort of recording. Sadly we have the whole concert split
> into six digital tracks that seem quite poor in terms of quality. Two of the
> tracks are from the desk to the PA(but PRE-MIX so everything is the same
> level, including this awful reverb), then 2 tracks are from the crowd which
> seem to have this autolevel set on them (so the volume goes up and down) and
> then another two tracks from near the speakers which have the bass guitar
> very loud.
>
> What we have is listenable for us as a group to check out, but not something
> we can put up on the web or use.
>
> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you essentially have to
> have another mixing desk and another set of mics etc? What should I look for
> in a company that says it specialises in this sort of work? Im a bit
> despondent because I had hoped to get this concert well recorded........
>
> any replies are much appreciated
>
> Mr.Will
>
>

you have to do whatever is necessary to get an unmodified mic feed
for every track you print. That can mean a number of things. It
might mean seperate mics, it might mean a mic splitter, it might
mean using the inserts on a desk.

If you're just going for web quality, stick up a stereo pair or
a small handheld recorder.

A full on remote truck style multitrack isn't that easy.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> You can use a FOH feed in a pinch if your track count is limited, but
>> the FOH mix will generally be unbalanced in most small concert hall
>> situations.
>
>Supplementing with an omni pair above the stage and some kind of stereo pair
>in the room comes to mind.

Yes, but now you have two differently unbalanced mixes together. It's
better than nothing and I have done it before, but it's not as nice as
having full splits.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>A full on remote truck style multitrack isn't that easy.

Sure it is. You call the man with the remote truck and you write him a check
and he goes.

If the TV folks are at the event, they will probably have their own sound
truck. They could be doing one of the following:

1. Taking an FOB feed of the house mix, and a couple ambient mikes, and
sending them to a console in the video truck which is operated by the
most junior video tech or the one who has drawn the short straw.

2. Taking full splits off the main FOH console and sending them to a sound
truck where they are mixed live to a 2-track feed which is sent to the
video truck.

3. Taking full splits off the main FOH console and sending them to a sound
truck where they are recorded to a multitrack recorder to be later mixed
down. At the same time, an FOH mix is usually sent to the video truck
so they have a rough guide track for synching up the mix that is later
made from the multitrack.

The latter two options give you the possibility of just getting a full set
of tracks from the video crew. The first option gives you nothing but grief.

So find out what the video guys are doing with regard to sound, and if you
can piggyback off of them, do so. If you can't, hire a recording company
and let them provide a feed to the video guys on the side.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

PEter writes:
>> You can use a FOH feed in a pinch if your track count is limited,
>>but the FOH mix will generally be unbalanced in most small
>>concert hall situations.
>Supplementing with an omni pair above the stage and some kind of
>stereo pair in the room comes to mind.


OF course, then time align them later as needed, mix to
taste.
That may be what the broadcasters in MR. WIll's situation
plan to do. I note he said he plans to communicate with
them next couple of days.




Richard webb,

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

[Mike Rivers]

Les Cargill wrote:

> you have to do whatever is necessary to get an unmodified mic feed
> for every track you print. That can mean a number of things. It
> might mean seperate mics, it might mean a mic splitter, it might
> mean using the inserts on a desk.

A less expensive alternative is to make an independent
stereo mix and be done with it. Many consoles will allow for
that. You can put up mics for recording that aren't used in
the PA, but you gotta plan ahead, and you have to be able to
mix what you're hearing. That's the hard part for many
"engineers" today.

--
"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

[Richard Crowley[_3_]]

"Mr.Will" wrote ...
> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you essentially
> have to have another mixing desk and another set of mics etc?

At least splits from the existing mics (whether mic-line splitting
transformers, or isolated feeds from the FOH mixing desk).
Note also that some things are not necessarily miked at all by
the FOH crew, such as things that produce adequate sound on
their own (like amplified instruments, audience, etc.) Miking
for recording has different requirements than for reinforcement.

And another mixing desk. Or if you really want to do it right,
a multi-track recorder to record each mic separately for mix-
down after the fact (away from the live-show madness.)

> What should I look for in a company that says it specialises
> in this sort of work?

Experience, resources, recommendations, demos.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-16 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Les Cargill > wrote:
>>A full on remote truck style multitrack isn't that easy.
>Sure it is. You call the man with the remote truck and you write
>him a check and he goes.
>If the TV folks are at the event, they will probably have their own
>sound truck. They could be doing one of the following:
>1. Taking an FOB feed of the house mix, and a couple ambient mikes,
>and sending them to a console in the video truck which is operated
>by the most junior video tech or the one who has drawn the short
>straw.
true, and I don't understand this mindset that if it's for
the web it doesn't matter if it's less than adequate. IF
you wouldn't release it to the public that way otherwise why
is it good enough for the www? DOes the cool factor
outweigh if it sounds good or not? NOt imho, if it sucks,
it sucks.
IF it's good, I might actually buy something, or pay money
for a ticket to a show. IF it sucks when I heard it for
free, that tells me something about the folks that produced
it, that they probably don't care. IF they don't care why
should I care enough to spend my entertainment bucks to
check it out further.
After all, it's a "leisure" activity. IF it ain't fun and
doesn't sound good why do it?

<Scott's good points snipped to ... >
>So find out what the video guys are doing with regard to sound, and
>if you can piggyback off of them, do so. If you can't, hire a
>recording company and let them provide a feed to the video guys on
>the side.
INdeed, get them to kick in a little bit for the
improvements they'll get, and talk to other acts at the
festival about going in with you on the cost of the audio
truck.


IF it's worth doing, it's worth doing well!



Richard webb,

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

[Nono]

On 16 jul, 21:59, wrote:
> On 2010-07-16 (ScottDorsey) said:
> * *>Les Cargill > wrote:
> * *>>A full on remote truck style multitrack isn't that easy.
> * *>Sure it is. *You call the man with the remote truck and you write
> * *>him a check and he goes.
> * *>If the TV folks are at the event, they will probably have their own
> * *>sound truck. *They could be doing one of the following:
> * *>1. Taking an FOB feed of the house mix, and a couple ambient mikes,
> * *>and sending them to a console in the video truck which is operated
> * *>by the most junior video tech or the one who has drawn the short
> * *>straw.
> true, and I don't understand this mindset that if it's for
> the web it doesn't matter if it's less than adequate. *IF
> you wouldn't release it to the public that way otherwise why
> is it good enough for the www? *DOes the cool factor
> outweigh if it sounds good or not? *NOt imho, if it sucks,
> it sucks.
> IF it's good, I might actually buy something, or pay money
> for a ticket to a show. *IF it sucks when I heard it for
> free, that tells me something about the folks that produced
> it, that they probably don't care. *IF they don't care why
> should I care enough to spend my entertainment bucks to
> check it out further.
> After all, it's a "leisure" activity. *IF it ain't fun and
> doesn't sound good why do it?


I so agree with you.
But in this (www)world today people do not do things for any
particular reason, but merely because it is possible.

Norman.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Norman writes:
<snip>

>> true, and I don't understand this mindset that if it's for
>> the web it doesn't matter if it's less than adequate. =A0IF
>> you wouldn't release it to the public that way otherwise why
>> is it good enough for the www? DOes the cool factor
>> outweigh if it sounds good or not? NOt imho, if it sucks,
> it sucks.
> IF it's good, I might actually buy something, or pay money
> for a ticket to a show. =A0IF it sucks when I heard it for
> free, that tells me something about the folks that produced
> it, that they probably don't care. =A0IF they don't care why
> should I care enough to spend my entertainment bucks to
> check it out further.
> After all, it's a "leisure" activity. =A0IF it ain't fun and
> doesn't sound good why do it?


> I so agree with you.
> But in this (www)world today people do not do things for any
> particular reason, but merely because it is possible.

NOt always a good enough reason to do something. Karaoke is possible too, but it sucks enough I won't even buy a drink
if there's karaoke there. I endeavor to *not* support
establishments that have karaoke at all.
IN MR. WIll's case, he's trying to promote his act, and the
best promotion is putting one's best foot forward.

I've seen more of these great brags about "we're streaming
our event on the web" so I go to a friend's with a fast
connection to check it out. I tune in, and the audio's so
poor you can't hear the program anyway, and the video is
herky jerky.
One potential client I'm negotiating with for a convention
next year has enough folks that tuned in on their internet
stream last year, witnessed the poor quality of the audio
and said "yech" and tuned out. THey want better for their
money next time.
WHether they want enough better to pay my rates is still
open to question but ...

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.

[Mr.Will]

> wrote in message
...
>
> On 2010-07-16 (ScottDorsey) said:
> >Les Cargill > wrote:
> >>A full on remote truck style multitrack isn't that easy.
> >Sure it is. You call the man with the remote truck and you write
> >him a check and he goes.
> >If the TV folks are at the event, they will probably have their own
> >sound truck. They could be doing one of the following:
> >1. Taking an FOB feed of the house mix, and a couple ambient mikes,
> >and sending them to a console in the video truck which is operated
> >by the most junior video tech or the one who has drawn the short
> >straw.
> true, and I don't understand this mindset that if it's for
> the web it doesn't matter if it's less than adequate. IF
> you wouldn't release it to the public that way otherwise why
> is it good enough for the www? DOes the cool factor
> outweigh if it sounds good or not? NOt imho, if it sucks,
> it sucks.
> IF it's good, I might actually buy something, or pay money
> for a ticket to a show. IF it sucks when I heard it for
> free, that tells me something about the folks that produced
> it, that they probably don't care. IF they don't care why
> should I care enough to spend my entertainment bucks to
> check it out further.
> After all, it's a "leisure" activity. IF it ain't fun and
> doesn't sound good why do it?

THis sums up my attitude quite well.
I think just my idea of a proper live recording and the company we had in to
do it are different.
VASTLY different.
OK so its not ever going to be the same as an ideal situation of a studio,
with overdubs and an ideal sonic space to record in, but the live concert
has a certain magic (especially in this style that we are are playing), and
the point is to get something thats as good as it can be audio wise.
The people we had to record this particular one - I get the impression now -
are about giving a "memento" for bands, probably young indie kids who will
think anything is cool, as its from their gig. Kind of like one's holiday
photographs that arent really very good, but nice for you to look back on,
vs professional photography of the same holiday. I have no objection, just I
obviously got it wrong when asking them because I had no idea what to look
for or what to expect.
But yes, no way could I ever contemplate putting any of this on the web as
it were.........

Mr.Will

[Mike Rivers]

Mr.Will wrote:

> OK so its not ever going to be the same as an ideal situation of a studio,
> with overdubs and an ideal sonic space to record in, but the live concert
> has a certain magic (especially in this style that we are are playing), and
> the point is to get something thats as good as it can be audio wise.
> The people we had to record this particular one - I get the impression now -
> are about giving a "memento" for bands, probably young indie kids who will
> think anything is cool, as its from their gig. Kind of like one's holiday
> photographs that arent really very good, but nice for you to look back on,
> vs professional photography of the same holiday.

For what it's worth, most of the live recordings that I've
done for my own amusement in the past 10 years or so have
ended up in the bit bucket. I've never even kept a "backup"
copy. I might listen to it once or twice, maybe pull out a
song or tune I want to learn, and then it doesn't matter any
more. I'm not looking to be the one with the only recording
in existence of this band doing that song. That's the band's
job, if they choose to 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

[geoff]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Mr.Will" wrote ...
>> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you essentially
>> have to have another mixing desk and another set of mics etc?
>
> At least splits from the existing mics (whether mic-line splitting
> transformers, or isolated feeds from the FOH mixing desk).
> Note also that some things are not necessarily miked at all by
> the FOH crew, such as things that produce adequate sound on
> their own (like amplified instruments, audience, etc.) Miking
> for recording has different requirements than for reinforcement.

Or as I suggested earlier, get a simple mixer (or several) that streams each
mic-pre to FW while you get on with the live mixing, and add a few
crowd/ambient mics. Sorry to put a truck and crew and many $$$ out of
business though.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "Mr.Will" wrote ...
>>> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you essentially
>>> have to have another mixing desk and another set of mics etc?
>>
>> At least splits from the existing mics (whether mic-line splitting
>> transformers, or isolated feeds from the FOH mixing desk).
>> Note also that some things are not necessarily miked at all by
>> the FOH crew, such as things that produce adequate sound on
>> their own (like amplified instruments, audience, etc.) Miking
>> for recording has different requirements than for reinforcement.
>
>Or as I suggested earlier, get a simple mixer (or several) that streams each
>mic-pre to FW while you get on with the live mixing, and add a few
>crowd/ambient mics. Sorry to put a truck and crew and many $$$ out of
>business though.

The number one serious problem with this is that you have no monitoring
and you can't really hear what is going to tape.

I do something in-between all the time, with a rack of preamps and
recorders that can be rolled into a makeshift control booth at the
concert, but the quality of the end result depends entirely on how
good and how well-isolated that makeshift booth is.

If you can't hear what is going to tape, you can't be sure all the
microphones are in the right place. What is in the right place for
PA is not always in the right place for recording.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-17 (ScottDorsey) said:
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
>geoff > wrote:
>>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> "Mr.Will" wrote ...
>>>> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you
>>>>essentially have to have another mixing desk and another set of
>mics etc? >>
>>> At least splits from the existing mics (whether mic-line
>>>splitting transformers, or isolated feeds from the FOH mixing
>>>desk). Note also that some things are not necessarily miked at
>>>all by the FOH crew, such as things that produce adequate sound
>>>on their own (like amplified instruments, audience, etc.)
>>>Miking for recording has different requirements than for
>reinforcement. >
>>Or as I suggested earlier, get a simple mixer (or several) that
>>streams each mic-pre to FW while you get on with the live mixing,
>>and add a few crowd/ambient mics. Sorry to put a truck and crew
>>and many $$$ out of business though.
>The number one serious problem with this is that you have no
>monitoring and you can't really hear what is going to tape.
>I do something in-between all the time, with a rack of preamps and
>recorders that can be rolled into a makeshift control booth at the
>concert, but the quality of the end result depends entirely on how
>good and how well-isolated that makeshift booth is.

Been there done that, before I owned a truck several times.

>If you can't hear what is going to tape, you can't be sure all the
>microphones are in the right place. What is in the right place for
>PA is not always in the right place for recording.
Again agreed, and now I could do much the same, and only
will do so for such things as church choirs and classical
music gigs. MOnitoring is everything.





Richard webb,

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

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:
>>Or as I suggested earlier, get a simple mixer (or several) that streams each
>>mic-pre to FW while you get on with the live mixing, and add a few
>>crowd/ambient mics. Sorry to put a truck and crew and many $$$ out of
>>business though.

> The number one serious problem with this is that you have no
> monitoring and you can't really hear what is going to tape.

Geoff's approach can work reliably, especially if your gig
is in a venue where you expect to have multiple
performances, listen after the gig, next time make
adjustments, do it again. ON a one off such as Mr. WIll's
festival gig though if you're wanting to capture that,
monitoring is everything. YOu can't solve problems you
can't discern because you can't hear them.

Also, being a festival, chances are you're not going to have a choice what the foh mixer is, and if it's a quality sound
reinforcement provider it's not going to be a Mackie or
Phonic.

IF you've got to capture it from this performance then you
want the whole nine yards, proper monitoring, splits, well
placed ambience microphones to capture the audience, and
possibly additional microphones placed to capture what's
needed for the recording from the performers, and not what's needed for foh. But otoh for that string of club dates with plenty of shots at it, throw the dice, poke and hope, tweak
the setup as you go and by the end of the tour you'll have
some useful tracks to work with.

Again that "horses for courses" adage applies.


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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> geoff > wrote:
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> "Mr.Will" wrote ...

>>>> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you
>>>> essentially have to have another mixing desk and
>>>> another set of mics etc?

>>> At least splits from the existing mics (whether
>>> mic-line splitting transformers, or isolated feeds from
>>> the FOH mixing desk).
>>> Note also that some things are not necessarily miked at
>>> all by the FOH crew, such as things that produce
>>> adequate sound on
>>> their own (like amplified instruments, audience, etc.)
>>> Miking for recording has different requirements than
>>> for reinforcement.

>> Or as I suggested earlier, get a simple mixer (or
>> several) that streams each mic-pre to FW while you get
>> on with the live mixing, and add a few crowd/ambient
>> mics. Sorry to put a truck and crew and many $$$ out of
>> business though.

Or one can plug 4 M-Audio Delta 1010LTs into a computer with 4 free PCI
slots and stream onto a hard drive. 32 channels for well under $50 per
channel at up to 24/96.

> The number one serious problem with this is that you have
> no monitoring and you can't really hear what is going to
> tape.

If you take splits from a FOH mixer, then monitoring the FOH mix provides
you with ready means to monitor the mic feeds.

"Hear what is going to tape"? Translate that into 2010 technology and we
have "know what is going onto the digital tracks". The problem of knowing
that can be satisfied by visual displays, once you know that everything up
to that point is working well.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>If you take splits from a FOH mixer, then monitoring the FOH mix provides
>you with ready means to monitor the mic feeds.
>
>"Hear what is going to tape"? Translate that into 2010 technology and we
>have "know what is going onto the digital tracks". The problem of knowing
>that can be satisfied by visual displays, once you know that everything up
>to that point is working well.

Not even a little bit.

And there's no way listening to the FOH mix will tell you more than fraction
of what you need to know.

The meters don't tell you that Ps are popping, that the snare is rattling
when the bass guitar plays. It doesn't tell you there's guitar leakage into
the vocal mikes. It doesn't tell you the overheads are too far apart for
good imaging, it doesn't tell you the ambient mikes are in the right place
to get a good stereo image of the stage or that the stage is creaking. It
doesn't let you know that the sax mike is pointed too much toward the bell
and not enough toward the body... or that it's pointed too much toward the
body and picking up valve clicks.

Looking at waveform envelopes and thinking it's going to tell you what is
going on up on stage is very misguided.

Mind you, there are times when due to field expediency you have to work
without proper monitoring, but it's no fun and it is always an adventure
when you get home.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

ARnie writes:
> If you take splits from a FOH mixer, then monitoring the FOH mix
> provides you with ready means to monitor the mic feeds.
NOt quite. THey tell me whether they're getting signal, and that's about it. Too many things they don't tell me. They
don't tell me if I want to use a different technique to
capture something, or whether there are unwanted noises,
unacceptable bleed, etc.
I've done plenty of such recordings though, with limited
track counts to boot. sOmetimes it all works out, sometimes it didn't.

> "Hear what is going to tape"? Translate that into 2010 technology
> and we have "know what is going onto the digital tracks". The
> problem of knowing that can be satisfied by visual displays, once
> you know that everything up to that point is working well.

Right, sure it can. Maybe in the world of church sound
with repeatable setups week after week, but I'm not paid to
look at a waveform display, I'm paid to use those things on
the side of my head. FYi they're called ears.

As I noted, I've done plenty of gigs recording folks in
compromised monitoring situations over the years, with the
understanding going in that we might or might not get
something usable. We were going to tape with limited track
counts as well, making it even more fun. AS I said before
in this thread, reliable monitoring is everything. Without
it, there are no guarantees of anything but that you're
going to pay me for my time to bring in some equipment and
occupy space.


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.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:

>>"Hear what is going to tape"? Translate that into 2010 technology and we
>>have "know what is going onto the digital tracks". The problem of knowing
>>that can be satisfied by visual displays, once you know that everything up
>>to that point is working well.

> Not even a little bit.

Your experience dovetails with mine.

> And there's no way listening to the FOH mix will tell you more than
> fraction of what you need to know.

<snipped good points as we've both made them>

> Looking at waveform envelopes and thinking it's going to tell you
> what is going on up on stage is very misguided.

OF course it is, and headphones might or might not give me
what I need. Unless I've a proper monitoring environment
chances are headphones are *not* going to give me what I
need in fact.

> Mind you, there are times when due to field expediency you have to
> work without proper monitoring, but it's no fun and it is always an
> adventure when you get home.

Indeed it is. I've gotten lucky a few times, and then there were the others. IF I'm not bringing the truck my first
task on site is to scout out where I can set up a reasonable monitoring environment.


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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message


>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> If you take splits from a FOH mixer, then monitoring the
>> FOH mix provides you with ready means to monitor the mic
>> feeds.

> there's no way listening to the FOH mix
> will tell you more than fraction of what you need to know.

My bad, my word choice was not clear. I was thinking about listening to
individual channels via PFL. I often listen to the FOH mix, a channel at a
time, via PFL. That's what I meant by "monitor the mic feeds".

Similarly, by "Visual displays" I meant looking at tracks in DAW software.

> The meters don't tell you that Ps are popping

Popping Ps have a characteristic appearance if you look at the tracks zoomed
appropriately.

Who said anything about meters?

I thought that this discussion was about *listening*.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, > wrote:
>On 2010-07-16 (ScottDorsey) said:
>
> >1. Taking an FOB feed of the house mix, and a couple ambient mikes,
> >and sending them to a console in the video truck which is operated
> >by the most junior video tech or the one who has drawn the short
> >straw.
>true, and I don't understand this mindset that if it's for
>the web it doesn't matter if it's less than adequate. IF
>you wouldn't release it to the public that way otherwise why
>is it good enough for the www? DOes the cool factor
>outweigh if it sounds good or not? NOt imho, if it sucks,
>it sucks.

I'm not talking about for web stuff, I am talking about for actual broadcast
release! Video people really don't think about sound, they consider it to be
an afterthought. Consequently, with broadcasts where the sound is the center
of the whole event (like concert broadcasts), important stuff falls into the
cracks almost invariably.

The web stuff is even worse... I quit a TedX job in a very bad way last
fall because the folks running it seemed basically to have no idea what was
required to do the job right.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Webb > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey writes:
>
>> Mind you, there are times when due to field expediency you have to
>> work without proper monitoring, but it's no fun and it is always an
>> adventure when you get home.
>
>Indeed it is. I've gotten lucky a few times, and then there were the others. IF I'm not bringing the truck my first
>task on site is to scout out where I can set up a reasonable monitoring environment.

Well, I recorded the Potomac Celtic Festival blind a few weeks ago, and
I _still_ haven't played the tapes back yet because I have a pretty good
idea of the kind of thing I am going to discover.....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-19 (ScottDorsey) said:
<snip>
>>true, and I don't understand this mindset that if it's for
>>the web it doesn't matter if it's less than adequate. IF
>>you wouldn't release it to the public that way otherwise why
>>is it good enough for the www? DOes the cool factor
>>outweigh if it sounds good or not? NOt imho, if it sucks,
>>it sucks.
>I'm not talking about for web stuff, I am talking about for actual
>broadcast release! Video people really don't think about sound,
>they consider it to be an afterthought. Consequently, with
>broadcasts where the sound is the center of the whole event (like
>concert broadcasts), important stuff falls into the cracks almost
>invariably.
Yep, have heard this all too often. Which is one reason I
suggested MR. Will and the other acts, plus the video people
all pool their resources to hire a quality audio truck.

>The web stuff is even worse... I quit a TedX job in a very bad way
>last fall because the folks running it seemed basically to have no
>idea what was required to do the job right.
Yep, btdt, got tee shirt and tattoo.



Richard webb,

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

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:
>>> Mind you, there are times when due to field expediency you have to
>>> work without proper monitoring, but it's no fun and it is always an
>>> adventure when you get home.

>>Indeed it is. I've gotten lucky a few times, and then there were the others.
>> IF I'm not bringing the truck my first
>>task on site is to scout out where I can set up a reasonable monitoring
>> environment.

> Well, I recorded the Potomac Celtic Festival blind a few weeks ago,
> and I _still_ haven't played the tapes back yet because I have a
> pretty good idea of the kind of thing I am going to discover.....

YEp, again, been there, done that, got both tee shirt and
tattoo. sOmetimes in those situations I'll do the best I
can with headphones, but ...

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.

[Live Sound Audio]

The Digidesign Venue has Pro Tools integrated and you've got 48 recording tracks natively incorporated. I think that's the way to go...

[Steven Borrelli]

On Jul 15, 8:52*am, "Mr.Will" > wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for some tips on how to
> get the best out of recording live. Just had an amazing concert at a
> festival, and even had it recorded properly by a company saying they
> specialise in this sort of recording. Sadly we have the whole concert split
> into six digital tracks that seem quite poor in terms of quality. Two of the
> tracks are from the desk to the PA(but PRE-MIX so everything is the same
> level, including this awful reverb), then 2 tracks are from the crowd which
> seem to have this autolevel set on them (so the volume goes up and down) and
> then another two tracks from near the speakers which have the bass guitar
> very loud.
>
> What we have is listenable for us as a group to check out, but not something
> we can put up on the web or use.
>
> Is it true that to record a live concert properly you essentially have to
> have another mixing desk and another set of mics etc? What should I look for
> in a company that says it specialises in this sort of work? Im a bit
> despondent because I had hoped to get this concert well recorded........
>
> any replies are much appreciated
>
> Mr.Will

Bottom line - use a digital multitrack recording device or DAW
software with multichannel interface to record a live concert. Allen &
Heath's GL series mixing boards have direct outputs on each channel...
which could help in connecting to a separate recorder.

[hank alrich]

Mr.Will > wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Im sorry if this is offtopic etc. but I was looking for some tips on how to
> get the best out of recording live. Just had an amazing concert at a
> festival, and even had it recorded properly by a company saying they
> specialise in this sort of recording.
<snip>

You've gotten a lot of good advice already. I'll add my own perspective
here.

1. How often will you do this?

2. What is the intended use for the finished mixes?

3. How many inputs do you need to track simultaneously?

4. What are your personal and band logistical constraints?

5. What is the maximum amount of money you can/will spend to accomplish
this?

There are so many ways of going about this that no way can I take time
to detail even just the ones I know about, never mind the whole field.
Essentially your choices are:

A. Use a laptop with appropriate interface to get the tracks you need.
(I use a Metric Halo 2882+DSP with another convertor that has either AES
or SPDIF output for an additional pair of tracks to capture up to ten
tracks for a trio I play with.)

B. Use a standalone DAW as offered by Roland, Boss, Yamaha, Korg, and
others.

C. Use a standalone hard drive recorder, such as the Alesis HD24 or
HD24XR, or the new JoeCo Blackbox single-rackspace recorder that pulls
in 24 tracks at 24/96 and feeds any drive with a USB interface.

http://www.alesis.com/hd24xr

http://www.joeco.co.uk/main/index.html

With either of these hard drive recorders and the appropriate snake you
could capture up to 24 tracks. I'd favor the JoeCo just because it's
smaller and lighter, and the answer to question 4 above is among the
most important factors in this situation.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The number one serious problem with this is that you have no
> monitoring and you can't really hear what is going to tape.

Sorry tary reply - of course you can ! The Helixboard is a full analogue
mixer than just happens to suck off the raw output of the mic pres (also
configurable to 'post eq' I believe) to firewire. As long as you are not
overloading the pres what you record is as good (or better) that what you
hear through the normal mixer path, solo, etc.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> The number one serious problem with this is that you have no
>> monitoring and you can't really hear what is going to tape.
>
>Sorry tary reply - of course you can ! The Helixboard is a full analogue
>mixer than just happens to suck off the raw output of the mic pres (also
>configurable to 'post eq' I believe) to firewire. As long as you are not
>overloading the pres what you record is as good (or better) that what you
>hear through the normal mixer path, solo, etc.

How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music playing at high
volume. How can you hear anything but the PA?

In a pinch if you absolutely HAVE to, you can use the Eytmotic in-ear
headphones with Peltor hearing protectors over top. This gives you pretty
good midrange isolation but still zero bass isolation and still no way to
judge imaging accurately.

This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation in a quiet booth.
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation in a quiet booth.

True. However...

The long-discontinued Sony MDR-CD6 headphones were supra-aural, but with a
seal. (Yes. Really) This, combined with their high efficiency and high
power-handling capability, made it possible to stand right behind the
conductor, with the headphones drowning out the orchestra!

Unfortunately, these aren't made any more. I have one working pair left,
which remains in its box for emergencies.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> geoff > wrote:

>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> The number one serious problem with this is that you have no
>>> monitoring and you can't really hear what is going to tape.

>> Sorry tary reply - of course you can ! The Helixboard is a full
>> analogue mixer than just happens to suck off the raw output of the
>> mic pres (also configurable to 'post eq' I believe) to firewire.
>> As long as you are not overloading the pres what you record is as
>> good (or better) that what you hear through the normal mixer path,
>> solo, etc.

> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music playing at
> high volume. How can you hear anything but the PA?

> In a pinch if you absolutely HAVE to, you can use the Eytmotic in-ear
> headphones with Peltor hearing protectors over top. This gives you
> pretty good midrange isolation but still zero bass isolation and
> still no way to judge imaging accurately.

> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation in a quiet
> booth.

True, but yellow E.A.R' classic combined with decent headphones is also
usable as a way to reasonable signal-to-spill ratio. But it is for checking
that usable audio probably exists, not for evaluating imaging.

> --scott


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> geoff > wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> The number one serious problem with this is that you have no
>>>> monitoring and you can't really hear what is going to tape.
>
>>> Sorry tary reply - of course you can ! The Helixboard is a full
>>> analogue mixer than just happens to suck off the raw output of the
>>> mic pres (also configurable to 'post eq' I believe) to firewire.
>>> As long as you are not overloading the pres what you record is as
>>> good (or better) that what you hear through the normal mixer path,
>>> solo, etc.
>
>> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music playing at
>> high volume. How can you hear anything but the PA?
>
>> In a pinch if you absolutely HAVE to, you can use the Eytmotic in-ear
>> headphones with Peltor hearing protectors over top. This gives you
>> pretty good midrange isolation but still zero bass isolation and
>> still no way to judge imaging accurately.
>
>> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation in a quiet
>> booth.
>
>True, but yellow E.A.R' classic combined with decent headphones is also
>usable as a way to reasonable signal-to-spill ratio. But it is for checking
>that usable audio probably exists, not for evaluating imaging.

That's what I did before I got the Etymotics.... MDR-V6es with the plugs
underneath. The exaggerated top end of the MDR-V6 was mellowed out by the
top end rolloff of the plugs. Not really useful for critical work but
better than nothing when you're in a bad situation like that. The Etymotics
and Peltor combination gives definitely better rejection though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> geoff > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> The number one serious problem with this is that you
>>> have no monitoring and you can't really hear what is
>>> going to tape.
>>
>> Sorry tary reply - of course you can ! The Helixboard
>> is a full analogue mixer than just happens to suck off
>> the raw output of the mic pres (also configurable to
>> 'post eq' I believe) to firewire. As long as you are
>> not overloading the pres what you record is as good (or
>> better) that what you hear through the normal mixer
>> path, solo, etc.
>
> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music
> playing at high volume. How can you hear anything but
> the PA?
>
> In a pinch if you absolutely HAVE to, you can use the
> Eytmotic in-ear headphones with Peltor hearing protectors
> over top. This gives you pretty good midrange isolation
> but still zero bass isolation and still no way to judge
> imaging accurately.
>
> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation
> in a quiet booth. --scott

To be sure. One symptom of live leakage in a live recording situation is
the tendency to over-mic, over-eq, just plain shove in too much of just
about anything.

Just to clarify, we can have headphones with as much built-in isolation as
we'd like, but we still can't do anything about bone conduction.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-27 said:
<snip>
>> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music
>> playing at high volume. How can you hear anything but
>> the PA?
>> In a pinch if you absolutely HAVE to, you can use the
>> Eytmotic in-ear headphones with Peltor hearing protectors
>> over top. This gives you pretty good midrange isolation
>> but still zero bass isolation and still no way to judge
>> imaging accurately.
>> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation
>> in a quiet booth.
<snip>
>Just to clarify, we can have headphones with as much built-in
>isolation as we'd like, but we still can't do anything about bone
>conduction.

Indeed, and we tend to go over the top as you note when we
can't hear properly. I've used outbuildings backstage in
outdoor situations, untreated FOrd econoline vans, just
about anything to try to get some isolation back in the day.

THese solutions, as I note, work fine when you've multiple
opportunities, but if the capturing and processing of that
audio is critical then you want a real booth with some
isolation. YEs it costs more, everything that offers more
precision costs more. But then, whatever it is, it's only
audio, and nobody's supposed to gie a ****. Forget the
audio, we want another "wardrobe malfunction."

<sarcasm mode off>

But, you can mix foh from same iso booth if you want,
monitor the foh mix now and then, switch to monitoring
what's going to air, or to recording media.
OF course walk the site now and then if you're running foh
from the booth too <grin>.

Regards,



Richard webb,

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

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> The Helixboard is a full analogue
>> mixer than just happens to suck off the raw output of the mic pres (also
>> configurable to 'post eq' I believe) to firewire. As long as you are not
>> overloading the pres what you record is as good (or better) that what you
>> hear through the normal mixer path, solo, etc.

> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music playing at high
> volume. How can you hear anything but the PA?

If you're recording the mic inputs on individual tracks,
it's sufficient to know that the preamps aren't clipping and
that you indeed have the mics in a reasonable place so that
you'll bring home something that you can mix. Channel solos
and, in a pinch, the PA sound, are sufficient for that. Of
course it's nice to do a reasonable mix in real time, and
for that you indeed need some isolation from the din, with
reasonable fidelity, and experience mixing with headphones.


--
"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

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Webb > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey writes:
>>>Sorry tary reply - of course you can ! The Helixboard is a full analogue
>>>mixer than just happens to suck off the raw output of the mic pres (also
>>>configurable to 'post eq' I believe) to firewire. As long as you are not
>>>overloading the pres what you record is as good (or better) that what you
>>>hear through the normal mixer path, solo, etc.
>
>> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music playing at
>> high volume. How can you hear anything but the PA?
>
>OF course, but if you're dealing with all close mic sources
>etc. then you don't really care, good enough for who it's
>for. The added capability is just a bonus the talent
>doesn't have to spend any more $$$ for. With close mic
>sources that are going to be pan potted stereo in a mix
>anyway nobody cares about imaging.

I dunno. My philosophy about the whole thing is that you're going to have
a lot of leakage, so you need to make sure the leakage sounds good and that
nothing wacky happens when you bring a couple sources up together, etc.

I really feel a lot more secure if I can take over a room backstage somewhere
and set up a couple monitors, especially for stuff like audience mike
placement.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-27 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music playing
>>>at high volume. How can you hear anything but the PA?
>>OF course, but if you're dealing with all close mic sources
>>etc. then you don't really care, good enough for who it's
>>for. The added capability is just a bonus the talent
>>doesn't have to spend any more $$$ for. With close mic
>>sources that are going to be pan potted stereo in a mix
>>anyway nobody cares about imaging.
>I dunno. My philosophy about the whole thing is that you're going
>to have a lot of leakage, so you need to make sure the leakage
>sounds good and that nothing wacky happens when you bring a couple
>sources up together, etc.
>I really feel a lot more secure if I can take over a room backstage
>somewhere and set up a couple monitors, especially for stuff like
>audience mike placement.

YOu and me both, but a lot of folks don't think about these
things, as I noted, all close mics, and gonna be pan potted
stereo anyway. THat bleed, as you and I both know, can be
your friend, or your worst enemy. But, to hear what it
tells you requires some isolation.





Richard webb,

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

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey writes:
>>Sorry tary reply - of course you can ! The Helixboard is a full analogue
>>mixer than just happens to suck off the raw output of the mic pres (also
>>configurable to 'post eq' I believe) to firewire. As long as you are not
>>overloading the pres what you record is as good (or better) that what you
>>hear through the normal mixer path, solo, etc.

> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music playing at
> high volume. How can you hear anything but the PA?

OF course, but if you're dealing with all close mic sources
etc. then you don't really care, good enough for who it's
for. The added capability is just a bonus the talent
doesn't have to spend any more $$$ for. With close mic
sources that are going to be pan potted stereo in a mix
anyway nobody cares about imaging.

> In a pinch if you absolutely HAVE to, you can use the Eytmotic
> in-ear headphones with Peltor hearing protectors over top. This
> gives you pretty good midrange isolation but still zero bass
> isolation and still no way to judge imaging accurately.

SEe above, imaging isn't a priority, we've just got an added bonus thrown in with the recording capability.

> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation in a quiet
> booth. --scott

OF course it isn't, but it's cheap, and cheap is good enough for this disposable stuff anyway right?

IF you've got more than one shot at it, go for it. IF you
didn't get a good recording of a certain tune you want to
use at this performance you'll play it again tomorrow night, or next weekend. IF you just *have* to get it right now, or it's for a high profile broadcast, etc. you better have that good booth.

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.

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:

> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music playing at
> high volume. How can you hear anything but the PA?
>
> In a pinch if you absolutely HAVE to, you can use the Eytmotic in-ear
> headphones with Peltor hearing protectors over top. This gives you
> pretty good midrange isolation but still zero bass isolation and
> still no way to judge imaging accurately.
>
> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation in a quiet
> booth. --scott

Yeah, but that's the same for any type of live recording scenario, whatever
recorder or mixer. Nothing to stop one doing it a quiet booth !

geoff

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I really feel a lot more secure if I can take over a room backstage somewhere
> and set up a couple monitors, especially for stuff like audience mike
> placement.

Me, too, but that isn't often possible, particularly in most
of my "live" recording situations these days, which is
outdoors. That's where trucks work best.


--
"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

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

> As I noted, all close mics, and gonna be pan potted
> stereo anyway. THat bleed, as you and I both know, can be
> your friend, or your worst enemy. But, to hear what it
> tells you requires some isolation.

If you have a rehearsal or a sound check and have time to do
something about leakage problems that you hear when doing a
trial mix, then, sure, you should take care of those things
before the show. But more often than not there's simply
nothing you can do. You need to go with the PA setup.

Audience and other auxiliary mics (like one you might put on
a bass amplifier when the PA uses the bass pickup direct)
are something that are somewhat under your control, but
there are often restrictions on where you can put them and
that's where experience - making a guess that will give you
a usable sound - comes in.

--
"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

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> geoff > wrote:
>>> The Helixboard is a full analogue
>>> mixer than just happens to suck off the raw output of
>>> the mic pres (also configurable to 'post eq' I believe)
>>> to firewire. As long as you are not overloading the
>>> pres what you record is as good (or better) that what
>>> you hear through the normal mixer path, solo, etc.
>
>> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music
>> playing at high volume. How can you hear anything but
>> the PA?
>
> If you're recording the mic inputs on individual tracks,
> it's sufficient to know that the preamps aren't clipping
> and that you indeed have the mics in a reasonable place
> so that you'll bring home something that you can mix.
> Channel solos and, in a pinch, the PA sound, are
> sufficient for that. Of course it's nice to do a
> reasonable mix in real time, and for that you indeed need
> some isolation from the din, with reasonable fidelity,
> and experience mixing with headphones.

Channel-per-source recorded clean and dry, and do the eq and mixing after
the fact can work.

Admittedly, optimal micing for live sound and live recording can be two
different things, but with enough channels and EFX you can often effectively
fix it in the mix.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
geoff > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> geoff > wrote:
>
>> How? You're in the middle of a concert hall with music playing at
>> high volume. How can you hear anything but the PA?
>>
>> In a pinch if you absolutely HAVE to, you can use the Eytmotic in-ear
>> headphones with Peltor hearing protectors over top. This gives you
>> pretty good midrange isolation but still zero bass isolation and
>> still no way to judge imaging accurately.
>>
>> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation in a quiet
>> booth.
>
>Yeah, but that's the same for any type of live recording scenario, whatever
>recorder or mixer. Nothing to stop one doing it a quiet booth !

Well, that was my point. You need to have a quiet place to monitor.
The truck is convenient. If you don't have a truck, a quiet room
backstage or in an office will do.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Mike Rivers > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> I really feel a lot more secure if I can take over a room backstage somewhere
>> and set up a couple monitors, especially for stuff like audience mike
>> placement.
>
>Me, too, but that isn't often possible, particularly in most
>of my "live" recording situations these days, which is
>outdoors. That's where trucks work best.

Yes, precisely.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers writes;
>> As I noted, all close mics, and gonna be pan potted
>> stereo anyway. THat bleed, as you and I both know, can be
>> your friend, or your worst enemy. But, to hear what it
>> tells you requires some isolation.
>If you have a rehearsal or a sound check and have time to do
>something about leakage problems that you hear when doing a
>trial mix, then, sure, you should take care of those things
>before the show. But more often than not there's simply
>nothing you can do. You need to go with the PA setup.
>Audience and other auxiliary mics (like one you might put on
>a bass amplifier when the PA uses the bass pickup direct)
>are something that are somewhat under your control, but
>there are often restrictions on where you can put them and
>that's where experience - making a guess that will give you
>a usable sound - comes in.
Indeed, and often that's all you have to go on, especially
when your monitoring situation is compromised. OFten that
experience is going to make the difference between something
usable or not <grin>.

IF not experience, then a few shots at it where you can
tweak and refine as you go until you get usable tracks of
material you want for your project. Which, form
understanding the original poster's intentions for the
project says get the right tools to do it, and the right
craftspeople using them, this way he could concentrate on
the performance, letting them capture a usable recording of
the performance.



Richard webb,

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

[[email protected]]

On 2010-07-28 (ScottDorsey) said:
<snip>

>>> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation in a
>>>quiet booth.
>>Yeah, but that's the same for any type of live recording scenario,
>>whatever recorder or mixer. Nothing to stop one doing it a quiet
>booth !
>Well, that was my point. You need to have a quiet place to monitor.
>The truck is convenient. If you don't have a truck, a quiet room
>backstage or in an office will do.
MIne as well. DId more than one direct to two track of some
kind setting up in somebody's garage while the band played
in the house. USe the snake for the sr system, let them
monitor in the usual way they're accustomed, split some
mics, place others they didn't need for capture, move mics,
manage the bleed, get up a good mix.

Did the opposite with one group of folks for some demos back
in '89 or so. Set up the band in my garage, use my living
room in my second floor apartment as the control room.




Richard webb,

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

[Steven Borrelli]

On Jul 28, 11:27*am, wrote:
> On 2010-07-28 (ScottDorsey) said:
> <snip>
>
> * *>>> This is no substitute for a proper monitoring situation in a
> * *>>>quiet *booth.
> * *>>Yeah, but that's the same for any type of live recording scenario,
> * *>>whatever recorder or mixer. *Nothing to stop one doing it a quiet
> * *>booth !
> * *>Well, that was my point. *You need to have a quiet place to monitor.
> * *>The truck is convenient. *If you don't have a truck, a quiet room
> * *>backstage or in an office will do.
> MIne as well. *DId more than one direct to two track of some
> kind setting up in somebody's garage while the band played
> in the house. *USe the snake for the sr system, let them
> monitor in the usual way they're accustomed, split some
> mics, place others they didn't need for capture, move mics,
> manage the bleed, get up a good mix.
>
> Did the opposite with one group of folks for some demos back
> in '89 or so. *Set up the band in my garage, use my living
> room in my second floor apartment as the control room.
>
> Richard webb,
>
> replace anything before at with elspider
> Remote audio in the southland: seewww.gatasound.com

I just got me a Zoom R16 8-track digital recorder. Still waiting for
it to be shipped, but it seems like lots of bang for the buck.

http://www.swee****er.com/store/detail/R16

[Mike Rivers]

Steven Borrelli wrote:

> I just got me a Zoom R16 8-track digital recorder. Still waiting for
> it to be shipped, but it seems like lots of bang for the buck.

It's obsolete already. There's an R24 now.


--
"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