Recorded sound vs. sound "in the room"

[don tuttle]

Bluegrass band uses a Yamaha EMX512SC Powered Mixer. I plug an Edirol
R-09 digital recorder into Rec Out to record the performances. I am
told that sound "in the room" last time was good, but on the recording
the mandolin is much lighter than the other instruments, despite the
fact that the mandolin player is aggressive and vigorous.

"Sound man" says because the mandolin is so loud acoustically, he
cannot raise its volume level or sound in the relatively small room
will be too loud.

Any truth to this? I feel I should be able to get good balance in the
instrument/vocal mix both in the room and on the recording.

I don't even know what the relationship is between what is going onto
the recorder and what is coming out of the speakers. Should it be the
same? If I use headphones to monitor the sound in my Edirol, will I be
hearing approximately what the audience is hearing (except that I can
control input sound volume into the Edirol)?

Thanks.
Don
(audio rookie)

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Tuttle > wrote:
>Bluegrass band uses a Yamaha EMX512SC Powered Mixer. I plug an Edirol
>R-09 digital recorder into Rec Out to record the performances. I am
>told that sound "in the room" last time was good, but on the recording
>the mandolin is much lighter than the other instruments, despite the
>fact that the mandolin player is aggressive and vigorous.

Right. The PA sound is a mix of all the things that aren't loud enough
in the room. The things that are already loud in the room aren't going
to be in the PA.

>"Sound man" says because the mandolin is so loud acoustically, he
>cannot raise its volume level or sound in the relatively small room
>will be too loud.

Right. In fact, in a lot of situations, the PA is going to have 90%
vocals and everything other than the vocal won't be heard at all in a
board mix.

>Any truth to this? I feel I should be able to get good balance in the
>instrument/vocal mix both in the room and on the recording.

You can, but not by recording the PA feed.

>I don't even know what the relationship is between what is going onto
>the recorder and what is coming out of the speakers. Should it be the
>same?

They will be identical, probably.

It is _possible_ for the PA guy to make you a separate recording mix
from an aux buss and feed that to you. But it's not what he is being
paid for. He's already making a main mix and a monitor mix... he has
enough on his hands without having to make a recording mix too.

>If I use headphones to monitor the sound in my Edirol, will I be
>hearing approximately what the audience is hearing (except that I can
>control input sound volume into the Edirol)?

No, you won't hear what the audience is hearing at all, you'll be hearing
what is going into the Edirol. If that's a PA feed, you'll be hearing
what is coming out of the PA.

You might consider getting a board feed AND setting up a pair of ambient
microphones and mixing them in post. This is not optimal and it will take
some care with placement, but it's going to give you a lot closer to what
you want than taking a PA feed.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

You want some ambient mics to pick up some reverb and audience somds as well to make recording somd like a concert.
Mark

[Bill[_20_]]

In message >,
writes
>You want some ambient mics to pick up some reverb and audience somds as
>well to make recording somd like a concert.
>Mark

+1
As long as there is some way of recording the 4 tracks simultaneously,
or just recording mono, for the later mixdown. This also helps to
alleviate the huge transients that can come off a mandolin.

I've done a lot like this in small theatres or large rooms.

I can also vouch for the fact that trying to control a PA mix and a
recording mix on the one mixer is no fun, especially if the mixer is
also used for foldback..
--
Bill

[Trevor]

"Don Tuttle" > wrote in message
...
> Bluegrass band uses a Yamaha EMX512SC Powered Mixer. I plug an Edirol
> R-09 digital recorder into Rec Out to record the performances. I am
> told that sound "in the room" last time was good, but on the recording
> the mandolin is much lighter than the other instruments, despite the
> fact that the mandolin player is aggressive and vigorous.
>
> "Sound man" says because the mandolin is so loud acoustically, he
> cannot raise its volume level or sound in the relatively small room
> will be too loud.
>
> Any truth to this?


Absolutely, and FAR more so with drums or electric instruments using their
own backline than a mandolin though.


>I feel I should be able to get good balance in the
> instrument/vocal mix both in the room and on the recording.

You are expecting too much then, what professionals do is record it all
multi-channel and remix as necessary in POST.

Trevor.

[don tuttle]

Thanks to all for the audio tutorial. I should have made clear that I
want a good recording for myself (and possibly other band members) to
learn from and to listen to for personal pleasure. I would edit the
recording on my iMac with Amadeus Pro and burn to CD. I am not trying
to make a high-quality stereo recording for commercial purposes and
want the recording to sound more studio than live ( I trim off the
talking between songs and the thunderous applause after songs).

Regarding the possibility that the sound man could make a separate
recording mix from an aux buss, but that is not what he is being paid
for, I don't know if this mixer has an ³aux buss²; nothing is labeled
as such. As it happens, I own the mixer (but don't know how to run it)
and I pay the sound man, so I have more input into the situation than
might be usual.

I now understand that I can't get a balanced instrument/vocal mix in
both the recording and the room by using only the PA feed. The sound
man is resistant to encroachment, whether real or imagined, on his
domain and presently places a higher priority on the room than on my
desire for good recordings. If I want a good recording mix, I
apparently have to encourage him to focus on recording and hope for the
best in the room, in which the band sometimes outnumbers the audience.

The following series of steps is condensed from the mixer manual. If
implemented, would this process have a good chance of resulting in a
satisfactory recording for my purposes?
1. Sound man hooks up speakers and microphones (all instruments are
acoustic, played through dynamic microphones)
2. Turn LEVEL knobs and MASTER knobs to zero, and turn on power.
3. Turn MASTER knob in MAIN section to the one o'clock position,
leaving monitors off.
4. Have each instrument/voice play or sing individually, adjusting the
knobs for each LEVEL meter so that it occasionally reaches the ³0²
level. [Why can't levels be set visually, with no speakers on at all?]
5. Turn MASTER knob in MAIN section to adjust overall output level into
the room.

I would monitor the level meters on the Edirol R-09 recorder attached
to Rec Out, and through trial & error and watching the clipping light I
would determine a proper input volume level.

Thanks again, for your information and your patience.

Don

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 8/3/2013 8:35 PM, Don Tuttle wrote:
>
> Thanks to all for the audio tutorial. I should have made clear that I
> want a good recording for myself (and possibly other band members) to
> learn from and to listen to for personal pleasure. I would edit the
> recording on my iMac with Amadeus Pro and burn to CD. I am not trying
> to make a high-quality stereo recording for commercial purposes and
> want the recording to sound more studio than live ( I trim off the
> talking between songs and the thunderous applause after songs).
>
> Regarding the possibility that the sound man could make a separate
> recording mix from an aux buss, but that is not what he is being paid
> for, I don't know if this mixer has an ³aux buss²; nothing is labeled
> as such. As it happens, I own the mixer (but don't know how to run it)
> and I pay the sound man, so I have more input into the situation than
> might be usual.
>
> I now understand that I can't get a balanced instrument/vocal mix in
> both the recording and the room by using only the PA feed. The sound
> man is resistant to encroachment, whether real or imagined, on his
> domain and presently places a higher priority on the room than on my
> desire for good recordings. If I want a good recording mix, I
> apparently have to encourage him to focus on recording and hope for the
> best in the room, in which the band sometimes outnumbers the audience.
>
> The following series of steps is condensed from the mixer manual. If
> implemented, would this process have a good chance of resulting in a
> satisfactory recording for my purposes?
> 1. Sound man hooks up speakers and microphones (all instruments are
> acoustic, played through dynamic microphones)
> 2. Turn LEVEL knobs and MASTER knobs to zero, and turn on power.
> 3. Turn MASTER knob in MAIN section to the one o'clock position,
> leaving monitors off.
> 4. Have each instrument/voice play or sing individually, adjusting the
> knobs for each LEVEL meter so that it occasionally reaches the ³0²
> level. [Why can't levels be set visually, with no speakers on at all?]
> 5. Turn MASTER knob in MAIN section to adjust overall output level into
> the room.
>
> I would monitor the level meters on the Edirol R-09 recorder attached
> to Rec Out, and through trial & error and watching the clipping light I
> would determine a proper input volume level.
>
> Thanks again, for your information and your patience.
>
> Don
>

Maybe it's just me, but the first thought that comes to
my mind is: what a crazy way to run a railroad.

In my mind the primary objective of a band is to
entertain the audience. My objective as a live
sound guy has been to give my best to the audience,
even if only an audience of one. To do otherwise
just sounds perverted to me.
[YMMV]

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[PStamler]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 7:35:21 PM UTC-5, Don Tuttle wrote:
> The sound
> man is resistant to encroachment, whether real or imagined, on his
> domain and presently places a higher priority on the room than on my
> desire for good recordings.

As well he ought to. First rule of live sound: The house comes first. The audience, after all, pays to get in and listen to music.

> The following series of steps is condensed from the mixer manual. If
> implemented, would this process have a good chance of resulting in a
> satisfactory recording for my purposes?

No, for a list of reasons too long to go into here. These are preliminary instructions for getting a starter mix, from which the sound guy would make adjustments by ear as necessary.

> 1. Sound man hooks up speakers and microphones (all instruments are
> acoustic, played through dynamic microphones)
>
> 2. Turn LEVEL knobs and MASTER knobs to zero, and turn on power.
>
> 3. Turn MASTER knob in MAIN section to the one o'clock position,
> leaving monitors off.
>
> 4. Have each instrument/voice play or sing individually, adjusting the
> knobs for each LEVEL meter so that it occasionally reaches the ³0²
>
> level. [Why can't levels be set visually, with no speakers on at all?]

Because if you do that, you may set levels that will, when you turn the speakers on, result in a screech of feedback.

Peace,
Paul

[Trevor]

"Don Tuttle" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks to all for the audio tutorial. I should have made clear that I
> want a good recording for myself (and possibly other band members) to
> learn from and to listen to for personal pleasure. I would edit the
> recording on my iMac with Amadeus Pro and burn to CD. I am not trying
> to make a high-quality stereo recording for commercial purposes and
> want the recording to sound more studio than live ( I trim off the
> talking between songs and the thunderous applause after songs).
>
> Regarding the possibility that the sound man could make a separate
> recording mix from an aux buss, but that is not what he is being paid
> for, I don't know if this mixer has an ³aux buss²; nothing is labeled
> as such. As it happens, I own the mixer (but don't know how to run it)
> and I pay the sound man, so I have more input into the situation than
> might be usual.

Seems to me you have no problem then. IF you are paying the sound man he
should do what you want, or find one who will. Be careful what you want is
also what the rest of the band, venue owners and any paying customers want
though!


> I now understand that I can't get a balanced instrument/vocal mix in
> both the recording and the room by using only the PA feed. The sound
> man is resistant to encroachment, whether real or imagined, on his
> domain and presently places a higher priority on the room than on my
> desire for good recordings. If I want a good recording mix, I
> apparently have to encourage him to focus on recording and hope for the
> best in the room, in which the band sometimes outnumbers the audience.

A possible scenario then for concentrating more on the recording, depending
on whether or not the audience is paying money to be there.


> The following series of steps is condensed from the mixer manual. If
> implemented, would this process have a good chance of resulting in a
> satisfactory recording for my purposes?
> 1. Sound man hooks up speakers and microphones (all instruments are
> acoustic, played through dynamic microphones)
> 2. Turn LEVEL knobs and MASTER knobs to zero, and turn on power.
> 3. Turn MASTER knob in MAIN section to the one o'clock position,
> leaving monitors off.
> 4. Have each instrument/voice play or sing individually, adjusting the
> knobs for each LEVEL meter so that it occasionally reaches the ³0²
> level. [Why can't levels be set visually, with no speakers on at all?]
> 5. Turn MASTER knob in MAIN section to adjust overall output level into
> the room.
> I would monitor the level meters on the Edirol R-09 recorder attached
> to Rec Out, and through trial & error and watching the clipping light I
> would determine a proper input volume level.


You still need a seperate mix, or record all input channels seperately
instead and mix it later. That is by far the best option IME.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/3/2013 8:35 PM, Don Tuttle wrote:

> I want a good recording for myself (and possibly other band members) to
> learn from and to listen to for personal pleasure. I would edit the
> recording on my iMac with Amadeus Pro and burn to CD. I am not trying
> to make a high-quality stereo recording for commercial purposes

> Regarding the possibility that the sound man could make a separate
> recording mix from an aux buss, but that is not what he is being paid
> for, I don't know if this mixer has an ³aux buss²; nothing is labeled
> as such. As it happens, I own the mixer (but don't know how to run it)
> and I pay the sound man, so I have more input into the situation than
> might be usual.

If this "sound man" knows how to run the mixer, why not ask him about
making a recording. I don't recall if you said what kind of band this is
or what the venue is. If you're an acoustic act in a small venue, you
should be able to get a functional recording directly off the house mix.
If you have drums or electric instruments and the room is fairly small,
you'll probably have nothing but vocals and maybe keyboards going
through the PA so you'll definitely need a separate mix or you'll need
to record the sound in the room and take what you get.

> The sound
> man is resistant to encroachment, whether real or imagined, on his
> domain and presently places a higher priority on the room than on my
> desire for good recordings.

Half of that is proper. His priority is on making it sound good for the
audience, unless you're booking the gig for a recording, the audience
knows that (and willingly participates), and the sound engineer is
competent. But there are a lot of engineers who cam keep track of the
main PA mix and simultaneously make a decent recording mix. Usually what
I do when I'm in a situation like that is to feed the main PA from a
post-fader auxiliary send bus, set the channel gains and get a decently
balanced mix to the recorder using the main faders during a sound check,
then turn up the Aux Sends as necessary to get a reasonable balance in
the house. That way you can leave things out of the house mix that would
be too loud simply by turning down or leaving off the Aux send to the PA
for that channel.

You might consider finding a more competent sound man. There are also a
number of mixers available today that allow you to record individual
channels directly to a computer and mix it when you get home. I don't
recommend going out and buying one for this gig, but maybe you can rent
one or find a local engineer who has one and hire him.

--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[hank alrich]

Don Tuttle > wrote:

> I now understand that I can't get a balanced instrument/vocal mix in
> both the recording and the room by using only the PA feed. The sound
> man is resistant to encroachment, whether real or imagined, on his
> domain and presently places a higher priority on the room than on my
> desire for good recordings. If I want a good recording mix, I
> apparently have to encourage him to focus on recording and hope for the
> best in the room, in which the band sometimes outnumbers the audience.

If you aren't making what the audience hears your first priority in a
live setting, why do you think you will be able to attract an audience?

This isn't about you, in spite of the fact that you're up on stage and
the bartender, waitperson, and sound operator are all looking at you.
It's about the audience and their entertainment.

Get the band together in another setting where you aren't playing for an
audience and make the recording Priority One.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[don tuttle]

Thanks for additional advice, and opinions. It will all help me, now or
in the future. I think I can take it from here, but I will make one
more post to clarify the situation. In my original post, I may not have
given all the relevant information.

5-piece acoustic bluegrass band
Yamaha EMX 512SC mixer, 12 channels, microphones, cables, 2 speakers, 2
monitors. Bass and fiddle each get a mic, three others get vocal and
instrument mics. Edirol R-09 digital recorder. That's all the equipment
I have and can afford. I own most of it.

I record the PA feed from Rec Out into the Edirol, one long track for
each set, take recorder home and transfer files to iMac and then use
Amadeus Pro to do amateur audio editing, split into tracks, save to
iTunes, and burn CD for listening in my car. Next week I do the same
thing. I can't do any later mixing. All I can do is adjust volume of
different parts of the recording, normalize, fade in/out, and other
such simple moves in Amadeus Pro.

Audience, such as it is (small but appreciative), does not pay to
listen except what they may put in the tip jar. Venue owner pays
irregularly and inadequately. I pay the sound man and also the band. I
am not getting rich quickly, and neither are they.

If I had it to do over, I would not get into room vs. recording, though
the discussion has been greatly enlightening. I would describe the
personnel and the equipment and then ask: How do I go about making a
decent recording with a balanced vocal/instrument mix from the PA feed?
Although nobody has complained about the sound (and its balance) in the
room, my recordings from the PA feed have been poorly balanced. One
week I can hardly hear the banjo, the next week the mandolin is weak. I
can hardly ever hear the bass. Vocals are usually okay.

In my original post, I asked if setting levels according to the series
of steps in the mixer manual might result in a satisfactory recording.
Response: ³No, for a list of reasons too long to go into here. These
are preliminary instructions for getting a starter mix, from which the
sound guy would make adjustments by ear as necessary.² Even so,
wouldn't I get better results than I am getting now? Wouldn't the
instruments/voices be somewhat balanced if the level meters show about
the same? Also, the meters on the recorder only show left and right
volume levels. I don't see how SoundGuy would make adjustments to the
balance by ear, unless he plugs headphones into the Edirol. Maybe that
is what you have in mind.

Re comment ³If you're an acoustic act in a small venue, you should be
able to get a functional recording directly off the house mix.² That's
all I want! But I have been unable to get it. The sound man balances
the PA sound by ear, and what seems balanced to him in the room ends up
improperly balanced on the recording.

Re comment ³sound man's priority is on making it sound good for the
audience, unless you're booking the gig for a recordingŠ.² That is
essentially what I, as paymaster, feel like am doing. We mainly want to
put on a good show and have fun, but after the evening is over, I would
like to appreciate and critique what we did, without hearing a clean
crisp guitar break followed by a mandolin break that sounds played from
in a closet.

Re suggestion ³Get the band together in another setting where you
aren't playing for an audience and make the recording Priority One.² I
am trying to do that in the present setting and hope that my effort is
not inconsistent with audience enjoyment.

Thanks again. Over and out.
Don


In article >, hank alrich
> wrote:

> Don Tuttle > wrote:
>
> > I now understand that I can't get a balanced instrument/vocal mix in
> > both the recording and the room by using only the PA feed. The sound
> > man is resistant to encroachment, whether real or imagined, on his
> > domain and presently places a higher priority on the room than on my
> > desire for good recordings. If I want a good recording mix, I
> > apparently have to encourage him to focus on recording and hope for the
> > best in the room, in which the band sometimes outnumbers the audience.
>
> If you aren't making what the audience hears your first priority in a
> live setting, why do you think you will be able to attract an audience?
>
> This isn't about you, in spite of the fact that you're up on stage and
> the bartender, waitperson, and sound operator are all looking at you.
> It's about the audience and their entertainment.
>
> Get the band together in another setting where you aren't playing for an
> audience and make the recording Priority One.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/4/2013 3:34 PM, Don Tuttle wrote:

> 5-piece acoustic bluegrass band
> Yamaha EMX 512SC mixer, 12 channels, microphones, cables, 2 speakers, 2
> monitors. Bass and fiddle each get a mic, three others get vocal and
> instrument mics. Edirol R-09 digital recorder. That's all the equipment
> I have and can afford. I own most of it.
>
> I record the PA feed from Rec Out into the Edirol

If you have a good mix in the house, you should have a good mix on tape.
The mixer is mono, so even though you have left and right output jacks
for your recorder, they'll both have the same signal. Nothing wrong with
a mono recording, lots or records were made that way before 1958
(including bluegrass records).

> The sound man balances
> the PA sound by ear, and what seems balanced to him in the room ends up
> improperly balanced on the recording.

What's wrong with the recording mix? Maybe the problem can be solved by
someone who's too quiet in the recording (because he's loud enough in
the house) could just stand a little further back so they'd get a little
more amplification in the mix, and hence be better balanced in the
recording. If you're playing in the band, you probably haven't heard the
house mix. Maybe the engineer doesn't know what a bluegrass band is
supposed to sound like. Most people unfamiliar with bluegrass mix the
banjo wrong. They nearly always think that it's too loud. That was a
problem that bands had when bluegrass festivals begain getting really
large. The only sound companies that had enough gear to do a large
festival only had experience mixing rock music.

If you're not using monitors on stage, you could use the monitor bus to
make a separate recording mix if the engineer is up to the job. Talk to
him.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Bill[_20_]]

I hope this is taken positively.

The band has some responsibility for levels. Musically and mixing-wise a
band should listen to each other and work together. Flatt & Scruggs knew
that with their one mic. My favourite bluegrass recordings of all time
are the Jim Eanes Starday material recorded on one figure of 8 ribbon
plus one mic for the bass. I know this shows my age, but maybe relying
on the sound man to change the band's balance is something to take note
of. .

It is possible to get the recording levels reasonable just by looking at
the level meters on the mixer - I've done it when I had to split mics at
the input of the PA mixer and monitor in the same room - but it is far
from ideal, and I certainly wouldn't ask someone else to do that.

If the mix is said to be OK in the room, I wonder whether it wouldn't be
better just to try leaving the PA alone and recording directly on the
Edirol through its mics.
--
Bill

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/4/2013 8:03 PM, Bill wrote:

> If the mix is said to be OK in the room, I wonder whether it wouldn't be
> better just to try leaving the PA alone and recording directly on the
> Edirol through its mics.

That's one way of finding out what the mix in the room sounds like.

There was a run of bluegrass bands between about 1997 and 2005 that were
working on stage with a single mic, without monitors, but most of them
are back to using separate mics at least for fiddle and banjo, sometimes
using a single mic for vocals. I guess they like their monitors more
than their tradition and choreography.


--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 8/4/2013 8:03 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> I hope this is taken positively.
>
> The band has some responsibility for levels. Musically and mixing-wise a
> band should listen to each other and work together. Flatt & Scruggs knew
> that with their one mic. My favourite bluegrass recordings of all time
> are the Jim Eanes Starday material recorded on one figure of 8 ribbon
> plus one mic for the bass. I know this shows my age, but maybe relying
> on the sound man to change the band's balance is something to take note
> of. .
>
> It is possible to get the recording levels reasonable just by looking at
> the level meters on the mixer - I've done it when I had to split mics at
> the input of the PA mixer and monitor in the same room - but it is far
> from ideal, and I certainly wouldn't ask someone else to do that.
>
> If the mix is said to be OK in the room, I wonder whether it wouldn't be
> better just to try leaving the PA alone and recording directly on the
> Edirol through its mics.

For what it's worth, recording out in the audience may be better than
expected. I've seen/heard some audience recorded YouTube videos
from my old venue that sounded surprisingly good. If you believe the
sound in the house is good then give it a shot. Heck, it may also
tell you something about your sound guy's abilities.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[hank alrich]

Don Tuttle > wrote:

> How do I go about making a
> decent recording with a balanced vocal/instrument mix from the PA feed?

Since everything is in the PA, you should have a decent recording rom
the PA mix.

Earlier suggestions that you can't get a balanced mix form an SR mix
were based on rock 'n' roll reality, not on a bluegrass/acoustic band.

So either your soundman can't cut it, or y'all are _way_ out of balance
with each other even without a sound system.

Do y'all practice? If so, put up a stereo pair and play. Does the result
sound balanced? If so, keep going until you have the recording you need.
If not, it's back to square one and getting the playing and singing in
order.

Does everybody have good mic techinique, both instrumentally and
vocally?

What is the purpose of the recording? Promo for bookings? Sales?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 8/4/2013 8:03 PM, Bill wrote:
>
> > If the mix is said to be OK in the room, I wonder whether it wouldn't be
> > better just to try leaving the PA alone and recording directly on the
> > Edirol through its mics.
>
> That's one way of finding out what the mix in the room sounds like.
>
> There was a run of bluegrass bands between about 1997 and 2005 that were
> working on stage with a single mic, without monitors, but most of them
> are back to using separate mics at least for fiddle and banjo, sometimes
> using a single mic for vocals. I guess they like their monitors more
> than their tradition and choreography.

Whether or not one likes the stage monitors, in venues above a certain
size, the necessary SPL form the PA often will return a very distracting
replay to the stage, just enough out of synch with one's playing to
throw timing out the backstage door. One can _need_ those monitors to
keep the train on the tracks.w

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[PStamler]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 2:34:37 PM UTC-5, Don Tuttle wrote:

>Wouldn't the instruments/voices be somewhat balanced if the level meters show about the same?

Unfortunately, no. The meters on most mixers (including Yamahas) read peak levels, while our ears perceive loudness mainly from average levels. Since different instruments and voices have differing peak-to-average ratios, matching them by watching peak-reading meters almost *guarantees* that their audible levels will not match. True VU meters with proper ballistics would work better (though not perfectly), but consumer-oriented mixers don't have true VU meters on them.

Peak meters are useful for figuring out whether something is about to clip, but they don't work at all for matching things audibly.

Peace,
Paul

[Bill[_20_]]

In message >, Mike Rivers >
writes
>There was a run of bluegrass bands between about 1997 and 2005 that
>were working on stage with a single mic, without monitors, but most of
>them are back to using separate mics at least for fiddle and banjo,
>sometimes using a single mic for vocals.

I like to think I had a small input into the initial move to one mic in
1997.

In '93 or '94, I had booked a major bluegrass band into a downmarket
club that we had often used because it usually provided a "lively and
responsive" audience. On arrival, we found the house PA was probably
suffering from an excess of drink being poured into it the night before.

We cobbled a broadcast mix, PA and foldback all from our mixer out in
the van by using 2 aux mixes. I was told the mix on the PA was fine and
the broadcast mix was up or down to my usual standard, but the band
leader did keep calling for more banjo - presumably on the foldback. I
listened back the other week to the recording and thought that his
shouts of "More banjo" during an instrumental actually added to the
atmosphere and drive of the band. However, I don't think he went away
particularly happy.

Next time I saw the band in a proper theatre in this city in the UK,
they were gathering round one mic
--
Bill

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Tuttle > wrote:
>
>Thanks to all for the audio tutorial. I should have made clear that I
>want a good recording for myself (and possibly other band members) to
>learn from and to listen to for personal pleasure. I would edit the
>recording on my iMac with Amadeus Pro and burn to CD. I am not trying
>to make a high-quality stereo recording for commercial purposes and
>want the recording to sound more studio than live ( I trim off the
>talking between songs and the thunderous applause after songs).

I recommend recording the board mix to one channel and an ambient mike to
the other and mixing the two after the fact. I think you will be surprised
at how good results you can get. You don't have much control over what you
get, but that's life. If you want more control, feel free to hire me and
I'll bring the truck out.

>Regarding the possibility that the sound man could make a separate
>recording mix from an aux buss, but that is not what he is being paid
>for, I don't know if this mixer has an ³aux buss²; nothing is labeled
>as such. As it happens, I own the mixer (but don't know how to run it)
>and I pay the sound man, so I have more input into the situation than
>might be usual.

Well, ask him. "Can you make me a record mix?" If he says, "I can't do that
because it's too loud in the room to monitor properly" or he says, "I can't
do that because I am already too busy making your monitor and main mixes,"
then believe him. If he says, "No problem!" then see what he comes up with.

>I now understand that I can't get a balanced instrument/vocal mix in
>both the recording and the room by using only the PA feed. The sound
>man is resistant to encroachment, whether real or imagined, on his
>domain and presently places a higher priority on the room than on my
>desire for good recordings. If I want a good recording mix, I
>apparently have to encourage him to focus on recording and hope for the
>best in the room, in which the band sometimes outnumbers the audience.

Well, that's his job. He's there to make it sound good in the room, and
everything else is secondary.

Which is why there are armies of specialists who just come out and make
recordings.

Now, it's POSSIBLE to do a live recording session. If you do this, you
announce in advance that it's a recording session so the audience knows
what they are getting into before they buy tickets. In that case, it is
expected that you might play one piece a couple of times and that you
might want to stop and listen to playback. It's not a concert, it's not
a closed recording session, it's an open recording session with an audience.
This was unheard of a decade ago but it's become increasingly popular in
part because the hip hop guys do it.

>The following series of steps is condensed from the mixer manual. If
>implemented, would this process have a good chance of resulting in a
>satisfactory recording for my purposes?
>1. Sound man hooks up speakers and microphones (all instruments are
>acoustic, played through dynamic microphones)
>2. Turn LEVEL knobs and MASTER knobs to zero, and turn on power.
>3. Turn MASTER knob in MAIN section to the one o'clock position,
>leaving monitors off.
>4. Have each instrument/voice play or sing individually, adjusting the
>knobs for each LEVEL meter so that it occasionally reaches the ³0²
>level. [Why can't levels be set visually, with no speakers on at all?]
>5. Turn MASTER knob in MAIN section to adjust overall output level into
>the room.

You can't set levels visually because you don't know how loud they need to
be, because it depends on the room and the band, and it might vary across
the piece.

But if you do this, now you have a weird PA mix... the loud instruments will
be even louder, the soft instruments will be even softer.

This is why you use an aux buss so that you can make a third mix that is
independant of your PA and monitor mixes.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>
>Whether or not one likes the stage monitors, in venues above a certain
>size, the necessary SPL form the PA often will return a very distracting
>replay to the stage, just enough out of synch with one's playing to
>throw timing out the backstage door. One can _need_ those monitors to
>keep the train on the tracks.w

I will argue that this is because people are playing bluegrass in rooms
that aren't suited to playing bluegrass. In fact, they might be more suited
to playing football than to playing any kind of music at all.

Sometimes a shell can help a whole lot. One of the advantages of the single
mike approach is that it forces all the performers to get right up close to
one another and that has all kinds of benefits. But there's only so much
you can do when playing in a high school cafeteria.
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> hank alrich > wrote:
> >
> >Whether or not one likes the stage monitors, in venues above a certain
> >size, the necessary SPL form the PA often will return a very distracting
> >replay to the stage, just enough out of synch with one's playing to
> >throw timing out the backstage door. One can _need_ those monitors to
> >keep the train on the tracks.w
>
> I will argue that this is because people are playing bluegrass in rooms
> that aren't suited to playing bluegrass. In fact, they might be more suited
> to playing football than to playing any kind of music at all.

Absolutely agree. That said, to make a living one sometimes goes where
the money is.

> Sometimes a shell can help a whole lot. One of the advantages of the single
> mike approach is that it forces all the performers to get right up close to
> one another and that has all kinds of benefits. But there's only so much
> you can do when playing in a high school cafeteria.
> --scott

Many ensembles are neither good enough nor agile enough to use the
single-mic approach. I've had a lot of fun playing bluegrass into one
mic, but everybody has to know how to dance.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[hank alrich]

Bill > wrote:

> I like to think I had a small input into the initial move to one mic in
> 1997.

It was return to the days in which there was only one mic, and no stage
monitors sytem, but good for you for solving the problem effectively.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/5/2013 9:56 AM, hank alrich wrote:

> It was return to the days in which there was only one mic, and no stage
> monitors sytem, but good for you for solving the problem effectively.

The best recordings I've made of bluegrass bands were during the early
1960s at park shows or bars where there was only one mic and practically
no stage, much less no stage monitors. I just put up an omni mic next to
the PA mic and since mine looked better most of the bands thought that
was the right one and sang into it. I was using an EV 654 into an Ampex
600 in those days. I still have the mic and use it occasionally.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Tuttle wrote:


> If I had it to do over, I would not get into room vs. recording,
> though the discussion has been greatly enlightening. I would describe
> the personnel and the equipment and then ask: How do I go about
> making a decent recording with a balanced vocal/instrument mix from
> the PA feed? Although nobody has complained about the sound (and its
> balance) in the room, my recordings from the PA feed have been poorly
> balanced. One week I can hardly hear the banjo, the next week the
> mandolin is weak. I can hardly ever hear the bass. Vocals are usually
> okay.

PA L and R on channel 1 and 2, L and R omnis above stage, at the edge
prolly, on channel 3 and 4. If possible push PA back to be in line with the
backline, that will get your track timing almost or perfectly right. Take
care to have same distance in inches from mic pair midpoint to pa-stacks,
sticks, whatever. Open up the panning in the pa mix just a wee wee bit, take
care not to void image stability in the room.

Be smart about what you do in post .... 2:1 compressor on pa output and none
on room sound could be a good starting guess. I have gotten away with two
such recordings. Distance between omni pair ... tja da dum, you'll be close
and it will be a wide source, 15 to 20 inches, omnibodies parallel. The
cheap chinese measuement mics may be ok for this ... if you have costly
danish measurement mics they may be ok'er but I can not promise you that
quality will increase in linear proportionality with cost.

Two tracks ... nah, don't bother, minimum 4, more is not guaranteed to be
better. It will only end up as a good recording if it sounds good in the
room.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Now, it's POSSIBLE to do a live recording session. If you do this, you
> announce in advance that it's a recording session so the audience knows
> what they are getting into before they buy tickets. In that case, it is
> expected that you might play one piece a couple of times and that you
> might want to stop and listen to playback. It's not a concert, it's not
> a closed recording session, it's an open recording session with an
> audience.
> This was unheard of a decade ago

You obviously didn't hear of the artists who did it in the sixties and
seventies then. (maybe even before then for all I know)
I know of live recordings made that way at free concerts. If the audience
aren't paying they cant complain, and most love the idea of being a part.
It's even an incentive for them to buy the album as well. Of course most
artists can get very good multitrack recordings from their paid gigs easy
enough these days, so why bother. That was not the case in the sixties
though.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> Now, it's POSSIBLE to do a live recording session. If you do this, you
>> announce in advance that it's a recording session so the audience knows
>> what they are getting into before they buy tickets. In that case, it is
>> expected that you might play one piece a couple of times and that you
>> might want to stop and listen to playback. It's not a concert, it's not
>> a closed recording session, it's an open recording session with an
>> audience.
>> This was unheard of a decade ago
>
>You obviously didn't hear of the artists who did it in the sixties and
>seventies then. (maybe even before then for all I know)
>I know of live recordings made that way at free concerts. If the audience
>aren't paying they cant complain, and most love the idea of being a part.

I did lots of those, but most of those were live concert recordings, with
the emphasis on the concert part. You didn't stop in the middle of the set
and run playback. You didn't have the musicians stop in the middle of a
song and start again two or three times. They just got up and played,
warts and all. It was still about the audience and not the tape.

>It's even an incentive for them to buy the album as well. Of course most
>artists can get very good multitrack recordings from their paid gigs easy
>enough these days, so why bother. That was not the case in the sixties
>though.

It's still not the case today; you would be shocked at the amount of work
needed to make some of those concert recordings usable.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/6/2013 12:48 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:

> Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
> serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
> recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
> one album.

That's pretty typical of how it's done today, given the multiple and
relatively inexpensive ways to record as many tracks as you need from a
live show now.

A couple of live albums that I recorded were from when I had one
16-track recorder in the remote truck. Due to tape cost (I only work
with low budget clients) we recorded only one or two shows for the
albums, but there were a lot of overdubs and fixes added in the studio
after picking the best takes. I thought that was too much cheating, but
the projects came out OK.

Now when I record a live show, it's direct to stereo and damn the mistakes.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:18:53 -0400, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 8/6/2013 12:48 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>
>> Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
>> serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
>> recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
>> one album.
>
>That's pretty typical of how it's done today, given the multiple and
>relatively inexpensive ways to record as many tracks as you need from a
>live show now.
>
>A couple of live albums that I recorded were from when I had one
>16-track recorder in the remote truck. Due to tape cost (I only work
>with low budget clients) we recorded only one or two shows for the
>albums, but there were a lot of overdubs and fixes added in the studio
>after picking the best takes. I thought that was too much cheating, but
>the projects came out OK.
>
>Now when I record a live show, it's direct to stereo and damn the mistakes.

Jeff Beck's "Live this week at Ronnie Scott's" was a single show. But
then it was the Jeff Beck band. Roll tape and expect perfection.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 18:06:52 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
> wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:18:53 -0400, Mike Rivers >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/6/2013 12:48 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
>>>> serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
>>>> recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
>>>> one album.
>>>
>>> That's pretty typical of how it's done today, given the multiple and
>>> relatively inexpensive ways to record as many tracks as you need from a
>>> live show now.
>>>
>>> A couple of live albums that I recorded were from when I had one
>>> 16-track recorder in the remote truck. Due to tape cost (I only work
>>> with low budget clients) we recorded only one or two shows for the
>>> albums, but there were a lot of overdubs and fixes added in the studio
>>> after picking the best takes. I thought that was too much cheating, but
>>> the projects came out OK.
>>>
>>> Now when I record a live show, it's direct to stereo and damn the mistakes.
>>
>> Jeff Beck's "Live this week at Ronnie Scott's" was a single show. But
>> then it was the Jeff Beck band. Roll tape and expect perfection.
>>
>> d
>
>Was it all one night? The info in the liner notes for the DVD says that the
>engagement was for a week, but doesn't say when the recording took place.
>
>Then again, they'd have to have been wearing the same clothes all week...
>
>You are definitely right about expecting perfection, though. That was one
>tight performance. Absolutely amazing.

I was lucky enough to be there, and yes it was one night. The month of
planning and sound checks leading up to it probably helped somewhat.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Jeff Henig > wrote:
>
>Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
>serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
>recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
>one album.

Except that they cut the guitar solo out of this evening's performance and
pasted it into that evening's performance. And then they moved part of the
horn track from this other evening in. And then they redubbed all the
vocals in the studio to make them cleaner.

>For instance, "The Song Remains The Same" (Led Zeppelin) was a series of
>dates in one location, and "Wings Over America" (Paul McCartney and Wings)
>was an entire tour.

And "Frampton Comes Alive!" was as much studio work as live. And
"Steppenwolf Live" has a bunch of songs that were entirely studio-recorded
but then edited in with actual live tracks from various dates.

Don't even get me started on WattStax.
--scott

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

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Jeff Henig > wrote:
>>
>>Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
>>serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
>>recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
>>one album.

>Except that they cut the guitar solo out of this evening's performance and
>pasted it into that evening's performance. And then they moved part of the
>horn track from this other evening in. And then they redubbed all the
>vocals in the studio to make them cleaner.

>>For instance, "The Song Remains The Same" (Led Zeppelin) was a series of
>>dates in one location, and "Wings Over America" (Paul McCartney and Wings)
>>was an entire tour.

>And "Frampton Comes Alive!" was as much studio work as live. And
>"Steppenwolf Live" has a bunch of songs that were entirely studio-recorded
>but then edited in with actual live tracks from various dates.


I have a running joke with one of my good clients. I've done a number of "live"
albums with him.

So as we're sitting in a studio overdubbing on a live project from a few months
back, or moving stuff around from night to night, I proclaim, "make sure the CD
artwork has that 'shipping crate' font splattered across the front with a line that
reads 'Recorded Live!"... Everyone nods in smirking agreement.

Then we finish another overdub and I say, "change that banner to 'Recorded Ive!"
(pronounced with all short vowels). Then we add a studio chorus. "Oops, make that
artwork say 'Recorded Ve!'".

So by the time we're done adding more voices, guitars, percussion, maybe a patched
bass track or two, that banner has disappeared entirely. <w>

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:11:48 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
> wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 18:06:52 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:18:53 -0400, Mike Rivers >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/6/2013 12:48 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
>>>>>> serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
>>>>>> recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
>>>>>> one album.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's pretty typical of how it's done today, given the multiple and
>>>>> relatively inexpensive ways to record as many tracks as you need from a
>>>>> live show now.
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of live albums that I recorded were from when I had one
>>>>> 16-track recorder in the remote truck. Due to tape cost (I only work
>>>>> with low budget clients) we recorded only one or two shows for the
>>>>> albums, but there were a lot of overdubs and fixes added in the studio
>>>>> after picking the best takes. I thought that was too much cheating, but
>>>>> the projects came out OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now when I record a live show, it's direct to stereo and damn the mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Beck's "Live this week at Ronnie Scott's" was a single show. But
>>>> then it was the Jeff Beck band. Roll tape and expect perfection.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> Was it all one night? The info in the liner notes for the DVD says that the
>>> engagement was for a week, but doesn't say when the recording took place.
>>>
>>> Then again, they'd have to have been wearing the same clothes all week...
>>>
>>> You are definitely right about expecting perfection, though. That was one
>>> tight performance. Absolutely amazing.
>>
>> I was lucky enough to be there, and yes it was one night. The month of
>> planning and sound checks leading up to it probably helped somewhat.
>>
>> d
>
>-_- *jealous*
>
>Dang. Probably so. Man, that must've been quite an experience.

It really was. The front of the audience was a kind of who's who of
music.

d

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 18:06:52 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:18:53 -0400, Mike Rivers >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/6/2013 12:48 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
>>>>> serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
>>>>> recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
>>>>> one album.
>>>>
>>>> That's pretty typical of how it's done today, given the multiple and
>>>> relatively inexpensive ways to record as many tracks as you need from a
>>>> live show now.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of live albums that I recorded were from when I had one
>>>> 16-track recorder in the remote truck. Due to tape cost (I only work
>>>> with low budget clients) we recorded only one or two shows for the
>>>> albums, but there were a lot of overdubs and fixes added in the studio
>>>> after picking the best takes. I thought that was too much cheating, but
>>>> the projects came out OK.
>>>>
>>>> Now when I record a live show, it's direct to stereo and damn the mistakes.
>>>
>>> Jeff Beck's "Live this week at Ronnie Scott's" was a single show. But
>>> then it was the Jeff Beck band. Roll tape and expect perfection.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> Was it all one night? The info in the liner notes for the DVD says that the
>> engagement was for a week, but doesn't say when the recording took place.
>>
>> Then again, they'd have to have been wearing the same clothes all week...
>>
>> You are definitely right about expecting perfection, though. That was one
>> tight performance. Absolutely amazing.
>
> I was lucky enough to be there, and yes it was one night. The month of
> planning and sound checks leading up to it probably helped somewhat.
>
> d
>

I can't beleove that if a band had been touring the same basic setlist
for a couple of months, they'd need much else in the way of prep.

--
Les Cargill

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:

> Well, I knew the BBC Zep set was done that way because they had it in
> the fine print--but I had no idea that it was common practice.

Peter Gabriel referred to "a process technically known as cheating" in the
cover notes. IMO having the vox too clean and recorded with a "non live" mic
blew the illusion and didn't match the ambience they had not been able to
avoid recording.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:40:14 -0500, Les Cargill
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 18:06:52 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:18:53 -0400, Mike Rivers >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/6/2013 12:48 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
>>>>>> serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
>>>>>> recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
>>>>>> one album.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's pretty typical of how it's done today, given the multiple and
>>>>> relatively inexpensive ways to record as many tracks as you need from a
>>>>> live show now.
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of live albums that I recorded were from when I had one
>>>>> 16-track recorder in the remote truck. Due to tape cost (I only work
>>>>> with low budget clients) we recorded only one or two shows for the
>>>>> albums, but there were a lot of overdubs and fixes added in the studio
>>>>> after picking the best takes. I thought that was too much cheating, but
>>>>> the projects came out OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now when I record a live show, it's direct to stereo and damn the mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Beck's "Live this week at Ronnie Scott's" was a single show. But
>>>> then it was the Jeff Beck band. Roll tape and expect perfection.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> Was it all one night? The info in the liner notes for the DVD says that the
>>> engagement was for a week, but doesn't say when the recording took place.
>>>
>>> Then again, they'd have to have been wearing the same clothes all week...
>>>
>>> You are definitely right about expecting perfection, though. That was one
>>> tight performance. Absolutely amazing.
>>
>> I was lucky enough to be there, and yes it was one night. The month of
>> planning and sound checks leading up to it probably helped somewhat.
>>
>> d
>>
>
>I can't beleove that if a band had been touring the same basic setlist
>for a couple of months, they'd need much else in the way of prep.

I heard him interviewed about this. The problem was balancing for a
perfect sound in a small venue. It wasn't a trivial job. Beck wanted
it dead right, particularly since it was to be recorded.

d

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>> Now, it's POSSIBLE to do a live recording session. If you do this, you
>>> announce in advance that it's a recording session so the audience knows
>>> what they are getting into before they buy tickets. In that case, it is
>>> expected that you might play one piece a couple of times and that you
>>> might want to stop and listen to playback. It's not a concert, it's not
>>> a closed recording session, it's an open recording session with an
>>> audience.
>>> This was unheard of a decade ago
>>
>>You obviously didn't hear of the artists who did it in the sixties and
>>seventies then. (maybe even before then for all I know)
>>I know of live recordings made that way at free concerts. If the audience
>>aren't paying they cant complain, and most love the idea of being a part.
>
> I did lots of those, but most of those were live concert recordings, with
> the emphasis on the concert part. You didn't stop in the middle of the
> set
> and run playback. You didn't have the musicians stop in the middle of a
> song and start again two or three times. They just got up and played,
> warts and all. It was still about the audience and not the tape.

I've done both, but if it's more about the audience than the recording, it's
usually for a cover charge, and vice versa.


>>It's even an incentive for them to buy the album as well. Of course most
>>artists can get very good multitrack recordings from their paid gigs easy
>>enough these days, so why bother. That was not the case in the sixties
>>though.
>
> It's still not the case today; you would be shocked at the amount of work
> needed to make some of those concert recordings usable.

Not at all, I've done hundreds. And yes it's often just as much work as
doing a studio album, or more depending on requirements and performance.

Trevor.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:40:14 -0500, Les Cargill
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 18:06:52 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:18:53 -0400, Mike Rivers >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/6/2013 12:48 PM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
>>>>>>> serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
>>>>>>> recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
>>>>>>> one album.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's pretty typical of how it's done today, given the multiple and
>>>>>> relatively inexpensive ways to record as many tracks as you need from a
>>>>>> live show now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A couple of live albums that I recorded were from when I had one
>>>>>> 16-track recorder in the remote truck. Due to tape cost (I only work
>>>>>> with low budget clients) we recorded only one or two shows for the
>>>>>> albums, but there were a lot of overdubs and fixes added in the studio
>>>>>> after picking the best takes. I thought that was too much cheating, but
>>>>>> the projects came out OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now when I record a live show, it's direct to stereo and damn the mistakes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff Beck's "Live this week at Ronnie Scott's" was a single show. But
>>>>> then it was the Jeff Beck band. Roll tape and expect perfection.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>>
>>>> Was it all one night? The info in the liner notes for the DVD says that the
>>>> engagement was for a week, but doesn't say when the recording took place.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, they'd have to have been wearing the same clothes all week...
>>>>
>>>> You are definitely right about expecting perfection, though. That was one
>>>> tight performance. Absolutely amazing.
>>>
>>> I was lucky enough to be there, and yes it was one night. The month of
>>> planning and sound checks leading up to it probably helped somewhat.
>>>
>>> d
>>>
>>
>> I can't beleove that if a band had been touring the same basic setlist
>> for a couple of months, they'd need much else in the way of prep.
>
> I heard him interviewed about this. The problem was balancing for a
> perfect sound in a small venue. It wasn't a trivial job. Beck wanted
> it dead right, particularly since it was to be recorded.
>
> d
>


Ah - so it was not multitrack. Interesting.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>I can't beleove that if a band had been touring the same basic setlist
>for a couple of months, they'd need much else in the way of prep.

If they had the same lineup of musicians for those months....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:46:41 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article >):

> And "Frampton Comes Alive!" was as much studio work as live. And
> "Steppenwolf Live" has a bunch of songs that were entirely studio-recorded
> but then edited in with actual live tracks from various dates.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

It has been said that the multi-platinum Paul McCartney album WINGS OVER
AMERICA took about 4 months of mixing and recording in post to get it ready
for release. My joke was, it took that long to remove and replace all of
Linda's backup vocals -- a joke no longer in good taste. :-(

--MFW

[geoff]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff Henig > wrote:
>>
>>Most of the "Live In Concert" commercial albums in my collection were
>>serial recordings of, say, a tour or a collection of dates that were
>>recorded and they took the best performances from each set and put that on
>>one album.
>
> Except that they cut the guitar solo out of this evening's performance and
> pasted it into that evening's performance. And then they moved part of
> the
> horn track from this other evening in. And then they redubbed all the
> vocals in the studio to make them cleaner.
>
>>For instance, "The Song Remains The Same" (Led Zeppelin) was a series of
>>dates in one location, and "Wings Over America" (Paul McCartney and Wings)
>>was an entire tour.
>
> And "Frampton Comes Alive!" was as much studio work as live. And
> "Steppenwolf Live" has a bunch of songs that were entirely studio-recorded
> but then edited in with actual live tracks from various dates.


Peter Frampton Live in Detroit is a single concert, Pine Hill 17 July 1999.
One of the last chances to hear Bob Mayo playing. Fantastic DVD, except for
the cheesy part where PF asks (thru talk-box) "Do I make you horny" ;-(

geoff