How Long Does it take you to mix a Live Jazz session?

[Paul[_13_]]

This was the same band from the last thread I started.

Drums, bass, keys, sax, and vocals.

I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
it take you? With perhaps light "mastering" with
some peak limiting, to increase the overall loudness?

Or in other words, about how many hours PER TUNE, does
it usually take for you to mix a live band?

I just would like to get an idea if I'm doing this too
slowly....people think it's easier than it is....

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Paul wrote:

> This was the same band from the last thread I started.

> Drums, bass, keys, sax, and vocals.

> I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
> it take you? With perhaps light "mastering" with
> some peak limiting, to increase the overall loudness?

> Or in other words, about how many hours PER TUNE, does
> it usually take for you to mix a live band?

> I just would like to get an idea if I'm doing this too
> slowly....people think it's easier than it is....

I may alter this if actually mixing such a recording, but if all goes as I
intend it I would mix the show, not the tunes, mix down and then edit to fit
delivery format. It would in my view be the most musical thing to do with an
actual performance and also the fastest.

Btw. I don't know what "light mastering" is, I don't see the point of having
to process the audio again, it doesn't always work but I intend the mixdown
to be the final version, no additional processing required.

Mind you, it is not that I don't "do mastering", I just apply it in the
summing. It is a strategy that I pickup up in this forum, the one of keeping
the number of successive dsp-operations as low as possible.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> This was the same band from the last thread I started.
>
> Drums, bass, keys, sax, and vocals.
>
> I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
> it take you? With perhaps light "mastering" with
> some peak limiting, to increase the overall loudness?
>
> Or in other words, about how many hours PER TUNE, does
> it usually take for you to mix a live band?
>
> I just would like to get an idea if I'm doing this too
> slowly....people think it's easier than it is....

I would think that once you have established levels for all tracks on the
first one, they would remain very similar for the rest of them. You just had
one setup, right? So once you get that figured out, the rest don't take
nearly as much time.

Gary Eickmeier

[hank alrich]

Peter Larsen > wrote:

> Btw. I don't know what "light mastering" is, I don't see the point of having
> to process the audio again, it doesn't always work but I intend the mixdown
> to be the final version, no additional processing required.
>
> Mind you, it is not that I don't "do mastering", I just apply it in the
> summing. It is a strategy that I pickup up in this forum, the one of keeping
> the number of successive dsp-operations as low as possible.

Smart, that.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

> Peter Larsen > wrote:

>> Btw. I don't know what "light mastering" is, I don't see the point
>> of having to process the audio again, it doesn't always work but I
>> intend the mixdown to be the final version, no additional processing
>> required.

>> Mind you, it is not that I don't "do mastering", I just apply it in
>> the summing. It is a strategy that I pickup up in this forum, the
>> one of keeping the number of successive dsp-operations as low as
>> possible.

> Smart, that.

Thanks, wish I could remember the name of the mastering guy who made the
point here, anyway, I should add in the context of mixing a live recording
that the ideal event is a virtual acoustic event.

A violin, just one example, has different ways of playing it that results in
different loudness, but it does NOT have a volume control per se, so as an
example, if it is balanced correctly then it is and it shouldn't need any
gain riding.

In the real world that will break for all kinds of reasons, it is not always
possible to keep gain settings constant and sound source to mic distance may
get altered. Which is to say that I conceptually like to prepare tracks for
mixing by fixing volume aberrations and oddities in spite of that being an
extra dsp-operation.

One thing that comes from that is contra-intuitive: yes, if at all possible
gain changes should be in a silent moment, but they should not be gradual,
they should be short and easily visible on the screen and easy to invert so
that the track they are applied to fits the asumption of "constant gain". It
is much easier to invert one 4 dB change to a track than to invert a series
of 1 dB changes!

Automated gain changes, ie. compression/expansion, are mix stage concept and
not track preparation. Feel free to try to do all in one stage, but there
are limits set by human confusability, and I like to keep it simple and
structured.

Mind you, that's just how I like to do it, your mileage may differ and
workflow should adapt to the actual recording.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

I'm real fast. I just listen and say, "eh, it's close enough for jazz," and
hit the record button.

--MFW

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/10/2014 9:17 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> This was the same band from the last thread I started.
>>
>> Drums, bass, keys, sax, and vocals.
>>
>> I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
>> it take you? With perhaps light "mastering" with
>> some peak limiting, to increase the overall loudness?
>>
>> Or in other words, about how many hours PER TUNE, does
>> it usually take for you to mix a live band?
>>
>> I just would like to get an idea if I'm doing this too
>> slowly....people think it's easier than it is....
>
> I would think that once you have established levels for all tracks on the
> first one, they would remain very similar for the rest of them. You just had
> one setup, right? So once you get that figured out, the rest don't take
> nearly as much time.
>

That's very true. I usually take one of the later songs,
and start mixing that, as the volume levels and mic positions
are usually settled by then. You don't get much of a chance to
optimize mic placement in a live situation, or at least I didn't
in this case.

But once I've mixed the first song well, the rest
pretty much fall into place. So really, the more songs
you record, the fewer hours per song you end up mixing on,
even if you have to change levels a bit to accommodate rotating
guest drummers, etc.

But I just want to avoid surprising people with how
long the mixing takes. It seems I'm averaging somewhere
around 1-1.5 hours of mixing per song, using Cubase 5.

I'm sure you full-time pros do it faster, but
then you also charge more per hour.....

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

This strikes me as a trick question. The key words are "mix" and "Live".
It take *me* the length of the session to mix it.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Sylvain Robitaille]

DISCLAIMER: although I was once (in a previous lifetime!) a pro in
live sound, I've never done recording, or mixed recorded sessions,
professionally, though I've done both academically and in a hobby
context. You can apply whatever weight that implies to my
comments, as you wish. ...

On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:24:56 -0700, Paul wrote:

> I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
> it take you?

I think it's important to acknowledge that you're referring to
mixing the recorded tracks. As someone else already pointed out,
obviously mixing the live performance doesn't take any longer than
the performance took. That, to me, was the appeal of mixing live,
of course, but that's another issue.

With what I *have* mixed of recorded tracks (*much* more recently than
my live sound experience, and pretty exclusively rock material), I've
probably spent a bit over an hour per song, but then I (predictably)
find myself always going back and revisitting and feeling I can
do better. Sometimes that's true, and sometimes I've already done
all I can with a track, but just don't know it yet.

In my live sound experience, mixing jazz bands was always easier than
mixing rock bands. They just tended to have a more naturally balanced
sound from the get-go, so I would expect I could mix a recording of
a jazz band's performance faster than the above also.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille

Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Paul > wrote:
>This was the same band from the last thread I started.
>
>Drums, bass, keys, sax, and vocals.
>
>I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
>it take you? With perhaps light "mastering" with
>some peak limiting, to increase the overall loudness?
>
>Or in other words, about how many hours PER TUNE, does
>it usually take for you to mix a live band?

The better the tracking job, the easier it is to mix. I have mixed an album
in under two hours. I have also had one that took six months full time.

And, in the end the album that took under two hours sounds a lot better than
the one that took six months.

Your job in tracking is to make the mixing job as easy as possible.

Likewise, mastering is something people do because they screwed up the mixing
job. You don't need to do any clean-up work at all if you do it right in the
first place.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sean Conolly]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/10/2014 9:17 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> This was the same band from the last thread I started.
>>>
>>> Drums, bass, keys, sax, and vocals.
>>>
>>> I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
>>> it take you? With perhaps light "mastering" with
>>> some peak limiting, to increase the overall loudness?
>>>
>>> Or in other words, about how many hours PER TUNE, does
>>> it usually take for you to mix a live band?
>>>
>>> I just would like to get an idea if I'm doing this too
>>> slowly....people think it's easier than it is....
>>
>> I would think that once you have established levels for all tracks on the
>> first one, they would remain very similar for the rest of them. You just
>> had
>> one setup, right? So once you get that figured out, the rest don't take
>> nearly as much time.
>>
>
> That's very true. I usually take one of the later songs,
> and start mixing that, as the volume levels and mic positions
> are usually settled by then. You don't get much of a chance to
> optimize mic placement in a live situation, or at least I didn't
> in this case.
>
> But once I've mixed the first song well, the rest
> pretty much fall into place. So really, the more songs
> you record, the fewer hours per song you end up mixing on,
> even if you have to change levels a bit to accommodate rotating
> guest drummers, etc.
>
> But I just want to avoid surprising people with how
> long the mixing takes. It seems I'm averaging somewhere
> around 1-1.5 hours of mixing per song, using Cubase 5.
>
> I'm sure you full-time pros do it faster, but
> then you also charge more per hour.....

As a 'hobbiest', I'll say that's about what it takes me if I can keep OCD at
bay.

The temptation is always there to keep tweaking each track to see just how
'good' it can sound, but it's easy to lose your perspective. I think it's
best to only 'correct' things that are a distraction to the listener, if the
correction doesn't become a bigger distraction.

On the last band demo I did where we recorded in a good sounding room I
managed to get down to around 20 minutes per song by resisting the urge to
try to fix flaws in the performance. At the other end of the scale the first
demo I did on a DAW averaged one hour per track/minute! It sounds good, but
it was waaay overkill.

Sean

[hank alrich]

Sean Conolly > wrote:

> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 3/10/2014 9:17 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >> "Paul" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> This was the same band from the last thread I started.
> >>>
> >>> Drums, bass, keys, sax, and vocals.
> >>>
> >>> I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
> >>> it take you? With perhaps light "mastering" with
> >>> some peak limiting, to increase the overall loudness?
> >>>
> >>> Or in other words, about how many hours PER TUNE, does
> >>> it usually take for you to mix a live band?
> >>>
> >>> I just would like to get an idea if I'm doing this too
> >>> slowly....people think it's easier than it is....
> >>
> >> I would think that once you have established levels for all tracks on the
> >> first one, they would remain very similar for the rest of them. You just
> >> had
> >> one setup, right? So once you get that figured out, the rest don't take
> >> nearly as much time.
> >>
> >
> > That's very true. I usually take one of the later songs,
> > and start mixing that, as the volume levels and mic positions
> > are usually settled by then. You don't get much of a chance to
> > optimize mic placement in a live situation, or at least I didn't
> > in this case.
> >
> > But once I've mixed the first song well, the rest
> > pretty much fall into place. So really, the more songs
> > you record, the fewer hours per song you end up mixing on,
> > even if you have to change levels a bit to accommodate rotating
> > guest drummers, etc.
> >
> > But I just want to avoid surprising people with how
> > long the mixing takes. It seems I'm averaging somewhere
> > around 1-1.5 hours of mixing per song, using Cubase 5.
> >
> > I'm sure you full-time pros do it faster, but
> > then you also charge more per hour.....
>
> As a 'hobbiest', I'll say that's about what it takes me if I can keep OCD at
> bay.
>
> The temptation is always there to keep tweaking each track to see just how
> 'good' it can sound, but it's easy to lose your perspective. I think it's
> best to only 'correct' things that are a distraction to the listener, if the
> correction doesn't become a bigger distraction.
>
> On the last band demo I did where we recorded in a good sounding room I
> managed to get down to around 20 minutes per song by resisting the urge to
> try to fix flaws in the performance. At the other end of the scale the first
> demo I did on a DAW averaged one hour per track/minute! It sounds good, but
> it was waaay overkill.
>
> Sean

Unless something goes awry in tracking, if I record a live show in a
setting where I have reasonable monitoring I will mix _the show_, not
each track.

If some problem arises with a particular song I can often deal with it
via an automated plugin in effect only when it's needed.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Sylvain Robitaille" > wrote in message
a...

> In my live sound experience, mixing jazz bands was always easier than
> mixing rock bands. They just tended to have a more naturally balanced
> sound from the get-go, so I would expect I could mix a recording of
> a jazz band's performance faster than the above also.

Sylvain -

Just out of curiosity, why would you mix live? Because you didn't have a
multitrack recorder available? I can think of so many obstacles to getting a
good live mix - if the final product is a recording.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

> Your job in tracking is to make the mixing job as easy as possible.
>
> Likewise, mastering is something people do because they screwed up the
> mixing
> job. You don't need to do any clean-up work at all if you do it right in
> the
> first place.
> --scott

OK, education time again (for me anyway). Tracking would be all of the
individual tracks that you recorded, or IOW how many mikes or pickups -
right? But I kinda sorta thought that mastering was done at the same time as
mixing. What I am doing is laying all tracks down in sync, then deciding on
the panning and levels in the DAW (Audition 2), then setting master level
for the recording and exporting to the two channel master. That master could
be further EQ'd or compressed for the final CD, but the basic mix and
downsampling and mastering are done at this point, except for the fade in
and fade out, which is nothing.

What do you mean by mastering, as separate from mixing?

Gary Eickmeier

[PStamler]

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 12:16:00 PM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> What do you mean by mastering, as separate from mixing?

I recommend you read Bob Katz's book on mastering to learn the answer.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mastering-audio-bob-katz/1100697617?cm_mmc=googlepla-_-textbook_instock_26to75_pt106-_-q000000633-_-9780240808376&cm_mmca2=pla&ean=9780240808376&isbn=9780240808376&r=1

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

Oh, and the most frequent reason for recording live, direct to 2 track, is that the client doesn't have the budget or inclination to pay for a mixdown session.

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:

> "Sylvain Robitaille" > wrote in message
> a...
>
> > In my live sound experience, mixing jazz bands was always easier than
> > mixing rock bands. They just tended to have a more naturally balanced
> > sound from the get-go, so I would expect I could mix a recording of
> > a jazz band's performance faster than the above also.
>
> Sylvain -
>
> Just out of curiosity, why would you mix live? Because you didn't have a
> multitrack recorder available? I can think of so many obstacles to getting a
> good live mix - if the final product is a recording.
>
> Gary Eickmeier

Because you know nothing of mixing live, Gary. Those with a lot of live
work under their cap have a different set of chops, and when time is
money, there is no point in taking forever to do what can be done
simultaneously with the capture.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Paul[_13_]]

On 3/11/2014 11:45 AM, PStamler wrote:
> Oh, and the most frequent reason for recording live, direct to 2 track, is that the client doesn't have the budget or inclination to pay for a mixdown session.
>

Mixing can take substantial amounts of time. Part of it is
just in listening to the performance, to decide which songs are
worth mixing in the first place. Then panning to make a nice
stereo image in headphones. Multi-band compression or not?
If so, what ratios, how will you divide the spectrum, and how fast or
slow for the attack and release? Rolling off the
low end on most of the tracks to clean up a muddy mix. EQing
the sax so it's not so shrill, and all the other tracks. Finding
a low-mid bump which will pull the kick drum out of the mix. Editing
out strange sounds that creep into the recording. Deciding if you want
to add reverb, and if so, how much, and what type? Editing fader
automation for the solos if needed. Deciding where to fade in and fade
out. After mixing down to a stereo pair, deciding how much peak
limiting you will need for an overall volume adjustment. Re-adjust
the bass level to compensate for the peak limiting, which usually
increases the low end.

Repeat the above steps with another set of speakers.

Repeat again if the customer has different taste than you.

Hard work, but it's gonna sound better than a Zoom H4N that
the bassist threw up....

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Sean Conolly wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 3/10/2014 9:17 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> This was the same band from the last thread I started.
>>>>
>>>> Drums, bass, keys, sax, and vocals.
>>>>
>>>> I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
>>>> it take you? With perhaps light "mastering" with
>>>> some peak limiting, to increase the overall loudness?
>>>>
>>>> Or in other words, about how many hours PER TUNE, does
>>>> it usually take for you to mix a live band?
>>>>
>>>> I just would like to get an idea if I'm doing this too
>>>> slowly....people think it's easier than it is....
>>>
>>> I would think that once you have established levels for all tracks on the
>>> first one, they would remain very similar for the rest of them. You just
>>> had
>>> one setup, right? So once you get that figured out, the rest don't take
>>> nearly as much time.
>>>
>>
>> That's very true. I usually take one of the later songs,
>> and start mixing that, as the volume levels and mic positions
>> are usually settled by then. You don't get much of a chance to
>> optimize mic placement in a live situation, or at least I didn't
>> in this case.
>>
>> But once I've mixed the first song well, the rest
>> pretty much fall into place. So really, the more songs
>> you record, the fewer hours per song you end up mixing on,
>> even if you have to change levels a bit to accommodate rotating
>> guest drummers, etc.
>>
>> But I just want to avoid surprising people with how
>> long the mixing takes. It seems I'm averaging somewhere
>> around 1-1.5 hours of mixing per song, using Cubase 5.
>>
>> I'm sure you full-time pros do it faster, but
>> then you also charge more per hour.....
>
> As a 'hobbiest', I'll say that's about what it takes me if I can keep OCD at
> bay.
>
> The temptation is always there to keep tweaking each track to see just how
> 'good' it can sound, but it's easy to lose your perspective. I think it's
> best to only 'correct' things that are a distraction to the listener, if the
> correction doesn't become a bigger distraction.
>

I basically have a "default" mix I throw up and it's 9/10ths
close to what prints at the end. This because almost everything
I do is guitar-bass-drums-vox and maybe keys.

I have an array of non-realtime tools to deal with individual
tracks that vary widely in level. If that fails, I cut
the excessive levels down with a .wav editor and save a new version.

> On the last band demo I did where we recorded in a good sounding room I
> managed to get down to around 20 minutes per song by resisting the urge to
> try to fix flaws in the performance. At the other end of the scale the first
> demo I did on a DAW averaged one hour per track/minute! It sounds good, but
> it was waaay overkill.
>

Most of those, I don't think they sound good - that I do, anyway. They
end up being too dense.

> Sean
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "Sylvain Robitaille" > wrote in message
> a...
>
>> In my live sound experience, mixing jazz bands was always easier than
>> mixing rock bands. They just tended to have a more naturally balanced
>> sound from the get-go, so I would expect I could mix a recording of
>> a jazz band's performance faster than the above also.
>
> Sylvain -
>
> Just out of curiosity, why would you mix live? Because you didn't have a
> multitrack recorder available? I can think of so many obstacles to getting a
> good live mix - if the final product is a recording.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
>

It's really better that way. If I had enough time in mixing,
that's exactly what I'd do.

Multitrack is kind of a crutch.

--
Les Cargill

[Gary Eickmeier]

Paul wrote:
> On 3/11/2014 11:45 AM, PStamler wrote:
>> Oh, and the most frequent reason for recording live, direct to 2
>> track, is that the client doesn't have the budget or inclination to
>> pay for a mixdown session.
>
> Mixing can take substantial amounts of time. Part of it is
> just in listening to the performance, to decide which songs are
> worth mixing in the first place. Then panning to make a nice
> stereo image in headphones. Multi-band compression or not?
> If so, what ratios, how will you divide the spectrum, and how fast or
> slow for the attack and release? Rolling off the
> low end on most of the tracks to clean up a muddy mix. EQing
> the sax so it's not so shrill, and all the other tracks. Finding
> a low-mid bump which will pull the kick drum out of the mix. Editing
> out strange sounds that creep into the recording. Deciding if you
> want to add reverb, and if so, how much, and what type? Editing fader
> automation for the solos if needed. Deciding where to fade in and
> fade out. After mixing down to a stereo pair, deciding how much peak
> limiting you will need for an overall volume adjustment. Re-adjust
> the bass level to compensate for the peak limiting, which usually
> increases the low end.
>
> Repeat the above steps with another set of speakers.
>
> Repeat again if the customer has different taste than you.
>
> Hard work, but it's gonna sound better than a Zoom H4N that
> the bassist threw up....

Yes, and I have read a few times in these halls how delicate an operation it
is panning in a spot mike and leveling it so that it doesn't pop out of the
mix, possibly soloing a track so you can hear it a lot better and decide a
few things, such as adding reverb or other modifications or just letting it
disappear, EQing some tracks differently than others. All of these things
can be done in post, especially the more tracks you are working with, but I
imagine would be a lot more difficult live unless maybe it is a dedicated
recording session in a studio.

Why? Obviously you would need access to a control room that is isolated from
the performance, enough tracks, no live PA system to deal with, but the
biggie for me is that when I record live performances there is no sound
check before hand to set all this up and test it out and do the things you
can do in post with all the time in the world and all the controls you have
available back in the studio.

I am speculating of course, because I am not a full time paid professional
recording engineer, but how did I do? Are these factors or not? And YES I
will probably get any book by Bob Katz. I have tried to go over there, but I
haven't found the right connection yet to get an invite. Maybe there would
be an Email in the book. I know a kid that goes to Full Sail, but he is not
in audio, and I have tried to Email the school, but no luck yet. I would
love to get a walk-through and see what he does.

Gary Eickmeier

[PStamler]

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:56:48 PM UTC-6, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
> > On 3/11/2014 11:45 AM, PStamler wrote:
>
> >> Oh, and the most frequent reason for recording live, direct to 2
>
> >> track, is that the client doesn't have the budget or inclination to
>
> >> pay for a mixdown session.
>
> >
>
> > Mixing can take substantial amounts of time. Part of it is
>
> > just in listening to the performance, to decide which songs are
>
> > worth mixing in the first place. Then panning to make a nice
>
> > stereo image in headphones. Multi-band compression or not?
>
> > If so, what ratios, how will you divide the spectrum, and how fast or
>
> > slow for the attack and release? Rolling off the
>
> > low end on most of the tracks to clean up a muddy mix. EQing
>
> > the sax so it's not so shrill, and all the other tracks. Finding
>
> > a low-mid bump which will pull the kick drum out of the mix. Editing
>
> > out strange sounds that creep into the recording. Deciding if you
>
> > want to add reverb, and if so, how much, and what type? Editing fader
>
> > automation for the solos if needed. Deciding where to fade in and
>
> > fade out. After mixing down to a stereo pair, deciding how much peak
>
> > limiting you will need for an overall volume adjustment. Re-adjust
>
> > the bass level to compensate for the peak limiting, which usually
>
> > increases the low end.
>
> >
>
> > Repeat the above steps with another set of speakers.
>
> >
>
> > Repeat again if the customer has different taste than you.
>
> >
>
> > Hard work, but it's gonna sound better than a Zoom H4N that
>
> > the bassist threw up....
>
>
>
> Yes, and I have read a few times in these halls how delicate an operation it
>
> is panning in a spot mike and leveling it so that it doesn't pop out of the
>
> mix, possibly soloing a track so you can hear it a lot better and decide a
>
> few things, such as adding reverb or other modifications or just letting it
>
> disappear, EQing some tracks differently than others. All of these things
>
> can be done in post, especially the more tracks you are working with, but I
>
> imagine would be a lot more difficult live unless maybe it is a dedicated
>
> recording session in a studio.
>
>
>
> Why? Obviously you would need access to a control room that is isolated from
>
> the performance, enough tracks, no live PA system to deal with, but the
>
> biggie for me is that when I record live performances there is no sound
>
> check before hand to set all this up and test it out and do the things you
>
> can do in post with all the time in the world and all the controls you have
>
> available back in the studio.
>
>
>
> I am speculating of course, because I am not a full time paid professional
> recording engineer, but how did I do? Are these factors or not?

Yes, they are, and a bunch more besides -- for example, applying delay to spot mics so there won't be comb-filtering with the mains.

All reasons that multi-track is useful, but as I said before not all clients can afford it -- and sometimes it's not possible, like my friend Paul Hennerich who mixes the St. Louis Symphony broadcasts, live to radio. No second chances there. In my experiences, the broadcasts sound damned good, a testimony to his skill.

And YES I > will probably get any book by Bob Katz. I have tried to go over there, but I
> haven't found the right connection yet to get an invite. Maybe there would
> be an Email in the book. I know a kid that goes to Full Sail, but he is not
> in audio, and I have tried to Email the school, but no luck yet. I would
> love to get a walk-through and see what he does.

If you want to know what he does, read the book.

Peace,
Paul

[Gary Eickmeier]

PStamler wrote:

> If you want to know what he does, read the book.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

Done.

Gary

[Sean Conolly]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Sean Conolly > wrote:
>
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 3/10/2014 9:17 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> >> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>> This was the same band from the last thread I started.
>> >>>
>> >>> Drums, bass, keys, sax, and vocals.
>> >>>
>> >>> I pulled out 7 tunes. About how many hours would
>> >>> it take you? With perhaps light "mastering" with
>> >>> some peak limiting, to increase the overall loudness?
>> >>>
>> >>> Or in other words, about how many hours PER TUNE, does
>> >>> it usually take for you to mix a live band?
>> >>>
>> >>> I just would like to get an idea if I'm doing this too
>> >>> slowly....people think it's easier than it is....
>> >>
>> >> I would think that once you have established levels for all tracks on
>> >> the
>> >> first one, they would remain very similar for the rest of them. You
>> >> just
>> >> had
>> >> one setup, right? So once you get that figured out, the rest don't
>> >> take
>> >> nearly as much time.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's very true. I usually take one of the later songs,
>> > and start mixing that, as the volume levels and mic positions
>> > are usually settled by then. You don't get much of a chance to
>> > optimize mic placement in a live situation, or at least I didn't
>> > in this case.
>> >
>> > But once I've mixed the first song well, the rest
>> > pretty much fall into place. So really, the more songs
>> > you record, the fewer hours per song you end up mixing on,
>> > even if you have to change levels a bit to accommodate rotating
>> > guest drummers, etc.
>> >
>> > But I just want to avoid surprising people with how
>> > long the mixing takes. It seems I'm averaging somewhere
>> > around 1-1.5 hours of mixing per song, using Cubase 5.
>> >
>> > I'm sure you full-time pros do it faster, but
>> > then you also charge more per hour.....
>>
>> As a 'hobbiest', I'll say that's about what it takes me if I can keep OCD
>> at
>> bay.
>>
>> The temptation is always there to keep tweaking each track to see just
>> how
>> 'good' it can sound, but it's easy to lose your perspective. I think it's
>> best to only 'correct' things that are a distraction to the listener, if
>> the
>> correction doesn't become a bigger distraction.
>>
>> On the last band demo I did where we recorded in a good sounding room I
>> managed to get down to around 20 minutes per song by resisting the urge
>> to
>> try to fix flaws in the performance. At the other end of the scale the
>> first
>> demo I did on a DAW averaged one hour per track/minute! It sounds good,
>> but
>> it was waaay overkill.
>>
>> Sean
>
> Unless something goes awry in tracking, if I record a live show in a
> setting where I have reasonable monitoring I will mix _the show_, not
> each track.

Usually what goes wrong for me is getting tracks from the board, but nothing
overhead or in the room. I like to have a couple of overheads right over the
front edge of the stage to get the sound more or less as the band hears it,
and then use the direct tracks to support or reenforce that as needed (with
appropriate alignment).

As you can guess this is club level stuff where the stage sound tends to
dominate anyway, and with bands that know how to moderate their own dynamics
and blend.

Sean

[Sylvain Robitaille]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:04:46 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, why would you mix live?

I was mixing live performances for sound reinforcement, but I'm not
sure that's really what you're asking. I *think* you're asking why
someone would mix while recording, as opposed to in a separate mixing
session after tracking has been done. For what it's worth, I've not
done that myself (my personal recording space imposes that I mix in
the same space as I record in, so while tracking all I hear is the band
playing, not what's going to disk), but I think I know at least a few
reasons why it would be done that way. I hope folks will liberally
offer corrections or clarifications if I get any of this wrong.

Most obviously, to cut time spent on mixing. If you already mixed
it going to tape (or disk, now), then your mixing session will start
with all faders at 0dB, and you'll already be a good chunk of the
way toward your final mix.

The other main reason that comes to mind is that in order to get a more
natural sounding record of a performance, you want to try and capture
the performance as it's happening, leaving the interaction between
the musicians, and the dynamics they create, as intact as possible.

> I can think of so many obstacles to getting a good live mix -
> if the final product is a recording.

My final product, when I was mixing live performances, quite frankly,
was a happy, sweaty, thirsty audience for the bands I was working with
(the importance of "thirsty" being particularly notable for the clubs
hiring the bands, not the bands themselves). Mind you, that's pretty
obviously rock bands.

The jazz gigs I worked tended to not be in a club environment, and
therefore my attempts there were primarily to deliver to the audience
a representation of the performance, as accurately as I could manage.
The easiest such gig I did, in a rather nice sounding auditorium,
was a trio led by a well known guitar player (these guys really
did mix themselves, and all I had to do was make it possible for
the ausience to hear the overall performance), and the "toughest"
was a (seven? or) eight-piece band led by a very talented sax player
(in a rather reverberant atrium type room). A little bit more there
than simply "reinforcement", but quite honestly not a particularly
difficult gig either.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille

Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------