Tips for mixing a live recording?

[Kalle L.]

Hello,

This is a kind of a continuation post for the the one I posted a
couple of weeks ago about transferring tracks with Alesis HD24.

In short: We recorded a rock (a Springsteen tribute) gig this Saturday
with Alesis HD24. In the end, we recorded the gig on 18 tracks. The
tracks are:

- Guitar 1.
- Guitar 2.
- Guitar 3.
- Bass
- Snare
- Kick
- Overhead L
- Overhead R
- Vocal 1.
- Vocal 2.
- Vocal 3.
- Vocal 4.
- Organ
- Piano
- Clockenspiel (not sure about the spelling..)
- Sax
- Room mic L
- Room mic R

All tracks were recorded dry from insert points of the mixer.

Thanks to the responses here earlier, it's clear for me how to import
them to Cubase and mix the whole gig there as a one bunch, and then
separate the songs afterwards, after mastering.

So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.
I know the obvious panning 'rules', so I guess I'm mostly interested
in:

- should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
- Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
during mastering?
- if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.


Thanks!

Kalle

[Maxy]

The first question you have to answer to is:
Will you mix a 2 hours song or are you going to divide it in 15 songs?

15 is easier but is more difficult to edit them in mastering (applause will
be different for different songs).

Are the song performed by the same band or by different artists?

Are you going to reproduce a "live" sound? If yes then mix the room mics
louder (maybe compressed, maybe more delayed....)
DO NOT edit tracks muting them while there is no instrument in them! The
cool thing about live recordings is the phase problems you have with all the
mics open. This problems are cool! they give the idea that the tracks is
live!
Try to mix everything starting from the vocals. That's your main thing. Do
not try to obtain a high pressure level from the mix (both in mixing and in
mastering) or you will have huge problems from taking the room sound (which
is in every microphone) too loud.

These are only starting points.... Obviously mix it as you like!! If it
turns out right doing the right opposite of what I told you then that is the
way!!
Cheers from Italy
Max


"Kalle L." > ha scritto nel messaggio
om...
> Hello,
>
> This is a kind of a continuation post for the the one I posted a
> couple of weeks ago about transferring tracks with Alesis HD24.
>
> In short: We recorded a rock (a Springsteen tribute) gig this Saturday
> with Alesis HD24. In the end, we recorded the gig on 18 tracks. The
> tracks are:
>
> - Guitar 1.
> - Guitar 2.
> - Guitar 3.
> - Bass
> - Snare
> - Kick
> - Overhead L
> - Overhead R
> - Vocal 1.
> - Vocal 2.
> - Vocal 3.
> - Vocal 4.
> - Organ
> - Piano
> - Clockenspiel (not sure about the spelling..)
> - Sax
> - Room mic L
> - Room mic R
>
> All tracks were recorded dry from insert points of the mixer.
>
> Thanks to the responses here earlier, it's clear for me how to import
> them to Cubase and mix the whole gig there as a one bunch, and then
> separate the songs afterwards, after mastering.
>
> So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
> challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
> wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
> that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.
> I know the obvious panning 'rules', so I guess I'm mostly interested
> in:
>
> - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> during mastering?
> - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kalle

[Maxy]

The first question you have to answer to is:
Will you mix a 2 hours song or are you going to divide it in 15 songs?

15 is easier but is more difficult to edit them in mastering (applause will
be different for different songs).

Are the song performed by the same band or by different artists?

Are you going to reproduce a "live" sound? If yes then mix the room mics
louder (maybe compressed, maybe more delayed....)
DO NOT edit tracks muting them while there is no instrument in them! The
cool thing about live recordings is the phase problems you have with all the
mics open. This problems are cool! they give the idea that the tracks is
live!
Try to mix everything starting from the vocals. That's your main thing. Do
not try to obtain a high pressure level from the mix (both in mixing and in
mastering) or you will have huge problems from taking the room sound (which
is in every microphone) too loud.

These are only starting points.... Obviously mix it as you like!! If it
turns out right doing the right opposite of what I told you then that is the
way!!
Cheers from Italy
Max


"Kalle L." > ha scritto nel messaggio
om...
> Hello,
>
> This is a kind of a continuation post for the the one I posted a
> couple of weeks ago about transferring tracks with Alesis HD24.
>
> In short: We recorded a rock (a Springsteen tribute) gig this Saturday
> with Alesis HD24. In the end, we recorded the gig on 18 tracks. The
> tracks are:
>
> - Guitar 1.
> - Guitar 2.
> - Guitar 3.
> - Bass
> - Snare
> - Kick
> - Overhead L
> - Overhead R
> - Vocal 1.
> - Vocal 2.
> - Vocal 3.
> - Vocal 4.
> - Organ
> - Piano
> - Clockenspiel (not sure about the spelling..)
> - Sax
> - Room mic L
> - Room mic R
>
> All tracks were recorded dry from insert points of the mixer.
>
> Thanks to the responses here earlier, it's clear for me how to import
> them to Cubase and mix the whole gig there as a one bunch, and then
> separate the songs afterwards, after mastering.
>
> So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
> challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
> wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
> that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.
> I know the obvious panning 'rules', so I guess I'm mostly interested
> in:
>
> - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> during mastering?
> - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kalle

[Jim Gilliland]

Kalle L. wrote:

> - Clockenspiel (not sure about the spelling..)

<grin> and it's kinda hard to look it up if you don't have the first
letter right!

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=glockenspiel

> All tracks were recorded dry from insert points of the mixer.
>
> - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> during mastering?

I don't generally add reverb during mastering, but I do use several
different methods to add reverb while mixing.

First of all, if the room mics sound good and if they were positioned so
that they captured mostly reverberation rather than direct sound, then I
would try to use them as my primary reverb. But I also usually find
that I prefer to add some digital reverb as well. If I use nothing but
the room mics, the reverb tends to sound a bit "muddy".

I usually find that the room mics do a better job of capturing the short
term reverberation (near reflections), so I often need to add longer
tail reverb to the mix via digital means.

But that all depends on the room and the placement of the room mics.
Your recording may give you very different results. And if there's too
much direct sound captured there, it becomes much trickier to use them
this way.

In a live recording, you'll want your digital reverb to help add to the
sense that all of these instruments were played in the same space. To
that end, you'll probably want to apply the same (or very similar)
reverb to all of the tracks (though the actual amounts will vary from
instrument to instrument). You'll probably want little to none on the
low frequency instruments like kick and bass.

The same is generally true for your vocal tracks, but I often find that
the reverb settings needed for vocals differ from those that I've used
for the instruments. Again, they shouldn't be wildly different, or the
recording won't sound natural at all, but I rarely use the same exact
reverb for both. Again, you may find that the amount of reverb added to
the harmony vocals differs from the amount added to the lead.

So I tend to have three reverbs going for most live recordings - natural
room sound, digital instrument reverb, and digital vocal reverb.

To answer your direct questions: Yes, stereo reverb will be applied to
your mono tracks. And there are times when a delay can be useful in a
live mix, but I don't usually try to substitute it for reverb. There
are some very good reverb programs out there in both hardware and
software, and you can usually tweak them to get what you want.

However, in some situations, I've duplicated a track in the mix,
delaying it and reducing its level, and usually panning it to the other
side of the stereo field. Works well on electric guitars in some kinds
of music. But it's not really a substitute for reverb.

One last thought - digital reverb often enhances the vocal of a song,
but it can sound very unnatural during the spoken introduction. So plan
to ride your reverb up and down as the performers go from talking to
singing and vice versa.

Pretty basic stuff - I hope it helps. I'm sure others here can add a
lot more.

[Jim Gilliland]

Kalle L. wrote:

> - Clockenspiel (not sure about the spelling..)

<grin> and it's kinda hard to look it up if you don't have the first
letter right!

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=glockenspiel

> All tracks were recorded dry from insert points of the mixer.
>
> - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> during mastering?

I don't generally add reverb during mastering, but I do use several
different methods to add reverb while mixing.

First of all, if the room mics sound good and if they were positioned so
that they captured mostly reverberation rather than direct sound, then I
would try to use them as my primary reverb. But I also usually find
that I prefer to add some digital reverb as well. If I use nothing but
the room mics, the reverb tends to sound a bit "muddy".

I usually find that the room mics do a better job of capturing the short
term reverberation (near reflections), so I often need to add longer
tail reverb to the mix via digital means.

But that all depends on the room and the placement of the room mics.
Your recording may give you very different results. And if there's too
much direct sound captured there, it becomes much trickier to use them
this way.

In a live recording, you'll want your digital reverb to help add to the
sense that all of these instruments were played in the same space. To
that end, you'll probably want to apply the same (or very similar)
reverb to all of the tracks (though the actual amounts will vary from
instrument to instrument). You'll probably want little to none on the
low frequency instruments like kick and bass.

The same is generally true for your vocal tracks, but I often find that
the reverb settings needed for vocals differ from those that I've used
for the instruments. Again, they shouldn't be wildly different, or the
recording won't sound natural at all, but I rarely use the same exact
reverb for both. Again, you may find that the amount of reverb added to
the harmony vocals differs from the amount added to the lead.

So I tend to have three reverbs going for most live recordings - natural
room sound, digital instrument reverb, and digital vocal reverb.

To answer your direct questions: Yes, stereo reverb will be applied to
your mono tracks. And there are times when a delay can be useful in a
live mix, but I don't usually try to substitute it for reverb. There
are some very good reverb programs out there in both hardware and
software, and you can usually tweak them to get what you want.

However, in some situations, I've duplicated a track in the mix,
delaying it and reducing its level, and usually panning it to the other
side of the stereo field. Works well on electric guitars in some kinds
of music. But it's not really a substitute for reverb.

One last thought - digital reverb often enhances the vocal of a song,
but it can sound very unnatural during the spoken introduction. So plan
to ride your reverb up and down as the performers go from talking to
singing and vice versa.

Pretty basic stuff - I hope it helps. I'm sure others here can add a
lot more.

[Mike]

(Kalle L.) wrote in message >...
> Hello,
>
> This is a kind of a continuation post for the the one I posted a
> couple of weeks ago about transferring tracks with Alesis HD24.
>
> In short: We recorded a rock (a Springsteen tribute) gig this Saturday
> with Alesis HD24. In the end, we recorded the gig on 18 tracks. The
> tracks are:
>
> - Guitar 1.
> - Guitar 2.
> - Guitar 3.
> - Bass
> - Snare
> - Kick
> - Overhead L
> - Overhead R
> - Vocal 1.
> - Vocal 2.
> - Vocal 3.
> - Vocal 4.
> - Organ
> - Piano
> - Clockenspiel (not sure about the spelling..)
> - Sax
> - Room mic L
> - Room mic R
>
> All tracks were recorded dry from insert points of the mixer.
>
> Thanks to the responses here earlier, it's clear for me how to import
> them to Cubase and mix the whole gig there as a one bunch, and then
> separate the songs afterwards, after mastering.
>
> So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
> challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
> wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
> that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.
> I know the obvious panning 'rules', so I guess I'm mostly interested
> in:
>
> - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> during mastering?
> - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kalle

Main problem I have had with live recordings is significant volume
variations (ie vocalists trailing up and back on the mic) and bleed
into the mics.

Bleed can affect the sound significantly even though you dont hear it
strongly in individual tracks. Over numerous tracks you can end up
with a muddy sound in the final mix. I've often had to wrangle with a
lot of gating and some equing to fix it.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike]

(Kalle L.) wrote in message >...
> Hello,
>
> This is a kind of a continuation post for the the one I posted a
> couple of weeks ago about transferring tracks with Alesis HD24.
>
> In short: We recorded a rock (a Springsteen tribute) gig this Saturday
> with Alesis HD24. In the end, we recorded the gig on 18 tracks. The
> tracks are:
>
> - Guitar 1.
> - Guitar 2.
> - Guitar 3.
> - Bass
> - Snare
> - Kick
> - Overhead L
> - Overhead R
> - Vocal 1.
> - Vocal 2.
> - Vocal 3.
> - Vocal 4.
> - Organ
> - Piano
> - Clockenspiel (not sure about the spelling..)
> - Sax
> - Room mic L
> - Room mic R
>
> All tracks were recorded dry from insert points of the mixer.
>
> Thanks to the responses here earlier, it's clear for me how to import
> them to Cubase and mix the whole gig there as a one bunch, and then
> separate the songs afterwards, after mastering.
>
> So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
> challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
> wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
> that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.
> I know the obvious panning 'rules', so I guess I'm mostly interested
> in:
>
> - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> during mastering?
> - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kalle

Main problem I have had with live recordings is significant volume
variations (ie vocalists trailing up and back on the mic) and bleed
into the mics.

Bleed can affect the sound significantly even though you dont hear it
strongly in individual tracks. Over numerous tracks you can end up
with a muddy sound in the final mix. I've often had to wrangle with a
lot of gating and some equing to fix it.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Kalle L. > wrote:
>
>So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
>challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
>wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
>that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.

The way I do this sort of thing depends a lot on the room mikes. If the
room mikes are really good, I'll start with them, and then I'll bring the
vocal in until it sits well, then I'll bring the other instruments in one
at a time and integrate them into the room mikes.

If the room mikes are no good, I'll tend to build a mix around the vocals,
then listen to the room mikes now and then mostly as a reference for overall
soundstage.

>I know the obvious panning 'rules', so I guess I'm mostly interested
>in:
>
>- should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?

If you want them to sound that way, sure.

>- Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
>be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
>mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
>during mastering?

That depends on the room. If you have the room mike tracks sounding really
good, you can use just those to bring the ambience in. If what you are hearing
in the ambience mikes is lots of slap echo from a bad room, maybe you don't
want to use them at all and you want to rely on artificial reverb. I tend to
use reverb just on the 2-mix, personally, but I could see using it on seperate
tracks, especially the vocal tracks and drum overheads.

>- if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
>interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
>recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.

It's just like a studio recording, BUT:
1. The separation between channels isn't as good
2. You have the ambience tracks to help you fill out the mix
3. You have a reference sound, in that you know what the original concert
sounded like, and if you forget you have the room mikes to remind you.
4. There's no going back and fixing things.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Kalle L. > wrote:
>
>So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
>challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
>wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
>that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.

The way I do this sort of thing depends a lot on the room mikes. If the
room mikes are really good, I'll start with them, and then I'll bring the
vocal in until it sits well, then I'll bring the other instruments in one
at a time and integrate them into the room mikes.

If the room mikes are no good, I'll tend to build a mix around the vocals,
then listen to the room mikes now and then mostly as a reference for overall
soundstage.

>I know the obvious panning 'rules', so I guess I'm mostly interested
>in:
>
>- should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?

If you want them to sound that way, sure.

>- Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
>be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
>mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
>during mastering?

That depends on the room. If you have the room mike tracks sounding really
good, you can use just those to bring the ambience in. If what you are hearing
in the ambience mikes is lots of slap echo from a bad room, maybe you don't
want to use them at all and you want to rely on artificial reverb. I tend to
use reverb just on the 2-mix, personally, but I could see using it on seperate
tracks, especially the vocal tracks and drum overheads.

>- if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
>interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
>recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.

It's just like a studio recording, BUT:
1. The separation between channels isn't as good
2. You have the ambience tracks to help you fill out the mix
3. You have a reference sound, in that you know what the original concert
sounded like, and if you forget you have the room mikes to remind you.
4. There's no going back and fixing things.

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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> In short: We recorded a rock (a Springsteen tribute) gig this Saturday
> with Alesis HD24. In the end, we recorded the gig on 18 tracks.

> So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
> challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
> wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
> that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.

Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.

Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
operate a DAW as a mixer.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> In short: We recorded a rock (a Springsteen tribute) gig this Saturday
> with Alesis HD24. In the end, we recorded the gig on 18 tracks.

> So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
> challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
> wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
> that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.

Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.

Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
operate a DAW as a mixer.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[BLCKOUT420]

>Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
>files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
>to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.

that IS a good tip.

[BLCKOUT420]

>Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
>files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
>to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.

that IS a good tip.

[Maxy]

THAT's really a fantastic idea!!! Mixing in analogue would be the best
choice!
Nice Mr. Rivers!




"Mike Rivers" > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:znr1096284470k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > In short: We recorded a rock (a Springsteen tribute) gig this Saturday
> > with Alesis HD24. In the end, we recorded the gig on 18 tracks.
>
> > So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
> > challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
> > wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
> > that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.
>
> Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
> files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
> to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.
>
> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Maxy]

THAT's really a fantastic idea!!! Mixing in analogue would be the best
choice!
Nice Mr. Rivers!




"Mike Rivers" > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:znr1096284470k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > In short: We recorded a rock (a Springsteen tribute) gig this Saturday
> > with Alesis HD24. In the end, we recorded the gig on 18 tracks.
>
> > So, once I have moved these tracks to Cubase, I will have a
> > challenging and interested task of mixing this 2 hour gig. I was
> > wondering if you guys would have some practical tips, since I'm sure
> > that some of you pro's have mixed these kind of 'live album' projects.
>
> Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
> files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
> to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.
>
> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Kelly Dueck]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message
>
> Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
> files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
> to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.
>
> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> operate a DAW as a mixer.

Mike's right. Once I was recording a jazz quartet live on a MACkie SDR
recorder that crashed (fatally) midway through the second tune. Thanks
to a spdf out, on the mixer I used to monitor, the whole concert was
mixed "live to CD" by default. Those stereo mixes were transerred into
SONAR, edited and mastered. It likely sounded 80 to 90% as good as it
would have had I transferred all the individual tracks and processed
and mixed them in sonar ... only it was much, much, less hassle.
Probably best of all, there was no second guessing and obsessing
afterward. The mix I had to work with was the mix I had to work with
and there was precious little I could do about it. I've recorded a
number of other concerts since then and always threaten to mix live to
stereo in the first place, just cause it's so much easier than using a
DAW ... Of course when it actually comes time to go work the gig, my
natural risk aversion kicks in and I haul along the multi-tracker,
anyway. And I also bring along an old fashioned ADAT (or two, as
required)for backup. I just don't trust HD's anymore.

[Kelly Dueck]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message
>
> Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
> files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
> to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.
>
> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> operate a DAW as a mixer.

Mike's right. Once I was recording a jazz quartet live on a MACkie SDR
recorder that crashed (fatally) midway through the second tune. Thanks
to a spdf out, on the mixer I used to monitor, the whole concert was
mixed "live to CD" by default. Those stereo mixes were transerred into
SONAR, edited and mastered. It likely sounded 80 to 90% as good as it
would have had I transferred all the individual tracks and processed
and mixed them in sonar ... only it was much, much, less hassle.
Probably best of all, there was no second guessing and obsessing
afterward. The mix I had to work with was the mix I had to work with
and there was precious little I could do about it. I've recorded a
number of other concerts since then and always threaten to mix live to
stereo in the first place, just cause it's so much easier than using a
DAW ... Of course when it actually comes time to go work the gig, my
natural risk aversion kicks in and I haul along the multi-tracker,
anyway. And I also bring along an old fashioned ADAT (or two, as
required)for backup. I just don't trust HD's anymore.

[Kalle L.]

> > Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> > operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> Mike's right. Once I was recording a jazz quartet live on a MACkie SDR
> recorder that crashed (fatally) midway through the second tune. Thanks
> to a spdf out, on the mixer I used to monitor, the whole concert was
> mixed "live to CD" by default. Those stereo mixes were transerred into
> SONAR, edited and mastered. It likely sounded 80 to 90% as good as it
> would have had I transferred all the individual tracks and processed
> and mixed them in sonar ... only it was much, much, less hassle.

Thanks for the advices, guys. I know what you mean.

However, I'm really used to mixing in DAW nowadays. Actually, I
automate everything, that seems to have become 'my way of mixing'.
Before I changed to DAW, I wouldn't have dreamed of it though.

Plus with this project, I really want to tweak things, and try to make
it as fault-free as possible, musically too. There isn't too much
leakage, so I can keep the erroneous licks, notes etc. down a bit,
while bringing up some other instrument(s). Having a 9-guy -band
enables a bit of that, there's always something interesting going on..

The arrangement part of this band has never been the best because of
very little time spent rehearsing together. So I'm kinda looking
forward to take a shot at it with my mix. I'm sure that the recording
will maintain its energy level, since the singers are really good, and
provided very passionate performances. So I keep the vocal tracks as
the centerpiece of this 'painting'.

But boy, is that Ethernet transfer slow or what! This 2 hour gig and
its tracks take take about 10 hours to transfer :))

[Kalle L.]

> > Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> > operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> Mike's right. Once I was recording a jazz quartet live on a MACkie SDR
> recorder that crashed (fatally) midway through the second tune. Thanks
> to a spdf out, on the mixer I used to monitor, the whole concert was
> mixed "live to CD" by default. Those stereo mixes were transerred into
> SONAR, edited and mastered. It likely sounded 80 to 90% as good as it
> would have had I transferred all the individual tracks and processed
> and mixed them in sonar ... only it was much, much, less hassle.

Thanks for the advices, guys. I know what you mean.

However, I'm really used to mixing in DAW nowadays. Actually, I
automate everything, that seems to have become 'my way of mixing'.
Before I changed to DAW, I wouldn't have dreamed of it though.

Plus with this project, I really want to tweak things, and try to make
it as fault-free as possible, musically too. There isn't too much
leakage, so I can keep the erroneous licks, notes etc. down a bit,
while bringing up some other instrument(s). Having a 9-guy -band
enables a bit of that, there's always something interesting going on..

The arrangement part of this band has never been the best because of
very little time spent rehearsing together. So I'm kinda looking
forward to take a shot at it with my mix. I'm sure that the recording
will maintain its energy level, since the singers are really good, and
provided very passionate performances. So I keep the vocal tracks as
the centerpiece of this 'painting'.

But boy, is that Ethernet transfer slow or what! This 2 hour gig and
its tracks take take about 10 hours to transfer :))

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
(Kalle L.) wrote:

> Thanks to the responses here earlier, it's clear for me how to import
> them to Cubase and mix the whole gig there as a one bunch, and then
> separate the songs afterwards, after mastering.

This is not always the best idea. I did one of these a few years ago,
and for that project, each song came from a different set, so there was
little setup to share among tracks. In your situation, all the tracks
are from the same set, but I think you'll still end up better off mixing
each song separately.

It's a good idea to start with all the tracks in one big session, but at
some point it makes sense to split off each song into a separate session
as your mixes start to diverge from each other. In the end, you will
end up with a separate mix session for each song.

> - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> during mastering?

There's not so much difference mixing live recordings and studio
recordings. Apply effects just like you would do for a studio
recording. Of course, you probably have more bleed into the various
tracks because they were tracked live on stage, but keep in mind that
some people make studio recordings this way too, and this bleed can be
used to good advantage.

Don't rely on a common reverb during mastering. Make each mix sound
good on its own and then use mastering to get the tracks to make sense
next to each other.

> - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.

You need to handle applause between songs in some way, and there are
several approaches. One is to completely fake the whole thing and cut
and paste the applause you want where you want it. This worked well for
our project, and since the songs spanned many different sets, there
really was no good way to be 'authentic' with applause anyway. The end
result was completely fake, but it sounded very natural.

In your case, you do have a continuous recording, but it's not clear
that a listener at home would want to sit through the various tuning /
beer / chitchat breaks that happened live. If the show wasn't a
seamless, two hour masterpiece with absolutely no dead moments as
tracked, then consider condensing this stuff down and making it suitable
for a home listener.

One final technical thing: at the end and beginning of each song, make
sure to "mix" the applause so it sounds right next to each track. You
may want to duplicate the room mike track and use one track for the
music mix and another for the applause between songs. Turn the applause
track down during the music mix and turn the music mix's room mike track
down during the applause. That way, any odd EQ tricks you did to make
the room mikes sound palatable for the mix won't mess up the sound of
the crowd between songs, and it'll be easier to cut the songs together
in mastering; you'll be cutting between flat room mikes.

Leave crowd sounds before and after each music mix to make it easier to
assemble in mastering. Even if you elect to add fake/imported applause
between tracks, it's useful to have some clean applause at the heads and
tails of each song's mix to make it easier to edit the fake stuff in.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
(Kalle L.) wrote:

> Thanks to the responses here earlier, it's clear for me how to import
> them to Cubase and mix the whole gig there as a one bunch, and then
> separate the songs afterwards, after mastering.

This is not always the best idea. I did one of these a few years ago,
and for that project, each song came from a different set, so there was
little setup to share among tracks. In your situation, all the tracks
are from the same set, but I think you'll still end up better off mixing
each song separately.

It's a good idea to start with all the tracks in one big session, but at
some point it makes sense to split off each song into a separate session
as your mixes start to diverge from each other. In the end, you will
end up with a separate mix session for each song.

> - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> during mastering?

There's not so much difference mixing live recordings and studio
recordings. Apply effects just like you would do for a studio
recording. Of course, you probably have more bleed into the various
tracks because they were tracked live on stage, but keep in mind that
some people make studio recordings this way too, and this bleed can be
used to good advantage.

Don't rely on a common reverb during mastering. Make each mix sound
good on its own and then use mastering to get the tracks to make sense
next to each other.

> - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.

You need to handle applause between songs in some way, and there are
several approaches. One is to completely fake the whole thing and cut
and paste the applause you want where you want it. This worked well for
our project, and since the songs spanned many different sets, there
really was no good way to be 'authentic' with applause anyway. The end
result was completely fake, but it sounded very natural.

In your case, you do have a continuous recording, but it's not clear
that a listener at home would want to sit through the various tuning /
beer / chitchat breaks that happened live. If the show wasn't a
seamless, two hour masterpiece with absolutely no dead moments as
tracked, then consider condensing this stuff down and making it suitable
for a home listener.

One final technical thing: at the end and beginning of each song, make
sure to "mix" the applause so it sounds right next to each track. You
may want to duplicate the room mike track and use one track for the
music mix and another for the applause between songs. Turn the applause
track down during the music mix and turn the music mix's room mike track
down during the applause. That way, any odd EQ tricks you did to make
the room mikes sound palatable for the mix won't mess up the sound of
the crowd between songs, and it'll be easier to cut the songs together
in mastering; you'll be cutting between flat room mikes.

Leave crowd sounds before and after each music mix to make it easier to
assemble in mastering. Even if you elect to add fake/imported applause
between tracks, it's useful to have some clean applause at the heads and
tails of each song's mix to make it easier to edit the fake stuff in.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> But boy, is that Ethernet transfer slow or what! This 2 hour gig and
> its tracks take take about 10 hours to transfer :))

Let it work while you sleep.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> But boy, is that Ethernet transfer slow or what! This 2 hour gig and
> its tracks take take about 10 hours to transfer :))

Let it work while you sleep.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ...I don't get it. What's so special about analog mixing for live
> recordings?

Nothing. That wasn't my statement (nor my intention). I was only
suggesting mixing a live recording like a live recording, and to me,
that means hands on a console. It could be a DAW with a multi-fader
control surface just as well.

The original poster's first message suggested to me that he didn't
have a lot of experience mixing with his DAW, but he has clarified
that. So at the moment, it seem that his major problem is impatience
with the length of time required to transfer data to the DAW. If he
had started an Ethernet transfer when he first asked if there was a
quicker way to do it, he'd be mixing by now.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> ...I don't get it. What's so special about analog mixing for live
> recordings?

Nothing. That wasn't my statement (nor my intention). I was only
suggesting mixing a live recording like a live recording, and to me,
that means hands on a console. It could be a DAW with a multi-fader
control surface just as well.

The original poster's first message suggested to me that he didn't
have a lot of experience mixing with his DAW, but he has clarified
that. So at the moment, it seem that his major problem is impatience
with the length of time required to transfer data to the DAW. If he
had started an Ethernet transfer when he first asked if there was a
quicker way to do it, he'd be mixing by now.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Logan Shaw]

Kalle L. wrote:
> But boy, is that Ethernet transfer slow or what! This 2 hour gig and
> its tracks take take about 10 hours to transfer :))

Are you using plain Ethernet (10 megabit) or Fast Ethernet (100 megabit)?

Either way, Gigabit Ethernet is getting very cheap these days. If
you have two PCs that are transferring between each other, it's
probably around $100 or $200 to replace your switch with a gigabit
one and both PC's Ethernet cards with Gigabit Ethernet ones.

Since Gigabit Ethernet is 10 times as fast as Fast Ethernet and
100 times as fast as regular Ethernet (assuming you aren't limited
by other things, like PCI bus speeds or a poor network protocol),
that should improve things a bit.

The point is, transferring over Ethernet definitely does not have
to be slow. With a proper setup, it should be just as fast as
copying from one disk to another on the same machine.

- Logan

[Logan Shaw]

Kalle L. wrote:
> But boy, is that Ethernet transfer slow or what! This 2 hour gig and
> its tracks take take about 10 hours to transfer :))

Are you using plain Ethernet (10 megabit) or Fast Ethernet (100 megabit)?

Either way, Gigabit Ethernet is getting very cheap these days. If
you have two PCs that are transferring between each other, it's
probably around $100 or $200 to replace your switch with a gigabit
one and both PC's Ethernet cards with Gigabit Ethernet ones.

Since Gigabit Ethernet is 10 times as fast as Fast Ethernet and
100 times as fast as regular Ethernet (assuming you aren't limited
by other things, like PCI bus speeds or a poor network protocol),
that should improve things a bit.

The point is, transferring over Ethernet definitely does not have
to be slow. With a proper setup, it should be just as fast as
copying from one disk to another on the same machine.

- Logan

[Logan Shaw]

Logan Shaw wrote:

> Kalle L. wrote:
>
>>But boy, is that Ethernet transfer slow or what! This 2 hour gig and
>>its tracks take take about 10 hours to transfer :))

> The point is, transferring over Ethernet definitely does not have
> to be slow. With a proper setup, it should be just as fast as
> copying from one disk to another on the same machine.

Ooops, scanned back further in the thread and realized you meant
ethernet transfer from an Alesis HD24, which I guess means you're
forced to use 10 megabit. Which sucks, yeah...

- Logan

[Logan Shaw]

Logan Shaw wrote:

> Kalle L. wrote:
>
>>But boy, is that Ethernet transfer slow or what! This 2 hour gig and
>>its tracks take take about 10 hours to transfer :))

> The point is, transferring over Ethernet definitely does not have
> to be slow. With a proper setup, it should be just as fast as
> copying from one disk to another on the same machine.

Ooops, scanned back further in the thread and realized you meant
ethernet transfer from an Alesis HD24, which I guess means you're
forced to use 10 megabit. Which sucks, yeah...

- Logan

[Kalle]

> Let it work while you sleep.

Yep, that's what I've done now, and it's a good way to do this.

And yeah, I'm pretty impatient with getting to start mixing this thing. This
is my first experience with Alesis HD24 and the transferring via Ethernet. I
wanted to use Ethernet, since it seemed to be the most simplest way to do
it: just transfer the files and import them all to the same project in
Cubase, with the same starting point.

The main delay with this project is that I'm waiting my new soundcard from
the supplier... should arrive next week. Meanwhile, I can't do anything
about this. Except the transfer, which is now done.

Thanks for the advices.

Kalle

[Kalle]

> Let it work while you sleep.

Yep, that's what I've done now, and it's a good way to do this.

And yeah, I'm pretty impatient with getting to start mixing this thing. This
is my first experience with Alesis HD24 and the transferring via Ethernet. I
wanted to use Ethernet, since it seemed to be the most simplest way to do
it: just transfer the files and import them all to the same project in
Cubase, with the same starting point.

The main delay with this project is that I'm waiting my new soundcard from
the supplier... should arrive next week. Meanwhile, I can't do anything
about this. Except the transfer, which is now done.

Thanks for the advices.

Kalle

[EggHd]

Was this show just one band or multi bands?


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

Was this show just one band or multi bands?


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Kalle]

This was just one show of one band. 2 hour gig.

Kalle

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> Was this show just one band or multi bands?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Kalle]

This was just one show of one band. 2 hour gig.

Kalle

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> Was this show just one band or multi bands?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Kalle]

Thanks Monte, I found your reply to be very informative.

Kalle

"Monte McGuire" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Kalle L.) wrote:
>
> > Thanks to the responses here earlier, it's clear for me how to import
> > them to Cubase and mix the whole gig there as a one bunch, and then
> > separate the songs afterwards, after mastering.
>
> This is not always the best idea. I did one of these a few years ago,
> and for that project, each song came from a different set, so there was
> little setup to share among tracks. In your situation, all the tracks
> are from the same set, but I think you'll still end up better off mixing
> each song separately.
>
> It's a good idea to start with all the tracks in one big session, but at
> some point it makes sense to split off each song into a separate session
> as your mixes start to diverge from each other. In the end, you will
> end up with a separate mix session for each song.
>
> > - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> > - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> > be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> > mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> > during mastering?
>
> There's not so much difference mixing live recordings and studio
> recordings. Apply effects just like you would do for a studio
> recording. Of course, you probably have more bleed into the various
> tracks because they were tracked live on stage, but keep in mind that
> some people make studio recordings this way too, and this bleed can be
> used to good advantage.
>
> Don't rely on a common reverb during mastering. Make each mix sound
> good on its own and then use mastering to get the tracks to make sense
> next to each other.
>
> > - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> > interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> > recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.
>
> You need to handle applause between songs in some way, and there are
> several approaches. One is to completely fake the whole thing and cut
> and paste the applause you want where you want it. This worked well for
> our project, and since the songs spanned many different sets, there
> really was no good way to be 'authentic' with applause anyway. The end
> result was completely fake, but it sounded very natural.
>
> In your case, you do have a continuous recording, but it's not clear
> that a listener at home would want to sit through the various tuning /
> beer / chitchat breaks that happened live. If the show wasn't a
> seamless, two hour masterpiece with absolutely no dead moments as
> tracked, then consider condensing this stuff down and making it suitable
> for a home listener.
>
> One final technical thing: at the end and beginning of each song, make
> sure to "mix" the applause so it sounds right next to each track. You
> may want to duplicate the room mike track and use one track for the
> music mix and another for the applause between songs. Turn the applause
> track down during the music mix and turn the music mix's room mike track
> down during the applause. That way, any odd EQ tricks you did to make
> the room mikes sound palatable for the mix won't mess up the sound of
> the crowd between songs, and it'll be easier to cut the songs together
> in mastering; you'll be cutting between flat room mikes.
>
> Leave crowd sounds before and after each music mix to make it easier to
> assemble in mastering. Even if you elect to add fake/imported applause
> between tracks, it's useful to have some clean applause at the heads and
> tails of each song's mix to make it easier to edit the fake stuff in.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Monte McGuire
>

[Kalle]

Thanks Monte, I found your reply to be very informative.

Kalle

"Monte McGuire" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Kalle L.) wrote:
>
> > Thanks to the responses here earlier, it's clear for me how to import
> > them to Cubase and mix the whole gig there as a one bunch, and then
> > separate the songs afterwards, after mastering.
>
> This is not always the best idea. I did one of these a few years ago,
> and for that project, each song came from a different set, so there was
> little setup to share among tracks. In your situation, all the tracks
> are from the same set, but I think you'll still end up better off mixing
> each song separately.
>
> It's a good idea to start with all the tracks in one big session, but at
> some point it makes sense to split off each song into a separate session
> as your mixes start to diverge from each other. In the end, you will
> end up with a separate mix session for each song.
>
> > - should I apply any stereo effects to these mono tracks?
> > - Also, since the tracks are now dry, the sound of a live room should
> > be applied from somewhere... is it preferred to do that from the room
> > mic tracks, or reverbs/delays on tracks or just from one common reverb
> > during mastering?
>
> There's not so much difference mixing live recordings and studio
> recordings. Apply effects just like you would do for a studio
> recording. Of course, you probably have more bleed into the various
> tracks because they were tracked live on stage, but keep in mind that
> some people make studio recordings this way too, and this bleed can be
> used to good advantage.
>
> Don't rely on a common reverb during mastering. Make each mix sound
> good on its own and then use mastering to get the tracks to make sense
> next to each other.
>
> > - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> > interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> > recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.
>
> You need to handle applause between songs in some way, and there are
> several approaches. One is to completely fake the whole thing and cut
> and paste the applause you want where you want it. This worked well for
> our project, and since the songs spanned many different sets, there
> really was no good way to be 'authentic' with applause anyway. The end
> result was completely fake, but it sounded very natural.
>
> In your case, you do have a continuous recording, but it's not clear
> that a listener at home would want to sit through the various tuning /
> beer / chitchat breaks that happened live. If the show wasn't a
> seamless, two hour masterpiece with absolutely no dead moments as
> tracked, then consider condensing this stuff down and making it suitable
> for a home listener.
>
> One final technical thing: at the end and beginning of each song, make
> sure to "mix" the applause so it sounds right next to each track. You
> may want to duplicate the room mike track and use one track for the
> music mix and another for the applause between songs. Turn the applause
> track down during the music mix and turn the music mix's room mike track
> down during the applause. That way, any odd EQ tricks you did to make
> the room mikes sound palatable for the mix won't mess up the sound of
> the crowd between songs, and it'll be easier to cut the songs together
> in mastering; you'll be cutting between flat room mikes.
>
> Leave crowd sounds before and after each music mix to make it easier to
> assemble in mastering. Even if you elect to add fake/imported applause
> between tracks, it's useful to have some clean applause at the heads and
> tails of each song's mix to make it easier to edit the fake stuff in.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Monte McGuire
>

[EggHd]

<< This was just one show of one band. 2 hour gig.

Kalle >>

I agree that Monte's response was very on the money.

What I would do is use the whole show as a general mix - meaning just let it
run and work on the mix.

Then I would print each song with the tweaks needed for that song and overlap
the starts and ends of crowd to be edited together in mastering.


At that point you can edit out all the crap you don't want in between songs,
etc.

Also find some good places with audience response after a song and make a mix
of that to use in places that didn't get the reaction you wanted.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< This was just one show of one band. 2 hour gig.

Kalle >>

I agree that Monte's response was very on the money.

What I would do is use the whole show as a general mix - meaning just let it
run and work on the mix.

Then I would print each song with the tweaks needed for that song and overlap
the starts and ends of crowd to be edited together in mastering.


At that point you can edit out all the crap you don't want in between songs,
etc.

Also find some good places with audience response after a song and make a mix
of that to use in places that didn't get the reaction you wanted.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Peter Larsen]

"Kalle L." wrote:

> - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.

Draw a map of the stage setup, you should aim for keeping the left-right
placements of things, do not try to pan anything across the center-line,
rather try to recreate the imaginary "no pa" panorama of the stage. Go
easy on individual channel compression because it will modulate also the
ambience contribution from that channel.

> Kalle


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

"Kalle L." wrote:

> - if you have any additional thoughts/tips for me, I would be
> interested in hearing them! I'm not familiar with mixing live
> recordings, only done mixing of studio recordings before.

Draw a map of the stage setup, you should aim for keeping the left-right
placements of things, do not try to pan anything across the center-line,
rather try to recreate the imaginary "no pa" panorama of the stage. Go
easy on individual channel compression because it will modulate also the
ambience contribution from that channel.

> Kalle


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Laurence Payne]

On 27 Sep 2004 10:27:25 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
>files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
>to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.
>
>Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
>operate a DAW as a mixer.

Surely this just tells us that YOU are happier mixing on a console?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 27 Sep 2004 10:27:25 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
>files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
>to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.
>
>Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
>operate a DAW as a mixer.

Surely this just tells us that YOU are happier mixing on a console?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 27 Sep 2004 23:57:19 -0700, (Kalle L.) wrote:

>Plus with this project, I really want to tweak things, and try to make
>it as fault-free as possible, musically too. There isn't too much
>leakage, so I can keep the erroneous licks, notes etc. down a bit,
>while bringing up some other instrument(s). Having a 9-guy -band
>enables a bit of that, there's always something interesting going on.

I hope the band approve of your musical megalomania. Perhaps they'd
rather hear what they played?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On 27 Sep 2004 23:57:19 -0700, (Kalle L.) wrote:

>Plus with this project, I really want to tweak things, and try to make
>it as fault-free as possible, musically too. There isn't too much
>leakage, so I can keep the erroneous licks, notes etc. down a bit,
>while bringing up some other instrument(s). Having a 9-guy -band
>enables a bit of that, there's always something interesting going on.

I hope the band approve of your musical megalomania. Perhaps they'd
rather hear what they played?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:05:58 +0300, "Kalle" >
wrote:

>The main delay with this project is that I'm waiting my new soundcard from
>the supplier... should arrive next week. Meanwhile, I can't do anything
>about this. Except the transfer, which is now done.

You can start mixing with any old sound card. As the end result will
doubtless be a wav file, it's only being used for monitoring.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:05:58 +0300, "Kalle" >
wrote:

>The main delay with this project is that I'm waiting my new soundcard from
>the supplier... should arrive next week. Meanwhile, I can't do anything
>about this. Except the transfer, which is now done.

You can start mixing with any old sound card. As the end result will
doubtless be a wav file, it's only being used for monitoring.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On 27 Sep 2004 10:27:25 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
>wrote:
>
>>Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
>>files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
>>to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.
>>
>>Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
>>operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
>Surely this just tells us that YOU are happier mixing on a console?

I'm happier mixing on a console too. I advise the original poster to try
it. Either you'll find it easier or not, but you won't know until you
try.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On 27 Sep 2004 10:27:25 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
>wrote:
>
>>Here's the most practical tip you'll get. Forget transferring the
>>files to Cubase. Plug the recorder outputs into a mixing console, mix
>>to stereo, and record the stereo mix in Cubase. Then edit and tweak.
>>
>>Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
>>operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
>Surely this just tells us that YOU are happier mixing on a console?

I'm happier mixing on a console too. I advise the original poster to try
it. Either you'll find it easier or not, but you won't know until you
try.
--scott

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1096284470k@trad

> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> operate a DAW as a mixer.

Reason being????

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1096284470k@trad

> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> operate a DAW as a mixer.

Reason being????

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> > operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> Reason being????

Too much leakage to tell one track from another. You'll do too much
fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> > operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> Reason being????

Too much leakage to tell one track from another. You'll do too much
fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1096928927k@trad

> In article >
> writes:

>>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
>>> operate a DAW as a mixer.

>> Reason being????

> Too much leakage to tell one track from another.

I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
problem.

> You'll do too much
> fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
> Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.

IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1096928927k@trad

> In article >
> writes:

>>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
>>> operate a DAW as a mixer.

>> Reason being????

> Too much leakage to tell one track from another.

I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
problem.

> You'll do too much
> fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
> Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.

IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.

[Peter Larsen]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On 27 Sep 2004 23:57:19 -0700, (Kalle L.) wrote:

> >Plus with this project, I really want to tweak things, and try to make
> >it as fault-free as possible, musically too. There isn't too much
> >leakage, so I can keep the erroneous licks, notes etc. down a bit,
> >while bringing up some other instrument(s). Having a 9-guy -band
> >enables a bit of that, there's always something interesting going on.

> I hope the band approve of your musical megalomania. Perhaps they'd
> rather hear what they played?

There is also the issue of the image changes that will be caused by gain
riding, some of the very first advice in this thread was to aim for
static faders so as to keep the ambience contribution constant. Sound
engineering mostly is NOT about doing as much as possible, but rather
about doing as little as possible.

> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On 27 Sep 2004 23:57:19 -0700, (Kalle L.) wrote:

> >Plus with this project, I really want to tweak things, and try to make
> >it as fault-free as possible, musically too. There isn't too much
> >leakage, so I can keep the erroneous licks, notes etc. down a bit,
> >while bringing up some other instrument(s). Having a 9-guy -band
> >enables a bit of that, there's always something interesting going on.

> I hope the band approve of your musical megalomania. Perhaps they'd
> rather hear what they played?

There is also the issue of the image changes that will be caused by gain
riding, some of the very first advice in this thread was to aim for
static faders so as to keep the ambience contribution constant. Sound
engineering mostly is NOT about doing as much as possible, but rather
about doing as little as possible.

> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>news:znr1096928927k@trad
>
>> In article >
>> writes:
>
>>>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
>>>> operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
>>> Reason being????
>
>> Too much leakage to tell one track from another.

This is a problem, but it's also a problem when mixing with a real console
too.

>I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
>problem.
>
>> You'll do too much
>> fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
>> Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.
>
>IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.

Probably has more to do with the bands than your miking. Dealing with a
heavy backline changes everything, and sadly not for the better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>news:znr1096928927k@trad
>
>> In article >
>> writes:
>
>>>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
>>>> operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
>>> Reason being????
>
>> Too much leakage to tell one track from another.

This is a problem, but it's also a problem when mixing with a real console
too.

>I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
>problem.
>
>> You'll do too much
>> fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
>> Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.
>
>IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.

Probably has more to do with the bands than your miking. Dealing with a
heavy backline changes everything, and sadly not for the better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
> problem.

Leakage is rarely a problem, but inexperienced people think it is. And
inexperienced people are likely to spend much more time fooling around
on a DAW than on an analog console and get no better a mix.

It's not a problem with the technology, it's a problem with the
psychology.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
> problem.

Leakage is rarely a problem, but inexperienced people think it is. And
inexperienced people are likely to spend much more time fooling around
on a DAW than on an analog console and get no better a mix.

It's not a problem with the technology, it's a problem with the
psychology.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike]

Peter Larsen > wrote in message >...
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>
> > On 27 Sep 2004 23:57:19 -0700, (Kalle L.) wrote:
>
> > >Plus with this project, I really want to tweak things, and try to make
> > >it as fault-free as possible, musically too. There isn't too much
> > >leakage, so I can keep the erroneous licks, notes etc. down a bit,
> > >while bringing up some other instrument(s). Having a 9-guy -band
> > >enables a bit of that, there's always something interesting going on.
>
> > I hope the band approve of your musical megalomania. Perhaps they'd
> > rather hear what they played?
>
> There is also the issue of the image changes that will be caused by gain
> riding, some of the very first advice in this thread was to aim for
> static faders so as to keep the ambience contribution constant. Sound
> engineering mostly is NOT about doing as much as possible, but rather
> about doing as little as possible.
>
> > CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> > "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Doing live recordings is nearly as thankless as live sound. Hard to
satisfy people. I generally give client a rough mix that just sets pan
and without a bunch of twidding around, but one that attempts,
sometimes from a bit of equing and compression, to balance the sound.
They often then want a bunch of tweaking but certainly if you do it
without first giving them a shot at listening they may be ****ed.

Next what happens is after head honcho says do this and mix that the
other musicians a PO'd about their place in the mix etc.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike]

Peter Larsen > wrote in message >...
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>
> > On 27 Sep 2004 23:57:19 -0700, (Kalle L.) wrote:
>
> > >Plus with this project, I really want to tweak things, and try to make
> > >it as fault-free as possible, musically too. There isn't too much
> > >leakage, so I can keep the erroneous licks, notes etc. down a bit,
> > >while bringing up some other instrument(s). Having a 9-guy -band
> > >enables a bit of that, there's always something interesting going on.
>
> > I hope the band approve of your musical megalomania. Perhaps they'd
> > rather hear what they played?
>
> There is also the issue of the image changes that will be caused by gain
> riding, some of the very first advice in this thread was to aim for
> static faders so as to keep the ambience contribution constant. Sound
> engineering mostly is NOT about doing as much as possible, but rather
> about doing as little as possible.
>
> > CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> > "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Doing live recordings is nearly as thankless as live sound. Hard to
satisfy people. I generally give client a rough mix that just sets pan
and without a bunch of twidding around, but one that attempts,
sometimes from a bit of equing and compression, to balance the sound.
They often then want a bunch of tweaking but certainly if you do it
without first giving them a shot at listening they may be ****ed.

Next what happens is after head honcho says do this and mix that the
other musicians a PO'd about their place in the mix etc.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> news:znr1096928927k@trad
>
> > In article >
> > writes:
>
> >>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> >>> operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> >> Reason being????
>
> > Too much leakage to tell one track from another.
>
> I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
> problem.
>
> > You'll do too much
> > fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
> > Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.
>
> IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.


Maybe he is referring to a stereo mix? Or the drum mics? Not sure. You
can definately hear the difference between tracks. But there is
leakage. As I said before, too much leakage can make the recording
sound muddy. Usually prettuy curable with equing. Gating can work to
but as others stated it messes with teh ambient imagery.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> news:znr1096928927k@trad
>
> > In article >
> > writes:
>
> >>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> >>> operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> >> Reason being????
>
> > Too much leakage to tell one track from another.
>
> I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
> problem.
>
> > You'll do too much
> > fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
> > Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.
>
> IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.


Maybe he is referring to a stereo mix? Or the drum mics? Not sure. You
can definately hear the difference between tracks. But there is
leakage. As I said before, too much leakage can make the recording
sound muddy. Usually prettuy curable with equing. Gating can work to
but as others stated it messes with teh ambient imagery.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> news:znr1096928927k@trad
>
> > In article >
> > writes:
>
> >>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> >>> operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> >> Reason being????
>
> > Too much leakage to tell one track from another.
>
> I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
> problem.
>
> > You'll do too much
> > fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
> > Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.
>
> IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.

More likely the mics then the technique I would think? Heavier, louder
rock, close micing becomes more important. Vocal mics can have massive
bleed. Can turn into total mud. I had some people using side fill
monitors on a shallow stage and they bled into the guitar cab mics a
lot and totally ruined one guitar track.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> news:znr1096928927k@trad
>
> > In article >
> > writes:
>
> >>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> >>> operate a DAW as a mixer.
>
> >> Reason being????
>
> > Too much leakage to tell one track from another.
>
> I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
> problem.
>
> > You'll do too much
> > fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
> > Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.
>
> IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.

More likely the mics then the technique I would think? Heavier, louder
rock, close micing becomes more important. Vocal mics can have massive
bleed. Can turn into total mud. I had some people using side fill
monitors on a shallow stage and they bled into the guitar cab mics a
lot and totally ruined one guitar track.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Mike Rivers" wrote:
>
> > arnyk writes:

> >>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> >>> operate a DAW as a mixer.

> >> Reason being????

> > Too much leakage to tell one track from another.

> I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
> problem.

> > You'll do too much
> > fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
> > Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.

> IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.

If this is the stuff happening in your church then given your previous
discussion of what is being used for stage mons you haven't enough going
on SPL-wise to meet the type of problems folks running sound for more
serious backlines meet.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Mike Rivers" wrote:
>
> > arnyk writes:

> >>> Live tracks aren't a particularly good source for learning how to
> >>> operate a DAW as a mixer.

> >> Reason being????

> > Too much leakage to tell one track from another.

> I do mixdowns of live recordings all the time, and leakage just isn't a
> problem.

> > You'll do too much
> > fiddling on a DAW trying to fix this and you won't be able to do it.
> > Nobody can resist. The force is too strong.

> IME, not a problem. Must be my micing technique.

If this is the stuff happening in your church then given your previous
discussion of what is being used for stage mons you haven't enough going
on SPL-wise to meet the type of problems folks running sound for more
serious backlines meet.

--
ha

[Rob Reedijk]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. A couple of weeks ago I recorded
a 6 piece jazz group in a club to a single DA88. A turned out quite
well. Here are a few things that I can share:

I mic'ed everything seperately. In otherwords, the PA had its set of mics
and I had my set. With only 8 tracks (actually 7 since the keyboard
was a split off the DI), this was not too awkward. This allowed me to
use mics that would not have been appropriate for SR.

Bleed is good. In fact, there were two horn players. The sax got
a BLUE Lollipop/452EB and the trumpet got an MD409. The BLUE picks
off tonnes of off-axis sound while the 409 has an extremely tight
pattern and there was very little there but trumpet. I wish I had also
used a BLUE Lolli on the trumpet because the bleed filled in very
nicely on the sax, and having two up at the front would have served
as a nice "main pair".

I mixed from a harddrive through analog with automation. Being able to
edit was good since I "fixed" some flubbed notes. I have to admit that
it was the trumpet player, so having a tight pattern served me well.
(Bleed is bad?). Automation is useful, as long as it doesn't slow
you down.

Next time, I will set up my postition further from the band. They were
so damn loud that I couldn't really monitor much from the headphones.
Basically once I figured everything was working correctly, I left the
headphones on with no sound in them. To protect my hearing.

Rob R.

[Rob Reedijk]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. A couple of weeks ago I recorded
a 6 piece jazz group in a club to a single DA88. A turned out quite
well. Here are a few things that I can share:

I mic'ed everything seperately. In otherwords, the PA had its set of mics
and I had my set. With only 8 tracks (actually 7 since the keyboard
was a split off the DI), this was not too awkward. This allowed me to
use mics that would not have been appropriate for SR.

Bleed is good. In fact, there were two horn players. The sax got
a BLUE Lollipop/452EB and the trumpet got an MD409. The BLUE picks
off tonnes of off-axis sound while the 409 has an extremely tight
pattern and there was very little there but trumpet. I wish I had also
used a BLUE Lolli on the trumpet because the bleed filled in very
nicely on the sax, and having two up at the front would have served
as a nice "main pair".

I mixed from a harddrive through analog with automation. Being able to
edit was good since I "fixed" some flubbed notes. I have to admit that
it was the trumpet player, so having a tight pattern served me well.
(Bleed is bad?). Automation is useful, as long as it doesn't slow
you down.

Next time, I will set up my postition further from the band. They were
so damn loud that I couldn't really monitor much from the headphones.
Basically once I figured everything was working correctly, I left the
headphones on with no sound in them. To protect my hearing.

Rob R.

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
Rob Reedijk > wrote:
> I have enjoyed reading this thread. A couple of weeks ago I recorded
> a 6 piece jazz group in a club to a single DA88. A turned out quite
> well. Here are a few things that I can share:
[snip]

Glad to hear it went well! There's always a lot of hauling and sweat
involved in remote recording, and it's nice when you get something nice
for all your work.

> Next time, I will set up my postition further from the band. They were
> so damn loud that I couldn't really monitor much from the headphones.
> Basically once I figured everything was working correctly, I left the
> headphones on with no sound in them. To protect my hearing.

I'm not sure you'll do much better trying to monitor far away, and you
might have to use much longer mike cables.

My plan is usually to roll a minute of them performing at soundcheck /
setup and try to see how well it'll mix. I'll make adjustments, perhaps
tweak their monitoring (if you're providing any) and try another short
pass. After things have settled own, my goal is to listen for broken
equipment or other exotic problems, and try not to futz with the knob
settings so that the recording is technically consistent from start to
finish.

It's just not possible to monitor IMHO unless you're in another room
entirely, so I basically forget about that and just print good tracks.

In a club setting, the above technique might not be practical, so I'll
just use "standard" mike positions and hope for the best. With a
multimiked recording, this often works out just fine; it's with the
array / single pair recordings that you really want to tweak the pair
before you record, since there is so little you can do after the fact.


Best of luck,

Monte McGuire

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
Rob Reedijk > wrote:
> I have enjoyed reading this thread. A couple of weeks ago I recorded
> a 6 piece jazz group in a club to a single DA88. A turned out quite
> well. Here are a few things that I can share:
[snip]

Glad to hear it went well! There's always a lot of hauling and sweat
involved in remote recording, and it's nice when you get something nice
for all your work.

> Next time, I will set up my postition further from the band. They were
> so damn loud that I couldn't really monitor much from the headphones.
> Basically once I figured everything was working correctly, I left the
> headphones on with no sound in them. To protect my hearing.

I'm not sure you'll do much better trying to monitor far away, and you
might have to use much longer mike cables.

My plan is usually to roll a minute of them performing at soundcheck /
setup and try to see how well it'll mix. I'll make adjustments, perhaps
tweak their monitoring (if you're providing any) and try another short
pass. After things have settled own, my goal is to listen for broken
equipment or other exotic problems, and try not to futz with the knob
settings so that the recording is technically consistent from start to
finish.

It's just not possible to monitor IMHO unless you're in another room
entirely, so I basically forget about that and just print good tracks.

In a club setting, the above technique might not be practical, so I'll
just use "standard" mike positions and hope for the best. With a
multimiked recording, this often works out just fine; it's with the
array / single pair recordings that you really want to tweak the pair
before you record, since there is so little you can do after the fact.


Best of luck,

Monte McGuire

[Peter Larsen]

Rob Reedijk wrote:

> Next time, I will set up my postition further from the band.
> They were so damn loud that I couldn't really monitor much
> from the headphones.

Get some earplugs, wear them for the entire event, also under the
headphones OR get etymotic headphones, reportedly they double as valid
ear protection.

> Basically once I figured everything was working correctly, I left the
> headphones on with no sound in them. To protect my hearing.

Commonly used, and frequently very well advised emergency ploy. You are
generally better off wearing the ear protection in advance, so that your
hearing has adjusted to it and keeping it on.

It is very useful to put a wee tiny marker on the headphone volume
control for max wise setting while at home or at the very least to make
a mental note of it. A physical marker seems to stick better than mental
notes ....

> Rob R.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Rob Reedijk wrote:

> Next time, I will set up my postition further from the band.
> They were so damn loud that I couldn't really monitor much
> from the headphones.

Get some earplugs, wear them for the entire event, also under the
headphones OR get etymotic headphones, reportedly they double as valid
ear protection.

> Basically once I figured everything was working correctly, I left the
> headphones on with no sound in them. To protect my hearing.

Commonly used, and frequently very well advised emergency ploy. You are
generally better off wearing the ear protection in advance, so that your
hearing has adjusted to it and keeping it on.

It is very useful to put a wee tiny marker on the headphone volume
control for max wise setting while at home or at the very least to make
a mental note of it. A physical marker seems to stick better than mental
notes ....

> Rob R.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Kalle L.]

Rob Reedijk > wrote in message > I have enjoyed reading this thread. A couple of weeks ago I recorded
> a 6 piece jazz group in a club to a single DA88. A turned out quite
> well.

Glad that this thead could be of help and interest to you... it has
been for me. I thought I'd give the update of where I'm now with this
thing. Maybe boring for the real pro's, but at least they'll get a
laugh out of it ;)

I have now mixed roughly about 1/3 of the songs. I have to say that
this project is a very interesting one: I get to mix the music I love,
I have some kind of reference mixes (remember this is a cover band),
and there was enough 'errors' in the performances & sounds to keep me
busy while mixing :)

So, I did transfer all the tracks from the Alesis HD24. Alesis was
perfect for the recording purposes, since this is a big band, and we
needed a lot of mic's in the first place. So the mixer had to be big,
and this particular one had insert points in all its channels. So
every channel could be routed to dry to Alesis, each track separately.
Pretty ideal. Especially for a band that hasn't rehearsed too much,
and still is figuring who is playing what at what time. This way the
post-gig mixing can have more of an arrangement role.

Once the tracks were in DAW, I imported them into Cubase SX. Easy, and
the tracks were in sync perfectly. I checked the waveforms...they were
not perfect (in bass guitar's case far from it), but this was due a
too short soundcheck and lack of time when checking the recording
levels.

Next, I panned the tracks, and did some serious eq'uing to find a
place for all the instruments in the soundscape. Bleed didn't help,
but wasn't overbearable. Next, I listened almost the whole gig, and
set the rough levels, and experimented with plug-ins and tried to
tweak the instuments some more to find their character which was more
prominent in some tracks than in some others. I decided on the final
drum sounds & levels. I find that I have now applied some heavy
compressor settings to suprisingly many tracks, mostly vocals, sax and
bass.

I also created a 'solo instruments' track, where I would cut and paste
all the solos (guitars, harmonica) to, and panned it center. For this
track I used 'stronger' effects like delays. This helps me not having
to automate the panning & effects of individual tracks while the
instruments in them are playing solos. Plus it's easier to control one
solo track.

Now, having the whole gig in the Cubase project, I started to mix the
songs, one by one. I use 100% automation. Basically, this phase
doesn't seem to differ from mixing of studio recordings. I seem to mix
about 2-4 songs in during an (intense) evening. I find that I edit a
bit, using mute pretty often. Although there was bleed, muting certain
tracks can still be done at times, although you have to pay attention
when the mute starts and ends. I prefer to time them when a section of
a song changes to another. Also, I've have copied and added some snare
hits where some were missing, but only a few. The flow of the music
has to be pretty natural-sounding, that what makes it sound like
'live' and good. IMHO, of course :)

What I've learned so far? Many things, actually I'm learning all the
time. But, in hindsight, I should have paid more attention to avoid
bleed during mic'ing. Also, I should have put up some mic's pointing
at the audience from the stage. Instead, I pointed them from the
mixing desk to the stage. This way, I didn't get the audience response
OR the reverbs of the room.

Mixing with automation within DAW was definitely the right choice (for
me). I'm used to it, at there are so many simultaneous tweaks, in too
many instruments I have to do, that automating was the way to go.
Also, I've found that applying reverbs to individual tracks seem to
work well, insted of trying to re-create to room in the mastering
phase.

Best Regards, Kalle

[Kalle L.]

> I hope the band approve of your musical megalomania. Perhaps they'd
> rather hear what they played?

I guess I could make them a mix of only the room mic's, that way they
could hear the mix as it was live. But this is precisely what they are
bored of. Now we need a recording that sounds as good as possible,
produced if needed...good both sound- and performance-wise, something
that would could be listened over and over again. The energy was there
when it was recorded, now we just need to release that on the CD in
the correct light. ;)

I'm sure after years of audience recordings, there are no bloated egos
with everyone wanting every note they played to be heard on the
recording.

regards, Kalle

[Rob Reedijk]

Monte McGuire > wrote:
> In article >,
> Rob Reedijk > wrote:
>> I have enjoyed reading this thread. A couple of weeks ago I recorded
>> a 6 piece jazz group in a club to a single DA88. A turned out quite

> Glad to hear it went well! There's always a lot of hauling and sweat
> involved in remote recording, and it's nice when you get something nice
> for all your work.

Actually, this was one of my lighter setups. I recently did a full
16 track remote at a cottage where I had complete setup: monitors,
Multiple mix headphone system, talkback speaker, mixdown capability.
I set up a separate control room. But I was there for a week.
Now that fills a large SUV! But wow, did I have a some happy clients.

No club gig was one SKB case, a smaller mixer, some mic stands and
bag with some mics etc. It was almost as easy to haul as the classical
recording rigs I do.

>> Next time, I will set up my postition further from the band. They were
>> so damn loud that I couldn't really monitor much from the headphones.
>> Basically once I figured everything was working correctly, I left the
>> headphones on with no sound in them. To protect my hearing.

> I'm not sure you'll do much better trying to monitor far away, and you
> might have to use much longer mike cables.

I think you are right.

> My plan is usually to roll a minute of them performing at soundcheck /
> setup and try to see how well it'll mix. I'll make adjustments, perhaps
> tweak their monitoring (if you're providing any) and try another short
> pass. After things have settled own, my goal is to listen for broken
> equipment or other exotic problems, and try not to futz with the knob
> settings so that the recording is technically consistent from start to
> finish.

This was pretty much what I did. Except we had a last minute change in
that the percussionist had one of those boxes they use in Flamenco: they
sit on it and there is a soundhole at the back. I grabbed one of the
drum overheads and positioned it. But it was inappropriate for the
instrument, and there is a suprising amount of air movement coming out
of the sound hole.

Live and learn...

> It's just not possible to monitor IMHO unless you're in another room
> entirely, so I basically forget about that and just print good tracks.

> In a club setting, the above technique might not be practical, so I'll
> just use "standard" mike positions and hope for the best. With a
> multimiked recording, this often works out just fine; it's with the
> array / single pair recordings that you really want to tweak the pair
> before you record, since there is so little you can do after the fact.

Thanks Monte. Your posts are always very informative.

Rob R.