I am seeking opinions of anyone willing to share

[Kevin Drysdale]

My goal - to be able to multi-track record in a live
environment without either rig effecting the other. So,
live FOH mix can not effect recording, and recording can not
effect FOH mix. My current requirements is only 16 channels
but would like some room to grow.

Ok...I have 2 options that I am considering.

Option #1:
Use solely a Tascam DM-4800 for both live FOH mix and the
recording mix. Assign channels 1-24 to channels 1-24 for
live mixing, and also assign the same channels to 25-32
(pre-EQ, pre-fader) for recording. This gives me 8 channels
of growth before needing to upgrade the console or add
additional inputs in an expansion slot. Get the additional
firewire add-on so it can act as an interface and controller
for my DAW. Total cost is about $6000 CAD

Option #2:
Split my signal coming in with a hardware splitter (cost yet
to be determined). One signal path going to live FOH setup
(which I currently have and is working fine) and the other
signal path going to recording rig.

Recording rig would consist of 3 RME Octamic D's giving me
24 channels of input (costing about $4950 CAD). Interface
to PC with RME HDSP 9652 (costing about $600 CAD).

As far as DAW controller I am not sure what I would do. At
this point I am close to the budget I was hoping to maintain
for hardware so I might have to mix with software only for
the time being.


So...I am seeking the opinion of professionals to see what
you would do. Stick with a hardware splitters and pres or
go digital and keep it all in one "box." Anyone care to
share their thoughts on this??

Kevin

[Terry Dupuy]

On Feb 5, 5:59 pm, Kevin Drysdale > wrote:
> My goal - to be able to multi-track record in a live
> environment without either rig effecting the other. So,
> live FOH mix can not effect recording, and recording can not
> effect FOH mix. My current requirements is only 16 channels
> but would like some room to grow.
>
> Ok...I have 2 options that I am considering.
>
> Option #1:
> Use solely a Tascam DM-4800 for both live FOH mix and the
> recording mix. Assign channels 1-24 to channels 1-24 for
> live mixing, and also assign the same channels to 25-32
> (pre-EQ, pre-fader) for recording. This gives me 8 channels
> of growth before needing to upgrade the console or add
> additional inputs in an expansion slot. Get the additional
> firewire add-on so it can act as an interface and controller
> for my DAW. Total cost is about $6000 CAD
>
> Option #2:
> Split my signal coming in with a hardware splitter (cost yet
> to be determined). One signal path going to live FOH setup
> (which I currently have and is working fine) and the other
> signal path going to recording rig.
>
> Recording rig would consist of 3 RME Octamic D's giving me
> 24 channels of input (costing about $4950 CAD). Interface
> to PC with RME HDSP 9652 (costing about $600 CAD).
>
> As far as DAW controller I am not sure what I would do. At
> this point I am close to the budget I was hoping to maintain
> for hardware so I might have to mix with software only for
> the time being.
>
> So...I am seeking the opinion of professionals to see what
> you would do. Stick with a hardware splitters and pres or
> go digital and keep it all in one "box." Anyone care to
> share their thoughts on this??
>
> Kevin


Go with a hardware splitter. Best is transformer isolated splitters
with individual ground lifts on each channel. A cheaper method can be
home-made splitters using one XLR female soldered to two XLR male
plugs. You will have to make 24 of them. Sometimes you can find a
good deal on a used audio snake with a "monitor split" built in.

>From there, you can go into almost any "live sound" console. Then use
the channel inserts which are usually post-eq but pre-fader. Just use
the send of the channel inserts or only plug halfway into the TRS
jacks for each insert. This will give you signal from the output of
the mic pre-amps.

Honestly, I would not use a PC based system for reliable live
recordings. I've done dozens of live recordings for both record
labels and national television productions. Your best bet would be
the Alesis HD-24. You can pick one up used for around $1000. They
are rock solid, simple and reliable.


Good Luck....

Terry Dupuy

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 5, 6:59 pm, Kevin Drysdale > wrote:
> My goal - to be able to multi-track record in a live
> environment without either rig effecting the other. So,
> live FOH mix can not effect recording, and recording can not
> effect FOH mix. My current requirements is only 16 channels
> but would like some room to grow.

> Option #1:
> Use solely a Tascam DM-4800 for both live FOH mix and the
> recording mix. Assign channels 1-24 to channels 1-24 for
> live mixing, and also assign the same channels to 25-32
> (pre-EQ, pre-fader) for recording.

> Option #2:
> Split my signal coming in with a hardware splitter (cost yet
> to be determined). One signal path going to live FOH setup
> (which I currently have and is working fine) and the other
> signal path going to recording rig.

Will you be monitoring the recording beyond just making sure that it's
working? That is, will you be actively adjusting levels and EQ during
the show, with the goal of also making a usable stereo recording? Or
do you want to capture what's coming from the mics as accurately as
possible so that you can do a mix of the recorded tracks afterward, in
your normal mixing environment? The difference is whether you need a
separate set of controls and decent monitoring setup for the recording
or if it's sufficient to keep levels safe and just make sure you don't
have any hums and buzzes?

The former is usually done in a truck or at least with a console in a
separate room, with a mic splitter or some other arrangement for
taking a direct mic feed. The latter is usually done off the house or
monitor console with as direct a feed to the recorder (whatever that
happens to be) as possible.

The DM-4800 will allow you to assign the inputs to the main L/R bus
for your house mix, and you can also use auxiliary sends for house
effects or stage monitors. In addition, with the Firewire option card,
you can send the outputs of the mic preamps directly to the computer
and record your inputs for later mixdown. Be sure you have a computer
with sufficient horsepower and disk space to handle the number of
tracks at your chosen sample rate. It's not trivial. That being said,
the DM-4800 is a new product designed primarily for recording studio
and post-production applications and may not be completely suitable
for live sound. If you're interested in this approach and are ready to
plop down a good chunk of change for gear, you might look into the
Yamaha digital consoles. Even though they're coming out with a new
model every year or so, it's a more mature design than the DM-4800,
which is an offspring from the DM-3200 which is also a fairly new
design with no former TASCAM roots.

An alternate approach is to start out with something like a Mackie
Onyx 1640. It's a good, solid 16-channel 4-bus console with good
performance and a good pedigree. You have your choice of using their
Firewire option card for 16 direct recording channels, or for more
flexibility, perhaps go with the RME interface you were considering
and feed it from the direct recording outputs (straight off the mic
preamps) of the 1640. If you needed some more channels on occasion,
you could borrow or rent another mixer and either bring them in to
line inputs on the 1640 as a submix (still recording only 16 channels)
or add another Firewire interface if you want to record them directly.
This would give you room to grow, as well as give you the familiarity
and reliability of an analog signal path.

[Arny Krueger]

"Kevin Drysdale" > wrote in message


> My goal - to be able to multi-track record in a live
> environment without either rig effecting the other. So,
> live FOH mix can not effect recording, and recording can
> not effect FOH mix. My current requirements is only 16
> channels but would like some room to grow.
>
> Ok...I have 2 options that I am considering.

As long as one guy runs both the live show and the recording, or as long as
the two guys who share the job can get along like civilized human beings
(not a given in a live sound context), you have a third option:

(1) Stabilize the settings of console preamp gains over a given recording
session. This is usually pretty easy to do. If you don't have your preamp
gains set right at the beginning of a show, you really aren't on top of the
setup of the show. Fact of the matter is, if a preamp gain setting or six
changes during a track-per-channel recording of a live show, you can fix it
in the mix.

(2) Record the channel pre-fader, pre-eq direct outs if you have them, or
record off of the channel insert points if you don't have appropriate
direct outs.

[Jay Kadis]

In article . com>,
"Mike Rivers" > wrote:

[snip]
> Even though they're coming out with a new
> model every year or so, it's a more mature design than the DM-4800,
> which is an offspring from the DM-3200 which is also a fairly new
> design with no former TASCAM roots.
>

The DM3200 does share quite a bit of internal routing and the overall
concept with the older DM-24. Tascam has addressed a lot of the
limitations of the DM-24 in the 3200 and the 4800 looks a lot like the
3200.

If we can't come up with the cash for a Yamaha DM2000, we may be
replacing our venerable D8B with a DM4800.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 6, 10:19 am, Jay Kadis > wrote:

> The DM3200 does share quite a bit of internal routing and the overall
> concept with the older DM-24. Tascam has addressed a lot of the
> limitations of the DM-24 in the 3200 and the 4800 looks a lot like the
> 3200.

Yup, but I think that the DM24 was still from the days of the US
design team, though the engineering came out of Japan. The DM-3200 and
-4800 are totally Japanese designs. The -4800 is quite similar to the
-3200 but its "channel strip" is more like the Sony DMX-R100, an
improvement, I think. If you don't need the plug-in capability, I
suspect that the DM-4800 would be a reasonable replacement for the d8b
if it sounds OK.

[Jay Kadis]

In article . com>,
"Mike Rivers" > wrote:

> On Feb 6, 10:19 am, Jay Kadis > wrote:
>
> > The DM3200 does share quite a bit of internal routing and the overall
> > concept with the older DM-24. Tascam has addressed a lot of the
> > limitations of the DM-24 in the 3200 and the 4800 looks a lot like the
> > 3200.
>
> Yup, but I think that the DM24 was still from the days of the US
> design team, though the engineering came out of Japan. The DM-3200 and
> -4800 are totally Japanese designs. The -4800 is quite similar to the
> -3200 but its "channel strip" is more like the Sony DMX-R100, an
> improvement, I think. If you don't need the plug-in capability, I
> suspect that the DM-4800 would be a reasonable replacement for the d8b
> if it sounds OK.

Interesting. I assumed the Palo Alto guys had a hand in the 3200/4800.
The channel strip would be a big improvement over the 3200. The big
improvement over the DM-24 is flexible output routing. It's very nice.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 6, 12:26 pm, Jay Kadis > wrote:

> Interesting. I assumed the Palo Alto guys had a hand in the 3200/4800.

I don't think "the guys in Palo Alto" exist any more. Anyone know what
Mike McRoberts is doing now?

Jeff Laity said they didn't see the DM-4800 until it came off the
boat.