[Arny Krueger]

"Paul" wrote in message

On Jun 2, 4:31 am, Mike Rivers
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
I didn't get the impression from the OP that this was
about syphoning audio off of someone else's mixer.

I often try to read between the lines for missing
information. Sometimes I guess wrong. This came from a
post when someone (I assume the original poster - I
don't keep track) said that he wanted to use the
interface in his home studio and sometimes connect to a
mixer. Since he didn't say "My mixer, which is a vintage
Mackie CR1604" I figured that he might be thinking that
mixers were all about the same and all had convenient
recording outputs to which he could connect his
interface.



Basically in the ball park. As I wrote before, I'd like to
do multi-track recording at home, or in the field at any
sort of live gig for other bands.

Unless you control the techical aspects of the gig, you are dependent on the
gig's technical people for whatever you get.

If someone brought in a mic splitter, I might want to resist their entire
involvement, because putting a mic splitter in in and debugging the results
will take considerable work on both of our parts. If there was money for the
house or the performers on the table, then I've got more incentive to do the
work. If its just so somene can fiddle with do-it-yourself recording, what's
in it for anybody but him?

In my case the console has a boatload of direct outs, but 16 of the most
important ones are dedicated to the Aviom system. There are also a similar
number of insert outs for every channel and they are currently uncomitted.
Nevertheless there's considerable internal patching required to set the
stage. Our media booth is already overcommited for people and equipment.

But since I cannot be
guaranteed an insert output from each channel, I may have to use a
mic splitter in some cases.

Nothing is guaranteed unless you have overriding technical control or
someone's good graces.

And the mic splitter (or attenuators) would solve
the problem of the Tascam US-1641 having only XLR mic
inputs on 8 channels on the front.

Seems like a complex, expensive way to solve a fairly simple problem.

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

If someone brought in a mic splitter, I might want to resist their entire
involvement, because putting a mic splitter in in and debugging the results
will take considerable work on both of our parts. If there was money for the
house or the performers on the table, then I've got more incentive to do the
work. If its just so somene can fiddle with do-it-yourself recording, what's
in it for anybody but him?

Arny, have you ever actually used a splitter? It is a miracle and a wonder
and it eliminates all the fiddling. It also eliminates the yelling and
the finger pointing. I have seen horrible PA systems with massive ground
fault currents and got clean recordings from their microphones with no
problems.
--scott


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

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

If someone brought in a mic splitter, I might want to
resist their entire involvement, because putting a mic
splitter in in and debugging the results will take
considerable work on both of our parts. If there was
money for the house or the performers on the table, then
I've got more incentive to do the work. If its just so
somene can fiddle with do-it-yourself recording, what's
in it for anybody but him?

Arny, have you ever actually used a splitter?

No, but I've recabled the mic inputs on a mid-sized sr setup (ca. 30 mics)
any number of times. Not my idea of fun.

Introducing a splitter can't be any less work than that. As the deleted
portions of my post said - if there's a good reason, I'm up for it.
Otherwise...

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Jun 2, 1:51*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message



Arny Krueger wrote:

If someone brought in a mic splitter, I might want to
resist their entire involvement, because putting a mic
splitter in in and debugging the results will take
considerable work on both of our parts. If there was
money for the house or the performers on the table, then
I've got more incentive to do the work. If its just so
somene can fiddle with do-it-yourself recording, what's
in it for anybody but him?
Arny, have you ever actually used a splitter?

No, but I've recabled the mic inputs on a mid-sized sr setup (ca. 30 mics)
any number of times. Not my idea of fun.

Introducing a splitter can't be any less work than that. As the deleted
portions of my post said - if there's a good reason, I'm up for it.
Otherwise...

It honestly doesn't matter guys...the OP is trolling...He's asked
about Audacity versus PT for 8 inputs and in the next breath chose
Cubase LE (limited to 4 simultaneous records)...he has no clue as to
what a piano roll is and frankly, doesn't seem to have the brains to
research the topics or RTFM for himself...no doubt he will attack this
post since I am calling his card. TROLL...do not feed.

-CS

[[email protected]]

On 2010-06-02 (ScottDorsey) said:
If someone brought in a mic splitter, I might want to resist their
entire involvement, because putting a mic splitter in in and
debugging the results will take considerable work on both of our
parts.
snip
Arny, have you ever actually used a splitter? It is a miracle and
a wonder and it eliminates all the fiddling. It also eliminates
the yelling and the finger pointing. I have seen horrible PA
systems with massive ground fault currents and got clean recordings
from their microphones with no problems.

Agreed, and the only way I"ll work. I"m not going to roll
the dice on the inserts from your console.

And, btw, ARnie, if I show up it's because I'm getting paid
in most cases. since I am getting paid, I'll bring my high quality splitter,
and insist that it, or an equivalent be used to provide
everybody feeds from the microphones.

There's enough politics with that, I"m not going to argue
with the folks over other issues, such as the hum on the
signal from the inserts, or ... (name your issue here.)

IN fact, I try to find out with whom I"ll be working ahead
of time, and work with them to sort out the political issues
*before* we're in the heat of the battle to get the show or
presentation happening. tHIs way we know who gets isos, who
gets the main out of the split, etc. etc. I charge good
money for my services, and part of that good money is for
the legwork I do beforehand to make sure everything runs
as smooth as possible when we're all under the gun.

IF the client wants cheap there are plenty of guys who will
bring a laptop and an interface, plug into the channel
inserts and take the luck of the draw. But, if you have to
have it done right then ...

IN fact, I"m in preliminary talks with some folks regarding
us doing the audio feed for the internet audio stream for
their national conference later this year. THey were
steered to me by one of their members because he was quite
dissatisfied with the quality of the services they paid good
money for in past years. I gave them already a rough
estimate and figured they'd balk at the price, but to my
surprise they haven't. As I get more specifics I'll adjust
that estimate as needed while trying to be fair to them.
But at the early stages of the process I"m going to insist
on communicating with the people providing the house sound
so we can get our ducks in a row.







Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On 2010-06-02 (ScottDorsey) said:
If someone brought in a mic splitter, I might want to
resist their entire involvement, because putting a
mic splitter in in and debugging the results will
take considerable work on both of our parts.
snip
Arny, have you ever actually used a splitter? It is a
miracle and a wonder and it eliminates all the
fiddling. It also eliminates the yelling and the
finger pointing. I have seen horrible PA systems with
massive ground fault currents and got clean recordings
from their microphones with no problems.

Agreed, and the only way I"ll work. I"m not going to roll
the dice on the inserts from your console.

Therefore, I wouldn't have you on the premeses, except in the audience. If
it is your shop, then we play by your rules, and if it is my shop...

And, btw, ARnie (sic), if I show up it's because I'm getting
paid in most cases.

Meaning exactly what? That work contributed to a charitable cause is somehow
spoiled or limited by the absence of cash changing hands?

You seem to want to turn charity into a character flaw.

since I am getting paid, I'll bring my
high quality splitter, and insist that it, or an
equivalent be used to provide
everybody feeds from the microphones.

Which begs the question, why would *I* bring in another person who publicly
denigrates my expertise and character to do something as simple as recording
tracks that I'm going to mix later on anyway?

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Therefore, I wouldn't have you on the premeses, except in the audience. If
it is your shop, then we play by your rules, and if it is my shop...

Oh, we ARE nasty today, aren't we?

Really, Arny, take this crap back to rec.audio.opinion. r.a.p is not a good
place to insult people for doing their job.
--scott


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

[[email protected]]

On 2010-06-02 said:
Arny, have you ever actually used a splitter? It is a
miracle and a wonder and it eliminates all the
fiddling. It also eliminates the yelling and the
finger pointing. I have seen horrible PA systems with
massive ground fault currents and got clean recordings
from their microphones with no problems.
Agreed, and the only way I"ll work. I"m not going to roll
the dice on the inserts from your console.
Therefore, I wouldn't have you on the premeses, except in the
audience. If it is your shop, then we play by your rules, and if it
is my shop...
Maybe so, but I darken the door of a Baptist church when
money crosses my palms. Same with a Catholic church. When
money crosses my palms I"ll be there, at least when it comes
to doing audio.

And, btw, ARnie (sic), if I show up it's because I'm getting
paid in most cases.
Meaning exactly what? That work contributed to a charitable cause
is somehow spoiled or limited by the absence of cash changing hands?
You seem to want to turn charity into a character flaw.
I don't plenty of volunteer work, just not in audio. Audio
isn't my hobby. But, I"ll set up a field base station to
work ham radio.

Volunteerism, tell me about volunteerism dude. I spent a
week on hospital island in NEw ORleans, as a volunteer. Get
off your high horse.

since I am getting paid, I'll bring my
high quality splitter, and insist that it, or an
equivalent be used to provide
everybody feeds from the microphones.
Which begs the question, why would *I* bring in another person who
publicly denigrates my expertise and character to do something as

When you've moved that center cluster that's a problem talk
to me about your expertise. But, since you don't actually
work in the industry the chances of me having to deasl with
you are slim and none, but, I"ll got enough other
propellerhead posers like you to deal with that I"ll bring
my splitter, and use it.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

Scott DOrsey writes:

Therefore, I wouldn't have you on the premeses, except in the audience. If
it is your shop, then we play by your rules, and if it is my shop...

Really, Arny, take this crap back to rec.audio.opinion. r.a.p is
not a good place to insult people for doing their job.

That's exactly why I'd insist on using a high quality mic
split, I'm doing my job, which is either providing a feed
for broadcast, or capture for later processing. High
quality splits allow everybody involved to do his job. tHe
monitor mix guy, foh, and the remote truck. That's why I
own them, 56 channels worth in fact.

IT's about using professional tools to get professional
results, reliably, every time. Even if I do volunteer my
services, which I rarely do in audio anymore. I do plenty
of other volunteer work, and endeavor to bring the same
degree of professionalism to it. But, I found that I didn't find doing volunteer audio that rewarding. But, tell me I
have no respect for the volunteer spirit when I"m sitting in a motel room wearing the same goddamned clothes I wore for a week smelling bad, worrying about whether my dog still survived or I still had a house.
Tell me about the volunteer spirit when I'm hanging off my antenna tower at dark thirty on a December night to repair a 40 meter antenna so I can talk to the skipper of a sailboat in trouble who has his wife and teenage son with him. Had I no respect fora week as you do, and like your work with the church mine
requires some technical expertise and quite a bit of attention to detail.


Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[The MAN]

On Jun 1, 11:35*am, wrote:
On 2010-06-01 (ScottDorsey) said:
* * If you don't have inserts or direct outputs on the console where
* *you can *steal signal, you'll just have to bite the bullet and do
* *it properly with *mike splitters.
* * * * *You mean like with this one:
url deleted
* *Well..... I'm not sure I would trust a transformer in that price
* *range, but you could give it a try. *Splitters avoid political
* *problems.
I'd mistrust cheap transformers in a split myself, mine are
good JEnsen transformers, and those are usually pricey.

Also, for MR. Man:

IF I"m using the inserts on a console for signal processing
and you show up, even if the performers are paying you my
priority is the butts in the seats that paid to hear the
performance. *You're not going to tie into inserts I"m using
with any y cable or anything else chances are pretty good.
NOw if you show up with quality mic transformers, and your
own console, then we'll probably deal.

Hopefully, at your obvious level of experience in this
industry you're doing this as a hobby, and not being paid.

Not trying to just pee in your cornflakes here dude, but you
need some more experience before you're ready to charge
people real money for this, especially if you're looking pt
le and gear from guitar center.



Get off your high horse!

Don't mean to **** in your face, but the digital home studio
has improved by leaps and bounds, so that the technical difference
in sound quality between an at-home recording and one done in
an over-priced studio is far less than it has ever been.

[Mike Rivers]

The MAN wrote:

Don't mean to **** in your face, but the digital home studio
has improved by leaps and bounds, so that the technical difference
in sound quality between an at-home recording and one done in
an over-priced studio is far less than it has ever been.

There's no at-home replacement for an overpriced studio
that's overpriced because they've spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars on acoustic design, building materials,
and construction. The cost of equipment that's capable of
making technically good recordings has come down
considerably, but a few bass traps hung on the walls of your
100 square foot spare bedroom doesn't make a professional
quality studio. Where are you going to put the 26 string
players? Or are you thinking that you don't need them any
more because you have a good sample library?

Today you can get a lot closer with a home studio than you
could 25 years ago, but to get all the way there, all the
time, for any kind of session, there's still no substitute
for a professional studio. Sadly, more people are more
satisfied with being "good enough."

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Therefore, I wouldn't have you on the premeses, except
in the audience. If it is your shop, then we play by
your rules, and if it is my shop...

Oh, we ARE nasty today, aren't we?

Scott, talking down to people like you are now doing is a sign of a lack of
self-confidence. I don't know why you're having this problem today.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Webb"
wrote in
message

That's exactly why I'd insist on using a high quality mic
split, I'm doing my job, which is either providing a feed
for broadcast, or capture for later processing. High
quality splits allow everybody involved to do his job.
the monitor mix guy, foh, and the remote truck. That's why I
own them, 56 channels worth in fact.

That's a choice you get to make, Richard.

I've done dozens of 28 track live recordings off of console direct outs,
mixed after the fact on a DAW. It *really* works.

That's a choice I got to make.

In a different context I might use 2 consoles with a quality
transformer-based splitter, but this context wasn't that context.

Both approaches have their costs and benefits, depending on the context.

You would have to point a gun at my head or find some other unusual but
compelling situation to get me to do a mixdown for a quality recording on
site and in real time. That would be true even if I weren't doing the live
mix at the same time. I very much enjoy mixing with 20-20 hindsight.

There is no reason to add another layer of transformers to a critical signal
path with attendant cost and complexity, if the context allows going
transformerless. If transformers are the best way, and it often is, then go
for it!

IT's about using professional tools to get professional
results, reliably, every time.

On that we could possibly agree Richard, if you weren't so chauvinstic about
yourself and some of the limitations you must accept because of your unusual
situation.

Richard we both use professional tools, it is just that your choices are
constrained by your situation, while mine are made with far more options
available to me. If you have to believe that your choices are the only
reasonable ones for *everybody*, in order for you to cope, then so be it.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


Maybe so, but I darken the door of a Baptist church when
money crosses my palms. Same with a Catholic church.
When money crosses my palms I"ll be there, at least when it
comes to doing audio.

It thus becomes clear that staying out of churches is far more important to
you than it is for me.

I've also done a fair amount of audio and non-audio charitable work for
organizations that have few if any religious connections.

I consider myself very fortunate to be able to afford the luxury of working
hard and not having to collect money. If you can't afford that luxury, it
is not a character flaw. It is simply about where you find yourself in life.

Publically belittling people's religious faith and charitable works is
generally considered to be a character flaw. If the shoe fits, wear it!

[The MAN]

On Jun 3, 4:04*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
The MAN wrote:
* * * Don't mean to **** in your face, but the digital home studio
has improved by leaps and bounds, so that the technical difference
in sound quality between an at-home recording and one done in
an over-priced studio is far less than it has ever been.

There's no at-home replacement for an overpriced studio
that's overpriced because they've spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars on acoustic design, building materials,
and construction. The cost of equipment that's capable of
making technically good recordings has come down
considerably, but a few bass traps hung on the walls of your
100 square foot spare bedroom doesn't make a professional
quality studio. Where are you going to put the 26 string
players? Or are you thinking that you don't need them any
more because you have a good sample library?


I don't plan on ever using string players, or if I do, only
maybe a few at a time.

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature...troying-music/


I don't plan to ever use pitch correction, btw! This also
bring to mind Vangelis, who hates the way all recording studios
are dark and sound-proofed and sometimes underground.
Consequently, his studio walls are made of glass, so he can see
the sun and the birds, with very little regard for acoustics (although
he's largely synth based, he still does plenty of acoustic piano
work).

Some famous albums recorded at homes:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=470581





Today you can get a lot closer with a home studio than you
could 25 years ago, but to get all the way there, all the
time, for any kind of session, there's still no substitute
for a professional studio. Sadly, more people are more
satisfied with being "good enough."



I went to a pro studio for the mastering phase of
my first CD, and will perhaps do that again. Nice to get
a second opinion at that stage. But tracking takes gobs
of time....it's often difficult to find that elusive magic take,
especially if you use the studio to compose with.
Then add in EQing and panning and mixing and effects,
plus the difficulty of telling other people what you want,
and the benefits of DIY outweigh the cons, in my case.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

The MAN wrote:

Don't mean to **** in your face, but the digital home studio
has improved by leaps and bounds, so that the technical difference
in sound quality between an at-home recording and one done in
an over-priced studio is far less than it has ever been.

Not really. The electronics are better, but the rooms are just as bad.
You'll find the cost of having to clean up tracks made in bad rooms is
often higher than just doing them in a decent studio in the first place,
and I say that as someone who makes way too much much of his income these
days from fixing bad tracking jobs.

You're not that guy from WebTV are you? Stanley, is that you?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-06-03 said:
That's exactly why I'd insist on using a high quality mic
split, I'm doing my job, which is either providing a feed
for broadcast, or capture for later processing. High
quality splits allow everybody involved to do his job.
the monitor mix guy, foh, and the remote truck. That's why I
own them, 56 channels worth in fact.
That's a choice you get to make, Richard.
I've done dozens of 28 track live recordings off of console direct
outs, mixed after the fact on a DAW. It *really* works.
That's a choice I got to make.
In a different context I might use 2 consoles with a quality
transformer-based splitter, but this context wasn't that context.
Both approaches have their costs and benefits, depending on the
context.
Agreed. MY context is come into a different environment
every time I work. YOurs is the same environment, week
after week after week. YOu can debug the setup ahead of
time.

WHat started this is some discussion of what might happen if
the inserts are in use and some guy comes in and wants to
hang a multi-track recorder off a console, no direct outs.
That's not going to happen if I'm responsible for the
live sound for the paying customers in the seats, because I
don't have time to troubleshoot such a setup.

You would have to point a gun at my head or find some other unusual
but compelling situation to get me to do a mixdown for a quality
recording on site and in real time. That would be true even if I
weren't doing the live mix at the same time. I very much enjoy
mixing with 20-20 hindsight.

sometimes I don't have the luck of 20/20 hindsight, because
the mix is coming down right now, on the spot. But, even
when multi-tracking for somebody to mix and work with later
I don't have the luxury of a fixed installation throughout,
the only fixed installation is the control room in the back
of my truck. Whether it's broadcast audio or a multitrack
project my goal is to get high quality product out the door
without degrading the product for the paying butts in the
seats. You otoh have the luxury of troubleshooting a change
in your installation before the congregation shows up for
services. Totally different worlds.

Put the sound reinforcement shoe on my foot. IF the console
has direct outs, hang your recorder off 'em, I"ll do the
best I can to make sure you've got what I want. But, my
insert points on my console are there for signal processing
I need to use, and to deny me those or ask me to use some y
cables of unknown quality with the attendant problems they
might introduce would be asking something I'm not going to
grant you, unless the client insists. The client is the guy
that cuts the check that crosses my palm, and if he insists
we'll do it his way.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com

[Arny Krueger]

"The MAN" wrote in message


but the digital
home studio has improved by leaps and bounds, so that the
technical difference in sound quality between an at-home
recording and one done in
an over-priced studio is far less than it has ever been.

The parts of recording that have improved the most are the equipment,
including mics, and electronics (and software) for recording, mixing and
production.

While you can improve the acoustics of most rooms, you can't change the
basic physics which are related to size and construction.

If you have a big house, you can build a dedicated room inside of it that
may be the equal of any room that size anyplace. But not many people have
the resources to do this.

So, we end up with a lot of home studios that sound like home studios, which
isn't always good.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On 2010-06-03 said:
That's exactly why I'd insist on using a high
quality mic split, I'm doing my job, which is either
providing a feed for broadcast, or capture for later
processing. High quality splits allow everybody
involved to do his job. the monitor mix guy, foh,
and the remote truck. That's why I own them, 56
channels worth in fact. That's a choice you get to
make, Richard. I've done dozens of 28 track live
recordings off of console direct outs, mixed after the
fact on a DAW. It *really* works. That's a choice I
got to make. In a different context I might use 2
consoles with a quality transformer-based splitter,
but this context wasn't that context. Both approaches
have their costs and benefits, depending on the
context.

Agreed. MY context is come into a different environment
every time I work. YOurs is the same environment, week
after week after week. YOu can debug the setup ahead of
time.

That's only part of what I do.

WHat started this is some discussion of what might happen
if the inserts are in use and some guy comes in and wants to
hang a multi-track recorder off a console, no direct outs.
That's not going to happen if I'm responsible for the
live sound for the paying customers in the seats, because
I don't have time to troubleshoot such a setup.

I think we also agreed about that, only I extended it to mic splitters, for
the same basic reason.


You would have to point a gun at my head or find some
other unusual but compelling situation to get me to do
a mixdown for a quality recording on site and in real
time. That would be true even if I weren't doing the
live mix at the same time. I very much enjoy mixing
with 20-20 hindsight.

sometimes I don't have the luck of 20/20 hindsight,
because the mix is coming down right now, on the spot. But, even
when multi-tracking for somebody to mix and work with
later I don't have the luxury of a fixed installation
throughout, the only fixed installation is the control room in the
back of my truck. Whether it's broadcast audio or a multitrack
project my goal is to get high quality product out the
door without degrading the product for the paying butts in the
seats. You otoh have the luxury of troubleshooting a
change in your installation before the congregation shows up for
services. Totally different worlds.

You're describing only one of the environments in which I work.

I don't have the luxury of a recording truck. When I work outside of my home
venue, the setup is truely from scratch.

Put the sound reinforcement shoe on my foot. IF the
console has direct outs, hang your recorder off 'em, I"ll do the
best I can to make sure you've got what I want. But, my
insert points on my console are there for signal
processing I need to use, and to deny me those or ask me to use some
cables of unknown quality with the attendant problems they
might introduce would be asking something I'm not going to
grant you, unless the client insists. The client is the
guy that cuts the check that crosses my palm, and if he
insists we'll do it his way.

Again, I totally agree with all of the above. I was reacting negatively to
the inference that using direct outs and/or inserts is somehow less
professional than transformer splitters. To me professionalism is using the
solution that best suits the situation.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-06-03 said:
snipped for brevity
if the inserts are in use and some guy comes in and wants to
hang a multi-track recorder off a console, no direct outs.
That's not going to happen if I'm responsible for the
live sound for the paying customers in the seats, because
I don't have time to troubleshoot such a setup.
I think we also agreed about that, only I extended it to mic
splitters, for the same basic reason.
I have no problem using somebody else's split, if it's high
quality. HEll I"ll be glad to leave mine in the truck *if*
they can handle my multipin off my snake back to the truck
grin Chances are though they're two way splits, not
three, and their multipin scheme isn't mine. That's why I
own a high quality splitter. NO el cheapo bargain basement
on that part of the equation. TOo much is riding on the
outcome.

snip again

You're describing only one of the environments in which I work.
I don't have the luxury of a recording truck. When I work outside
of my home venue, the setup is truely from scratch.
YOu do however know the gear you'll be using and interfacing
with. Although I"ll try to have some dialogue with the sr
folks ahead of time some are more cooperative than others.
IN fact, it's just the sort of situation we're discussing
here that has caused me not to do volunteer audio work
anymore. wHen I owned a fairly decent live sound rig I was
always getting wheedled to do these charitibale festival
type gigs. Even if I got my helper(s) to volunteer their
time it was always a hassle. Ask the performers to get me
input lists and stage plots ahead of time. good luck with
that IT's just too much trouble, hence I don't do
volunteer audio in my old age. VOlunteer ham radio, bring
out a field base station and set it up to run the equivalent
of dispatch for your bike-a-thon etc. THat's fine. I can
handle that one.

Again, I totally agree with all of the above. I was reacting
negatively to the inference that using direct outs and/or inserts
is somehow less professional than transformer splitters. To me
professionalism is using the solution that best suits the situation.

Agreed. DIrect outs I"ve no problem with, if the console
I"m using for foh has 'em, plug in your recorder with your
unknown cables, if you can clue me up on how to get it
started rolling I'll even accomodate you there. But, many
consoles in the budget live sound world only offer inserts,
and even if I"m using your gear as the foh mix guy tonight
I"m bringing my own processing rack probably. I need those
insert points g.

An article in this thread from me should be crossing your
news server before this one regarding a performing arts
center I was helping out a bit over a decade ago. WHile we
were getting things rolling all the gear was borrowed from
this and that individual. One of our first major
expenditures was going to be a quality mixing console, with
direct outs just so that I and others didn't have to wrestle
the inserts question. Until then, patch bays with mults
were the order of the day grin.

Regards,




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com

[[email protected]]

On 2010-06-03 said:
home studio has improved by leaps and bounds, so that the
technical difference in sound quality between an at-home
recording and one done in
an over-priced studio is far less than it has ever been.
snip

While you can improve the acoustics of most rooms, you can't change
the basic physics which are related to size and construction.
If you have a big house, you can build a dedicated room inside of
it that may be the equal of any room that size anyplace. But not
many people have the resources to do this.
THere's that, and then there's the experience of the ears
driving the home studio. The tools available to the home
recordist have improved exponentially in many cases, but
there are these two things on the side of your head called
ears, and the gray matter between 'em. One learns to
interpret what they're telling him by experience, and by
working in an environment where what they tell him can be
judged accurately. THis means a reasonably sized control
room properly treated is necessary as well. MOst bedrooms
aren't good control rooms, too small, too boxy without some
serious bass trapping and treatment.

So, we end up with a lot of home studios that sound like home
studios, which isn't always good.

INdeed we do, and guys like SCott Dorsey and others end up
fixing the tracks produced in them.

I note MR. Man mentioned he goes to a pro studio when he's
ready to mix and master, which for any home studio project
is a must imho. Back when I was doing studio work for money
for clients out of my home the mastering and sometimes even
the mixing went to a good room with a choice of monitors.
I'd done some treatment on my control room space which was a
dining room,I had most of the problems either solved or
known, but still at least for the later production phases I
wanted that sanity check provided by a control room that was
well situated to give me what I needed.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , wrote:

On 2010-06-03 said:
snipped for brevity
if the inserts are in use and some guy comes in and wants to
hang a multi-track recorder off a console, no direct outs.
That's not going to happen if I'm responsible for the
live sound for the paying customers in the seats, because
I don't have time to troubleshoot such a setup.
I think we also agreed about that, only I extended it to mic
splitters, for the same basic reason.

I have no problem using somebody else's split, if it's high
quality. HEll I"ll be glad to leave mine in the truck *if*
they can handle my multipin off my snake back to the truck
grin Chances are though they're two way splits, not
three, and their multipin scheme isn't mine. That's why I
own a high quality splitter. NO el cheapo bargain basement
on that part of the equation. TOo much is riding on the
outcome.

Sure, but you have pigtails from your multipin to XLRs, I bet, just for
such an opportunity.

My big splitters are all three-output, with two isolated low-Z ones and
one unisolated high-Z one... I use 1:1:1 transformers instead of bridging
transformers so normally the PA guy and I both take the isos and we provide
phantom at the splitter. That way nobody can yell about who gets the direct
and who gets the isos. The things are made with UTC transformers that are
not the cleanest things in the world, so you have to be careful about loading.
But, since they are lower ratio transformers rather than bridging high-Z
to low-Z, that helps a lot.

An article in this thread from me should be crossing your
news server before this one regarding a performing arts
center I was helping out a bit over a decade ago. WHile we
were getting things rolling all the gear was borrowed from
this and that individual. One of our first major
expenditures was going to be a quality mixing console, with
direct outs just so that I and others didn't have to wrestle
the inserts question. Until then, patch bays with mults
were the order of the day grin.

I don't think that's a bad thing if the recording and reinforcement functions
are permanently integrated together. In the original poster's case, that
won't be true. It is occasionally true for combined use facilities like that.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers]

The MAN wrote:

I went to a pro studio for the mastering phase of
my first CD, and will perhaps do that again. Nice to get
a second opinion at that stage. But tracking takes gobs
of time....it's often difficult to find that elusive magic take,
especially if you use the studio to compose with.

This is where a home studio really pays off. But many real
pros use their home studios for composition, arrangement,
trying experiments, and learning the songs. Then they go
into a real studio where they can let someone else press the
buttons and set the mics, and they can concentrate on giving
the best performance. They have the option, at that point,
of bringing in a better piano player to play the piano part
on a better piano, bring in a real drum kit, and so on. But
they have more money than you do.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[[email protected]]

On 2010-06-03 (ScottDorsey) said:
I have no problem using somebody else's split, if it's high
quality. HEll I'll be glad to leave mine in the truck *if*
they can handle my multipin off my snake back to the truck
grin Chances are though they're two way splits, not
three, and their multipin scheme isn't mine. That's why I
own a high quality splitter. NO el cheapo bargain basement
on that part of the equation. TOo much is riding on the
outcome.

Sure, but you have pigtails from your multipin to XLRs, I bet, just
for such an opportunity.
YEp, but they're male, yah I could run one snake, put a
connection at the end of one snake to give me those, and
have 24 xlr at the i/o panel not on multipin but on xlr, so
it could work.
But, I'd just as soon offer mine, it's not that much of a
problem to bring in, it's in a rack, moves easily on a hand
truck, no muss no fuss.

My big splitters are all three-output, with two isolated low-Z ones
and one unisolated high-Z one... I use 1:1:1 transformers instead
of bridging transformers so normally the PA guy and I both take the
isos and we provide phantom at the splitter. That way nobody can
yell about who gets the direct and who gets the isos. The things
are made with UTC transformers that are not the cleanest things in
the world, so you have to be careful about loading. But, since they
are lower ratio transformers rather than bridging high-Z to low-Z,
that helps a lot.
Yep, as are these, but JEnsens. Anybody can take an iso or
the main without any real problem, just decide who provides
phantom and we're good. no high-z output, somebody's gotta
provide their own.

My main and one iso are on lk multipins, the other iso is on
regular xlr, but I have fan outs indeed for those. My
snakes are multipin however, and I"d just as soon just plug
in the snake at the truck end with one connection g.

An article in this thread from me should be crossing your
news server before this one regarding a performing arts
center I was helping out a bit over a decade ago. WHile we
were getting things rolling all the gear was borrowed from
this and that individual. One of our first major
expenditures was going to be a quality mixing console, with
direct outs just so that I and others didn't have to wrestle
the inserts question. Until then, patch bays with mults
were the order of the day grin.

I don't think that's a bad thing if the recording and reinforcement
functions are permanently integrated together. In the original
poster's case, that won't be true. It is occasionally true for
combined use facilities like that.

Agreed, and why I stressed getting the right tool for the
op. The right tool when you don't know what you're going to
run into is a high quality split.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2038-Jun-03 07:28,
Arny Krueger writes:

K I've done dozens of 28 track live recordings off of console direct
outs, mixed after the fact on a DAW. It *really* works.

That's a choice I got to make.

In a different context I might use 2 consoles with a quality
transformer-based splitter, but this context wasn't that context.
Both approaches have their costs and benefits, depending on the
context.

Agreed, and when I helped build a performing arts education
center we used just your approach, with a patchbay involved. AT first a pair of hard disk recorders were often hung off
the inserts, with plans of adding a full blown pt system
eventually. since we were mixing foh and monitors from that position as well as handling the recording that was the
right approach. HEre again, a fixed installation, plenty of time to troubleshoot ahead of time. IN fact, my plan was to introduce a problem or two, because we were about teaching grin.

Also, part of the equation there was my need for adaptive
metering, so one patchbay was redesigned to be a mult bay so that I could patch in my metering without degrading the
signal.

I keep saying this to people when discussing audio
production, but it always holds true. "horses for courses." IN the world I inhabit the right horse is a separate console with high quality splits. In the world of the fixed church
installation, or the performing arts education center I
mentioned above your preferred approach was the most
effective.

Regards,
Richard
.... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[The MAN]

On Jun 3, 9:40*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
The MAN wrote:
* * * *I went to a pro studio for the mastering phase of
my first CD, and will perhaps do that again. *Nice to get
a second opinion at that stage. *But tracking takes gobs
of time....it's often difficult to find that elusive magic take,
especially if you use the studio to compose with.

This is where a home studio really pays off. But many real
pros use their home studios for composition, arrangement,
trying experiments, and learning the songs. Then they go
into a real studio where they can let someone else press the
buttons and set the mics, and they can concentrate on giving
the best performance. They have the option, at that point,
of bringing in a better piano player to play the piano part
on a better piano, bring in a real drum kit, and so on. But
they have more money than you do.



All very true, and I may do that depending on how
each song turns out.

But there are MANY instances when the rough, home-recorded
demo ends up on the album, because the band just could not
re-create that one magic take that they did at home!

Sure it's great to have someone else worry about mic
placement, etc, but then you are aware of being under expensive
time pressure, and people can freeze up performance-wise. This
is why a studio recording can lack the energy of a live performance.
If I'm relaxing at home, I have a better chance of
laying something good down, although some people work
better under pressure.

[The MAN]

On Jun 3, 8:01*am, wrote:
On 2010-06-03 said:
* * home studio has improved by leaps and bounds, so that the
* * technical difference in sound quality between an at-home
* * recording and one done in
* * an over-priced studio is far less than it has ever been.
snip

* *While you can improve the acoustics of most rooms, you can't change
* *the basic physics which are related to size and construction.
* *If you have a big house, you *can build a dedicated room inside of
* *it that may be the equal of any room that size anyplace. But not
* *many people have the resources to do this.
THere's that, and then there's the experience of the ears
driving the home studio. *The tools available to the home
recordist have improved exponentially in many cases, but
there are these two things on the side of your head called
ears, and the gray matter between 'em. *One learns to
interpret what they're telling him by experience, and by
working in an environment where what they tell him can be
judged accurately. *THis means a reasonably sized control
room properly treated is necessary as well. *MOst bedrooms
aren't good control rooms, too small, too boxy without some
serious bass trapping and treatment.

* *So, we end up with a lot of home studios that sound like home
* *studios, which isn't always good.

INdeed we do, and guys like SCott Dorsey and others end up
fixing the tracks produced in them.

I note MR. Man mentioned he goes to a pro studio when he's
ready to mix and master, which for any home studio project
is a must imho. *Back when I was doing studio work for money
for clients out of my home the mastering and sometimes even
the mixing went to a good room with *a choice of monitors.
I'd done some treatment on my control room space which was a
dining room,I had most of the problems either solved or
known, but still at least for the later production phases I
wanted that sanity check provided by a control room that was
well situated to give me what I needed.



A good mix sounds good on ANY sound system,
so you should see what the mix sounds like on a cheap boom
box, your car stereo, your friend's home stereo, different headphones,
etc, etc....you would be a fool to rely on just one set of studio
monitors
in an anechoic room, no matter the cost.

Unless there is a MAJOR resonance in a room, or huge
things like if there is tile on the floor versus carpet, or if the
shades
are drawn, it ain't gonna make a big difference.....Why?

Because there is NO chance any two people reading this NG
are gonna EQ and mix and compress and effect a given album or
song the same way. Band members almost never agree on how to
mix and EQ an album. Hell, in a blindfolded test, I'll bet some
people
would even prefer tracks recorded in someone's bedroom or bathroom.
You get as close as you can with the frequency response of the
mic, mic placement, position of the guitar amp in the room, pre-amps,
etc.....but you are gonna do SOME tweaking of the EQ anyways.

[Mike Rivers]

The MAN wrote:

But there are MANY instances when the rough, home-recorded
demo ends up on the album, because the band just could not
re-create that one magic take that they did at home!

Right, but in order for it to sell, you first have to be
famous (Boston, Springsteen, Cash, etc.). Today, on the
Internet, anyone can publish anything, and someone will buy it.

If I'm relaxing at home, I have a better chance of
laying something good down, although some people work
better under pressure.

This is why people like Whitney Houston have home studios.
Hers has well over $100,000 worth of gear in it an probably
that much in architectural materials, plus she has an
engineer on call to push the buttons when she feels like
recording. If she'd doing vocals, she'll get set up and just
sing until she likes what she's recorded, but behind that
home studio, there's a full engineering staff.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[The MAN]

On Jun 3, 2:32*pm, Mike Rivers wrote:
The MAN wrote:
* * * * But there are MANY instances when the rough, home-recorded
demo ends up on the album, because the band just could not
re-create that one magic take that they did at home!

Right, but in order for it to sell, you first have to be
famous (Boston, Springsteen, Cash, etc.). Today, on the
Internet, anyone can publish anything, and someone will buy it.


Boston wasn't famous before their debut album. The record
company wanted Tom Scholz to re-record the songs in a professional
studio...but he refused.....what you hear on the record was recorded
in
his basement studio.



* * * * *If I'm relaxing at home, I have a better chance of
laying something good down, although some people work
better under pressure.

This is why people like Whitney Houston have home studios.
Hers has well over $100,000 worth of gear in it an probably
that much in architectural materials, plus she has an
engineer on call to push the buttons when she feels like
recording. If she'd doing vocals, she'll get set up and just
sing until she likes what she's recorded, but behind that
home studio, there's a full engineering staff.



I don't mind pressing RECORD by myself!
I enjoy the recording process......hard work, but fun....

[[email protected]]

On 2010-06-03 said:
big snip

I'd done some treatment on my control room space which was a
dining room,I had most of the problems either solved or
known, but still at least for the later production phases I
wanted that sanity check provided by a control room that was
well situated to give me what I needed.
A good mix sounds good on ANY sound system,
so you should see what the mix sounds like on a cheap boom
box, your car stereo, your friend's home stereo, different
headphones, etc, etc....you would be a fool to rely on just one set
of studio monitors
in an anechoic room, no matter the cost.
Agreed, and this room had the big Yureis soffit mounted, the
Ubiquitous ns10s which I had in my control room, some Tannoy
6.5's and the usual boom box, as well as that table radio.
I"d have a good idea what I wanted to do with them from my
own control room, but that sanity check helped me make sure.
Especially listening on the big soffit mounted guys to what
the lf was doing. sOmetimes I found something unexpected,
oftentimes not, but still it was worth going to the good
control room for mixing just for this reason.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the Memphis, Tn. area: see www.gatasound.com

[Arny Krueger]

"The MAN" wrote in message


A good mix sounds good on ANY sound system,

Depends what you call a good mix/mastering job.

Let's put it this way. There are probably a number of acceptable mixes that
will sound decent on any system.

However, some music will only sound best on very good systems if mixed in a
way that will *not* sound good on a poor system.

I'm thinking about music with very wide dynamic range and/or lots of very
deep bass. If you mix this music so that it exploits a wide-range system,
there is a very strong risk of it sounding bad on many chaap systems. It
will be a joy to listen to on a good system, and problemactical on many
cheap systems or as background music.

so you should see what the mix sounds like on a cheap boom
box, your car stereo, your friend's home stereo,
different headphones, etc, etc....

True if those are your target systems, and that's true for most music.

you would be a fool to
rely on just one set of studio monitors
in an anechoic room, no matter the cost.

An anechoic room? I don't know of anybody who mixes in one of those. If you
know what you are doing and have good monitors, you may learn how to do
things right on them, and then your check-outs on other systems will be just
that - check outs.

[Idiot Detector]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 07:30:49 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

"The MAN" wrote in message


A good mix sounds good on ANY sound system,

Depends what you call a good mix/mastering job.

Let's put it this way. There are probably a number of acceptable mixes that
will sound decent on any system.

However, some music will only sound best on very good systems if mixed in a
way that will *not* sound good on a poor system.

I'm thinking about music with very wide dynamic range and/or lots of very
deep bass. If you mix this music so that it exploits a wide-range system,
there is a very strong risk of it sounding bad on many chaap systems. It
will be a joy to listen to on a good system, and problemactical on many
cheap systems or as background music.

so you should see what the mix sounds like on a cheap boom
box, your car stereo, your friend's home stereo,
different headphones, etc, etc....

True if those are your target systems, and that's true for most music.

you would be a fool to
rely on just one set of studio monitors
in an anechoic room, no matter the cost.

An anechoic room? I don't know of anybody who mixes in one of those. If you
know what you are doing and have good monitors, you may learn how to do
things right on them, and then your check-outs on other systems will be just
that - check outs.

Arny, this guy has to be a troll. Maybe that WebTV guy.