All:

Recording a singer/songwriter (acoustic guitar and vocals) at his house
in a month. Rig will likely be as follows:

A collection of Neuman Km184s and Schoeps CMC64s
8 channels of API pres
RME ADI-8 Pro A/D
PC DAW with Nuendo

The way we're approaching this is to make the setting as natural as
possible with no expectation as to what might be done with the
recording. We just want a real natural sound and a comfortable
environment to do a snapshot of his repertoire at a given point in time.
As such, I don't want to run a lot of multiple takes or ask him to tell
me whether he's going to play a ballad or a rocker. He's just going to
play sets and try to get into a groove.

The problem: Because his music is so dynamic, I'm concerned that if I
optimize pre levels for the loud stuff, that the quiet numbers will be
too low. So...I thought about splitting the mic signals with some
whirlwind transformer isolated splitter boxes to hedge my bets. In
other words, run two guitar mics and a vocal mic into three splitter
boxes and out to 6 mic pre ins. Optimize levels for one set of three
lines for the loud tunes and the other identical set of three lines for
the quiet tunes and record all six to Nuendo for each song.

Is this a clever idea? Or just a really, really stupid one?

My gut says don't do it, but my gut also tells me not to eat spicy
food. And I LOVE spicy food.

Any and all opinions/experiences appreciated.

Tim

tferrell wrote:

Is this a clever idea? Or just a really, really stupid one?

The latter. Set the levels for the loud passages, roll the tape/disk,
and deal with the dynamics later.

AT

My gut says don't do it, but my gut also tells me not to eat spicy
food. And I LOVE spicy food.

Any and all opinions/experiences appreciated.

Tim

tferrell
The problem: Because his music is so dynamic, I'm concerned that if I
optimize pre levels for the loud stuff, that the quiet numbers will be
too low. So...I thought about splitting the mic signals with some
whirlwind transformer isolated splitter boxes to hedge my bets. In
other words, run two guitar mics and a vocal mic into three splitter
boxes and out to 6 mic pre ins. Optimize levels for one set of three
lines for the loud tunes and the other identical set of three lines for
the quiet tunes and record all six to Nuendo for each song.

Nuendo is recording at 24 bits, this really isn't like the old days of
16 bit tracking! Even for very dynamic music you are WAY above the noise
floor, so don't sweat it. If levels mean anything to you, set 0VU to -20dbFS
and you will be fine. Leave yourself headroom, the quiet passages won't be
too noisy, it's more likely your room will be the too noisy element.

I would be more worried about only having one recording device, although
it is at his house and not in a paying studio. But you might want to run a
live mix to a DAT and a couple of tracks in Nuendo as a reference at the same
time. All things being equal, it will sound better than any mix you do later
from the isolated tracks.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:

I would be more worried about only having one recording device, although
it is at his house and not in a paying studio. But you might want to run a
live mix to a DAT and a couple of tracks in Nuendo as a reference at the same
time. All things being equal, it will sound better than any mix you do later
from the isolated tracks.

I do plan to run a two track to dat as back up. But why would the live mix
necessarily sound better than any subsequent mix? Not sure I follow you here...

Thanks.

Tim

tferrell wrote:

The problem: Because his music is so dynamic, I'm concerned that if I
optimize pre levels for the loud stuff, that the quiet numbers will be
too low. So...I thought about splitting the mic signals with some
whirlwind transformer isolated splitter boxes to hedge my bets.

For some situations in my history I have put up two mics, one close and
another somewhat further out, and therefrom get what you're seeking. If
somebody's music exhibits vvery wide dyanamic range, the hot parts might
not sound so fine through the close mic, while the soft parts are wimpy
through the more distant mic. This was using analog systems to two
tracks were later comped to one. You can do similar in digital; I just
haven't met that situation in several years so I've not needed to do
there.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

tferrell
I do plan to run a two track to dat as back up. But why would the live mix
necessarily sound better than any subsequent mix? Not sure I follow you
here...

Because the live mix is straight off the micpres and first generation, all
your later mixes will be second generation, mixes of your first generation
recorded tracks. Of course it won't have a bunch of special effects or the
tweaking you might add later, but as I said "all thing being equal" you'll
find the first generation mix will sound better, or at least that's my
experience. But you aren't going to use a mixer, are you? Hmmm.



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"Bill Ruys"
I'm not sure I understand. This is digital, there is no generation loss.
Every generation is an exact facsimile of the last, bit for bit. It's not like
analog, where every generation incurred loss, and the noise floor was raised.
What do you mean by "second generation"?

When you remix the individual tracks of a session, that mix is a
generation of digital converters down from any live mix you did while tracking,
( if that mix took the micpres BEFORE the inputs of your recorder.) Ok, on a
recent recording I set up the multed the outputs of the micpres to feed the
inputs of a PTHD system and my Mackie SDR24, and I also multed the micpres into
the line inputs of a Neve console (that's a 3 way mult of my 4 channels of
Millenias and the 4 channels of Hardys). The 2 Mix off the Neve I patched back
onto two tracks of PTHD and of the SDR24 ( so I had a total fo 10 tracks ), and
I also burned 2 DATs with that live session mix at the same time.

Now the individual outputs for both recording systems also came back into
the Neve Console ( a "split" setup), and I set all the faders of the PTHD
tracks to match those of the direct mic feeds when I did the live mix. An A/B
comparison of the "new" mix off the individual tracks to the 2 buss mix that
was done while tracking on tracks 9 & 10 showed that the mix done while
tracking sounded noticably better. ( Note, when you group faders together on
the Neve VR's so you can do quick muting for A/B comparisons no VCA's are
involved. )

I first encountered this kind of thing working as a studio assistant where
a client was bummed that the live session mixes to DAT for their big band
session sounded way fatter than when you just put up all the faders on their
tape tracks and tried to recreate the mix. They were convinced something was
very, very wrong. But the live mix is a mix of the original analog audio
signals which unlike any subsequent mix, is mixing signals yet untouched by
digital converters and the attendent various filtering. So i have realized
over time the live mix always sounds better, and have had occasion to regret
having to remix a session because I can hear how much better it would have
sounded if I gotten it right the first time.

Try it.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

In article writes:

The problem: Because his music is so dynamic, I'm concerned that if I
optimize pre levels for the loud stuff, that the quiet numbers will be
too low.

No problem. Don't worry about optimizing pre levels, just make sure
that the inputs to the preamps never clip when he's going full tilt,
and make sure that the output level is set so that you never get more
than a few dB close to full scale. If most of your recordings are down
around -20 dBFS, don't worry about it. You'll be amazed at how bad
they DON'T sound, at least noise-wise. Oh, and don't forget where the
playback volume control is. Turn it up if necessary.

So...I thought about splitting the mic signals with some
whirlwind transformer isolated splitter boxes to hedge my bets. In
other words, run two guitar mics and a vocal mic into three splitter
boxes and out to 6 mic pre ins.

What? And compromise your nice mics by running them through an unknown
transformer?

My gut says don't do it, but my gut also tells me not to eat spicy
food. And I LOVE spicy food.

My gut says that your gut is right. If you want to keep it simple,
keep it simple. Setting levels isn't that hard, and it's not as
important as you think it is to record everything at maximum level.
We're not using just 8 bits any more. You can always adjust levels in
"post", after you've made the recording.

Where you'll find your greatest noise problems is with ambient noise.
If this singer is truly as dynamic as you believe he is, you're going
to record the lawn mowers and the televisions and the traffic during
the quiet parts. The only way you can improve this situation (other
than soundproofing the house) is to have him keep his dynamics under
control and move the mics in closer when you need a better
signal-to-noise ratio going into the mics.

And if your next question is "should I run everything through the
compressor because I don't know when he's going to be singing soft or
loud?" I give up. You probably should spend more time listening to his
music, learn what he wants to record, and set up a plan so that at
least you know if a loud one or a quiet one is coming up next. Surely
he can cooperate to that extent in a "recording" situation.





--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

All, thanks for the advice!

Mike Rivers wrote:

Where you'll find your greatest noise problems is with ambient noise.
If this singer is truly as dynamic as you believe he is,

He is.

you're going
to record the lawn mowers and the televisions and the traffic during
the quiet parts.

House is very isolated from roads and neighbors. Heating and cooling system and
refrigerator will be off. New house with quiet pipes. Planes maybe...

The only way you can improve this situation (other
than soundproofing the house) is to have him keep his dynamics under
control and move the mics in closer when you need a better
signal-to-noise ratio going into the mics.

I wouldn't dream of instructing this guy to alter his dynamics. I can live with
negative consequences of the choices I make. I'm just here to learn about options
in areas where I am uncertain.

And if your next question is "should I run everything through the
compressor because I don't know when he's going to be singing soft or
loud?" I give up.

Not my next question...not really sure why you thought it would be. Also not
really sure why you find my query so frustrating. My intent is to do exactly the
opposite of what you think I'm trying to accomplish. I may be ignorant, but I'm
not an idiot. This ain't exactly my day gig.

You probably should spend more time listening to his
music, learn what he wants to record, and set up a plan so that at
least you know if a loud one or a quiet one is coming up next. Surely
he can cooperate to that extent in a "recording" situation.

I know his music extremely well. His sets vary widely as he selects material based
on the environment, how he feels and what seems to resonate at the moment. This
situation is not a result of lack of planning. It's a deliberate attempt to bring
as little as possible to bear on the environment and his attitude as he's greatly
affected by the external -- but not difficult to work with. He just plays best
when he has less to be preoccupied. This guy is one of our greatest living
songwriters, but has had very little commercial success playing his own material.
I want him embodying the characters in his songs not worrying about his dynamics,
etc. as pertains specifically to the recording situation. I'm just trying to most
accuarately capture what happens.

This is not a client to vendor relationship, it's a partnership of sorts... So I'm
not looking to make a "record," but rather a RECORD.

Tim

REALLY dumb, Rodney!

Split AFTER a preamp and cut on a few tracks if you like!

db

In article , tferrell
wrote:

All:

Recording a singer/songwriter (acoustic guitar and vocals) at his house
in a month. Rig will likely be as follows:

A collection of Neuman Km184s and Schoeps CMC64s
8 channels of API pres
RME ADI-8 Pro A/D
PC DAW with Nuendo

The way we're approaching this is to make the setting as natural as
possible with no expectation as to what might be done with the
recording. We just want a real natural sound and a comfortable
environment to do a snapshot of his repertoire at a given point in time.
As such, I don't want to run a lot of multiple takes or ask him to tell
me whether he's going to play a ballad or a rocker. He's just going to
play sets and try to get into a groove.

The problem: Because his music is so dynamic, I'm concerned that if I
optimize pre levels for the loud stuff, that the quiet numbers will be
too low. So...I thought about splitting the mic signals with some
whirlwind transformer isolated splitter boxes to hedge my bets. In
other words, run two guitar mics and a vocal mic into three splitter
boxes and out to 6 mic pre ins. Optimize levels for one set of three
lines for the loud tunes and the other identical set of three lines for
the quiet tunes and record all six to Nuendo for each song.

Is this a clever idea? Or just a really, really stupid one?

My gut says don't do it, but my gut also tells me not to eat spicy
food. And I LOVE spicy food.

Any and all opinions/experiences appreciated.

Tim


--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com
Boston, Mass
Phone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590

(M. Im)
I presume what is meant here is basically analog vs digital mixing.

No, in both cases you're mixing to a digital medium.

If you do a 2 track mix analog at the session vs a 2 track mix digitally
after the session.

They are both digital mixes, but one mix is of all the mics live and
undigitized by any converters and your later mix is a mix not of live mics but
of the prerecorded digital tracks. The mix of the live mics sounds better.

The 2 track mix digitally, of course, will not be a
bit for bit transfer by any means, but in essence, another generation of
digital.

You are adding all kinds of math to sum the signals, change gain on tracks
and whatever other processing you do. That's a kind of generation loss.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Techmeister wrote:

REALLY dumb, Rodney!

Way to go, Meathead!!

Split AFTER a preamp and cut on a few tracks if you like!

Which doesn't help at all if the preamp gets clipped. But you just so
SMART!

--
ha

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
Techmeister wrote:


REALLY dumb, Rodney!


Way to go, Meathead!!


Split AFTER a preamp and cut on a few tracks if you like!


Which doesn't help at all if the preamp gets clipped. But you just so
SMART!

So you think it's beter to split at the mic level with a Whirlwind box.
Interesting.

AT

--
ha

if you can get your hands on a cransong stc-8, that thing is wicked
transparent.

even if you mult with different gain stages, you'd probably go
unnecessarily crazy trying to match them up later during editing.

have the guy play/sing his loudest he thinks he will do, then if you
could have an stc-8 or two around to catch the would-be overs, you'd
be in really good shape.

Use a good quiet preamp, set it so it never clips (the preamp or the converter)
even when he's screaming his heart out, turn down another 3 dB, and roll on
24-bit audio. Mess with it afterwards. I bet you never hear any noise, other
than the sighing of the wind. Good 24-bit audio is pretty damned quiet.

Peace,
Paul

(WillStG) wrote in message ...
(M. Im)
I presume what is meant here is basically analog vs digital mixing.

No, in both cases you're mixing to a digital medium.



Perhaps I was not clear. I meant analog mixing to be defined as using
an analog mixer and digital mixing, a digital mixer. You can do
digital mixing and store to analog and I guess you might call it
analog mixing... but it does get kind of confusing in the terminology.

Mike

Just lack of common sense?

;-)

OBVIOUSLY one needs to get the preamp set reasonably. Will still sound way better
than a tranny split, even if it DOES clip once in a while.

The digital clipping is WAY more likely to be offensive.

An Old School Audio or a Great River, etc, will have ? 20 db of headroom: digital
will ALWAYS (under current standards) have only 10-14 db and it will clip UGLY.

And Hank's OTHER method winds up with two tracks that sound totally disimilar ...

Makes a lot of needless work.

Techmeister

In article m,
Artie Turner wrote:

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
Techmeister wrote:


REALLY dumb, Rodney!


Way to go, Meathead!!


Split AFTER a preamp and cut on a few tracks if you like!


Which doesn't help at all if the preamp gets clipped. But you just so
SMART!

So you think it's beter to split at the mic level with a Whirlwind box.
Interesting.

AT

--
ha


--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant
Acoustics by db
"...all the rest are just brokers"
now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com
Boston, Mass
Phone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590

Mike Rivers wrote:

artie writes:

So you think it's beter to split at the mic level with a Whirlwind box.
Interesting.

Who said that? I think it's better to just set the preamp gain
correctly and adjust it when necessary. Or else settle for some low
level high resolution recordings that you can goose up as required.

There are reasons for running multiple fixed-gain setups in parallel
and using the one that works best, but laziness isn't one of them, nor
is "not breaking the mood" in the studio unless there's more money
than ego.

Once upon a time I was tracking an elderly Texas singer. His regular
singing voice was fairly quiet, and i close mic'd him with a U87 into an
API pre and on to the A80. But when yodelling time came around, which
usually was several times per song, he'd throw back his head and _wail_.
there went the mic, the pre and the Studer. So another U87 was
positioned about an arm's length away from him, gain set for that
yodelling action, and the hot parts went down nicely to a different
track on the deck. From there I comped very usable vocals. This helped
not just with the change in level, but also with the shift in vocal
texture. Even if I'd had 24 bits, I don't think I'd want to give you the
yodelling from a few inches off of his mouth.

--
ha

Mike Rivers wrote:

artie writes:

So you think it's beter to split at the mic level with a Whirlwind box.
Interesting.

Who said that? I think it's better to just set the preamp gain
correctly and adjust it when necessary. Or else settle for some low
level high resolution recordings that you can goose up as required.

There are reasons for running multiple fixed-gain setups in parallel
and using the one that works best, but laziness isn't one of them, nor
is "not breaking the mood" in the studio unless there's more money
than ego.

Once upon a time I was tracking an elderly Texas singer. His regular
singing voice was fairly quiet, and i close mic'd him with a U87 into an
API pre and on to the A80. But when yodelling time came around, which
usually was several times per song, he'd throw back his head and _wail_.
there went the mic, the pre and the Studer. So another U87 was
positioned about an arm's length away from him, gain set for that
yodelling action, and the hot parts went down nicely to a different
track on the deck. From there I comped very usable vocals. This helped
not just with the change in level, but also with the shift in vocal
texture. Even if I'd had 24 bits, I don't think I'd want to give you the
yodelling from a few inches off of his mouth.

--
ha

Techmeister wrote:

And Hank's OTHER method winds up with two tracks that sound totally
disimilar ...

Read my reply to Mike River's recent comments. The change in vocal
texture was nicely handled by having the hot parts captured by a more
distant mic. When comped the vocals were seamless.

In other words, I did it because it _worked_.

--
ha

Techmeister wrote:

And Hank's OTHER method winds up with two tracks that sound totally
disimilar ...

Read my reply to Mike River's recent comments. The change in vocal
texture was nicely handled by having the hot parts captured by a more
distant mic. When comped the vocals were seamless.

In other words, I did it because it _worked_.

--
ha

(LeBaron & Alrich)

But when yodelling time came around, which usually was several times per song,
he'd throw back his head and _wail_. there went the mic, the pre and the
Studer. So another U87 was positioned about an arm's length away from him, gain
set for that yodelling action, and the hot parts went down nicely to a
different track on the deck. From there I comped very usable vocals. This
helped not just with the change in level, but also with the shift in vocal
texture. Even if I'd had 24 bits, I don't think I'd want to give you
theyodelling from a few inches off of his mouth.

That makes sense. If the guy went from singing country to singing opera
in the the same song, in that situation it would make sense too to have a far
mic. Now THAT would be crossover...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

(LeBaron & Alrich)

But when yodelling time came around, which usually was several times per song,
he'd throw back his head and _wail_. there went the mic, the pre and the
Studer. So another U87 was positioned about an arm's length away from him, gain
set for that yodelling action, and the hot parts went down nicely to a
different track on the deck. From there I comped very usable vocals. This
helped not just with the change in level, but also with the shift in vocal
texture. Even if I'd had 24 bits, I don't think I'd want to give you
theyodelling from a few inches off of his mouth.

That makes sense. If the guy went from singing country to singing opera
in the the same song, in that situation it would make sense too to have a far
mic. Now THAT would be crossover...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Once upon a time I was tracking an elderly Texas singer.

This wasn't Don Walser by any chance? KQ did a gig with him in Austin some
years back & it was about as much fun as I've had with my clothes on since I
started doing this.


Scott Fraser

If the guy went from singing country to singing opera
in the the same song, in that situation it would make sense too to have a far
mic. Now THAT would be crossover...

THAT would probably be criminal in most states...
g


Scott Fraser