Looking for opinions here on approach. All questions pertain to the INPUT
MIXER when doing hard disk recording. Here goes:

1. Anyone ever have a reason to ever want to pan left or right on a channel
of the INPUT MIXER to a hard disk recorder?
2. Do you like to use EQ on any channels of the INPUT MIXER, or do you
record flat and add EQ as needed in mix?
3. Here one for the ages: Do you like to use Compression on any channels of
the INPUT MIXER, or do you believe it robs the performance of dynamics?
4. Do you ever record (and therefore print) effects on any channels of the
INPUT MIXER?

I am interested to hear some of your approaches. I rather believe that less
is more, and try to keep the signals nice a dry with no EQ or compression as
they go to tape. With that said, I will print effects on a separate track
AFTER THE FACT to free up some computing power. If I KNOW that I want a
certain effect, I'll print it on a copied track.

Jimmy wrote
1. Anyone ever have a reason to ever want to pan left or right on a channel
of the INPUT MIXER to a hard disk recorder?

If your monitoring from the mixer more than likely yes. This is what I do.

2. Do you like to use EQ on any channels of the INPUT MIXER, or do you
record flat and add EQ as needed in mix?

If you have an option to turn it off, I'd do that to, I have used a mixer that
has no EQ on/off switch and MAYBE taking away some friquinces I don't like. But
the best approch is to get a good sound by placing the right mics in the right
spot.

3. Here one for the ages: Do you like to use Compression on any channels of
the INPUT MIXER, or do you believe it robs the performance of dynamics?

I remember using the comps that where in the channel strips (only the voxs and
maybe bass drum) of the SSL and Neve boards in college but these where very
hi-end units.
I have a few mic pres that I will use on some things but not on every thing.

4. Do you ever record (and therefore print) effects on any channels of the
INPUT MIXER?

I like to things one step at a time but if your not altering the dry tracks I
don't know if it would hurt or not.

In article writes:

Looking for opinions here on approach. All questions pertain to the INPUT
MIXER when doing hard disk recording. Here goes:

1. Anyone ever have a reason to ever want to pan left or right on a channel
of the INPUT MIXER to a hard disk recorder?

It depends on the mixer and how you're connecting it to the recorder.
Sometimes you have to do this if you're feeding the recorder from the
mixer's bus, but if you're using direct outputs from the mixer to feed
the recorder, the pan pots don't have any effect.

2. Do you like to use EQ on any channels of the INPUT MIXER, or do you
record flat and add EQ as needed in mix?

It depends on why EQ is needed. Also, as above, if you're feeding the
recorder from direct outputs, this is usually (but not always) ahead
of the mixer's EQ, so it may have no effect on the recording.

3. Here one for the ages: Do you like to use Compression on any channels of
the INPUT MIXER, or do you believe it robs the performance of dynamics?

Do you bring your lunch or drive to work? If you use so much
compression that it robs the performance of dynamics and you want
dynamics, that's wrong no matter where it's applied. But sometimes
compressing when going into the recorder can sometimes be helpful.
Many people prefer to delay decisions about compression and EQ until
mixing and leave the recording as pure as possible. Take your choice,
but either way, be sure you don't make things harder for yourself
later on.

4. Do you ever record (and therefore print) effects on any channels of the
INPUT MIXER?

It depends. If an effect is part of a sound (typically a guitar or
synthesizer) then you might as well record it. It's not typical to
record, say, a vocal, with reverb, but add that later. But it's a
matter of taste.

I assum in all of the above that we're talking about multitrack
recording. If you're mixing direct to a 2-track recorder, then you
make everything sound the way you want it while you're tracking.

I am interested to hear some of your approaches. I rather believe that less
is more, and try to keep the signals nice a dry with no EQ or compression as
they go to tape.

This is a common approach, but "less is more" is not the reason. The
reason is that when recording multitrack, it's rare that you ever hear
the whole song (other than in your head) until you get very close to
finishing the recording process. You may find that when parts are
combined, EQ or effects that you might apply to the raw track when you
listen to it when recording may not be appropriate in the mix.

If you're recording a band live, or if you have a very good idea of
how the pieces are going to fit together, it's certainly reasonable to
make as many of the adjustments in tracking as you can. It makes
mixing easier.



--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

1. Anyone ever have a reason to ever want to pan left or right on a channel
of the INPUT MIXER to a hard disk recorder?

Sure. Sometimes the pan allows for odd/even busssing. Other times I might want
to place a sound to one side of a stereo track.

2. Do you like to use EQ on any channels of the INPUT MIXER, or do you
record flat and add EQ as needed in mix?

I try to get the sound I'm after without EQ, but I sometimes do EQ things in
order to get them closer to what I'm going to want in the mix.

3. Here one for the ages: Do you like to use Compression on any channels of
the INPUT MIXER, or do you believe it robs the performance of dynamics?

Yes.

4. Do you ever record (and therefore print) effects on any channels of the
INPUT MIXER?

Yes.

I am interested to hear some of your approaches. I rather believe that less
is more, and try to keep the signals nice a dry with no EQ or compression as
they go to tape. With that said, I will print effects on a separate track
AFTER THE FACT to free up some computing power. If I KNOW that I want a
certain effect, I'll print it on a copied track.

I like to get as close to the sound I have in my head as possible before
printing. If I don't have a precise idea of what I want it to sound like, I
leave it alone. Some people want an infinite amount of control all the way
through the process. I find that without commitment along the way I have
trouble keeping focussed. Working on 2" tape forced me to make decisions along
the way. I like waht that process does to a project.

YMMV


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

Jimmy Lee wrote:

Looking for opinions here on approach. All questions pertain to the INPUT
MIXER when doing hard disk recording. Here goes:

1. Anyone ever have a reason to ever want to pan left or right on a channel
of the INPUT MIXER to a hard disk recorder?
2. Do you like to use EQ on any channels of the INPUT MIXER, or do you
record flat and add EQ as needed in mix?
3. Here one for the ages: Do you like to use Compression on any channels of
the INPUT MIXER, or do you believe it robs the performance of dynamics?
4. Do you ever record (and therefore print) effects on any channels of the
INPUT MIXER?

I am interested to hear some of your approaches. I rather believe that less
is more, and try to keep the signals nice a dry with no EQ or compression as
they go to tape. With that said, I will print effects on a separate track
AFTER THE FACT to free up some computing power. If I KNOW that I want a
certain effect, I'll print it on a copied track.



I am of the purist group. If you alter the signal going to the
recorder, you probably cannot undo the alteration. One thing I have
done is split the signal from some sources and go in compressed on one
channel and uncompressed on another. Or limited (sometimes a good idea,
particularly on live recordings) on one channel and not on another. The
above idea assumes you have enough tracks to do the split.

Have fun,
Robert A. Ober