I actually posted a message a while back and received some very
helpful responses. Some parameters have changed, though, and I need to
have something to show my principal within a day or two. Also, I've
reading and trying to learn as much as I can; my head is spinning
from the choices and I'm running out of time.

I would like to record CDs to sell to the parents of our school. The
groups we would record are general classes (kinder-8th), children's
choir, concert band, and jazz band. I would like to record some in a
"controlled" setting, ie with overdubs, and also our live shows. In
addition, I would like to use the recording equipment to record class
projects, compositions, etc. The room we will basically be using is a
church hall where the Mass is offered. It has pretty good live
acoustics to my ear (carpeted, etc.)

I would like the equipment to record 12-16 tracks simitaneously and be
cabable of 96khz (because from what I've read it's better for acoustic
situations and I think for higher voices?...) I've had some experience
already working with 4-track (cassette),16 track (DAW standalone), and
Cubase. I have basically $5000-5500 to spend.

This is the equipment we have already:

2 Octavas small diaphraghm(012-01 I think...the one that comes with
only capsule)
1 Shure Beta 57
1 Shure Beta 58a
6 Audix Fusion Drum Mics

1 Roland K-300 Keyboard Amp
1 Crate 500 Watt Bass Amp (Bigfoot? I think) with a XLR Line Out
1 Small Peavey Guitar Amp with a line out
1 Mackie 808S Amp/Mixer

Cables and stands, etc. to go with the above.

The Church (not the school) has that we can use sometimes as well:

About 5 small condensor choir mics
A Peavy Amp that goes into the main PA system.
About 5 (I think cheap) AT Dynamic mics.

I am thinking of buying:
Fast Laptop + Digi002 + Firewire Drive $2700
Alesis or Lucid AD Converter $400-800
1404 vlz Mackie $550
another set of small cond. mics for stereo $600
Monitors and Headphones $500
2 sets of 8 channel snakes $200

As soon as possible I would like to get an RNP and RNC.

I would put 4 tracks into the digi using the preamps, and then use the
digi outs to the Mackie 808 stereo line imputs. I would run the rest
of the tracks through from the Mackies' inserts into the digi002 and
the outboard converter with snakes. The converter would be connected
via ADAT to the digi. Finally, the Mackie main outs would be sent to
the house PA.

Does this sound right? I'm trying to get the best
mics/converter/preamp combo I think I can afford plus portability and
ability to work in the computer. I don't think I want to go the MDM
route because it doesn't seem as intuitive for working with class
projects/non-live recordings.

I thought a track sheet would look like this:

1. OHL Aud mic
2. OHR Aud mic
3. BDrum Aud mic
4. Bass Direct
5. Keyboard Direct
6. Guitar Direct
7. Horns L Octava mic
8. Horns R Octava mic
9. Choir L another small d. cond.
10. Choir R "
11. Solo Mic 1 Beta 57
12. Solo Mic 2 Beta 58

or

1. Band L cond. mic'd stero
2. Band R "
3. Choir L "
4. Choir R "
5. Solo 1 "
6. Solo 2 "

Thanks so much for your help. I've really been impressed with the
thought I've seen put into the answers you've given others. As an
aside, I would like to use this as an opportunity to improve my own
recording chops and also give a few students the opportunity to have
an experience on the recording side also. I am looking at classes that
I can sign up for at the local college.

Musically yours,

Mike Rowe

What seemed strange to me though, is that in the studio I've been to
when a singer sung over the other instruments, they sung over somewhat
processed instruments already with effect on their own voices. It's
seems more complicated using this model for overdubing parts, effects,
etc. Plus it seems like I'd be going back and forth to a computer
more often. This seems ok for live shows but not so good for other
applications.


If this was a digital system, the effects were probably being applied
in the playback loop in real time (or as near real time as the
system's audio latency allowed. Which nowadays is only delayed by a
few ms). You can change or remove the effects right up to the final
mixdown. And even that "final" isn't particularly final :-)

"Music Teacher" wrote in message
om...

I actually posted a message a while back and received some very
helpful responses. Some parameters have changed, though, and I need to
have something to show my principal within a day or two. Also, I've
reading and trying to learn as much as I can; my head is spinning
from the choices and I'm running out of time.

I would like to record CDs to sell to the parents of our school. The
groups we would record are general classes (kinder-8th), children's
choir, concert band, and jazz band. I would like to record some in a
"controlled" setting, i.e. with overdubs, and also our live shows. In
addition, I would like to use the recording equipment to record class
projects, compositions, etc. The room we will basically be using is a
church hall where the Mass is offered. It has pretty good live
acoustics to my ear (carpeted, etc.)

I would like the equipment to record 12-16 tracks simultaneously and be
capable of 96khz (because from what I've read it's better for acoustic
situations and I think for higher voices?...) I've had some experience
already working with 4-track (cassette),16 track (DAW standalone), and
Cubase. I have basically $5000-5500 to spend.

Forget 96 KHz. It will just make your music files longer and force you to
downsample to cut CDs. It will make it harder to make recordings with zero
dropped data (tics and pops) It has no audible benefits over 44 KHz. You're
going to end up with 96 KHz digital equipment because that's what we have in
the 21st century. But, just because its there doesn't mean that you have to
use it!

I suspect that the first time you actually try to record 16 tracks of 24/96
concurrently on a laptop you are going to be plagued with all kinds of
missing data problems, and be forced to significantly regroup.

This is the equipment we have already:

2 Octavas small diaphraghm(012-01 I think...the one that comes with
only capsule)
1 Shure Beta 57
1 Shure Beta 58a
6 Audix Fusion Drum Mics

1 Roland K-300 Keyboard Amp
1 Crate 500 Watt Bass Amp (Bigfoot? I think) with a XLR Line Out
1 Small Peavey Guitar Amp with a line out
1 Mackie 808S Amp/Mixer

Cables and stands, etc. to go with the above.

The Church (not the school) has that we can use sometimes as well:

About 5 small condenser choir mics
A Peavy Amp that goes into the main PA system.
About 5 (I think cheap) AT Dynamic mics.

I am thinking of buying:
Fast Laptop + Digi002 + Firewire Drive $2700
Alesis or Lucid AD Converter $400-800

Have you considered the Metric Halo firewire interface which includes 4 mic
preamps and 8 AD converters? Please see
http://www.mhlabs.com/mobileio/Mobil...ual.screen.pdf .


1404 vlz Mackie $550
another set of small cond. mics for stereo $600
Monitors and Headphones $500
2 sets of 8 channel snakes $200


As soon as possible I would like to get an RNP and RNC.

I don't know why. RNPs are great if a bit pricey, but compression while
recording with 24 bit equipment makes little ssense to me unless you like
squished dynamics. In fact this is totally ironic. You buy all this
wide-dynamic range equipment while can give you headroom out the ying-yang
and then to eliminate the need for it with compression. Plan "B" is to
record with lots of headroom. This works!

Furhermore, you've got this little Mackie with mic pres of its own.

I would put 4 tracks into the digi using the preamps, and then use the
digi outs to the Mackie 808 stereo line imputs. I would run the rest
of the tracks through from the Mackies' inserts into the digi002 and
the outboard converter with snakes. The converter would be connected
via ADAT to the digi. Finally, the Mackie main outs would be sent to
the house PA.

Does this sound right? I'm trying to get the best
mics/converter/preamp combo I think I can afford plus portability and
ability to work in the computer. I don't think I want to go the MDM
route because it doesn't seem as intuitive for working with class
projects/non-live recordings.



I thought a track sheet would look like this:

1. OHL Aud mic
2. OHR Aud mic
3. BDrum Aud mic
4. Bass Direct
5. Keyboard Direct
6. Guitar Direct
7. Horns L Octava mic
8. Horns R Octava mic
9. Choir L another small d. cond.
10. Choir R "
11. Solo Mic 1 Beta 57
12. Solo Mic 2 Beta 58

or

1. Band L cond. mic'd stero
2. Band R "
3. Choir L "
4. Choir R "
5. Solo 1 "
6. Solo 2 "

This is way overly complex in my opinion.

First off there's no need to have independent stereo pickups of every group
of instruments.

There's a lot to be said for starting out simple, and working up to
something complex.

There's also something to be said for working with basically the same
ingredients in your SR system as your recording system. IOW if you are going
to record 16 tracks, then why not have 16 independent inputs in your SR
system and do a 16-channel mix in real time to warm yourself up for making a
recording?

But the real issue is that you're apparantly jumping from zero to light
speed in a single step.

The simplest way to approach this situation would be to set up two spaced
omnis. Put the speakers a goodly distance away from the performers and
closer to the audience and you can get some acoustical gain and a stable
system. Remember that the front half of the audience will probably be bathed
with direct sound and actually need no SR at all. However, you might have to
add delay if the speakers are two far down a long, narrow room.

The modern minimalist way to approach this problem would be to try to do a
conincident micing of the whole enchelada. Thats two mics, typically crossed
cardiods or M/S with an omni and a figure-8 or cardiod.

That will result in distant sounding soloists, so the next level of
complexity would be to add spot mics for the soloists. OK, so now we are up
to 4 mics which should be pretty managable. You can grow from here.

As far as recording goes, why not just record line level signals off of your
mixing boards insert points? I know there is a lot of paranoia about Mackie
mic pres, but if that really gives you a sore tummy, why not pick a better
more expensive board like maybe a Soundcraft?

Once you get into using the mic pres on the SR mixer, let's reconsider the
mixer. If you are going to use 16 mics at some point, why not buy a mixer
with 16 mic inputs? If you are going to be critical of mic pres, why buy add
ons when you can probably get a better mixer for less overall money?

I know from experience that setting up a lot of mics (even just 8) is a lot
of work. It takes effort to get even approximately right.

Setting up mics with a mixing board attached to a SR system is relatively
easy, and need not give substandard results. For example, once you have your
trims for each mic set up on the mixing board to provide a good balance for
your SR operation, you've also got your levels set right for recording off
the insert points.

Getting set up right for SR is a realtime operation and therefore easier and
more intuitive. Recording is messier and less intiutive, IME. To check out
a recording you have to stop recording and rewind and listen which is
time-consuming and confusing. Furthermore, monitoring a multitrack recording
in the field is lots of work (you have to do more level setting and panning)
and really tells you more than you really need to know at the time of the
performance.

I think you vastly underestimate the confusion factor that dogs multitrack
recording, especially for a newbie. And in a student context, you are going
to be working with newbies for the forseeable future unless you have a lot
of fails and repeats!

Unless you are going to spend a lot of time mixing, you might as I suggested
before reconsider recording all your sections in stereo. Is stereo horns
going to do that much for your recording? Is having both overheads and
section mics going at the same time going to do anything but create
redundancy and confusiion? Is the choir so large that they will need two
mics? Is your accompaniment so large that each section needs its own mic?
Are direct boxes going to get you the most lifelike sound from the
electronic instruments?


Thanks so much for your help. I've really been impressed with the
thought I've seen put into the answers you've given others. As an
aside, I would like to use this as an opportunity to improve my own
recording chops and also give a few students the opportunity to have
an experience on the recording side also. I am looking at classes that
I can sign up for at the local college.

If you take my advice, you will start out simple and develop your own
answers to these questions in an evolutionary fashion.