Topic: Looking for a digital delay to synch Aud w/ Sbd

[Scuba Jeremy]

I'm looking for a good digital delay box to synch Aud w/ Sbd in a live setting. I'm mostly wondering how much something like this could cost. The other option is to just move to multichannel, and synch it all up in post. I'm running a laptop rig (w/ DAT backup) with a UA5, and I am considering just moving my rig to a less portable solution all together. Over 90% of any taping I do these days to archive one local band.

Would it be more cost effective to keep the UA5 and find a digital delay, keeping my recordings in a two channel situation, or would it make more sense to go to a four channel (or more) mix in post production?

[Brian]

with 4 channels it's such a breeze to line-up recordings.  having only 2 channels from each source and then doing a mix-paste is a little bit trickier but can be done with some time stretching and patience

there are several nice rackmount delay units that can be used though on the fly should you stay with 2 channels.  TC Electronics has a pretty good one.  the 744t has the delay option right there in it's guts if you want to only record two channels on it.  but why do that if you can do it more efficiently and most likely better in post?

[dklein]

I'd also recommend multitrack and mix in post.  That way you don't have to guess at the mix levels and can make eq decisions separately for each track.  And sometimes you just don't hear things at a show (like a nasty ground buzz from the soundboard that needs a cleanup).  Much easier to deal with that stuff as separate tracks.

I would also guess that a good sounding delay unit costs some $.

[Scuba Jeremy]

A friend pointed out a nice looking delay unit for around $300 retail, but it probably would be more beneficial to start thinking about multitrack. The two main purposes of recording this band are to get the word out about the band (grassroots, archive.org dist., etc) and for historical preservation. A delay will allow me to keep working at my current pace, however going multi would certainly produce sweeter material for historical record. At the moment, the band is in the studio working on a second album, so tourdates do have long stretches of time between them, however, the plan is to get back to working two shows a week once the new album is out. So I need a setup that will allow me to pump these shows out pretty fast, and have them sound good, too.

For now, working with this band is more of a part time thing, (kind of a day job, since I'm a bartender), so it's pretty easy for me to tape the show, sleep, wake up, FLAC and burn master files, edit, track and archive 16/44.1 files for the masses, then go to work. I fear that going multitrack will demand far more of my time in post production, and probably drive myself insane, since I'm something of a perfectionist.

Anyway, thanks again to all for the input, I'll have to weigh the options here and decide which direction this is going.

[dklein]

I fear that going multitrack will demand far more of my time in post production, and probably drive myself insane, since I'm something of a perfectionist.

yes, definitely...and so worth it! 

[heath]

i vote for moving to a multichannel audio card and running all 4 channels into multitrack software.  No aligning necessary in post.  Pretty much all you'd have to do is play with faders and get a nice mix.  Unless of course, you want to start getting into signal processing and start spending hours playing and working on an absolutely perfect recording!    

[Cooker]

why not just get another recorder, in lieu of doing a true multitrack?

a nice used D8 would be fine for capturing the SBD feed.

[SparkE!]

why not just get another recorder, in lieu of doing a true multitrack?

a nice used D8 would be fine for capturing the SBD feed.

The problem is that you can accumulate about 100 ms of skew per hour between 2 stereo recorders simply because they are not running off of the same crystal.  To make matters worse, the exact frequency of a crystal is temperature dependent so the rate of accumulation of clock skew between two recorders will depend on the ambient temperature at each recorder's crystal oscillator.  You'd be a lot better off if all 4 channels were run from the same frequency reference.

[Scuba Jeremy]

why not just get another recorder, in lieu of doing a true multitrack?

a nice used D8 would be fine for capturing the SBD feed.

My recording arsenal includes a laptop w/ UA5, PCM-M1 and two MiniDisc recorders. The drift absolutely drives me insane, so I'd rather not deal with that. I guess if I'm going multi, I'd rather spend a few extra hundred and do twelve channels at once rather than just four at a time, though going to four channels would probably be better than going with a delay.

And yeah, I should probably avoid signal processing, but damn does that look tempting. ;-)

Any multitrackers available on the 27th for a run with a good Chicago area jam rock band at the Cubby Bear? I'll get you in and cover your drinks. Let me know.

[Roving Sign]

Behrenger DSP-8024

Check this post by Wilson...

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=35164.0

I think you can set the delay in feet...

Cheap

http://cgi.ebay.com/Behringer-Ultra-Curve-Pro-DSP-8024-with-ECM-8000-mic_W0QQitemZ7342165309QQcategoryZ23790QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Cooker]

yeah i've seen wilson's rack many times and heard quite a few of his tapes. i can't complain about the sound of that behringer delay.

FWIW the mackie 1402-VLZ is the workhorse of the industry, great sound in that package too, but you can get a behringer mixer for a fraction of the price.