Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: moondust.and.solitude on November 16, 2022, 02:33:27 PM
-
I imagine a lot of tapers do this, just curious as to how many sources you have per show? I usually end up with 3. Of course I'll have my mics mounted on/under my collar, my wife (or if she doesn't go, my son usually does) has another set of mics and for some reason I always use the iPhone with one of those lightning adapter mics. This has been a blessing as if I need to eliminate a loud whistler, screamer or talker, I can borrow a few seconds from one of the other sources to splice in. Sometime, rarely, I will do a three source matrix mix but I'm usually not a fan of those.
Do you do this as well?
-
I failed to mention this in the original post, but the most I have had for one show is 8. It was complete overkill, but we had fun with it as we felt like a walking Radio Shack going into the venue. Lol.
-
for larger, open taping shows, kindms and I have had 2 "decks" with at most 4 pairs of mics. My fave multi source set up was 4 channels of AUD with 2 channels of SBD for the "Lunch at the Egg" series in 2018.
-
for larger, open taping shows, kindms and I have had 2 "decks" with at most 4 pairs of mics. My fave multi source set up was 4 channels of AUD with 2 channels of SBD for the "Lunch at the Egg" series in 2018.
Very nice. I treasure those SBD patches. Drivin' & Cryin' usually give me one and I love mixing it with an audience recording. They are one of the few "open tape" bands that I get to see.
-
I think the most I've done was 7 mics and mono SBD, I'd call 5 of the mics a virtual coincident stereo array, and the other 2 spaced omni's. I experiment a lot and don't have a regular thing I do. The coincident is usually mid side, or dual mid side, or horizontal B array. MS additional channels may be options to compare later, like cardioid or shotgun mid, and/or mid omni that might be low passed for bass only. If I'm doing more than mono, but not more than 2 mics, it's usually MS. If I'm stealthing, it's usually mono with a 4060 omni, have never been happy with the motion effects of stereo in a stealth situation, though I may do it so as to pick the best of the two at various points. I haven't gone PAS all that many times though I recognize the value in many situations.
-
I think the most I've done was 7 mics and mono SBD, I'd call 5 of the mics a virtual coincident stereo array, and the other 2 spaced omni's. I experiment a lot and don't have a regular thing I do. The coincident is usually mid side, or dual mid side, or horizontal B array. MS additional channels may be options to compare later, like cardioid or shotgun mid, and/or mid omni that might be low passed for bass only. If I'm doing more than mono, but not more than 2 mics, it's usually MS. If I'm stealthing, it's usually mono with a 4060 omni, have never been happy with the motion effects of stereo in a stealth situation, though I may do it so as to pick the best of the two at various points. I haven't gone PAS all that many times though I recognize the value in many situations.
You made some VERY interesting points there. I have never thought about using Omni's low passed for bass only. I usually lean towards Cardioids to cut down on nearby chatter but at the sacrifice of low end. Your method is very intriguing! Thank you.
-
If we're just talking about mics (not sbd) almost always 1. Only time I'll ever run more than one pair of mics is if I'm on stage lip. I like the combination of cards and spaced omnis up there. Never understood tapers that run >4 ch outside of the context of just doing mic shootouts/comparisons
-
If we're just talking about mics (not sbd) almost always 1. Only time I'll ever run more than one pair of mics is if I'm on stage lip. I like the combination of cards and spaced omnis up there. Never understood tapers that run >4 ch outside of the context of just doing mic shootouts/comparisons
I understand.
The way I usually run the three is one set is omni, one is cardioid and then the iPhone which I listen to the least, but I have the phone on me, so sticking a mic in the lightning port takes 5 seconds and it's a good "if all else fails" backup.
-
One good one. Rarely disappointed.
Occasionally get a SBD as well and that is nice to mix in and support the vocals and instruments.
I was just talking about this last night - I have a second set of mics I could run, but to be honest, I don't want to carry that much gear. I may cut down to actives > baby nbox > sony A10 and that's it, open or low profile. Only pull out other gear when I'm getting a board and want to run 4 channels.
-
One good one. Rarely disappointed.
Occasionally get a SBD as well and that is nice to mix in and support the vocals and instruments.
I was just talking about this last night - I have a second set of mics I could run, but to be honest, I don't want to carry that much gear. I may cut down to actives > baby nbox > sony A10 and that's it, open or low profile. Only pull out other gear when I'm getting a board and want to run 4 channels.
This, pretty much. I'm recording something in a couple of hours and am bringing two sets of gear, but that's mostly because it's a venue that I've never been to, so I have no idea if cards or omnis will come out best.
I topped out once and only once at three recorders, and that was only because I had new mics I wanted to run a comparison on.
-
8 channels for open taping, plus 6 channels of backups using the outs on DR-680.
-
Nearly always 4 channels. I don't always use them both in the final mix unless I am hell bent on visually aligning phase. When I do, its not much of an issue. One pair is always sub- or open card in NOS. The other set varies from DIN to DINa, card to supercard. I figure, if I am headed in I'll take 4 channels. Spread omnis is one thing I have never explored. Only have Line OM1 and not sure if they would be good for that.
What the OP mentions is great and sorta inspiring. I have 4 sets of AT853, sets of various caps and 4 >:D decks. Wonder if I can get my gf to wear a pair (lol) for Neko Case in Feb... hmm....
edit: I have AT853 omnis and a bar, just never used them. I just ordered a 4 chan AT853 bar (DIN and NOS) from Scott. Planning on running AT853 locally through the winter while I sell a lot of what I don't use to help fund an active Gefell M21 setup.
-
If it's open taping and I'm learning new gear, I'll bring a 2nd set of mics for the fun of it. In those instances, 4 mics and stereo sbd feed. Sometimes I'll be surprised and what I expected to be my throw-away recording ends up being my preferred mic capture for my matrix.
At a recent gig for some musicians I adore, they let me set-up on stage and I had two cards ortf style facing the musicians, and some haphazardly oriented mics pointed toward the crowd, with a mono board feed. The previous night, there was a crowd sing-along moment and I thought it would be nice to capture that and mix it in. Still haven't settled on that mix and whether or not I want to mix the audience-facing mics in more songs than just that one. It adds some fullness to the sound.
-
If it's open taping and I'm learning new gear, I'll bring a 2nd set of mics for the fun of it. In those instances, 4 mics and stereo sbd feed. Sometimes I'll be surprised and what I expected to be my throw-away recording ends up being my preferred mic capture for my matrix.
At a recent gig for some musicians I adore, they let me set-up on stage and I had two cards ortf style facing the musicians, and some haphazardly oriented mics pointed toward the crowd, with a mono board feed. The previous night, there was a crowd sing-along moment and I thought it would be nice to capture that and mix it in. Still haven't settled on that mix and whether or not I want to mix the audience-facing mics in more songs than just that one. It adds some fullness to the sound.
It's true about being surprised by a different setup's recording. I used a set of Sony mics as a secondary set to the AT's and absolutely fell in love with them. Now I prefer the Sony's over the AT's.
-
Only one. Have run a second rig >:D a few times but it's a geadache.
-
I'm recording something in a couple of hours and am bringing two sets of gear, but that's mostly because it's a venue that I've never been to, so I have no idea if cards or omnis will come out best.
And I ended up just running the omnis and leaving the cards in my bag because the minute I got there, I knew the omnis would sound so good that I wouldn't even want to bother with the cards. Which they did.
-
Whatever I feel like in the moment. I just bought Dan's warm mod 661 and I'm looking forward to an all-in-one stereo rig where I can press a few buttons, enjoy the show, then just copy the damn file to my archives and be done with it. I'm still working on a super low-pro, adjustable stereo mount for my at853's where the mics are (semi) permanently mounted on it and I can just quick-release the mount onto my mic stand, raise it, and press record.
I still have bands and venues where I look forward to the extra work of 3 mic mix + mono sbd (my current experiment). I've been putting in the work of screening smaller bands coming through town and hand-picking the ones I think I'd enjoy. When you're into the band, especially someone fresh and new, it gives a whole new meaning to the work and suddenly it's not work.
A (generous) friend is letting me borrow his Focusrite Scarlett 18i8 3rd gen usb interface. 10 inputs. I'm gonna try some laptop multi-tracking; spot-micing each instrument and then to defy all (taper) convention, point some mics away from the band and towards the audience!
-
One. Plus video.
I only stealth.
-
One. Audio only.
For me that's 4 or 8 channels configured as a single source. Two sources if SBD is recorded - nice to have, but I don't count on that. Making the rig fast and easy to deploy and run has been the key for me. That doesn't simplify the after-work, but I'm okay with that as its worth it to me. Once source of 4 channels is likely to be the sweet spot for most tapers running more than 2 channels.
The difference between the number of sources and number of channels in any single source is an important distinction I think. A single source being purposefully designed in such a way that all channels have a specific relationship so as to work together optimally as a unit.
I've run three separate AUD sources (+ SBD) at times in the past for comparison purposes.
-
The difference between the number of sources and number of channels in any single source is an important distinction I think.
I think we all understood the OP's question to mean how many different sets of mics or sbd channels someone was running. No need to turn this into another thread about running OMT7 or OMT8 or OMT72.
I run as many channels as I need to get a good recording. I simply don't have the time or energy to do more just because I can. I would need an associate taper to do all my post work if I went that route. And I only do 1 show every month or so, sometimes more (like this month), but really about 10-15 per year and I can't handle more than that.
-
In his original post, OP moondust.and.solitude specifically mentioned 3 separate sources That's 6 channels in that particular case. So which is it?
My point is that this is an important distinction, which is not often clearly differentiated in our discussions here at TS, but should be.
-
^ Or misunderstood, rather. In his original post, OP moondust.and.solitude specifically mentioned 3 separate sources That's 6 channels in that particular case. So which is it?
I took "sources" to mean "mic pairs." Or, more simply, how many plugs I need to find input jacks for.
-
For the average open show, I try and run 4 channels and board when available, but when in a pinch, 2 well placed mics can often times be just as good. Far as the recorder, just depends how many channels I am running. I did 10 channels for a few shows earlier this year and it was a lot of gear to haul around, 8 mics and board, but it was fun to have the 10T running all of that. Primarily was a test to see which pair of mics I wanted to buy, the schoeps mk21s or gefell m300s, against my usual 2 pair.
-
depends on how many the band lets me put on stage.
-
^ Or misunderstood, rather. In his original post, OP moondust.and.solitude specifically mentioned 3 separate sources That's 6 channels in that particular case. So which is it?
I took "sources" to mean "mic pairs." Or, more simply, how many plugs I need to find input jacks for.
+1
-
The difference between the number of sources and number of channels in any single source is an important distinction I think.
No need to turn this into another thread about running OMT7 or OMT8 or OMT72.
:-\ :'( :o ^-^ >:( ;D >:D
jeez. Curatorial envy? How about OMT196? >:D
I think there is certainly a difference between number of SOURCES, AUD, SBD, FM, stream
vs the number of CHANNELS being recorded onto.
-
For the record, a single source consisting of two microphone channels is capable of producing sublime stereo recordings and is the right choice for most tapers. Call it two sources if also recording SBD, but lets ignore that for now.
More than two sources is a great way to compare things, and can hedge the bet / improve the odds by providing a choice between those sources.
What the incorporation of more channels in a single source can do is: Hedge the bet / improve the odds; Allow for a greater specialization of what the pairs or individual channels are providing, such that their sum is greater than any of the individual parts; Provide what is needed for playback using more than two channels. Most tapers have no interest in the last one, but the other two may be of interest.
I've posted many times that for most tapers that want to run a single-source consisting of an array of more than two microphones, I think the sweet spot is probably four mic channels total. What makes that a single source instead of two sources is when those four channels are specifically arranged to work together collectively in combination. Two stereo pairs on the same stand or mic-bar, each designed to work well on its own, constitutes two sources, the combination of which may or may not work better than either on its own.
^
This is the essence of the distinction I'm trying to make.
Additional microphone channels beyond four in a single source can certainly be beneficial, else I wouldn't bother doing it or posting about it at TS, yet will often be a case of diminishing returns. Properly arranging things so all channels work together optimally gets increasingly difficult. There is more stuff to haul and setup. There is more one needs to do afterward. Managing it all gets more complicated. All of that limits the suitability of using 6 or more microphones in a single source to a much smaller subset of tapers, which is all good and as it should be.
Each taper gravitates to whatever methods work best for them. We're a small community, fertile with individualism and creative solutions, and are fortunate to have this place to share and discuss these kinds of things. Making these kinds of distinctions is important to me for thinking about arcane concepts involved in taping and discussing them with sufficient clarity. To each his own. Make great tapes in your own way. Thanks to everyone here for sharing their thoughts, ideas, and recordings.
-
In his original post, OP moondust.and.solitude specifically mentioned 3 separate sources That's 6 channels in that particular case. So which is it?
My point is that this is an important distinction, which is not often clearly differentiated in our discussions here at TS, but should be.
I see you edited your post. It was not misunderstood. You can make the distinction all you want, we know what he meant. Sources, mic pairs - in this case the same thing.
There is useful information in (most of) your posts and you are clearly a knowledgeable and passionate person, you care about the community. Just no need to make these kind of distinctions that feel pedantic when you are correcting someone. If it is only me, so be it. I'll shut up now. I've said my piece.
-
4 sources, 8 channels into two clock-linked R-44s is fun. I use different combinations of this gear with SBD at different times, linked and un-linked, but not more than four sources.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wpxx87bh/4-sources-8-channels.jpg)
-
I think there is certainly a difference between number of SOURCES, AUD, SBD, FM, stream
vs the number of CHANNELS being recorded onto.
Not to most of us. I understand the point, but it isn't applicable to 95% (maybe more) of the taping we do.
-
Going to discount running a multitrack off the soundboard.
Biggest rig I've done is 16 IEM feeds before. Just recently recorded 8 IEM feeds on my person (stealth) for the B-52s a few weeks ago. Of course recording multiple IEM feeds with intention of doing a final mix is a different beast than multiple mic sources, more akin to multitracking off a board.
-
Varies, typically one when doing stealth but if I'm w/ my SO and it's a show that we know an archive exists for where they would appreciate as many sources as possible I'll wire her up w/ a second set of mics. She loves that lol. If I'm testing new gear I always bring a backup rig, like what I did for Tool last year when running the Babynbox for the first time.
-
^ Or misunderstood, rather. In his original post, OP moondust.and.solitude specifically mentioned 3 separate sources That's 6 channels in that particular case. So which is it?
I took "sources" to mean "mic pairs." Or, more simply, how many plugs I need to find input jacks for.
I apologize. I should have been more specific. Yes, I meant "mic pairs" as in a set of omni, a set of cardioids and a set of hyper-cardioids. Three mics pairs and three recorders. Sometimes it's just two mic pairs and two recorders and an iPhone as a third "source". Gutbucket, you are correct, there's a lot of different taper styles on here, and it does get jumbled. Sorry for the confusion :)
-
Going to discount running a multitrack off the soundboard.
Biggest rig I've done is 16 IEM feeds before. Just recently recorded 8 IEM feeds on my person (stealth) for the B-52s a few weeks ago. Of course recording multiple IEM feeds with intention of doing a final mix is a different beast than multiple mic sources, more akin to multitracking off a board.
Massive respect for you over here. It's not easy to do ONE, not to mention 16 times! Wow. I've always wanted to dip my toe into that pond, but it's beyond my means, so I just sit on the sidelines and watch the pros.
-
Going to discount running a multitrack off the soundboard.
Biggest rig I've done is 16 IEM feeds before. Just recently recorded 8 IEM feeds on my person (stealth) for the B-52s a few weeks ago. Of course recording multiple IEM feeds with intention of doing a final mix is a different beast than multiple mic sources, more akin to multitracking off a board.
Massive respect for you over here. It's not easy to do ONE, not to mention 16 times! Wow. I've always wanted to dip my toe into that pond, but it's beyond my means, so I just sit on the sidelines and watch the pros.
The whole IEM feed thing seems like some forbidden sorcery in these circles - it's not talked about in the open and all kind of seems like magic when such a tape is shared. I'm glad folks are doing it, but yeah, I'm with you. Happy to watch from the sidelines.
-
One good one. Rarely disappointed.
Occasionally get a SBD as well and that is nice to mix in and support the vocals and instruments.
I was just talking about this last night - I have a second set of mics I could run, but to be honest, I don't want to carry that much gear. I may cut down to actives > baby nbox > sony A10 and that's it, open or low profile. Only pull out other gear when I'm getting a board and want to run 4 channels.
That's the bottom line for me as well. One pair of microphones. An extra set of cables for the SBD, if possible. As I have mentioned previously, I usually take trains, in combination with walking and other forms of public transport, to get to shows. The less I have to lug, the happier I am.
I actually recently got a second set of screws for my mic bar, so that I can mount two pairs, but they are still in the bubble wrap they came in...
-
In his original post, OP moondust.and.solitude specifically mentioned 3 separate sources That's 6 channels in that particular case. So which is it?
My point is that this is an important distinction, which is not often clearly differentiated in our discussions here at TS, but should be.
I see you edited your post. It was not misunderstood. You can make the distinction all you want, we know what he meant. Sources, mic pairs - in this case the same thing.
There is useful information in (most of) your posts and you are clearly a knowledgeable and passionate person, you care about the community. Just no need to make these kind of distinctions that feel pedantic when you are correcting someone. If it is only me, so be it. I'll shut up now. I've said my piece.
Who is this "we" you speak for? I assume you mean you. I speak for myself.
I edited that post to remove ["^ Or misunderstood, rather. "] not because I felt it was mistaken, but simply to eliminate any potential inference of intended provocation toward you, which was not my intent. I wanted to post about the difference between sources, pairs and channels because that is something I've felt has been a general point of confusion and source of miscommunication for a very long time around TS, gets to a fundamental way of thinking about taping that I feel is useful and that I'm particularly interested in, and saw this as the perfect opportunity to discuss it. Forewarning- Finding that this long running misunderstanding is so strong that it unconscionably provokes a presumptive "we", I'm quite likely to post about it again in other threads. Free to ignore or block my posts as you see fit.
-
Going to discount running a multitrack off the soundboard.
Biggest rig I've done is 16 IEM feeds before. Just recently recorded 8 IEM feeds on my person (stealth) for the B-52s a few weeks ago. Of course recording multiple IEM feeds with intention of doing a final mix is a different beast than multiple mic sources, more akin to multitracking off a board.
We, well you actually, did something like 18-20 IEM sources for Rod Stewart once, 19 if you count the Schoeps source inside. M16 + a Zoom + Dr2d.
-
That's the one I was thinking of! Had 12x stereo IEM feeds to the Utrack24 then another 4x to the Zoom F8. You ran the Schoeps inside. So 16 sources plus mics, but I can't take credit for the mics!
-
Going to discount running a multitrack off the soundboard.
Biggest rig I've done is 16 IEM feeds before. Just recently recorded 8 IEM feeds on my person (stealth) for the B-52s a few weeks ago. Of course recording multiple IEM feeds with intention of doing a final mix is a different beast than multiple mic sources, more akin to multitracking off a board.
Massive respect for you over here. It's not easy to do ONE, not to mention 16 times! Wow. I've always wanted to dip my toe into that pond, but it's beyond my means, so I just sit on the sidelines and watch the pros.
The whole IEM feed thing seems like some forbidden sorcery in these circles - it's not talked about in the open and all kind of seems like magic when such a tape is shared. I'm glad folks are doing it, but yeah, I'm with you. Happy to watch from the sidelines.
Guess you can call me a dark wizard of IEM taping.
-
I wish I had the patience to figure out IEM taping. Even beyond using it for show taping, I'm always fascinated hearing people's IEM mixes and comparing them to mine
-
It is ridiculously expensive, because the packs run close to $900 each new if you can find them presently, and one needs a number of ranges. You can start off pretty easy with a DR2d and a couple packs in different ranges. Presently Shure seems to winning the marketing battle with touring bands. A J8 and G10 plus a Dr2d and you are set. The DR2d, while obsolete, remains the king of IEM taping, simply because it can tape two sources and can be easily stealthed and there is no need to time synchronize the two sources, a single IEM + an Audience source.
-
It is ridiculously expensive, because the packs run close to $900 each new if you can find them presently, and one needs a number of ranges. You can start off pretty easy with a DR2d and a couple packs in different ranges. Presently Shure seems to winning the marketing battle with touring bands. A J8 and G10 plus a Dr2d and you are set. The DR2d, while obsolete, remains the king of IEM taping, simply because it can tape two sources and can be easily stealthed and there is no need to time synchronize the two sources, a single IEM + an Audience source.
The DR2D was so far ahead of the curve. I wish Tascam would bring it back. I regret selling the two I had.
-
It is ridiculously expensive, because the packs run close to $900 each new if you can find them presently, and one needs a number of ranges. You can start off pretty easy with a DR2d and a couple packs in different ranges. Presently Shure seems to winning the marketing battle with touring bands. A J8 and G10 plus a Dr2d and you are set. The DR2d, while obsolete, remains the king of IEM taping, simply because it can tape two sources and can be easily stealthed and there is no need to time synchronize the two sources, a single IEM + an Audience source.
the new Shure digital systems can encrypt transmission, which I think would shut down "free" access
-
It is ridiculously expensive, because the packs run close to $900 each new if you can find them presently, and one needs a number of ranges. You can start off pretty easy with a DR2d and a couple packs in different ranges. Presently Shure seems to winning the marketing battle with touring bands. A J8 and G10 plus a Dr2d and you are set. The DR2d, while obsolete, remains the king of IEM taping, simply because it can tape two sources and can be easily stealthed and there is no need to time synchronize the two sources, a single IEM + an Audience source.
the new Shure digital systems can encrypt transmission, which I think would shut down "free" access
They don't have the digital system for IEMs, just wireless mics/instruments. Whether that's coming for IEMs remains to be seen (likely just a matter of time)
-
Varies, typically one when doing stealth but if I'm w/ my SO and it's a show that we know an archive exists for where they would appreciate as many sources as possible I'll wire her up w/ a second set of mics. She loves that lol. If I'm testing new gear I always bring a backup rig, like what I did for Tool last year when running the Babynbox for the first time.
Your SO is way cool. You can tell her I said so.
-
IEMs already have a latency issue (slight delay in hearing what the artist is singing) and adding encryption and a digital signal and then having unpack that would only add to latency.
That technology has been around for ten years + and artists have resisted such technology. Traditional wegie monitors have an edge in that regard and remain popular.
-
Lectrosonic has a digital IEM system. I've heard folks complain about the latency, altho that can be mitigated by connecting to a digital board DANTE system. Biggesr issue to me is folks complaining about the sound...sounds like the audio codec leaves a lot to be desired on the high end. Probably a lot of compromises made in order to keep latency down.