Topic: Running 4 Mics At A Show

[DMBprez]

Hey Guys,


A friend and I are planning on making a mix for a Keller show in a few weeks.  I am running:

SMK-H8K's->XLR's->Phantom II->MIT-176's->JB3.

My friend (Joe) runs:

Studio Project C4's->XLR's->Phantom II->MIT-176's->JB3.


How can we go about making a mix afterwards? 

OR

Is it possible to run all 4 mics into one JB3?  Is there such thing as going from double 1/8ths->single 1/8th?

Thanks so much guys.

[willndmb]

there are lots of programs for mixing
the hardest part will be getting them lined up and keeping them that way

yes they make dual 1/8 > 1/8
however i am not sure if they make dual stereo 1/8 > 1/8, i don;t think so

[bconnolly]

Ask yourself if you're really gaining anything from multitracking with this equipment.  That's a pretty important question.

[newscane]

If I had 4 mics at my disposal, I would run two facing forward and two facing backward, then make a surround-sound mix.  That would mean you couldn't run it all into one JB3, because you'd need to keep front and rear separate.  As everyone said, lining them up may be hell, because the word clocks aren't exactly the same.  Take a look at Henry Hart's recent DMB releases for an idea of what I'm talking about.  If you have a way to obtain a 4-channel R-4 for the show, that would make things MUCH easier.

[easy jim]

Ask yourself if you're really gaining anything from multitracking with this equipment.  That's a pretty important question.

Well said.  It is a fair amount of post work to line up two sources from independent recorders because there will be drift from the slight difference between each recorders' clock. 

I'd figure the extra work is worth it for two reasons:
1. SBD + AUD
2. w/ two AUD, only when the sources are sufficiently different and complentary to make the time in post worthwhile

Examples of 2. for me would be: stage + PA,  M/S + near coincident, 2 pairs of mics with different response characteristics.

[wbrisette]

2. w/ two AUD, only when the sources are sufficiently different and complentary to make the time in post worthwhile

Examples of 2. for me would be: stage + PA,  M/S + near coincident, 2 pairs of mics with different response characteristics.

Another example is a pair of spaced omni's and cards. This is what I run when I don't have 6  or 8 channels... Here are some pics...

http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,39714.0.html

Wayne

[cyfan]

I"m not familiar with the Phantom II. Does it only have one set of inputs?

I did a four mic matrix with a friend once when we both had UA-5s and our own mics. I just ran RCAs from his UA-5 outs into my UA-5 RCAs and had my own mics running in the XLRs, all into one JB3. It turned out great.

That said, it was just an experiment because I had a decent soundboard feed running into a different recorder and wasn't worried whether the mics turned out or not. If you're planning to try using your equipment for a four-mic matrix I would experiment first on something you really don't give a crap about. Don't try it on a show where you're keen on getting a listenable recording.

My advice would be to each do your own recordings and, from there, decide if you want to invest in wav editting software and invest time into learning how to synch the recordings for a matrix. It is very frustrating until you get the hang of it.

I actually think you won't have time clock issues if you are running the same equipment (the preamps and JB3s). I have two JB3s and the time clocks are dead nuts on when I used them to pull four channels from a soundboard. But when I mix a board feed > JB3 with my mics>UA-5>JB3 there is .004 sec/min of drift, every time. If the time clocks align you just need to line up the start in a .wav editting program.

Tim

[easy jim]

I did a four mic matrix with a friend once when we both had UA-5s and our own mics. I just ran RCAs from his UA-5 outs into my UA-5 RCAs and had my own mics running in the XLRs, all into one JB3. It turned out great.

Just be careful about the two sources being out of phase when mixing on the fly.  All of my 4-mic stuff has been mixed in post, but I have found that the two mic pairs were out of phase more often than not when I looked at the waves after the show.

[cyfan]

I did a four mic matrix with a friend once when we both had UA-5s and our own mics. I just ran RCAs from his UA-5 outs into my UA-5 RCAs and had my own mics running in the XLRs, all into one JB3. It turned out great.

Just be careful about the two sources being out of phase when mixing on the fly.  All of my 4-mic stuff has been mixed in post, but I have found that the two mic pairs were out of phase more often than not when I looked at the waves after the show.

Yeah. Didn't mention that. My experiment turned out fine but I'll still do post-mixes anyway, not so much to avoid phase issues but to have more control over the mix.

[wbrisette]

Yeah. Didn't mention that. My experiment turned out fine but I'll still do post-mixes anyway, not so much to avoid phase issues but to have more control over the mix.

If you want control in the field with mixes you need an ENG mixer (they aren't cheap) since they all work on batteries.

Wayne

[Roving Sign]

Yeah. Didn't mention that. My experiment turned out fine but I'll still do post-mixes anyway, not so much to avoid phase issues but to have more control over the mix.

If you want control in the field with mixes you need an ENG mixer (they aren't cheap) since they all work on batteries.

Wayne

Why ENG? Wouldn't any cheapie mixer do the job?

[wbrisette]

Why ENG? Wouldn't any cheapie mixer do the job?

If you can find one that runs on batteries, go for it. Most of the "cheapie" mixers I've seen all require A/C. If you have access to power, that's not a problem, but if you don't have access to power, that could be an issue.

Wayne

[Roving Sign]

Samson and Behringer make models that run off batteries...

http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=66&brandID=2

http://www.behringer.com/UBB1002/index.cfm?lang=ENG

[wbrisette]

Knock yourself out. My experience with both brands is that they are mediocre, behringer is the better of the two, but that's not saying much.

Compare the audio from either of these to something like the Wendt X4 or SD 442 and you'll notice a huge difference. But, if an ENG mixer isn't in your budget, it wouldn't hurt you to try either of these. Neither one are very expensive, so you haven't lost a ton of money if you don't like them.

Wayne

[Roving Sign]

Knock yourself out. My experience with both brands is that they are mediocre, behringer is the better of the two, but that's not saying much.

Compare the audio from either of these to something like the Wendt X4 or SD 442 and you'll notice a huge difference. But, if an ENG mixer isn't in your budget, it wouldn't hurt you to try either of these. Neither one are very expensive, so you haven't lost a ton of money if you don't like them.

Wayne

Agree - but this poster started out asking if he could use splitters to combine the signal. He sounds like a relative newbie - and the mics he mentioned indicate a certain budget.

Yes, I would expect a $2000 mixer to sound better than $99 mixer...but, for what sounds like an experiment - this might be a better first step...

[taper420]

The samson mixer isn't that bad... I've compared the preamps to others in the midrange such as MOTU and Presonus.... the Samson holds it's own. I used to use it exclusively when I was running stereo... and I still use it when I want a smaller setup. I think my pulls with it sound great. I've been told the same.

...a more detailed analysis of the preamp http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,63624.0.html

[wbrisette]

The samson mixer isn't that bad... I've compared the preamps to others in the midrange such as MOTU and Presonus.... the Samson holds it's own.

I read through the thread, and then yesterday while discussing this with a buddy of mine, I discovered that I'm probably just a musical snob, and I'm OK with that. ;-)

I know we can't all start out with high dollar pro-quality gear, I didn't. But, what I do know is that when I go back in my DAT collection and pull out some of my "great sounding tapes" from say 7 or 8 years ago, and put them up against some of my "great sounding recordings" today, it's like night and day. What was once great sounding now is flawed. They sound OK for what they are, but they are flawed none the less.

So, my opinion is, well it's just that my opinion, but after using better equipment for a while, go back and see if the Samson "holds its own," or if it sounds like every other >$200 mixer, that is it's OK, but it ain't great. For the price it's not bad (I'm not sure it's a currently produced product either), but I certainly wouldn't hype it. But... that's just my snobbish opinion.

[Roving Sign]

I don't think it's snobbery - just somewhat impractical...unless your goal is to get the best sound from a $100 set of mics...they might do better to spread out their investment...

For the cost of the Wendt mixer - they could get a set of AKG 480s and an Oade modded UA5...and a cheapie mixer...and maybe even another stock UA5 - and perhaps achieve a better overall sound.

[gratefulphish]

Obviously, as we are financially able to upgrade our rigs, and assuming we have some clue as to what we are doing, our recordings are going to sound that much better.  I am sure we could all recommend one or more "dream" rigs to every newbie here, but in practical terms, each person has to live within their own budget at that time.  I wish I had my new rig years ago, but I didn't, and neither did anyone else taping most of the shows I was at, since I was usually the only taper.  So the best recording is my recording.  If I could do it again now with my current setup, of course it would sound much better, but then again, I just upped the cost of my rig by a factor of five, something I could not have afforded then.

Everyone has to start out somewhere, and the most important part is starting out in the first place.  We should help people between a choice of mic A or B (with of course 1,001 divergant opinions) same with this pre vs. that, and what deck should I buy in this price range.  There will always be (or almost always) a "better" something, for more money, out there.  But, everyone has a budget, and we should try to offer them answers that will be within the realm of possibilities.  It may be, "save your money, and don't buy that, and put it into better mics," but should not always be buy only the best piece of equipment on the market, because most people, including me, can't realistically do that.

[cyfan]

Yeah. Didn't mention that. My experiment turned out fine but I'll still do post-mixes anyway, not so much to avoid phase issues but to have more control over the mix.

If you want control in the field with mixes you need an ENG mixer (they aren't cheap) since they all work on batteries.

Wayne

Actually, I have an 8-track digital recorder that I use for soundboard multi-tracks, and two channels can be used for mics (phantom XLRs) that have an adjustable offset. I just can't use it everywhere because it's bulky and requires A/C.

[wbrisette]

Actually, I have an 8-track digital recorder that I use for soundboard multi-tracks, and two channels can be used for mics (phantom XLRs) that have an adjustable offset. I just can't use it everywhere because it's bulky and requires A/C.

Which is what I said. If you don't have access to A/C and don't want to cart things around, you need an ENG mixer or some other mixer that runs on DC.

Wayne

[cyfan]

Actually, I have an 8-track digital recorder that I use for soundboard multi-tracks, and two channels can be used for mics (phantom XLRs) that have an adjustable offset. I just can't use it everywhere because it's bulky and requires A/C.

Which is what I said. If you don't have access to A/C and don't want to cart things around, you need an ENG mixer or some other mixer that runs on DC.

Wayne

I'd rather do a post mix of the sources, since I have no trouble synching them.
It's a bitch trying to get a good mix in the venue, even with good headphones. The times I've done it, I wound up wishing I could go back and remix them anyway. I'm usually not too concerned about getting the A/C power feed with the multi-tracker. The way I see it, any FOH guy that's willing to allow you to run the direct-outs (or inserts) off the board and fill you in on which channels are being used is probably gonna let you plug it in someplace. God bless the sound guys I work at my regular haunts.

[wbrisette]

I'd rather do a post mix of the sources, since I have no trouble synching them.
It's a bitch trying to get a good mix in the venue, even with good headphones. The times I've done it, I wound up wishing I could go back and remix them anyway.

Which is why you really don't want to use headphones. Spend the money and buy yourself a set of the Etymotic 4S earphones. I use a set and while I do mix a lot of stuff in post, I also try to get a good mix in the field so I can feed that to people should they want it (and I'm usually mixing 6 or 8 channels).

Wayne

[Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)]

When our 4Mic portable mic pre/ADC comes out in a few weeks, you'll be able to record four mics to a single two-channel digital audio recorder.  It losslessly interleaves four channels of 24/44.1 (or 24/48 or 24/96) into two channels of 24/88.1 (or 24/96 or 24/192).  You'll deinterleave them back into four tracks with a small program on your PC.

The recorder must have an optical or coaxial S/PDIF input and be able to record at sample rates of 88.2 KS/s or higher.  The JB3 and iRiver H120/H140 won't do the job because they can't record at 24/96, but the M-Audio MicroTrack 24/96 can (along with others).

Using 4Mic mic pre/ADC and a TetraMic Ambisonic microphone, you'll be able to do 5.1 surround sound recording (as well as XY, Blumlein, Quad, Hexagon, 5.1 7.1 and others) portably for the first time.


Len Moskowitz
Core Sound
www.core-sound.com

[wbrisette]

Using 4Mic mic pre/ADC and a TetraMic Ambisonic microphone, you'll be able to do 5.1 surround sound recording (as well as XY, Blumlein, Quad, Hexagon, 5.1 7.1 and others) portably for the first time.

I've been able to do this for two years now. So "First time" is relative.

Wayne

[Brian Skalinder]

Using 4Mic mic pre/ADC and a TetraMic Ambisonic microphone, you'll be able to do 5.1 surround sound recording (as well as XY, Blumlein, Quad, Hexagon, 5.1 7.1 and others) portably for the first time.

I've been able to do this for two years now. So "First time" is relative.

I've not done any surround sound recording, but...can't it be done with 4 mics and a 4-ch pre/ADC/recorder?  And if so, how long has the R-4 been out?  (An old AES release suggests retail availability Feb 2005, but don't know if Edirol hit that target.)

[Len Moskowitz (Core Sound)]

I've been able to do this for two years now. So "First time" is relative.

Well, you haven't been able to do all of those mic techniques using only one mic on one stand with a recorder & mic pre that you can hold in one hand.  You can decode an Ambisonic recording (four channels of A-format or B-format) to an incredible number of microphone and playback configurations.


Len Moskowitz
Core Sound
www.core-sound.com