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...