Topic: Onstage questions...

[acidjack]

Probably a wide variety of answers here, but having finally gotten my first taste of really doing onstage at a show, I'm hooked.

At this show, I ran mics onstage + SBD of mostly vocals.  In this case the tiny portable SBD was also upfront, so I sat upfront with the mics.

When you're doing this and running SBD (where the SBD is in the back)+onstage mics, do you generally try to sit close to the mics and then run longer cables back to the SBD?  That seems most logical to me.

Also, what is a reasonably long XLR cable length to handle *most* onstage needs?  I'm thinking 50ft usually does it, but how long of XLRs do people usually get who do this regularly?

[kcmule]

When I run "on stage", I'll use the house snake, ie my XLR to
the box on stage and then patch the sbd end of the snake to
my R4.

[yltfan]

Now, I mostly go for the snake as well, but when I first started running mics on stage, I just used a pair of self powered mics into a recorder tucked away somewhere on the side of the stage. I think the logistics of running your own cables back to the board is going to be too difficult in too many situations.

[Patrick]

Now, I mostly go for the snake as well, but when I first started running mics on stage, I just used a pair of self powered mics into a recorder tucked away somewhere on the side of the stage. I think the logistics of running your own cables back to the board is going to be too difficult in too many situations.

Nah, it's way easy and keeps everything clean and out of the way.  As long as you have cooperation from the band's engineer and/or stagehands, this is for sure the way to go for onstage taping.

I'd say 50 ft cables are fine...ask the engineer which channels in the snake aren't being used and take those.  Leave a little bit of extra cable neatly coiled underneath your onstage stand so they can be moved if necessary, but keep the majority of extra length coiled up by the snake, out of the way.   

[yltfan]

Nah, it's way easy and keeps everything clean and out of the way.  As long as you have cooperation from the band's engineer and/or stagehands, this is for sure the way to go for onstage taping.

I'd say 50 ft cables are fine...ask the engineer which channels in the snake aren't being used and take those.  Leave a little bit of extra cable neatly coiled underneath your onstage stand so they can be moved if necessary, but keep the majority of extra length coiled up by the snake, out of the way.

Huh?

If I'm reading things right, the OP is asking about running cables to the board, NOT thru the snake. I was saying that doing it that way probably would not work in most cases.

[dean]

That said, I too would rather run my mics into the snake and take a pair of Sub channels out of the board.

QFT.  And I've witnessed U~Ca^ do this repeatedly with great results.

[12milluz]

If you are taking an unbalanced signal out for the SBD feed, then 50 feet is too much. If you must run via unbalanced from the soundboard, I would stick my recorder by the soundboard and run balanced mics from the snake to there. If both are unbalanced, I would then run the longer distance from the soundboard as the feed from the board will be a stronger signal than from the mics and should "withstand" more interference due to the signal to noise ratio.

[Patrick]

Huh?

If I'm reading things right, the OP is asking about running cables to the board, NOT thru the snake. I was saying that doing it that way probably would not work in most cases.

The easiest way to get mic signals from onstage to the SBD area is to run them through the house snake.  Running 100+ feet of cable for your record feed is unecessary and will end up getting in the way of the band's/venues stage crew.  As long as you have the permission to record onstage, asking the engineer to patch your mics into two open channels in the snake is not that big of a favor and keeps things a little more simple.

If you're in a situation or a venue that this is not feasible, you're probably not going to be allowed taping onstage anyways.   

EDIT:  It's worth noting that you should never run your mics into the house console unless you're doing a multitrack or blending signals to be recorded on a matrix out from the console.  Just pull the two correct cables from the console's inputs and run them to your preamp just like normal. 

[dean]

EDIT:  It's worth noting that you should never run your mics into the house console unless you're doing a multitrack or blending signals to be recorded on a matrix out from the console.  Just pull the two correct cables from the console's inputs and run them to your preamp just like normal.

How come, Patrick?

[bugg100]

My 50 feet of cable is split up into 2 pair so you get to the box onstage and pick up tails wherever the fanout is....

What was your first onstage tape? 

Glad you made it!

[acidjack]

^^ Mine were sort of not really even "onstage" but at a backyard with the mics directly in front of the band (as if onstage) running to a tiny board next to the band with the other 2 channels.  So it was pretty easy - I just sat right by the stand. 

http://www.nyctaper.com/?p=3757  - show is here (there were some other bands, whose recordings are also on the site.  If you look at the photo at bottom you can see where I was with the mics.  It looks more off center in the pic than it actually was.  For the other bands that placement made more sense.  Still sounds gooood though, especially considering the humble setup. 

[Patrick]

EDIT:  It's worth noting that you should never run your mics into the house console unless you're doing a multitrack or blending signals to be recorded on a matrix out from the console.  Just pull the two correct cables from the console's inputs and run them to your preamp just like normal.

How come, Patrick?

Unless you have FULL cooperation with the FOH engineer, it's easier to use the house snake as a big, long extension cable for your mics.  You can use the console's preamps, but you'd have to set gains on the console and take line outputs of each channel into your gear.  Also keeping the two systems (FOH/recording) separate reduces the chance for potential ground loops that might be in the console.

If you just pull the respective channels and run them into your gear as you normally do, it keeps the two systems discreet and makes things so much simpler.

[dean]

EDIT:  It's worth noting that you should never run your mics into the house console unless you're doing a multitrack or blending signals to be recorded on a matrix out from the console.  Just pull the two correct cables from the console's inputs and run them to your preamp just like normal.

How come, Patrick?

Unless you have FULL cooperation with the FOH engineer, it's easier to use the house snake as a big, long extension cable for your mics.  You can use the console's preamps, but you'd have to set gains on the console and take line outputs of each channel into your gear.  Also keeping the two systems (FOH/recording) separate reduces the chance for potential ground loops that might be in the console.

If you just pull the respective channels and run them into your gear as you normally do, it keeps the two systems discreet and makes things so much simpler.

Makes perfect sense.  In the venue/situation U~Ca^ and I are referencing we do have full cooperation with the engineer (and in fact sometimes U~Ca^ is the engineer by default!) and there's no issue with console access, etc.  However, I'd not considered the ground loop possibility, and having now considered it I think I'd likely do as you describe so as not run that risk!  Thanks for the explanation!  (I didn't hook you up with an Indiana alum/contact for nothing, you know).   

[Patrick]

(I didn't hook you up with an Indiana alum/contact for nothing, you know).   

Glad it all makes sense.  It's so much easier if you have a cool engineer and a band that will let this happen.  Onstage + SBD is easily my favorite way to tape.

And I still appreciate that hookup.  Trying to get my networking group as large as possible, and this certainly helped tremendously.  Thanks again! 

[SmokinJoe]

In the past when I ran onstage + SBD I used 2 recorders... one near the stage and one at the SBD.  Then do the "pain in the ass mix 2 unclocked sources" thing.

A couple of nights ago I ran my mics through the house snake, and had my R4 at the SBD, and we hooked all this up about 1 minute before the music started.  As soon as the music started I realized I had only one channel of the onstage mics.  It was a bad channel in the snake.  It was mildly awkward for me to tell the sound guy, "dude, I think we have a bad channel in the snake", and he tried another channel in the snake.  That worked.  At this point, we are about 3 minutes into the show, so I have a tape with an awkward SBD + 1 mic mix for the first 3 minutes.

Lessons learned:
- if they aren't using a particular channel in the snake, maybe there is a REASON they aren't using that channel.
- I had gotten set up in time, but didn't dare to just plug into the snake without asking.  I waited until the sound guy came back from break, and at that point it was 1 minute before the music started, so I didn't get a chance to test.  From now on, If I don't have time to test the setup, I'll probably just use 2 recorders, unclocked sources again.

[Gutbucket]

From now on, If I don't have time to test the setup, I'll probably just use 2 recorders, unclocked sources again.

That's what I usually do simply because it makes me more invisible to the crew and makes juggling all the preshow variables less stressful for myself. Aligning and shrinking one source in Samp is leasurely and far less error prone, so the bit of extra work in editing is an easy tradeoff.  If I can get in early during the sound check and am sure that I'm not getting in anyone's way, then sure, taking home 4 aligned tracks on the R-44 make me smile. But it's more about logistics, minimizing my intrusion, and eliminating the potential for error that often pushes me to two (or more) locally placed recorders.  Just works for me.

[kirk97132]

While I am far from an expert, I think the reference to ground loops is slightly misplaced.  The place you are likely to encounter ground loops is on the power side of the equation not the audio side necessarily.   A ground loop on the AC side will be the culprit of that 60Hz hum we have all heard through a PA.  But from what I know this is an issue caused by the AC power problem, not an issue of "ground loop" on the audio side.  and the other big contributor of unwanted noise is using an unbalanced cord where a balanced one should be used which induces unwanted current into the signal chain.  A ground loop is different devices being powered have the grounds hooked up at different points along the power path and not all being grounded to the same point in the power path.   

But, I think the intent of the post was to say that by not having any of your own signal chain into the house equipment you avoid the chance of picking up any residual noise in their system.  Of course this will not change the guitar pickups that have the occasional 60Hz hum or any other amplifier noise especially the amps that have mics on them for the PA.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_%28electricity%29

[Patrick]

While I am far from an expert, I think the reference to ground loops is slightly misplaced.  The place you are likely to encounter ground loops is on the power side of the equation not the audio side necessarily.   A ground loop on the AC side will be the culprit of that 60Hz hum we have all heard through a PA.  But from what I know this is an issue caused by the AC power problem, not an issue of "ground loop" on the audio side.  and the other big contributor of unwanted noise is using an unbalanced cord where a balanced one should be used which induces unwanted current into the signal chain.  A ground loop is different devices being powered have the grounds hooked up at different points along the power path and not all being grounded to the same point in the power path.   

But, I think the intent of the post was to say that by not having any of your own signal chain into the house equipment you avoid the chance of picking up any residual noise in their system.  Of course this will not change the guitar pickups that have the occasional 60Hz hum or any other amplifier noise especially the amps that have mics on them for the PA.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_%28electricity%29

When two devices are connected to two different ground sources, there is going to be potential for audible noise caused by electrical ground loops.  This is a something that's very important in audio.  A lot of devices that use Pin 1 as ground have ground lift switches that lift pin 1 from the device in hopes of the noise going away.  If there is a ground loop issue in the house console that you're taking a patch from, there's no doubt that your recording will be noisy.

However running your onstage mics through the house snake and directly into your recording deck is not going to introduce electrical hum (unless the snake is poorly run next to electrical lines from lights, etc).  The passive nature of stage snakes is why this is the case. 

[yltfan]

Just found this old thread, made me think of a weird issue I had a few weeks back. I ran my 9self-powered c1000's on stage, through the snake and back to the board. When I plugged the cables directly into my 680, I got nothing but static. I then ran them into the board, taking two direct outs, and everything was fine. Anyone have an idea what was going on, or how to make the snake work next time?

[Patrick]

Just found this old thread, made me think of a weird issue I had a few weeks back. I ran my 9self-powered c1000's on stage, through the snake and back to the board. When I plugged the cables directly into my 680, I got nothing but static. I then ran them into the board, taking two direct outs, and everything was fine. Anyone have an idea what was going on, or how to make the snake work next time?

Could the batteries have been dead?  When you patched them into the house console they could have been powered by phantom.  If I remember from when I owned c1000s, phantom overrides the internal battery.  But it doesn't sound like a cable issue since there was signal on those channels when you patched into the console.

[yltfan]

Just found this old thread, made me think of a weird issue I had a few weeks back. I ran my 9self-powered c1000's on stage, through the snake and back to the board. When I plugged the cables directly into my 680, I got nothing but static. I then ran them into the board, taking two direct outs, and everything was fine. Anyone have an idea what was going on, or how to make the snake work next time?

Could the batteries have been dead?  When you patched them into the house console they could have been powered by phantom.  If I remember from when I owned c1000s, phantom overrides the internal battery.  But it doesn't sound like a cable issue since there was signal on those channels when you patched into the console.

I suspected the same thing, but the engineer siad there was no phantom power. He tried to find out what was going on as well, but could not.

[fleish]

I ran onstage for the first time last night. It was an acoustic performance by Matisyahu & guitarist Adam Weinberg @ http://www.jfcs.org/11th-Annual-Emigre-Community-Gala. I got there just in time for sound check and luckily they were having some issues which gave me time to score a round base mic stand that would fit onstage without being in the way. I wanted to run a wide pattern since I was so close so I setup the AK40's NOS for the first time as well. And here were exactly 2 free channels left in the nearby snake which I then plugged my KM100's into and they patched me over to the side of the stage where one of the audio engineers (the FOH was at the back of the room) & a guy who was running video were setup. I also pulled a mono XLR SBD feed and ran everything into the trusty R-4. I set my levels during the soundcheck and then left the recorder running (gotta love having a hard drive and 2 full, fully redundant batteries) while I left to get some dinner and change.

Below is a picture of the setup - though without Matis or Adam - but they were basically setup inside of the 3 wedges you see. I'm not sure if I maybe ran it a little too wide since it was the 2 of them on the stage. I think it sounds a tad strange without the SBD mixed in - but otherwise am happy with it as a first attempt. I'm curious if anyone would have done anything differently based on my description and pic(s). You can find a full sized version of the below pic and some others showing the room (and 1 dark KM184 on a stand picture - thought it was cool they were apparently using a bunch of those for something - not for Matis) here: http://www.fleish.org/pics/toleib/

[stevetoney]

Nice setup Todd.  I guess the only thing is that since there were only two of them, NOS might have been too wide and compressed the soundstage for the mic pair towards the center of the recorded image, but you might not have been able to know ahead of time where they were going to be once the music started.  I think NOS is a good rule of thumb config for close up and stage lip though.  If you know it's going to be just a small number of performers on stage that stay well within the bounds of the range covered by the mics, I might be inclined to go with something narrower next time.  I'm curious, is Matis still hairless or has he started letting it all grow back?

[fleish]

Thanks for the feedback Steve. I actually knew roughly where they would be positioned and I also considered going ORTF (and I'm curious what configuration you had in mind). Heck, I briefly considered turning the mics around and just using them to pickup the crowd - which I'm glad I didn't since the crowd got plenty close to the stage during the performance and can be heard on the AUD source just fine.

He's letting it grow back somewhat. I didn't get a good close-up shot of him - but you can sort of see it in IMG_0406.JPG on the above link. When I said hey during sound check I told him I was glad I didn't trim my beard too much since I was aiming to have a longer one than him for once

Oh and one thing I forgot to mention is that during the performance I had to lower the channel closest to Matis when he started beatboxing ~20 minutes in because of clipping. He had the FOH turn up the subs when he was beatboxing and it wasn't a problem during soundcheck but it definitely was during the show - I lowered that channel 1.5 "notches" on the R-4.

[stevetoney]

Thanks for the feedback Steve. I actually knew roughly where they would be positioned and I also considered going ORTF (and I'm curious what configuration you had in mind).

My thoughts are either DIN or NOS since both guys were probably standing near the middle of the stage.  The 110degree angle of ORTF have been too much in this case, although probably not if there's a full band on-stage. 

I'll be honest.  I'm getting away from standard configurations lately and I think the sound quality on my recordings are improving.  Looks like you're using bars, so you're sticking with the standard configs...my thoughts probably won't help you since I'm not using standard config bars.  Anyway, for amplified shows from the audience in a non-irregularly shaped room, I'm happiest with the results when use DIN spacing and point straight at the stacks.  If the room is funky shaped, I improvise.

In this case, I'd probably have gone with the 20 or 30 cm spacing so that there's a good stereo imaging on the recording (due to time difference between the mics) and angled the mics so that I got 'coverage' such that both guys and the instruments/amps were gonna be inside the recording angle, but not so much so that they sound like they're squished into the middle of the soundstage.  That would probably mean less angle, but from the picture I can't really say.  The goal would be to have one person sound predominant in either channel, but not so much that you can't hear the other guy at all in the opposite channel.

My strictly amateur thoughts anyway.

[tgakidis]

I'll be honest.  I'm getting away from standard configurations lately and I think the sound quality on my recordings are improving.

I have been doing this a lot lately myself.

[One Cylinder]

>>> I used to run ORTF most of the time when taping on stage. Usually this configuration worked quite well, although at a few venues the recordings came out a bit "boomy." I think this was because the mics were picking up both direct sound, as well as a considerable amount of the sound as it came off the walls @ the sides of the stage. The boomier (?) recordings were always in venues w/ shitty acoustics, usually ones that weren't necessarily designed for live music. Lately I've been going w/ DINa on stage and have been pleased with the results. Haven't experienced any of the boominess and the stereo imaging is very close to ORTF.

[page]

Thanks for the feedback Steve. I actually knew roughly where they would be positioned and I also considered going ORTF (and I'm curious what configuration you had in mind).

My thoughts are either DIN or NOS since both guys were probably standing near the middle of the stage.  The 110degree angle of ORTF have been too much in this case, although probably not if there's a full band on-stage. 

I'll be honest.  I'm getting away from standard configurations lately

i'll play the devils advocate card and say ortf over either din or nos. I've found in my onstage/stagelip stuff that angle matters less than cap spacing in determining stereo push. I have some samples of around 65, 75, and 110 all at 17cm in the same environment/band to compare, and if I could run about 13/14cm and 90 degrees, I'd do it in a heartbeat for what I'm recording. Right now though I'm running 65-75 degrees and 17cm since I can't get the mount any smaller and go wider simultaneously.

The trick is what is the angle of the band's sound? Truly onstage you could have a soundstage of anywhere from maybe 90 to a full 170 degrees. The wider the soundstage, the smaller I want to make the angle or spacing. ymmv, best of luck.

[cybergaloot]

I run split omni's onstage a lot. Make sure you are to the side or behind the monitors (away from the speakers). That monitor mix can be anything and will negatively affect your recording most of the time.

[Gutbucket]

Generally, omnis can be more forgiving of on stage placement and setup configuration than directionals- partly because the primary factor in their setup is spacing alone and the angle between them is far less important to image (but may still be important to tone). In addition to being less tricky to setup to achieve a good, generally balanced if not razor-sharp stereo image, on stage is one of the places where omnis have a better chance of sounding good due to the direct/reverberant pickup of the pattern and proximity to the sound sources, where farther away in less than ideal situations, that aspect can be the biggest challenge in using them sucessfully.

Directionals can sound great on stage too of course, and sometimes may be the better choice, but they do require a bit more thought into which setup is appropriate.  I guess my point is that I'd recommend using omnis as a simple starting approach for recording on stage because it works well most of the time- the 'path of least resistance'.  I'd suggest setups using directional mics to those wanting to improve on something they otherwise aren't getting from the omnis on stage and are willing (like in this discussion) to put some thought into what angle and spacing combination is most appropriate for the situation.  That assumes both omnis and directionals of similar quality are available, if not that should influence the decision as well.

[cybergaloot]

When it comes to choosing between omni's and card's (or other) for onstage I look at how loud I expect the audience to be.  How close is the audience to the mics? Is it a small club with dancers in front of the stage or is it more of a concert setting with a seated audience or one that is further away from the stage? I'd guess the venue makes a big difference as well. Is the room boomy or have a lot of reverberation? Cards might be a better choice in that situation.

I found it handy this weekend to be running omni's at the stage lip. I was able to crank the stage mics when the harmonica player stepped out into the audience and played acoustically. But then my situation is a bit different in that am tied into everything and mixing to stereo on the fly. I use the ambient mics to give the recording more of a live feel and usually they are kind of low in the mix.

[fleish]

I had 1 spare channel on my deck the other night and was totally thinking man I wish I had an extra clamp and an omni mic to throw up there too.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

These cards vs. omni questions are often best satisfied with subcards.

[Gutbucket]

Subcards on stage are a general win in that they can provide some of the best aspects of both both omnis and cards.

If reducing the level of audience enthusiasm is one of the goals which influences the decision towards using cardioids, then consider a setup that uses less angle between the mics.  ORTF will pickup more crowd reaction behind the pair than DIN, and an even narrower angle (usually with a slightly wider spacing to compensate for less angle) even less so.  Think of the overall sensitivity of the pattern as a pair to sounds from behind, verses thinking of each mic pattern individually.

One useful trick I like to do if I have an extra channel is to tape a single miniature omni onto the surface of the stage (boundary mounted) a couple feet in front of my stereo pair of cardioids.  That extra omni channel can be very useful to fatten up the bottom end, firm up the center of the soundstage and also provide a bit more 3-d image depth.  I bring it up in the mix just enough to see if it helps with those things, and leave it out if it doesn't.  I just need to make sure it is protected so it doesn't get crushed if accidentally steped on.

The 'couple of feet' thing is intentional because I want it far enough away to not get problems of being sort of near-spaced but not exaclty coincident with the main pair.  By placing the omni farther on stage than the main pair I get two advantages: it's positioned slightly closer to the sources so the direct/reverb ratio of the omni, already improved by the boundary mouning, is closer to that of the directional pair, and secondly the distance somewhat decorrelates the signal from that of the main pair so there should be less potential phase issues like comb filtering when the three are mixed together.  I usually don't delay the omni to align with the stereo pair, but if I did, it would actually increase the decorrelation for sound arriving from directions other than directly in front of the omni (primarily the crowd and reverberance), while increasing the correlation for the direct sound arriving from straight ahead.  That's my fancy sounding justification anyway, mostly I put it there just to get it closer to wehre I would want it alone.

[ethan]

Any opinions on splitting omni's on each side of the stage? I'm thinking mostly for large stages/large venues where the stage lip is really far from the instruments/amps.

[Gutbucket]

Any opinions on splitting omni's on each side of the stage? I'm thinking mostly for large stages/large venues where the stage lip is really far from the instruments/amps.

Yeah, a simple stagelip omni pair alone has worked less well for me in that situation.  But wide spaced omnis matrixed with the SBD can work well.  In that case the SBD fills the middle of the playback stage with it's direct clarity and the omnis provide width, depth and ambience.  Since they are so wide they will be mostly decorrelated from the SBD even if they need to be time-aligned (but they probably won't need to be), making their contibution sound big, diffuse & wide.

The other time very wide omnis has worked for me doesn't really apply for what people are doing around here, but I've found them useful at times as a pair of dedicated surround channels, in addition to main mics at the center.  But in that case, unless going for the "I'm on-stage at the center of the band" wrap-around perspective, there can be too much direct sound in the surround channels than what is desirable for ambience channels, and I usually prefer putting the omnis below the stagelip to catch less of the on stage sound and more crowd and room- similar to wide spaced cardioids facing the audience at the stage corners, which is pretty standard setup for a dedicated pair to catch room sound and crowd reaction.  It's easy enough to gaff tape a pair of 4060's 10' apart to the stage lip wall facing out at the audience, which is usually how I've been doing that.

[fleish]

I'll be honest.  I'm getting away from standard configurations lately and I think the sound quality on my recordings are improving.

I have been doing this a lot lately myself.

When I'm not recording with the Neumann's for which I have specific NOS/DIN/DINa/ORTF mounts I end up doing this as well. My other mounting method is just on a 4-post bar so I just set the angles & spacing to what I think looks like it will sound good.

[Gutbucket]

Crazy on-stage example only tapers will appreciate-

The last couple times I've recorded an on-going monthly jazz trio here, where I get to try all kinds of crazy setups and usually run too many mics just because I can, I settled on the following:

Stereo pair of cardioids in DIN on stage at stage lip (Gefells)
Alternate stereo pair (ADK TLs)
Single 4060 omni boundary mounted on stage a few feet closer than stagelip, in line between the stereo pairs and the snare drum.
Wide spaced pair of 4060s taped to the stage lip wall under the lip facing the audience.
Extra 4060 taped to the stage lip facing out, centered between the other two, directly beneath the stereo pair (mostly just because I had an extra channel and that extra mic was already there as the mate to the one boundary mounted on stage).

Everything went into the DR-680, Gefells through the V3, ADKs direct, 4060s via Niant PFAs.
That gives me lots of stereo mixdown options:
1) Choice of either stereo pair alone.
2) Add some center omni.
3) Add room and crowd reaction with the wide spaced, audience facing omnis (either just a touch, mixed in at low level, or automating level to bring it up more between songs).

Multi-channel:
4) Full descrete 5 or 6 channel surround using either of the stereo pairs as L/R, discarding the other stereo pair and using the omnis as C/Ls/Rs and possibly Cs.

Loads of options.

[cybergaloot]

One thing not mentioned so far is the height of the mics. Of course you will be limited much of the time by not interfering with the sight lines for the audience. I have read that its good to get them up at the height of the top of the kick drum. In my situation that is neither needed nor a good idea because the dancers come so close to my mics. I put my mics between the monitors and only raise them to the height of the monitor.

One problem I have run into doing running split omni's between the monitors was when a guest guitar player sat in and plopped his amp right down in the middle ... surprise! It was a dead hole. I had to scramble to hook up a mic to put in front of his amp. The monitors work as baffles. Although this alters the pickup pattern into more of a card shape, it still is not a card and retains the fuller sound of the omni's.

[Gutbucket]

Snare height can be good, but low as possible can be good too- where sound kind of travels cleanly along the floor without reflecting much off of it.  I've moved from the stalk mounted omnis to boundary mounting them on the floor itself in some cases because of that, but it's situation dependant. The TL's in the above example were attached to the stand legs, as low as they could physically go with right angle connectors on the cables. I even re-strung the shock mounts so the clearance from stage to connector was only about 1/4".

I do try to avoid being the height of the middle of the kick, especially if it is relatively close, and shift to one side or the other (preferably the snare side) or up or down if I'd otherwise end up there.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

The monitors work as baffles.

That can be used to great advantage in taming an overwhelming kick drum.

[Charlie Miller]

One thing I always tried to do when working with Kimock was run the board feed through the snake and record from the stage. This way the stage mics don't have to run through the snake. I would plug them direct into the recorder.

[ethan]

One thing I always tried to do when working with Kimock was run the board feed through the snake and record from the stage. This way the stage mics don't have to run through the snake. I would plug them direct into the recorder.

Yep this is what I like to do usually too. Get yourself some male-male and female-female XLR gender changers. Often the house will be using all the returns but with the gender changers you can create your own return.

[phil_er_up]

I usually run 4-6 mics on stage and a sbd feed.

When I run on stage I bring:

4 XLR 50 feet cables all wrapped together. Then leave 10 feet at each ends to make splits for mics stands. This has always been enough cable at the venue I frequent.

4 extra sets of 15 foot XLR cables
Many short 1/4 inch to XLR cables for SBD feeds
6 foot XLR, RCA, 1/4 inches ways to connect to the SBD.
Many different connectors.
4 mics stands

I get there early and if there is no snake, set up mics on stage, then run mic cables back to SBD area and then tape down the cable next to a wall or someway out of the way. Can use the ceiling too...

[fleish]

One thing I always tried to do when working with Kimock was run the board feed through the snake and record from the stage. This way the stage mics don't have to run through the snake. I would plug them direct into the recorder.

Just curious as to why?

[One Cylinder]

One thing I always tried to do when working with Kimock was run the board feed through the snake and record from the stage. This way the stage mics don't have to run through the snake. I would plug them direct into the recorder.

Just curious as to why?

>>>>>> in theory - the more direct the path is between your mics and your recorder = less likely to degrade the signal.

[Gutbucket]

One thing I always tried to do when working with Kimock was run the board feed through the snake and record from the stage. This way the stage mics don't have to run through the snake. I would plug them direct into the recorder.

Just curious as to why?

Single cylinder answered while I was typing.  More detail-

One example- Someone in another thread recently asked about running unbalanced Church Audio mics onstage and through the snake back to his preamp and recorder located at the board.  I suggested that wouldn't work, that with appropriate adapters he could probably keep the preamp on stage with the mics since the output of the preamp would be better able to drive the run back to the recorder at the board, but by far the best solution would be to run the SBD patch from the board to the stage and keep the entire rig near the mics, limiting the length of the unbalanced run.

In Charlie's case, even though both are balanced and the mic bodies should be capable of driving that length of run, he may choose to do it that way primarily because the soundboard is line-level, where as the mic feed is mic-level.  So that makes for less potential interference issues, less possibility of compromising the sonics of the mic feed with a less than great quality long snake run, and the line level SBD output is driven by an output circuit designed for driving long runs.

[page]

In Charlie's case, even though both are balanced and the mic bodies should be capable of driving that length of run, he may choose to do it that way primarily because the soundboard is line-level, where as the mic feed is mic-level.  So that makes for less potential interference issues, less possibility of compromising the sonics of the mic feed with a less than great quality long snake run, and the line level SBD output is driven by an output circuit designed for driving long runs.

It could also be something physical; e.g. the area on stage or behind the stage is more secure than the sbd area during times when the band isn't playing.

[fleish]

One thing I always tried to do when working with Kimock was run the board feed through the snake and record from the stage. This way the stage mics don't have to run through the snake. I would plug them direct into the recorder.

Just curious as to why?

Single cylinder answered while I was typing.  More detail-

One example- Someone in another thread recently asked about running unbalanced Church Audio mics onstage and through the snake back to his preamp and recorder located at the board.  I suggested that wouldn't work, that with appropriate adapters he could probably keep the preamp on stage with the mics since the output of the preamp would be better able to drive the run back to the recorder at the board, but by far the best solution would be to run the SBD patch from the board to the stage and keep the entire rig near the mics, limiting the length of the unbalanced run.

In Charlie's case, even though both are balanced and the mic bodies should be capable of driving that length of run, he may choose to do it that way primarily because the soundboard is line-level, where as the mic feed is mic-level.  So that makes for less potential interference issues, less possibility of compromising the sonics of the mic feed with a less than great quality long snake run, and the line level SBD output is driven by an output circuit designed for driving long runs.

Makes sense and pretty much what I was expecting. I suppose given the choice I'd go that route too. For me it wasn't really an option unless I wanted to run my own cables from the stage to my bag. Which I considered while I was waiting for the engineer to give me the go ahead to use the snake. Had my cables out and everything.

[Charlie Miller]

One thing I always tried to do when working with Kimock was run the board feed through the snake and record from the stage. This way the stage mics don't have to run through the snake. I would plug them direct into the recorder.

Just curious as to why?

>>>>>> in theory - the more direct the path is between your mics and your recorder = less likely to degrade the signal.

Bingo!!!