Topic: Side of stage recording? Creative advise sought.

[Gutbucket]

Stage lip pointed at the band
or
pointed out at the audience to get the sound of the room?

Can't say.  It depends on the band, the PA mix, the room, the monitors, the crowd, the phase of the moon, how attractive your date is, and how salty the drummer's vocabulary gets during the second set.

I'd try it both ways.  Switch microphone orientation between sets, or between songs.  Mix them both down, compare the two and decide what sounded best.

[StarkRavingCalm]

Gutbucket - Thanks. A second machine will go along way in this type of experimentation

FOBean - I agree. In cases where the lighting tech is where the sound tech would normally be i can use a second recorder and sync the two in post.
But in the example of the other night, he was side of stage while the sound board was on stage.

Damn these iPad enabled boards.  ;  )

What is DFC?

The issue with the long cables goes back to them being friends and not really taper friendly.
I try to stay out of the way in that regards.

If I can do it in an un-obtrusive way, it's definitely worth it.

[cybergaloot]

DFC = Dead Fu##in' Center


If its an iPad controlled board you might be able to get an iPad and record what the board sends out. Depends on the board I guess but I believe it can be done with the small Mackie boards. I haven't really dug into that aspect of things in depth yet but a friend who is a sound man was showing the app on his iPad and talked about it being able to record. He was using an iPad II so it doesn't have to be the latest and greatest.

[StarkRavingCalm]

DFC = Dead Fu##in' Center

Thanks. Makes sense.

If its an iPad controlled board you might be able to get an iPad and record what the board sends out. Depends on the board I guess but I believe it can be done with the small Mackie boards. I haven't really dug into that aspect of things in depth yet but a friend who is a sound man was showing the app on his iPad and talked about it being able to record. He was using an iPad II so it doesn't have to be the latest and greatest.

That would only help with the SBD feed which is not my dilema.
I only mentioned the iPad because with that type of remote capability, the board can now go anywhere and it does not matter.
Sound tech can walk around and adjust levels from all points of the audience.

[2manyrocks]

If you have a very, very cooperative person running the board, and if there are two unused mic channels with direct outs on the board, I wonder if you could possibly run your mics through these channels via the direct outs into your 2d and then capture the overall board mix into the other two channels on your 2d.  Your mics would have to be kept out of the pa mix on the board.   I'm not sure if using the mute buttons on the board for these channels will kill only the pa or both the pa and the direct outs.

Not all mixers have direct outs for each channel. 

If all this were to work in your particular situation, then you could minimize your cable runs from the stage by going through the stage snake.   The selling point for the band would be you could offer them more of what they sounded like in the room. 

[cybergaloot]

If you have a very, very cooperative person running the board, and if there are two unused mic channels with direct outs on the board, I wonder if you could possibly run your mics through these channels via the direct outs into your 2d and then capture the overall board mix into the other two channels on your 2d.  Your mics would have to be kept out of the pa mix on the board.   I'm not sure if using the mute buttons on the board for these channels will kill only the pa or both the pa and the direct outs.

Not all mixers have direct outs for each channel. 

Direct outs can be set to pre or post fader. On some boards you have to open them up to make the change. Sometimes it is a switch, sometimes you have top cut a trace on the channel strip. Why is this a worry? It's pretty common practice among sound engineers to bottom out the fader on unused channels. Direct outs are affected by the channel strip's EQ and effects settings.

Rather than use the direct outs it might be better to make some cables to tap the inserts instead. Almost all boards have inserts. I do this and the only thing that affects it on the board is the gain of the channel's preamp. You don't have to worry about how the EQ is set or any effects the board may have being applied accidentally. All you have to do is to cut the lead to the ring on the board end of the cable and then jump the ring to the tip. If you cut the lead near where the insulation is skinned back, then you can bend it over and solder it to the tip connection. On some boards, like Mackies, you can just pull the trs connector out a notch in the inserts but that does not work for all boards, i.e. Allen & Heath. You could just cut the lead to the ring but if you ever use the cable on a channel that get mixed into the monitors or main mix, the sound man will hate you. Jumping the tip to the ring makes the cable universally acceptable (assuming they don't want to use the insert for outboard gear). BTW, I have never seen any pre-made cables that work as I have described, you have to make them.

[StarkRavingCalm]

If you have a very, very cooperative person running the board, and if there are two unused mic channels with direct outs on the board, I wonder if you could possibly run your mics through these channels via the direct outs into your 2d and then capture the overall board mix into the other two channels on your 2d.  Your mics would have to be kept out of the pa mix on the board.   I'm not sure if using the mute buttons on the board for these channels will kill only the pa or both the pa and the direct outs.

Not all mixers have direct outs for each channel. 

If all this were to work in your particular situation, then you could minimize your cable runs from the stage by going through the stage snake.   The selling point for the band would be you could offer them more of what they sounded like in the room.

This is interesting.

One of the techs had mentioned tapping one of the mics above the drums to get the "sound of the room".
I haven't tried it yet.
It would be a good experiment though.

I really prefer AUD recordings to SBD in general because the SBD has no life to it.
But, with a method like this, maybe it could come out sounding like a really clear AUD recording.

[2manyrocks]

The mics above the drums are going to get more cymbals/drums than you probably want.  I think you'll still need your mics placed carefully to capture the whole band. 

What I suggested is very board specific and it would be an exceptional set of circumstances  for all the pieces to come together. A lot of bands are short on available channels to start with, for example.     

The more general consistently controllable and workable solution to avoid lots of your own cable run would be to buy a second recorder to record the SBF/audio mics separately and then sync later. 

What I don't know is the consistency of the audio drift between multiple Dr-2d's over an hour or so.  I've compared audio drift among the tascam Dr-2d, Tascam DR-05 and Sony PCM M10 and found them to vary from each other over say an hour, but I don't have two of the same units to compare together.  Having two of the same units would be closer to sync, I suspect.   

[cybergaloot]

I wouldn't place the mics over the drums. As already stated you will get mostly drums but it will also drive down your levels because of the high energy spikes coming from snare and cymbal hits.

[Gutbucket]

If you want room, mic the room not the band.  The band is already mic'ed and that's what you are getting with the SBD. If the SBD is lacking in something instrumental (guitars maybe?) then you may want to take that into consideration and place your room mics (which could be the internals on the recorder) to pick up enough of that as well as the room.

[StarkRavingCalm]

The mics above the drums are going to get more cymbals/drums than you probably want.  I think you'll still need your mics placed carefully to capture the whole band. 

Thats what I suspected.


So I think overall, I have I three options

Run one machine when board is in audience
         SBD and Mics into same machine

Run two machines when board is on side of stage but lighting tech is in audience
         SBD into one machine and Mics into a second machine. Sync during post

Run one or two machines when both are on side of stage
        This is where I need to be prepared for several configurations
        Getting there earlier to assess the situation ( not assuming a plug-n-play situation every time )
        Getting longer cables in cases where I need to have the mics at stage lip to capture the room
        Since the internal mics on the DR-2D came out pretty decent, and the DR-40 supposedly has better quality internals, this may be a good opportunity here.
        It wouldn't hurt to run both machines in DualMode and pick the best sounding Mic recording of the night


The lesson in all of this for me is not to assume outdoors is like taping in a club + the 'bleed' (for lack of a better term) you get from being outdoors.
I need to be better prepared for any and all circumstances.


I'm gonna need a duffel bag soon 

[2manyrocks]

If you already have both machines, then try it, but I'd be cautious about trying to sync two different models.   There's a risk that the internal clocks in different models will run at just enough different speeds that syncing a full track of an hour's performance will be a pain.  Then you end up having to sync each song during the performance.  It depends on whether you're willing to do the extra work in order to have maybe a more flexible set of recorder options instead of two of the same units.   Black Friday is around the corner and there should be some deals to be had. 

[StarkRavingCalm]

Thanks.

Normally I would buy a second DR-2D. The main thing that has kept me for the DR-40 is that Dual mode is possible but the InternalMics is always one of the sources.
You cannot use two External Sources.

But since the Internal Mics on the DR-2D sounded really good and I know the DR-40 are much better......
(Plus having XLR and Phantom Power for the Oktava's)

I might just start with a second DR-2D and see how it goes...

[Gutbucket]

I have two DR2ds but rarely use them both simultaneously. Can't say how well they'd sync and although their clocks are far more likely to be close since they are the same model, it really depends on the two particular units.  I had two R09s that were very close, and knew of others which were not.

I've been supprised that the internal mics on the DR2d are as decent as they are.  How do you know the mics on the DR40 are "much better"?

So I think overall, I have I three options

Run one machine when board is in audience
         SBD and Mics into same machine

Easy enough.

Run two machines when board is on side of stage but lighting tech is in audience
         SBD into one machine and Mics into a second machine. Sync during post

Syncing files from two seperate machines can be a pain.  Much easier to record on one machine if you can manage that.  A bit of extra effort to make that happen will pay off.  Are you certain you really need mics out in the audience (the AUD+sbd approach)?  Try it both ways to find out if its worth that effort, mics in the audience may not necessarily be better (the SBD+aud approach).

Run one or two machines when both are on side of stage
        This is where I need to be prepared for several configurations
        Getting there earlier to assess the situation ( not assuming a plug-n-play situation every time )
        Getting longer cables in cases where I need to have the mics at stage lip to capture the room

Both good ideas anytime, but you don't need to have the mics at a stagelip to capture the room sound.  That's more important for capturing the direct sound of the band when you don't have a SBD recording.  You have far more freedom with placement of the room mics, they can work fine off to one side- spaciousness and ambience is their job, not imaging.

The lesson in all of this for me is not to assume outdoors is like taping in a club + the 'bleed' (for lack of a better term) you get from being outdoors.

This is outside?  Bleed from nearby stages at a festival or other environmental noises?

[StarkRavingCalm]

I've been supprised that the internal mics on the DR2d are as decent as they are.  How do you know the mics on the DR40 are "much better"?

Just from people's feedback on this site

Syncing files from two seperate machines can be a pain.  Much easier to record on one machine if you can manage that.  A bit of extra effort to make that happen will pay off.  Are you certain you really need mics out in the audience (the AUD+sbd approach)?  Try it both ways to find out if its worth that effort, mics in the audience may not necessarily be better (the SBD+aud approach).

I agree, but will have to wait and see ( I did run two DR-2D's back in Aug. when the board was so far back I know the crowd would overpower the band sound wise. This is based on last years experience at same festival...).
But I have not gotten around to trying to sync the two as of yet...

Overall I like AUD recording better so I kind of lean in that direction when recording.
On nights I have only been able, for one reason or another, been able to get a SBD feed, I don't enjoy the recording as much as an AUD one.
But I love mixing the two.
[/quote]

This is outside?  Bleed from nearby stages at a festival or other environmental noises?

"Bleed" was for lack of a better term and for brevity.
Should have said that the sound dissipates outside where it does not inside.
Again, lack of better term...