Topic: Looking for comments on new rig idea

[mmadd29]

I do audio and video for shows.  I do all open shows where I'm with the crew and have complete access to the clubs we are at.  I'm looking to get better sound without having to go the multi-track route.  The main goal is to cut down on the chatty sound.  It seems where ever I hang the mics it is still too chatty for my taste.  I was thinking of using a new setup, and would like comments.

I would use four mics, as most clubs have the mid and high range speakers hanging from the ceiling, and the low end bass cabs on the floor.  I would get mic clamps that would allow me to clamp to the upper cabs and have the mics a few inches from the cab.  I would use my current mics for that.  I would then do the same thing for lower cabs and get some mics like AKG Preceptions or something like that.  I would then run the mics into an unpowered board like a Yamaha or something like that to do the mix.  I would then do tape out to the UA5, and digital to my iriver.

I would need a good set of cans to listen to the mix, my only question is would I need a headphone amp, or would a board, or UA5 put out enough to hear the playback?

I would love to here some comments on this.

Thanks to all whom respond.

[Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B)]

I think the easiest way to do this would be multi-track. Why mix on the fly and do all that work clamping mics when you could just run 2 mics on a stand and run the board into the same deck. Syncing the 2 sources takes about a minute.

Only downside is 2x the data to store later,  but with the price of hard drives I don't see that as an issue.

[mmadd29]

I think the easiest way to do this would be multi-track. Why mix on the fly and do all that work clamping mics when you could just run 2 mics on a stand and run the board into the same deck. Syncing the 2 sources takes about a minute.

Only downside is 2x the data to store later,  but with the price of hard drives I don't see that as an issue.

When I saw multi-track I mean using all the stage mics, which would need 16 channels if not 24.

What I want to do is eliminate the chat as much as possible.  That is why I want the mic's as close to the source as possible. 

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, and why I'm looking for feedback.

What your saying is run the open mics as normal, then take the board feed into the UA5?

 Would there be a delay between the board and open mics?  I only have one UA5, and need 48K...the iriver only does 44.1 from the line in.  When I use a board feed, I use the UA5 that gets me 48K.  I hate retiming files.

That all being said, I'm not against getting a new recorder, (it's probably time), so if there is something that would easily fit my needs I'm willing to listen.  I need 48K, and if I don't need the UA5, I need something that does a decent AD conversion.

Thanks for the input

[Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B)]

There would be a delay that is why I think it's best to get a 4 channel recorder like the Edirol R-44. You would run your mics into 2 channels and the board into 2 channels. You would not need to worry about delay because you can align the 4 channels in post (this takes very little time...we're talking a minute or less).

If you were to try to mix the sources with a UA5 you would have to calculate the delay for the mics and apply that in real time. Not fun.

Many of us are running rigs like this. I think it's the best way to make a great recording even if there is a chatty crowd. You can always mix more board for a chatty crowd. I've found that even mixing a recording 20% mics and 80% board can make a good recording. I've done that for chatty crowds and it works well.

You can also experiment with onstage mic placement. Since you're with the band it will be easier to run your mics through the snake back to the board and run your mics on stage and keep your deck next to the SBD for safekeeping and ease of plugging into the SBD.

[acidjack]

^^^ What they said.   Get a 2-channel board feed from the "REC" outs, which if you have access to the venue, you can even customize to your taste possibly, then throw some decent mics onstage and run them through the onstage snake.  That will make about the best recording possible every time, without a lot of complexity. 

If you don't want to throw down the $$ for a 4ch deck (the Tascam DR2D can do a primitive form of 4ch and is around $200; the others like the Edirol R-44 and Tascam DR-680 are more like $800), you can still accomplish this using a couple of cheap portables like an iRiver and sync them in post.

[mmadd29]

Guys,

Thanks for the feedback, this is exactly what I was looking for   

The R-44 sound like the ticket.  I don't mind the price, and understood when I posted that I would probably be spending a couple grand.

So, with the R-44 it records as 4 tracks, instead of 2 with my iriver?

Is the A-D conversion on the R-44 is as good of quality as the UA5?

Thanks

[rastasean]

the r44 can record 4 mono tracks or two stereo tracks. Of course, you could also record a single mono track.

I don't believe there has been any direct compassion between the UA5 and the r44 but the r44 is several years newer so hopefully the quality is greater on the r44. Some tapers even run the ua5 into the r44 since the ua5 is a very affordable digital pre-amp.

[SmokinJoe]

I think probably something like an R44 or DR680 is the way to go if you can afford it.  That's the way many of us run most of the time (2 mic + 2 SBD).   Having the ability to record the AUD and SBD separately and mix them at home is worlds ahead of mixing on the fly.  Sometimes you decide to go 90% AUD and 10% SBD, other times it's the other way around.  If you were mixing on the fly you would be guessing.

If you had a stock UA-5 and a stock R44, I would just use the inputs on the R44.  I don't know that either is a lot better.  If the UA-5 has an Busman or Oade transparent mod, versus a stock R44, I think that's where most people decide to run the UA-5 in front.

Depending on the room, put 2 mics close to the stage, or on stage.  Some times you can clamp to the light bar, or an overhead beam that will put you a few feet out from the stage, or you can also go stage lip or onstage at something like knee high or waist high.  Being low will give you a little more pickup from the bass guitar amp, but can pick up a lot of what is in the monitors (which may be good or bad), and you have to worry about some wookie spilling beer on your mics.  If you go overhead, you don't have to worry about the wookies, but then you tend to get less bass guitar and more drum overheads.

[mmadd29]

I think probably something like an R44 or DR680 is the way to go if you can afford it.  That's the way many of us run most of the time (2 mic + 2 SBD).   Having the ability to record the AUD and SBD separately and mix them at home is worlds ahead of mixing on the fly.  Sometimes you decide to go 90% AUD and 10% SBD, other times it's the other way around.  If you were mixing on the fly you would be guessing.

If you had a stock UA-5 and a stock R44, I would just use the inputs on the R44.  I don't know that either is a lot better.  If the UA-5 has an Busman or Oade transparent mod, versus a stock R44, I think that's where most people decide to run the UA-5 in front.

Depending on the room, put 2 mics close to the stage, or on stage.  Some times you can clamp to the light bar, or an overhead beam that will put you a few feet out from the stage, or you can also go stage lip or onstage at something like knee high or waist high.  Being low will give you a little more pickup from the bass guitar amp, but can pick up a lot of what is in the monitors (which may be good or bad), and you have to worry about some wookie spilling beer on your mics.  If you go overhead, you don't have to worry about the wookies, but then you tend to get less bass guitar and more drum overheads.

Thanks for the comments.

The mix is the way I'm going to go.  I will be looking for either an R44 or the 680.  My UA5 is stock so I will just put it in the closet after I purcahse a new recorder.

Why would I want the mics on stage, it is usually just monitors on stage.  I usually clamp mics overhead, and in a place like Peabody's I'm at least 15 feet above the crowd.  For on stage should I be close to the monitors, or where is a good place to put mic's?

Most of what I record is metal, and they move around alot....

[Napo]

Sorry my ignorance on the matter, but which soft do you use to mix two sources on post-editing?

'it takes one minute max' -  I thought you had to use timecodes and some other devilish technique. It seems like pressing an icon and deciding %'s from AUD and SDB...

[tailschao]

Sorry my ignorance on the matter, but which soft do you use to mix two sources on post-editing?

'it takes one minute max' -  I thought you had to use timecodes and some other devilish technique. It seems like pressing an icon and deciding %'s from AUD and SDB...

Syncing, not mixing.

If the two sources are recorded on the same device, there will be no drift between them.

Thus, the only time delay would be the difference in direct SBD and the speed-of-sound time taken for the sound to reach the mics on the AUD source. As the recordings are on the same 4-track device, the delay will simply be a constant shift. So you find a snare hit, zoom right in, sync them, up, and done.

Then you mix. That takes time.

[Napo]

crystal-clear, thanks.

[yousef]

Even when using two different recording devices, I've found that Vegas's time-stretching facility only takes a few minutes to get things right.

[mmadd29]

I use WaveLabs 7 and it would take me literally 30 seconds to do.  I do it all the time in Vegas to line up my four camera's to the recorded audio, and that only takes a couple of minutes. 

After you've done it many times, it becomes quick because you know what to look for in match points...

[SmokinJoe]

If you record 4 tracks (or more) on the same box, when you open the 2 files, there is no creep.  The only alignment is a small time delay, and depending on your software, you just drag the SBD to the right a little.  The SBD comes into the recorder "instantly", and the AUD mics have to travel through air at "the speed of sound", which comes up to about .001 seconds per foot from the mics to the sound source.  So a typical show might be that you have a .015 offset, and you just line them up.

Mixing 2 different sources from 2 different recorders is a more complicated.  You end up with something like "I lined them up at the beginning, but an hour into the show it's off by 1/4 second".  That's clock creep and you end up stretching one of the other.  With a 4 track box that becomes a non issue.

And Audacity is a free program that works well, and a lot of people here use it.  http://audacity.sourceforge.net/