Topic: So...How's four track recording working out for you?

[Roving Sign]

I've been doing AUD/SBD recording using two recorders - then combining them in post.

(BTW - Im using two clock synced A>Ds - so Im not fighting any drift issues...)

I like the results - however, Im afraid the post production time is going to make this approach prohibitive.

I cant justify screwing around for 3 hours on post show work. And too often, Im noticing things that I want to go back and tweek after Im "done"

Not every show requires this much attention - Some go together a little easier...

But from a hobbyist perspective - this is too much time...

My on the fly efforts seem to be just as good when it comes to the final product...

All this - and Im still working in 16/44...going to 24 bits means bigger files, more data, and longer processing time...

Im thinking of abandoning this approach for now...

Anyone else getting bogged down by 4 track post work?


Edit:

Heres a good on the fly effort
http://www.archive.org/details/londonfile2007-04-20

Here's a 4 track - that sounds good most spots...but the vocals get way too loud in some spots...like track 13 is really bugging me.
http://www.archive.org/details/hexbelt2007-11-02

[bugg100]

I'm right there with you.... Too much time.    in post is killing me. Except it is clock sync which is taking up my time in post.  Wavelab audio montage seems to be easiest workflow wise.

What are you using to matrix your 4 tracks?

I have a new set of room mics (DPA4061) so I'm just concentrating on 2 tracks for the moment, to get feel for new gear.......

Joe

[Roving Sign]

At the shows using two JB3s - and two A\Ds - the Behinger Ultramatch 2496 makes the clock syncing happen.(it allows you to use any dig-input as the clock source)

Im using Audacity in post...very easy to sync stuff up...as long as you are clock-synced

Its the level changes - both from variations in each source, and from combining sources, that are prolonging my post efforts. I can see that 24 bit might help accommodate some of the volume increases that happen when combining...but again - more processing time. And I still have the wandering source imbalances...

Also - this stuff is much more taxing on my ears...they wear out after trying to listen for stuff too long...

I havent even begun to entertain EQ ing each source...

For mission critical recordings, or something I was being paid for - I wouldnt mind so much...

I like to tape every weekend - but Im getting way behind...

My next outing will be on the fly...

[NJFunk]

I don't find the post tme prohibitive, but then, I'm willing to devote 3 hours to a show, too.  I also bought Surcode DTS and started making DTS 5.1 mixes.  Well worth the time & effort, IMHO.

[rowjimmytour]

Ever since I changed to a R4(T-mod) life has been easier w/ 4 track matrix. I run four channel mono (24 48) and then my lineage goes:R4>USB>Vegas 7(track Merge)>SF 8(Dither,Normalize(16 44.1)>CDWAV>Flac. One problem I had at first was the SDB feed running hot but I built some cables w/ -20dB pads built into the XLR(M) stubby end. I am not into spending a lot of time w/ post edit so I don't mess w/ EQ and other tools but I am happy w/ latest results.
16 bit
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=510961
24 bit
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=510960
Also both are up on the bittorrent.music ftp server under: Downloads>flac
Peace

[gtalife]

I do more 4 track recordings than 2 tracks, using an R-4 or a JB3/R-09 combo depending on the situations and venue. The little bit of extra time in post is worth every minute in the results achieved.

[Roving Sign]

I do more 4 track recordings than 2 tracks, using an R-4 or a JB3/R-09 combo depending on the situations and venue. The little bit of extra time in post is worth every minute in the results achieved.

Is that compared to mixing on the fly....? Or just overall satisfaction...

It seems like Im just as happy with my on the fly jobs...or I'm just less happy with things like track 13 in the second source...it was already on the archive before I really decided that the mix got out of control on that track...

[easy jim]

I do more 4 track recordings than 2 tracks, using an R-4 or a JB3/R-09 combo depending on the situations and venue. The little bit of extra time in post is worth every minute in the results achieved.

Is that compared to mixing on the fly....? Or just overall satisfaction...

It seems like Im just as happy with my on the fly jobs...or I'm just less happy with things like track 13 in the second source...it was already on the archive before I really decided that the mix got out of control on that track...

I don't mind putting in the extra time to edit 4+ tracks in post.  In many ways it suits the perfectionist inclinations I have, and I feel better sharing the finished result.

I would rather have the extra time and control in post to polish a rough recording, especially in the case of smaller rooms where dynamic variations can wreak havoc on an on-the-fly mix as you have rightly indicated.  When mixing SBD and AUD (especially stage) sources, the ability to automate levels in a DAW and use dyanmics/frequency processing can really make all the difference in the world between having a really good - but rough - mix and having an excellent mix. 

Examples - Sound engineer was slow on the faders with the vox cue on one track: automate a level jump at the vox entrance on the SBD tracks to balance the mix.  That keyboard or guitar is way too high in the mix on one song due to a particular effect: automate a level drop in the affected track(s).  The sbd source is way more dynamic than the room/PA mic source, or that stage source is way more dynamic than the SBD source: dial in some light compression either on the more dynamic tracks or on the master bus.  The cymbals are way too loud on that stage source, and downright painful when mixed with SBD where they are also really high in the mix: use a Para EQ/notch filter on one set of tracks or the master bus to balance the frequency output of the final mix.   Have a glitch/pop or static, etc. affecting only one or two channels at brief points: spot mute or copy/paste to correct the 'wart.'

I find that I like and produce better results mixing when I can really hear what I am doing.  With on-the-fly mixing you're limited.  Adjusting the delay/sync between tracks in post to your preference can really make a significant impact on the final mix.  Even if you have outboard gear to handle delaying the SBD feed and for signal processing (if you choose), you still have the challenge of being able to hear how the changes you make affect the final mix over the loud music in the room.  And, if the on-the-fly comes out bad...you're stuck with it and there is not much you can do (by comparison to having the 4 tracks separate) to fix a bad mix.

[rowjimmytour]

Even if you have outboard gear to handle delaying the SBD feed and for signal processing (if you choose), you still have the challenge of being able to hear how the changes you make affect the final mix over the loud music in the room.  And, if the on-the-fly comes out bad...you're stuck with it and there is not much you can do (by comparison to having the 4 tracks separate) to fix a bad mix.

These reasons alone that easyjim post are why I bought a R4 in the first place.
Peace

[Jimna]

im new to the 4 track world so cant add much here, but i do know i tried this a while ago(using 2 dat decks) and quit due to drift and the nightmare that ensues..... 

all i do know is ive listened to many on the fly tapes and was very unhappy(not yours cork) overall with the results.  so much so i would have preferred to listen to a rowdy audience(this would be my old tapes  ) than that result.  i do agree that corkscrew has pulled some gem on the fly tapes, but for all those crappy recordings it makes all the effort in setup and execution not worth it(this is debatable i know).  i guess i shall see as this progresses for me though.

+T good topic.

[NJFunk]

Even if you have outboard gear to handle delaying the SBD feed and for signal processing (if you choose), you still have the challenge of being able to hear how the changes you make affect the final mix over the loud music in the room.  And, if the on-the-fly comes out bad...you're stuck with it and there is not much you can do (by comparison to having the 4 tracks separate) to fix a bad mix.

These reasons alone that easyjim post are why I bought a R4 in the first place.
Peace

This was one of the two major reasons I got the R4.  DTS 5.1 mixes were the other.

[cfox]

It takes me 2.5 hours to process 4 channel 24/96, to get all the files tracked and flac'd in 24 and 16 bit, most of the time is just processing and saving...

[Nick's Picks]

being the pussy I am, I gave up on 4 tracks long ago as I could never achieve results that justified the expense (monetary and time) over a well recorded 2 track master.

but...if i regularly had SBD access at the shows I was taping, i'd definitely be doing 4 track mixes w/mics and the board feed.
or...
if I could run outrigger omni's and a coincident pair as the mains, but to do it in a way that would be "right" (in my mind any way), would just be a hassle as i'd want my omni's 30' apart w/my main pair in the center.

still, i'm glad you folks are out there doing it.
rock on

[bobbygeeWOW]

I don't find the post tme prohibitive, but then, I'm willing to devote 3 hours to a show, too.  I also bought Surcode DTS and started making DTS 5.1 mixes.  Well worth the time & effort, IMHO.

Hey that's pretty interesting - are you doing sbd + 2 room mics or actual 4-mic techniques?

[NJFunk]

I don't find the post tme prohibitive, but then, I'm willing to devote 3 hours to a show, too.  I also bought Surcode DTS and started making DTS 5.1 mixes.  Well worth the time & effort, IMHO.

Hey that's pretty interesting - are you doing sbd + 2 room mics or actual 4-mic techniques?

SBD + 2 room mics.  The best ones I've done have been in small bars where there is very little in the PA and I can set up the mics behind the PA right in front of the band ("stage lip" except that a lot of times, there is not really an official "stage").  This is the one I like to pimp the most:

http://www.archive.org/details/tbm2007-08-09.DTS

For this one, the PA had just vocals and horns, and the mics were placed DIN and had the stage sound from DFC with very little bleeding in from the PA or monitors.  I mixed the PA on the center channel, this source: http://www.archive.org/details/tbm2007-08-09.1644-Matrix on the front channels and the mics-only on the surround channels.  It sounds great (IMHO, at least).  The vocals center the whole mix, and then the soundscape pans out into the stereo image of the mic feed, which was lead guitar on the left, rhythm guitar on the right, and drums in stereo in the center (the bass is on the sub, so that is pretty much in the center of the image).