What's your favorite way to record live?

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by LX3

BoomRecorder is great, have used it here quite a few times... though I'd love to see them add some more flexible and faster-to-use monitoring. Then it'd be killer.

A very good project for somebody in the open source community to tackle. We need stuff like this and not another Protools wannabee.

[henryrobinett]

Whoa Bob! Why the hostile Metric Halo barb? PT wannabe??

It certainly makes sense to me that if you make a great fw interface specifically tailored to the remote demographic, that you simplify the set up. So you can go out into the field with just your laptop, powerbook and interface and scream, with no additional cpu overhead. It's a no brainer.

[Bob Olhsson]

I was talking about open source audio applications and not Metric Halo.

[henryrobinett]

Oh! Good. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Remoteness]

We are looking into this for a possible upcoming project.

Originally Posted by LX3

BoomRecorder is great, have used it here quite a few times... though I'd love to see them add some more flexible and faster-to-use monitoring. Then it'd be killer.

I'm curious to know how many people who said they were using tape (e.g. DA88) in 2002 or 03 are still using it. I think the numbers as they stand now would be telling (or not?)

[XLR2XLR]

I just don't think I have the faith in a computer running Windows or OSX to
be reliable enough personally.

Just not worth the risk of failure.

[LX3]

Originally Posted by XLR2XLR

I just don't think I have the faith in a computer running Windows or OSX to
be reliable enough personally.

Just not worth the risk of failure.

I would have agreed with you four years ago, but now OS X's audio handling seems incredibly solid. Even the various apps are more stable than they were, and the amount of processing power in modern laptops means fairly involved audio stuff isn't nearly as taxing as it used to be.

Meanwhile, the HD24XR can drop out of record in certain circumstances, the X-48 crashes for no good reason... (Don't tell me, get a Radar )

My main issue with DAWs is the time they take to set up, and the lack of good >24 channel solutions for laptops.

[Maybe this is a different thread?]

[Roland]

Prior to the appearance of Sadie, I remember that recording 2 tracks on a computer was a feat, even with Sadies first systems they were aimed at editing not recording, now we expect to get at least 4-8 on very basic systems and top systems such as Pro-tools, Sadie and Pyramix offer 48 - over 100 tracks and are sold as recording systems not just post production. The Tascam looks like an amazing piece of kit, particularly when it is taken into consideration the fact it has 48 channels of AD/DA in the price, just a pity that it still is hanging onto the T-dif digital conection system, when Madi might have been a better option. All in a box, dedicated recorders may look like the best option at the moment, but as LX3 pointed out, there is anacdotal evidence of them experiencing crashes too. From my own experience with Pyramix I would describe it as reliable as a recorder (The BBC and several other broadcasting companies are confident too). Any system be it digital or analogue can potentially fail for any number of reasons, there are no guarantees.

Regards


Roland

[Remoteness]

The A/D D/A or any other flavors of digital conversion is additional and not included in the base price of the X48.

[Roland]

Hi Steve,
I wasn't aware of that, but even so the X48 is a very cost effective package. Pyramix with a single Madi board would I expect cost around the £10,000, obviously depending on configuration.

Regards


Roland

[dortola]

Originally Posted by Corran

I told him I use two Korg D888s to record up to 16 channels live and take it back to Sonar to mix down.

Hi! How do you sync both recorders? Or how do you sync those 16 channels when you send them to the PC?
Thanks!
Daniel.

[Corran]

Originally Posted by dortola

Hi! How do you sync both recorders? Or how do you sync those 16 channels when you send them to the PC?
Thanks!
Daniel.

Well I actually haven't had to do this yet, I only recently got the second machine. But you can either DI one channel on the primary board to the second, and line up those tracks correctly in the DAW and delete one. Or you could just not sync and move the second set of files around till it's relatively in sync...

I'm not sure how well either will work but I am interested in trying soon.

[rmdivito]

I have been using PT with Tascam DTRS as backup for the past several years and has been very reliable. I have been considering a move to LOGIC/Symphony system but have been unable to get a gage on whether it is stable enough to not lock up during that "perfect" take. Any thoughts anyone? Lately i have been considering a move to HD recording between the Alesis or the Fostex. They seem reliable enough and will allow (with some faffing around) for front end converters like Lavry, etc. My only reservation comes with post gig file transfer. With DAW recording I can start editing right away. Big plus when I'm overlapped. Which is usual.

Please respond with thoughts on LOGIC/Symphony stability. As well, is there a way to use a Mac Laptop using PCMCIA card as a generic gateway to various AD converters? Firewire seems to be problematic.

cheers,

Robert DiVito
Toronto, Canada

[dortola]

Originally Posted by Corran

Well I actually haven't had to do this yet, I only recently got the second machine. But you can either DI one channel on the primary board to the second, and line up those tracks correctly in the DAW and delete one. Or you could just not sync and move the second set of files around till it's relatively in sync...

I'm not sure how well either will work but I am interested in trying soon.

Well, please let us know the results when you try.
Thank you.

[Remoteness]

With 176 vote in to date here's what we have so far...

Analog recorders (2", 1", 1/2", 1/4", audiocassette)........................7............3.98%
Digital recorders (DASH, ADAT, DTRS, DAT, etc, etc)......................31..........17.61%
Hard disk recorders (RADAR, X48, HD24XR, MX2424, etc, etc)........74..........42.05%
DAW (PT and all the rest of the computer based rigs).....................64..........36.36%

[Remoteness]

Apparently HARD DISK RECORDERS are still in the lead with DAW a solid second!

Analog recorders (2", 1", 1/2", 1/4", audiocassette).....................9.... 4.86%
Digital recorders (DASH, ADAT, DTRS, DAT, etc, etc)..................31....16.76%
Hard disk recorders (RADAR, X48, HD24XR, MX2424, etc, etc)....75....40.54%
DAW (PT and all the rest of the computer based rigs).................70....37.84%

With 185 votes in does anyone else want to contribute to this ballot?

[jnorman]

i have been fooling around with a laptop based DAW, vista running reaper. i just dont like having no work surface, and i always worry about stability, as you just cant afford to have a screw up in a live situation. plus the user interface is complex and not very intuitive, and using a mouse to control faders, etc, is rather awkward compared to a dedicated work surface.

i am going to stick with my trusty roland VS machines (1880 and 2400cd) - rock solid, i know the interface, and it is a great work surface.

[fallforward]

I had a mackie 24 track recorder that I used for a long time that I would bring back and transfer to pro tools, but since I run PTLE I can't get that bay that lets you load straight into pro tools so I would have to transfer it in real time, which for 2 hour classical or jazz recordings was a pain in the ass.

I mounted my G4 into my road case and just go straight into pro tools. I still use 5.2 with an 001 but it is really stable (touch wood). I have a 7.4 rig in the studio that I leave at home. I have 8 channels of good outboard pre's and converters (that I just picked up!) that I run into the lightpipe, a DBX 386 that I run into the spdif, and then I use my mackie 1604 for the other 8 channels. 18 channels on the fly all in a rolling case that fits in the back of my SUV. I also have enough routing option on the mackie to do FOH as well, as that is how I get most of my gigs is by offering a combo package of sound with recording. Mind you I'm not doing huge FOH it's usually just a room with no more than 300 people. I now just run the mackie as a backup. (Every gig I stare at that thing and think about selling it, but it wouldn't be very prudent I'm sure to fly without a net so to speak!)


I don't do near the professional budget work you guys do, but rolling with the PT right away, instead of tracking with the mackie first, has saved me a lot transfer time.

I have really learned a lot here! Thanks!
Robby

[mathieujm]

As this point evolved a lot since 2002 (myself going from DAT to DAW), I think we should begin a new poll on this subject to reflect the actual reality. And then it should be interesting to see the evolution since these years.

JMM

[Remoteness]

Sounds like an excellent plan.

Why didn't YOU think of it?

Here's the new thread link > What's your favorite way to record live in 2009?

Originally Posted by mathieujm

As this point evolved a lot since 2002 (myself going from DAT to DAW), I think we should begin a new poll on this subject to reflect the actual reality. And then it should be interesting to see the evolution since these years.

JMM

[themaidsroom]

2" 16 track through great mic-pres

[Fuzzy Logic]

I havent seen a 2" 16 track on a location recording in a very long time.
for that matter a 24 track analog machine on a live recording is a stretch.
anyone else still recording live with a 2" machine?

[Roland]

From a question of praticality I can't imagine that any 2" machine is employed for this work, these days, though I'm sure there are mobile trucks that can supply one on request. Most location recording is either long takes or multiple takes for subsequent editing, neither of these are things that tape is good for.

I would think all the serious players are either X48, Radar, Pro-tools, Pyramix. I suspect all the other stuff is also rans, mostly used by bottom feeders.

Regards


Roland

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Roland

I would think all the serious players are either X48, Radar, Pro-tools, Pyramix. I suspect all the other stuff is also rans, mostly used by bottom feeders.

Not quite true - you missed out the two leading classical options of SADiE and Sequoia - the all digital session in Abbey Road last year was done on Sequoia.

And I certainly would not call Plush an "also ran" - and he records (like me) on a Nagra VI.

Yes, I have Sequoia as well, but I far prefer to do location recording with a dedicated recorder and not a computer (PC nor Mac) - though, ogf course, I would edit in Sequoia.

Now - I'm off to London for a recording session..... (Nagra VI, Schneider Disk + MKH 20 or KM 183-D)

[Roland]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Not quite true - you missed out the two leading classical options of SADiE and Sequoia - the all digital session in Abbey Road last year was done on Sequoia.

And I certainly would not call Plush an "also ran" - and he records (like me) on a Nagra VI.

Yes, I have Sequoia as well, but I far prefer to do location recording with a dedicated recorder and not a computer (PC nor Mac) - though, ogf course, I would edit in Sequoia.

Now - I'm off to London for a recording session..... (Nagra VI, Schneider Disk + MKH 20 or KM 183-D)

Of course there is nothing wrong with the Nagra, however, I was going with the theme of multitracking more than a few tracks.

I'm a little suprised about Abbey Road using Sequioa's, I do know that they had several Pyramix systems and were pretty committed to them, as are the BBC and a lot of the major broadcasters these days.

Sadie, as good as it is, obviously has suffered more in recent times. IMHO with the exception of the LRX2 they haven't really been seen as a multitrack player, I suspect this vontributed to their insolvency in the first place. I was a Sadie user myself until it came time where I needed a system that I could multitrack, master and mix on, I bought into Pyramix for this reason, more recently we have also started running Pro-tools as well, couldn't be happier at the moment, certainly not in a hurry to go back to hardware units again.

Regards


Roland

[mathieujm]

Originally Posted by Roland

I'm a little suprised about Abbey Road using Sequioa's,

Here is the news

JMM

[hbphotoav]

I'm just returning to recording for bucks, after a 25-year layoff to make photographs and produce live AV events. And children.

My current rig is a MacBook Pro running Logic 8 to FW hard drive. The DAW is either an Apogee Ensemble or one of my production Mackies... Onyx 1220 or 1640, both with the FW card installed (I started with the 1220 and Tracktion... what an odd little bit of program that is...). I've just moved to 8 channels of DAV micamps (BG8) and use it with both the Ensemble and the Mackies. I generally use the Ensemble where I have no FOH duties, and the appropriate Mackie when I must also deliver a live mix while tracking.

On both rigs, I use a Edirol R09HD as a backup recorder, capturing a 24 bit/44.1 stereo feed from the "REC" outs of the Mackies, and the main analog out (still trying to figure out the S/PDIF routing) on the Ensemble. Small gigs so far... no troubles in the year I've had Logic and the Ensemble, from either platform. Had a few "issues" that were Tracktion related in the beginning.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by mathieujm

Here is the news

JMM

That talks about a specific "one-off" session where external engineers and producers are comming in. As I said above, I know for certain that Abbey Road were heavily into Pyramix systems and as far as I am aware they are still the system of choice. They do mention that this is what their editing suites contain.

Regards


Roland

[fifthcircle]

The link makes sense.... Michael Fine is the producer and as anybody who is on the Sequoia forum (ie users) knows, he is a Sequoia user for his editing. The bits about post production make complete sense. Record and set up your sessions in the DAW which will provide the post. Email the sessions to each other and multiple folks can work on a session with ease.

--Ben

[Roland]

I bought up the subject of this thread with a good friend of mine who is also a very experienced engineer. We talked about the various recording kit available, particularly Pro-tools and Pyramix. His take on it was that almost any commercial studio worth a look was a Pro-tools user. As he put it, there are plenty of others that use other kit and will justify it for whatever reason, but ultimately there is very good reason why 90% of the major players use it.

From my own experience, I've played with a lot of DAW's from Logic audio, Cakewalk, Samplitude, Sadie, Sonic Solutions (as was), Cubase/Nuendo and of course Pro-tools and Pyramix. They all have their good and bad, some more, some less, but for editing/mastering and multichannel recording capability I've found nothing that touches the Pyramix, for rock recording/mixing/editing the Pro-tools is great. Sequioa I think is a bit of both, but for me the interface is far too cluttered and a little "homegrown looking". I don't doubt that it produces great results, but I choose tools for ease of use, compatibility and options that I need. I assume in this day and age, all these systems do not suffer from perceivable quality differences.

Regards


Roland