In need of advice: Live recording.

[Chris Pettersen]

Hi, I was thinking about starting recording livebands. I´m planning to use my Macbook Pro with Cubase 4, Presonus Firestudio, Digimax FS and external FWHard Drive for recording.
I would do only the recording; not mic´ing the instruments, because someone else would be in charge of live sound.
Then I started thinking: How would I do this? Okey, so I have the equipment above, but I´d need to hook it up to the live mixer somehow. Then the mixer would need separate outs, right? Not just stereo/main outs I mean. I want to be able to record maybe 16 tracks at the same time so I can mix, adjust, etc in my studio later. Sorry, these are probably stupid questions but when one do not know one needs to ask.....

If anyone have any experiance with this, maybe even some good tips with regards to recording live bands, I´d really appreciate it.

Chris

[rainy-taxi]

some desks have direct outputs which are just a copy of the input signal, untouched by the board circuit. Thats what you are after. You can tap the channels therefrom and record them with the firestudio.

I dont know if an external harddisk and the firestudio on 1 firewire bus are such a good idea... Especially with higher track count recordings.

[John Suitcase]

If you want to do it 'right' you need a splitter snake. It has transformer isolated splitters on each channel, so one snake goes to the main mix,the other goes to you. You can have one made, but they're fairly expensive, around $100-$200 per channel if you use good Jensen transformers. If you're looking for a cheaper approach, you can get some ART Splitcom boxes and your own snake. They run about $25 a piece, so it's a lot cheaper. I have 5 that I use occasionally, they work fine, maybe not as nice as the jensens, but better than creating weird ground loops, etc.

[Chris Pettersen]

Originally Posted by rainy-taxi

I dont know if an external harddisk and the firestudio on 1 firewire bus are such a good idea... Especially with higher track count recordings.

Why is this? The Firestudio would be connected to the FW400 input on my mac and I´d have a firewire hard drive connected to the other FW800 input? What else would you suggest?

Chris

[soundawg]

Follow what John said about the split snake, but look at renting one if the startup cost is too much... having said that if you want this as a fulltime job - you will eventually want your own, which will not be subjected to other peoples potentially horrid treatment -rentals are not reliable AFAIAC.

Also, I could be wrong but I believe Rainy thought this would all be on one bus... Your firewire hookup should be fine. (try it at home first of course.)

Soundawg

[Ironklad Audio]

do you already have a digimax and firestudio, or are you planning on getting them? just curious, because the digimax + firestudio will run about $1300 brand new. for the same price, you can snag a mackie onyx 1640 w/ the firewire card.

with this etup, you could feed the FOH board into the line inputs of the mackie(assuming the FOH board has some sort of direct outs), and then record thru the firewire. if the FOH lacks direct outs, or just plain sucks, you could feed the mics into the mackie, then send the signal out of that and into the line in of the FOH. having the mixer would also allow the option of doing the FOH mix if you ever decided to do so.

[jude]

from time to time i do live multi track recordings to pc


i use (borrow) a rack of Klark tekniks 1248 mic splitters. we use this rack (3 units - 36 channels of splits) as the stage box. FOH takes their split, monitors are another split and recording takes the 3rd, leaving a 4th split for an OB van etc.

i then run up to 24 channels into my DDA console and record from the direct outs into cubase, i also record from the mix out to CD to give the band on the night.

works a treat, and can be a bit of fun. especially if you are given the chalenge of recording straight to 2 track. but then you'll need compressors, gates, effects as well.

Jude

[tINY]

You don't need a mic splitter with modern boards. If you get mic pre amps wiith 10k input impedance, the other board won't even know you paralleled the mics.




-tINY

[lowfreq33]

I'd suggest you get the splitter, because you don't want some potentially stupid "engineer" at a club in charge of your gain staging. On top of that, clubs don't always have good gear, and occasionally a club engineer will be downright hostile about you being there, presumably because of insecurity.

[John Suitcase]

Originally Posted by tINY

You don't need a mic splitter with modern boards. If you get mic pre amps wiith 10k input impedance, the other board won't even know you paralleled the mics.




-tINY

That's probably true, assuming you can setup on the same power as the FOH, and that none of the mics are phantom powered. However, I like the splitters, just because it eliminates one possible source of noise and problems.

But yes, it's entirely possible to use non-isolated splitters, or to the direct outs method, if you have a cooperative house sound engineer, and a little extra time to try things out. If it's a permanent recording setup at a club, I wouldn't bother with splitters, but if you're coming in a couple hours before the show, splitters can save your a$$.

[XJR]

I've been recording bands using a mobile multitrack setup for about 9 months now, results are getting better but it still presents a lot more problems than you would encounter tracking in a studio.

I use a simple rack that contains a desktop PC, Digi 001, ADA8000 and an LCD monitor modded to fold away in a rack tray, picture of it here :

http://www.thesuperheroesonline.co.uk/front2.jpg

The old P4 computer in that rack has no problem recording 16 tracks at once onto a 7200 harddrive, I sometimes add another 2 channels via the SPDIF and it's still rock solid. 18 channels is all you can get into a Digi 001 so can't add anymore than that.

If the band has a desk with direct outs then all you need to do is run a snake from the direct outs into your interface. If their board doesn't have direct outs then you can either use mic splitters to get your feed or use a mixture of your own mics on guitar cabs and drums and pull the vocals from any available aux sends on the desk. If the band aren't using aux send 3 for example then you can turn up that send on the lead vocal to get it out of the desk on it's own. Any sends you use must be set pre fader though, otherwise any fader rides will be recorded and that will cause clipping and other problems.

The biggest enermy is spill, once you play back a session of a loud rock band it's amazing how much vocal will bleed into a drum mic, and how much drums will bleed into the guitars channel etc. I have found I can lessen the bleed by using SM58's on guitars instead of 57's. Get the singer to use a better mic in terms of spill pickup than the standard SM58. Bass guitar seems to work ok DI'ed and then re amped afterwards. For drums I use the standard SM52 or D112 on kick which are reasonably ok but the normal SM57's on snare need a lot of careful placement to minimize the spill from everything else. Keyboards are DI'ed, you can always add a tiny bit if reverb to give them a bit of air like the mic'ed instruments.

The less spill you get the more you can refine the recording afterwards so it's mainly about good mic placement, if your mic'ing a 4 X 12" Marshall cab then put the mic on the speaker that's farthest from the drum kit. Use a bit of rubber or foam under the mic stand to lessen the vibration picked up from the stage floor. It only makes a tiny bit if difference but it all adds up.

[Chris Pettersen]

Thank you all for your replies. It was very informative! Things seem a bit more clear to me now:)

[jude]

Originally Posted by XJR

For drums I use the standard SM52 or D112 on kick which are reasonably ok but the normal SM57's on snare need a lot of careful placement to minimize the spill from everything else. Keyboards are DI'ed, you can always add a tiny bit if reverb to give them a bit of air like the mic'ed instruments.

have you tryed the beta98 on the kick?

i find it works really well for a "rock"sound and being that its inside the drum there is bugger all spill.

PS nice looking setup

[nickynicknick]

I would say rent a splitter as well...in my experience you will find that a lot of house engineers are not into being helpful.... you need to make yourself as self sufficent and simple as possible....here's a few ideas...make sure you advance with the house engineer the fact that you are going to be recording....remember you being there is going to take up more of everybody's time....be respectful of that.....you are basically going to double the length of soundcheck....get there early and get your gear set up well out everybody's way...when getting levels keep them fairly low in soundcheck 'cause 90% of the time everybody plays much harder/louder at showtime...you do not want to clip off the top of the show....keep your track count as low as possible... if the house guy wants to run 12 channels don't argue....16 seems about as much as you'll ever need for most club acts....did I say KEEP IT SIMPLE. Peace. good luck.

Nick

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by XJR

I've been recording bands using a mobile multitrack setup for about 9 months now,

. I have found I can lessen the bleed by using SM58's on guitars instead of 57's. Get the singer to use a better mic in terms of spill pickup than the standard SM58. .

I don't think this will make much of a difference....57's and 58's are essentially the same mic

[Chris Pettersen]

Originally Posted by nickynicknick

I would say rent a splitter as well...in my experience you will find that a lot of house engineers are not into being helpful.... you need to make yourself as self sufficent and simple as possible....here's a few ideas...make sure you advance with the house engineer the fact that you are going to be recording....remember you being there is going to take up more of everybody's time....be respectful of that.....you are basically going to double the length of soundcheck....get there early and get your gear set up well out everybody's way...when getting levels keep them fairly low in soundcheck 'cause 90% of the time everybody plays much harder/louder at showtime...you do not want to clip off the top of the show....keep your track count as low as possible... if the house guy wants to run 12 channels don't argue....16 seems about as much as you'll ever need for most club acts....did I say KEEP IT SIMPLE. Peace. good luck.

Nick

Thanks Nick. Some good advice there. I have until late January, early February to get all the gear I need ready. The good thing is that the band I´m going to record are friends of mine, so if things goes straight to hell it doesn´t matter. I´ll have my chance of getting some experience with live recording without hostile eyes in my neck..

Thanks again everyone for your tips!

[AudioA]

I personnaly often use the direct outs of the console, sometimes they are digital (adat) sometimes they are analog. But i plan to find myself a splitter box or cables soon.

You will find a lot of information concerning live recording in the Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording

Good luck

[rainy-taxi]

Originally Posted by Chris Pettersen

Why is this? The Firestudio would be connected to the FW400 input on my mac and I´d have a firewire hard drive connected to the other FW800 input? What else would you suggest?

Chris

Thought you were going to connect it all over FW400. It shouldn't be much of a problem then (have my WD on a FW800 and the soundcard on the FW400)

But the firestation can give some problems with other things on the firestudio. So check that out first by testing

[XJR]

Originally Posted by nickynicknick

I don't think this will make much of a difference....57's and 58's are essentially the same mic

They are pretty much the same capsule but the pickup pattern is different. The 58 is quite good at rejecting sound that isn't in front of it where the 57 will pick up sound from a wider area.
For larger stages a 57 is probably ideal but if you have to mic guitar cabs that are pushed close together then the 58 does a better job at rejecting spill.

[XJR]

Originally Posted by jude

have you tryed the beta98 on the kick?

i find it works really well for a "rock"sound and being that its inside the drum there is bugger all spill.

PS nice looking setup

Cheers, will give that a try. Any tips for a snare mic that can capture the snare without as much hat and cymbals ?

[jude]

Originally Posted by XJR

Cheers, will give that a try. Any tips for a snare mic that can capture the snare without as much hat and cymbals ?

sorry, that was ment to be a beta 91 on the kick. my bad

the beta 98/s i what i regularly use for snare mainly due to its size. the thing is tiny, making it very easy to get good rejection of the cymbals. here is a pic of one which on my 17 inch screen is almost to scale


http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups/public/@gms_gmi_web_us/documents/web_resource/site_img_us_pro_beta98-s_m.jpg

ok, well i have no idea how to get this to show a pic, but here is a link. its a bloody good thing im better at mixing and recording than i am with the internet!

[RawDepth]

As an alternative to a splitter snake, you can always get a few of these. Rackmount Mic Splitter

They have transformers for the splits and ground lifts. Nice!

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by XJR

They are pretty much the same capsule but the pickup pattern is different. The 58 is quite good at rejecting sound that isn't in front of it where the 57 will pick up sound from a wider area.
For larger stages a 57 is probably ideal but if you have to mic guitar cabs that are pushed close together then the 58 does a better job at rejecting spill.

I have miced guitar cabinets on every conceivable size stage you can think of and I have to say...I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never had bleed problems with a 57 jammed into the front of a guitar cabinet.

[XJR]

Originally Posted by nickynicknick

I have miced guitar cabinets on every conceivable size stage you can think of and I have to say...I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never had bleed problems with a 57 jammed into the front of a guitar cabinet.

I'm reffering to the amount of spill picked up by both mics in ratio to the wanted signal source. Both mic's sound the same but the 58 has better rejection of spill due to it's tighter pickup pattern. On the very small stages I work with, where the guitar cabs are tight up against the drums and bass cabs this tighter pickup pattern gets me more guitar to track versus drums and other unwanted spill.
One of the reasons I have trouble is the bands tend to be very quiet on stage , with the PA providing all the volume. This is good practice but it does mean the sound on stage is very drum heavy, hence the spill problems.

[tINY]

The SM58 and SM57 are both cardioid.

They sound a little different, but not much - the pick-up pattern is almost identical between them.

If you want less spill, get a super- or hyper-cardioid mic.




-tINY

[spazticstar]

We split the vocal mics and use all of our own mics otherwise.
Small venues tend to have less than stellar mics.
The Audix D-vice clips will save your life.
You'll want an assistant.

[ARude]

Are you planing to go into the business or are you just planning to do some recordings of friends? Live recording can get VERY expensive. If you don't plan to get into the business here are a few tips.

Splitter transformers ARE the best but if the board has insert points that is usually the best point to pick of a usable signal. Mackie's, Yamaha's, Soundcraft, etc. almost all have them. Push a phone plug into the first click. Make sure the board trims are optimized. This is a -10 dBv signal. For the most part if you're recording SM 58's or the like the preamps in the house board will be acceptable. A lot of the time the house mics at a venue are not acceptable as they have been on the floor too many times.

I strongly disagree with the "less is better" philosophy in a live setting, there is nothing worse than getting the tracks back to the studio and finding out that there is a critical signal missing. Don't leave out audience response mics, ambient mics, cover the drums well. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Record EVERYTHING and sort it out at the studio.

Just my 2 cents but I've never found a computer based DAW reliable enough for serious live location recording. Not yet anyway. Use a dedicated HD recorder.

[plus6vu]

I have done live recording for a number of years now. So I'll lend a few comments. I agree also, go to the Live recording part of this forum. It's full of great information.

I agree - splitters (with ground lift switches) are the way to go. Here's why:
1. You don't have to depend on the other guy's wire, pre's or gain settings. The only thing of his (hopefully) you'll have to deal with is the mic and the wire from the mic to the splitter. Unless I know the FOH gear/person, I'll even supply that too.
2. Many direct outs on mixers are POST-EQ and /or POST FADER. You still have to deal with whatever the FOH person is giving you (his eq and fader/mute settings). You want a good clean UN-ALTERED signal from the mic.
3. If you have to get the signal from the FOH board, get or make some "cheaters" (loops the in and out of the insert jack and gives an output feed as well) and take your signal from an insert jack on the channel. Those are generally direct out of the pre. (Though some, like my Venice, are post EQ - I have got to fix that) Also DO NOT trust the "one-click trick" on console inserts. Many of them have weak connections, so they are unreliable.


As far as the SM57/58 issue, I have had this discussion many times.

This is from the horses mouth.
Go to their FAQ Find an Answer and search for SM57. The headline is SM57 vs SM58

It is true the SM57 and SM58 microphones are based on the same cartridge design. The main difference between them is in the grille design. The SM58 was designed for vocal application and it uses a separate grille with a very effective pop filter. The SM57 was designed as an instrument microphone where smaller grille size is preferred. In this application the pop and wind are not usually a concern. The SM57 uses an integral resonator/grille assembly, where grille is actually a part of the cartridge. These two grille designs place the diaphragm of the microphones in a different acoustical environment. First of all, the distance from the top of the grille to the diaphragm is significantly shorter on the SM57 compared to that of the SM58. This allows for closer sound pickup with even more pronounced proximity effect. Secondly, a different resonator/grille assembly design of the SM57 is responsible for its slightly higher output above 5 kHz.

Have fun!
Scott