location recording: 2trk vs multi

[hollywood_steve]

While still evaluating my options for my return to location recording, I have a question concerning how the rest of you work.

First, lets put aside most situations: we can ignore gigs where only 2 mics are used direct to stereo. And we can ignore jobs where multiple mics are recorded to multi-track.

What I want to know is if any of you mix multiple mics down to 2 tracks in real time? In other words, a session that requires more than 2 mics but that is still recorded direct to stereo, not to multi-track? Does anyone do this, or do you break out the multi-track as soon as a third mic is req'd?

Example - does anyone utilise four or five mics, into an analog mixer, creating the 'final' mix in real time, and record the stereo mix into a 2 track recorder?

In my last go round, I recorded to DAT when only 2 mics were required, and used the 8trk HD recorder as soon as the mic count went past a stereo pair. How many of you are brave enough to mix 'on the fly' to stereo without a multi-track backup?

[trompetfreak]

What I do, and what I see from most of my colleagues, is if the situation is there, they make a 2-track mix thrue all the fancy gear available, and multitrack the direct split's from the pre-amps. That way I do it both 2-track onto CD and DVD, and multitrack onto a G5 and if available the most important tracks on a backup recorder (alesis hd25).

Hope this is what you meant?

[gareth.h.rees]

I asked a similar question a few weeks ago. Some good responses here

Direct to Stereo

Gareth

[mixedupsteve]

I only mixdown to stereo if the client want's a cd immediately or if it's just a price situation. I usually go ahead and record all the tracks anyway that way they have an option later should they want it.

[Don S]

Most of us track to a DAW as a backup while simultaneously making a 2 track master (or vice versa if it's a jazz, rock or heavily miked orchestra). I use a fireface800's mixer to create a stereo mix out of the SPDIF to a SD702. Sometimes I have to go back to the tracks to add EQ, delay, or use different reverb on a spot mic.

[Rick Sutton]

hey Steve,
For years I mixed live to 2 track on location. Even when I got the Genex 8 track most remotes were still mixed to 2 track with the 8 track as backup (for songs that I didn't get right on the 2t mix). Of course the "high end" remotes were always done to the Genex and were mixed back at the studio.
About two years ago I switched all remote work over to multitrack and set my studio PT system up with drive sleds so the Genex drive could be mounted in PT very easily.
Anyway, I've found that the multitrack route is working much better for me than the 2T mix and it really isn't taking much more time than it used to take by the time I sweetened the 2T anyway.
Cheers,
Rick

[RobAnderson]

A lot of my work I do live to 2-TR - especially when the budget is on a shoestring. There are also some situations where it is just better to do it this way (e.g. issues of portability or quick turnaround).

I multi-track the bigger stuff - especially if it is the only way to get it done right. There are certain situations and certain genres of music that really benefit from the ability to mixdown in a controlled environment later instead of having to make the decisions on the spot.

But I have had good success doing most classical music and some small jazz combo's live to 2-TR.

[sonare]

Seems to me this is a matter of comparison--

If the monitoring environment is really good (along with monitors) and if visual communication is good (for jazz) then there is no problem with mixing direct to 2tk IF you have never missed a fader move (such as audience applause for a jazz solo) or if the rehearsals enable the person recording the orchestra concert to hit the ww spot level (and other spots) right on the money.

Otherwise, why take a chance?

Rich

[Ozpeter]

You might find that the more successful people lean towards going straight to stereo, and perhaps conclude that doing that is the secret of their success. But it might be the consequence of their success - no time left for later mixdown from multitrack to stereo.

I'm not pushed for time, so I wouldn't dream of going straight to stereo, as I can't think of an actual advantage where time is on your side.

[Remoteness]

In the early days I cut my teeth doing live stereo recordings because of all the live broadcasts.

Believe it or not, this seriously improved the quality of my multi-track recordings.
Since mic placement and the positioning of the instruments and speakers must be address upfront for a live to 2 track (stereo) capture this mindset also works perfectly for multi-track recording.

I never believed in the "fix it in the mix" concept.
I'm more of a "enhance it in the mix" kind of guy.

In any event, why not have it both ways?
Why not go for the live 2mix with a multi-track safety net?
IMO, it's a win win situation.

[Douglas Whates]

Originally Posted by hollywood_steve

Example - does anyone utilise four or five mics, into an analog mixer, creating the 'final' mix in real time, and record the stereo mix into a 2 track recorder?

I have been thinking about this approach and I consider there to be one main advantage - you only need one stereo channel of A/D conversion. As such, rather than spend £4000 on 8 tracks of A/D conversion, you can spend £4000 on 1 top quality stereo converter. For classical work or critical acoustic work, I reckon this would be quite a significant gain in quality.

Also, all your summing is done in the analogue domain (although this is probably less of a quality concern).

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by Rick Sutton

...for years I mixed live to 2 track on location... switched all remote work over to multitrack ... the multitrack route is working much better for me .. isn't taking much more time than it used to ...

My story as well!

[John Willett]

I have always been direct to stereo.

But last year I bought the Nagra VI - not only for it's superb audio quality, but also for the 6-track capsbility so I can hve extra mics on seperate tracks if I need.

[hollywood_steve]

Also, all your summing is done in the analogue domain (although this is probably less of a quality concern).

I hadn't thought of this in terms of cost savings, but it would certainly allow someone to get started with only a single stereo pair of converters, much cheaper than the 8ch plus 2ch many of us consider the necessary minimum.

Especially for someone who has to start all over in terms of a multi-track system, this method would get me back in the game for very little investment.

[Ozpeter]

Working with a laptop you can have the best of both worlds - I don't know whether all DAW software does it, but in Reaper you can record a stereo mix of multiple tracks at the same time as recording those individual tracks. The stereo mix can be running even when the transport is stopped, so that you can (for instance) start the stereo mix running before the show is due to start, then you are covered in case something unexpected happens when the main recording isn't rolling. And the recording format of the stereo mix can be different from the format of the tracks (eg you could record in stereo to mp3 and individual tracks to wave at the same time if you really wanted to, so you can hand over an 'iPod ready mix' at the end with no waiting). The mix is taken from the output of the Reaper virtual mixer (with FX of course).

[Biber]

Hello,

I use a fireface800's mixer to create a stereo mix out of the SPDIF to a SD702. Sometimes I have to go back to the tracks to add EQ, delay, or use different reverb on a spot mic.

that´s exactly the way (well exept i use Tascam HD-P2) how i recorded five organ concerts last year mainly for archieving. Two of them are now on the way to become a "real" record because the artists liked the results

[juanpz]

I do live two-track recording often with an average of about 8 to 10 inputs. Its definitely a challenge even with all the right outboard gear and the perfect room. One of the things that kills me is that I get a different mix every time, even on a two day session when I leave all the gear in place.

In the mean time I have been saving up for the multi-track so that I can finally have some consistent results, but I kind of get sad when I think about leaving real world to go in the box. Just think of all the great recordings that all of us gearheads look up to, trying to mimic all these ancient sounds that were achieved in a live two track environment.

[RobAnderson]

Otherwise, why take a chance?

I'll give you one example.

I have a friend who is a fine saxophone player and jazz composer. Of course, he does not have a lot of money to spend on the recording (I am sure you all know this story well, but let me continue). He is not looking to make a live album, he just wants to have some decent sounding tracks for his myspace page. He has a regular gig with his combo at a small jazz club in the Village, and sometimes he asks me to come in and do a recording of their performance.

This Jazz club is located in the basement of a cafe on Cornelia Street. There is a long narrow staircase to get to the place and additional stairs inside. Usually there is about 30 minutes changeover between sets and I am unable to leave gear there beforehand. In order to pull this off as a multi, I would have to hire an assistant, which is (of course) not in the budget.

However, by hanging an ORTF pair off mic's right off the stage edge and splitting/mixing in some of the spots that go to the PA (and/or placing a couple of my own spots), one can get a pretty OK live mix - not amazing, but good enough for the purpose. I can fit the necessary gear into a rolling suitcase and a backpack instead of carrying heavy multi-track machines and racks of gear.

So in this case, it's win-win. I can make the recording within his budget (which means I make a little money instead of sitting "idly" at home) and he gets some nice recordings of his work.

[Ozpeter]

I can fit the necessary gear into a rolling suitcase and a backpack instead of carrying heavy multi-track machines and racks of gear.

The humble but quite effective Korg D888 is pretty good for this kind of thing, and incorporates 8 preamps, monitoring mixer, and 8 track recorder in a quite compact but robust package. It has design features making it easy to take a mixture of board feeds and directly connected mics. I found a tupperware-style box which mine fits into neatly and carry that in a shopping bag, would you believe.

[fifthcircle]

I cut my teeth doing all of my work live to 2. Now, I'll do it for the big broadcast gigs, but I always run a multitrack as well. When given the opportunity, I like putting my final master together from the multitrack because it offers options in post that I simply do not get in the field. In the end, I can produce a better master that way.

I still have plenty of clients, though, that want their recordings in just the stereo mix I do on site. If they want a remix, that is done at home and at extra cost.

I'll say- with some of my clients that I go to a multitrack, there is a live stereo mix on the console for the backup. While technically not as good, it isn't uncommon for there to be an excitement that is difficult to recreate in a post mix. I especially found this with some of my live opera recordings and some of the rock shows I've done for radio stations.

--Ben