The walking multitrack

TBlizz · 23rd September 2009

Daniel Lanois is excited.
“Look at this,”he says, proffering a tiny Edirol digital record. “This little box, which records on a card, is only about the size and weight of a cigarette package. It runs on batteries, it's go a nice onboard stereo mic and an automatic level control. I could make an enitre album with just four of these!”
An entire album? “Sure,“ he says amiably. “Let's say that during this interview we decide to pick up a couple of instruments, and let's say I have four of these in my coat. I'd put one out in the room to capture the overall sound, one near my guitar amp, one near your amp, and another one in front of whoever is singing, and then I'd press Record on all four of them. I'll end up with four nice stereo recordings of the same event, occurring at different spots in the room. Then when I get back home, all I have to do is transfer the individual recordings to a computer in order to sync them back up. And when you do that, the most incredible thing happens: you get a certain imaging and depth of field that you wouldn't get from static mono microphones, with results that are wild and wonderful.”

You are really sold on these little portable digital recorders, aren't you?
I am, especially since they only cost three of four hundred dollars, so anyone can afford to make records with them. Just keep fresh batteries on hand, keep a notebook so your indexes are accurate, and off you go.
I recently had a nice experience putting one of these inside a grand piano too. I just placed it on a little sponge so it wouldn't rattle around, put the lid down, and we got an amazing sound. These little recorders won't distort, either. They'll compress, but they won't distort.
You know, I initially embraced them because of their ease of setup and flexibility, and because they're unobtrusive-they aren't intimidating to musicians like big microphones on stands can be; they're actually just like having a few snapshot cameras laying around. But then I started really like the sound of them.

From:
Behind the Glass Volume II by Howard Massey
ISBN-10: 0879309555

I thought this was a really interesting concept for rehearsel or living room recordings. You can go really cheap, like the old 16 bit Swissonic MDR-2 (€77,-) or semi-pro with the new 2nd generation Tascam DR-100 (€419,-).

Anyone else already trying this?

Santiago · 24th September 2009

Actually I had heard similar things from Lanois. I wonder what the best way of syncing the recorders would be?

seriousfun · 24th September 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santiago

Actually I had heard similar things from Lanois. I wonder what the best way of syncing the recorders would be?

I would assume that you bang on something after you start all of the recorders. Use this as your 2 pop and hope that nothing drifts.

ghellquist · 25th September 2009

They drift. Nothing to stop that short of wordclock that they do not have. The effect is that a 1 minute recording will be slightly longer or slightly shorter on each of the recorders. Generally enough to create a phasing sound effect, but you might be lucky. The reason is that the crystal controller oscillators in the boxes runs at slightly different frequencys.

But you can get quite far by time-stretching back home in your software. Most software supports this today.

Not quite as easy as said in the introduction, but then you know, that was only a theoretical description. In practice things does not quite turn out that way. Automatic gain control for one thing tends to "pump" on some sound sources, giving you that nauseting feeling of not standing on firm ground. And the microphones might be good, but, well, do try for yourself.

Still, technology really has changed how we can approach things.

// gunnar

iluvatar · 25th September 2009

With the caliber of artists that Dan Lanois works with, you could put just about anything in front of them and have the results sound amazing. He's also likely only using them as color pieces - one extra thing in a big bag of tricks. Some tricks work great in specific cases, but fail miserably in others.

-Dan.

IEDlabs · 26th September 2009

sounds like an inroad to eno-like recording and deliberately de-syncing. like variations on pachabel's canon in D.

Ozpeter · 26th September 2009

I used a Zoom H2 as part of an orchestral recording setup once - why? because I like to experiment a little each time, so long as I'm confident I won't come away with my face completely obscured by egg.

I had it on a tall stand at the feet of the woodwind, and used it in four channel mode to get some focus on the woodwind, tightness on the percussion, and have the option of some additional string sound, albeit from behind them.

It wasn't any kind of disaster, especially when lightly added to the main pair. Of course it drifted but a tiny stretch (or shrink, I forget which) fixed that.

Not to be recommend as a normal practice, but something that can be done if need be.

Santiago · 8th October 2009

Actually it looks like Lanois is practising what he preaches. This is footage from a recent concert in Poland:

YouTube - BLACK DUB (Daniel Lanois) - Still Water // ÅÃ³dÅº 2009-09-12

(look at 0:25, you can see a tiny digital recorder in front of his amp...)

Gutbucket · 12th October 2009

I often run two identical model Edirol R-09s for surround recording with external preamps and mics. One records the L/R pair, the second records a Center/Back pair. I'm not summing those channels, but still need close sync. I get surprisingly minimal drift over a one to two hour session. Small enough that I can usually line up tracks using an impulse at the start of the recordings and ignore the inconsequential drift. I figured on time-streching to compensate but haven't needed to do so. Lucky to have a close set of clocks I guess. I have not checked how much drift I'd get between the two R-09 clocks and my R-44. I would be surprised if they were as close.

Studiodawg · 12th October 2009

I've also used a couple of Edirol R09's to record my own gigs...basically you line up the wave files by finding a tell-tale ballistic, then go to a couple other spots on the time line and verify that the wave files are still in sync...never had any problems so far and it sounds cool. It's onteresting that Lanois uses the auto-level setting. Guess I'll try that at our next gig!

23rd September 2009	#1
TBlizz Gear addict Joined: Sep 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 379 Thread Starter	The walking multitrack Daniel Lanois is excited. “Look at this,”he says, proffering a tiny Edirol digital record. “This little box, which records on a card, is only about the size and weight of a cigarette package. It runs on batteries, it's go a nice onboard stereo mic and an automatic level control. I could make an enitre album with just four of these!” An entire album? “Sure,“ he says amiably. “Let's say that during this interview we decide to pick up a couple of instruments, and let's say I have four of these in my coat. I'd put one out in the room to capture the overall sound, one near my guitar amp, one near your amp, and another one in front of whoever is singing, and then I'd press Record on all four of them. I'll end up with four nice stereo recordings of the same event, occurring at different spots in the room. Then when I get back home, all I have to do is transfer the individual recordings to a computer in order to sync them back up. And when you do that, the most incredible thing happens: you get a certain imaging and depth of field that you wouldn't get from static mono microphones, with results that are wild and wonderful.” You are really sold on these little portable digital recorders, aren't you? I am, especially since they only cost three of four hundred dollars, so anyone can afford to make records with them. Just keep fresh batteries on hand, keep a notebook so your indexes are accurate, and off you go. I recently had a nice experience putting one of these inside a grand piano too. I just placed it on a little sponge so it wouldn't rattle around, put the lid down, and we got an amazing sound. These little recorders won't distort, either. They'll compress, but they won't distort. You know, I initially embraced them because of their ease of setup and flexibility, and because they're unobtrusive-they aren't intimidating to musicians like big microphones on stands can be; they're actually just like having a few snapshot cameras laying around. But then I started really like the sound of them. From: Behind the Glass Volume II by Howard Massey ISBN-10: 0879309555 I thought this was a really interesting concept for rehearsel or living room recordings. You can go really cheap, like the old 16 bit Swissonic MDR-2 (€77,-) or semi-pro with the new 2nd generation Tascam DR-100 (€419,-). Anyone else already trying this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
walking drums...	manthe	So much gear, so little time!	18	25th January 2008 03:09 PM
Fat Man Walking	Sounds Great	The Good News Channel	1	13th August 2005 07:29 PM
walking and triggering	Farmerbrown2200	So much gear, so little time!	2	24th March 2005 10:20 PM

24th September 2009	#2
Santiago Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 516	Actually I had heard similar things from Lanois. I wonder what the best way of syncing the recorders would be?

25th September 2009	#4
ghellquist Gear addict Joined: Jan 2006 Location: Stockholm Sweden Posts: 416	They drift. Nothing to stop that short of wordclock that they do not have. The effect is that a 1 minute recording will be slightly longer or slightly shorter on each of the recorders. Generally enough to create a phasing sound effect, but you might be lucky. The reason is that the crystal controller oscillators in the boxes runs at slightly different frequencys. But you can get quite far by time-stretching back home in your software. Most software supports this today. Not quite as easy as said in the introduction, but then you know, that was only a theoretical description. In practice things does not quite turn out that way. Automatic gain control for one thing tends to "pump" on some sound sources, giving you that nauseting feeling of not standing on firm ground. And the microphones might be good, but, well, do try for yourself. Still, technology really has changed how we can approach things. // gunnar

25th September 2009	#5
iluvatar Gear addict Joined: May 2004 Posts: 365	With the caliber of artists that Dan Lanois works with, you could put just about anything in front of them and have the results sound amazing. He's also likely only using them as color pieces - one extra thing in a big bag of tricks. Some tricks work great in specific cases, but fail miserably in others. -Dan.

26th September 2009	#6
IEDlabs Gear interested Joined: Jun 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 16	sounds like an inroad to eno-like recording and deliberately de-syncing. like variations on pachabel's canon in D.

26th September 2009	#7
Ozpeter Lives for gear Joined: Oct 2008 Posts: 624	I used a Zoom H2 as part of an orchestral recording setup once - why? because I like to experiment a little each time, so long as I'm confident I won't come away with my face completely obscured by egg. I had it on a tall stand at the feet of the woodwind, and used it in four channel mode to get some focus on the woodwind, tightness on the percussion, and have the option of some additional string sound, albeit from behind them. It wasn't any kind of disaster, especially when lightly added to the main pair. Of course it drifted but a tiny stretch (or shrink, I forget which) fixed that. Not to be recommend as a normal practice, but something that can be done if need be.

8th October 2009	#8
Santiago Lives for gear Joined: Sep 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 516	Actually it looks like Lanois is practising what he preaches. This is footage from a recent concert in Poland: YouTube - BLACK DUB (Daniel Lanois) - Still Water // ÅÃ³dÅº 2009-09-12 (look at 0:25, you can see a tiny digital recorder in front of his amp...)

12th October 2009	#9
Gutbucket Gear Head Joined: May 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 53	I often run two identical model Edirol R-09s for surround recording with external preamps and mics. One records the L/R pair, the second records a Center/Back pair. I'm not summing those channels, but still need close sync. I get surprisingly minimal drift over a one to two hour session. Small enough that I can usually line up tracks using an impulse at the start of the recordings and ignore the inconsequential drift. I figured on time-streching to compensate but haven't needed to do so. Lucky to have a close set of clocks I guess. I have not checked how much drift I'd get between the two R-09 clocks and my R-44. I would be surprised if they were as close.

12th October 2009	#10
Studiodawg Gear addict Joined: Feb 2006 Posts: 362	I've also used a couple of Edirol R09's to record my own gigs...basically you line up the wave files by finding a tell-tale ballistic, then go to a couple other spots on the time line and verify that the wave files are still in sync...never had any problems so far and it sounds cool. It's onteresting that Lanois uses the auto-level setting. Guess I'll try that at our next gig!