Question about live-to-stereo recording chain

[MichaelPatrick]

Thinking about a portable finalizing chain for mixing/recording live music to stereo with a consistent, polished sound. The gear:

• Neve Portico 5042 tape emulator
• CharterOak SCL1 Compressor
• Pendulum PL-2 brickwall limiter
• Benchmark ADC1

For acoustic music, what's the best chain?

1. Compressor > Limiter > Tape emulator > ADC
2. Tape emulator > Compressor > Limiter > ADC
3. Something else?

P.S. Reverb is an FX loop in the mixer.

[Gerax]

I see you are doing your 2buss processing in the analog domain. The limiter should be the last processor in the chain before the ADC so that you can hit the converter with maximum level (or the maximum you want) without the risk to get any overs. So I'd say compressor>tape emulator>limiter>ADC, even though the first two processors in the chain could be swappable to experiment with different settings and coloration. I'm not familiar with the Charter Oak compressor, but if that's an optical comp it should be the first device in your chain, for light compression, then tape (if you desire its effect) then limiter and ADC.
The best thing is to try different settings and see what sounds best for you (except the limiter which should always be the last for volume maximizing and over protection).
Should it be my choiche I'd skip the tape emulator for an high quality stereo EQ to give the mix a very finetuned and polished sound, add "air" or cut rumble or fix something that you cannot do within the tracks.

Hope this helps

L.G.

[MichaelPatrick]

Lorenzo, I hadn't considered putting the tape emulator between compressor and limiter, but that does make sense.

P.S. After shopping around I found the CharterOak SCL1, a unique compressor that leaves transients intact and does some gentle leveling like an ideal broadcast processor, yet probably better. Here's a copy of the recent SOS review.

Condenser Microphones + Audio Equipment for Recording Professionals

Originally Posted by Gerax

I see you are doing your 2buss processing in the analog domain.

Yes. I'm trying to design a reasonably small broadcast-quality mixing kit with a good analog sound. With almost 40 events a year I hope to cut down post production time by mixing more events direct to stereo. I'll still capture ISO tracks for safety and some projects require post production.

[mixedupsteve]

That looks like a great setup. I would add an eq also. I like eq after the compressor.
You might consider a Crane Song HEDD unit for AD. It's got tube, tape and AD all in one box and really makes a polished sounding recording.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by mixedupsteve

That looks like a great setup. I would add an eq also. I like eq after the compressor.
You might consider a Crane Song HEDD unit for AD. It's got tube, tape and AD all in one box and really makes a polished sounding recording.

I thought of that but sold my HEDD 192 to fund a Benchmark ADC1 and Burl B2. I miss it some but don't regret the decision.

The Burl will stay in the post studio next to an Aurora 16. The Benchmark ADC is half-rack and the plan is to share a 1U portable rack with the 5042 so I can take them out to remotes and then back to the studio.

The mixer can EQ spot mics. Since my recordings are classical, choral, chamber, piano, opera and such, I rarely put EQ on the buss. If I do there's a Lagevin Mini Massive not getting much use.

[GuySonic]

Done a lot of live stereo-surround performance and session recordings using just one stereo mic. I really like doing this kind of recording, especially when having some control of musician staging and/or mic position, but not always having such options during live performances with an audience.

FWIW for me, found making a master recording using any kind of signal effects modification is not wise, and best doing these later when fine tuning on optimized and not so great playback gear allows better evaluation for what editing effects are needed or a real creative type enhancement.

This includes not using any form compression for any reason. If I'm concerned about overloads not knowing what might occur for performance dynamics, I record only in 24 bit using lots of headroom.

If wanting a mostly already for prime time master recordings, then choice of mic type/position is +95% what's going to be at cause for having 'right-&-ready' results, giving best chance for maybe only needing loudness/dynamic compression adjustments.

Examples of my 25+ years of personal/customer attempts in producing raw live recordings, and a rare few with post compression/sweetening effects using with a single stereo mic posted at: Sonic Studios MP3 Page 2 with Ambient Stereo-Surround Session and Live Performance Recordings

[mpdonahue]

I have to admit, that while I have no fear of compression, I've never really needed it out in the field to make a good balance. If you're really worried about time, then think about the time it will take to remix the spot when the limiter crackled or the compressor pumped. And finally, the fact that it really won't match the mix you did live.
For my money, think you'd be better off to work up a mastering desk in your workstation so you can do a quick and adjustable master from the unadulterated stereo mix. Burn a copy on sight and you're done. As a bonus, if you have the source material in the same project, you can even sweeten the mix in a pinch.
As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark

[Hornblower64]

Michael,

Sorry if this was covered, and I missed it. What sort of mixer are you planning to use?

David

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by GuySonic

Done a lot of live stereo-surround performance and session recordings using just one stereo mic. I really like doing this kind of recording, especially when having some control of musician staging and/or mic position, but not always having such options during live performances with an audience.

FWIW for me, found making a master recording using any kind of signal effects modification is not wise, and best doing these later when fine tuning on optimized and not so great playback gear allows better evaluation for what editing effects are needed or a real creative type enhancement.

This includes not using any form compression for any reason. If I'm concerned about overloads not knowing what might occur for performance dynamics, I record only in 24 bit using lots of headroom.

If wanting a mostly already for prime time master recordings, then choice of mic type/position is +95% what's going to be at cause for having 'right-&-ready' results, giving best chance for maybe only needing loudness/dynamic compression adjustments.

Examples of my 25+ years of personal/customer attempts in producing raw live recordings, and a rare few with post compression/sweetening effects using with a single stereo mic posted at: Sonic Studios MP3 Page 2 with Ambient Stereo-Surround Session and Live Performance Recordings

Guy, thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

I agree completely about mic selection and position. Most of the ensembles and performers use a classical-style stage setup and I'm able to put mics about anywhere. Mic techniques are always minimal. I use FX only to deal with spot mics and poor acoustics.

I didn't say much about the clients and their needs. They are high quality archive recordings of college and professional musicians at main stage performances. I don't have time to take all recordings through a full post-production process but I do always capture raw ISO tracks in case it's needed later for a quality mix.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by mpdonahue

I have to admit, that while I have no fear of compression, I've never really needed it out in the field to make a good balance. If you're really worried about time, then think about the time it will take to remix the spot when the limiter crackled or the compressor pumped. And finally, the fact that it really won't match the mix you did live.
For my money, think you'd be better off to work up a mastering desk in your workstation so you can do a quick and adjustable master from the unadulterated stereo mix. Burn a copy on sight and you're done. As a bonus, if you have the source material in the same project, you can even sweeten the mix in a pinch.
As always, YMMV.
All the best,
-mark

Mark, the idea to use a computer is intriguing. I'll have to give that some thought.

These exceptional devices are not likely to crackle or pump, especially the way I plan to use them. For me compression is used to gently level without subjectively altering natural dynamics. Limiting is for safety only, and the PL-2 is ideal for transient protection.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Hornblower64

Michael,

Sorry if this was covered, and I missed it. What sort of mixer are you planning to use?

David

It's a Midas Venice 160 with good outboard preamps. Direct outputs (pre-fade pre-EQ) will feed multi ISO tracks if needed later. The stereo mix will also go to the recorder and a CD burner.

Someday I may upgrade to an SSL X-Desk. I dream about getting a clean Studer.

[Mark A. Jay]

I never limit / compress / EQ / otherwise affect any signal as I record it. I ensure that I have sufficient headroom, write the tracks, and do any and all effects / EQ etc as a post-process...and only on copies of the files.

I can always do what needs doing in post, but I may not be able to un-do something that I should have not done to the original source material. Thus, my proclivity for working in a "post" world.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Mark A. Jay

I never limit / compress / EQ / otherwise affect any signal as I record it. I ensure that I have sufficient headroom, write the tracks, and do any and all effects / EQ etc as a post-process...and only on copies of the files.

I can always do what needs doing in post, but I may not be able to un-do something that I should have not done to the original source material. Thus, my proclivity for working in a "post" world.

I understand the desire for dynamic purity and I enjoy having most of 24 bits to work with to preserve dynamics.

But what do you think about the mixing skills many recordists once had, about how they were helped by analog gear and especially by tape with its natural compression? Should we abandon this heritage? What do you think about dynamics when feeding a broadcast?

BTW, I always capture an unprocessed ISO track for every mic. I just hope to need them less.

[Plush]

I always record it, then I listen to it.
If it needs something then I do it to it.

I don't assume that some particular program will need limiting, compression or a tape effect. The fact is that some of the programs might need all of this and something more. Most well recorded program material will need very little of it.

However, a person just does not know what the program will need until they've lived with it a little while just hearing it in their listening room.

[Mark A. Jay]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

I understand the desire for dynamic purity and I enjoy having most of 24 bits to work with to preserve dynamics.

But what do you think about the mixing skills many recordists once had, about how they were helped by analog gear and especially by tape with its natural compression? Should we abandon this heritage? What do you think about dynamics when feeding a broadcast?

BTW, I always capture an unprocessed ISO track for every mic. I just hope to need them less.

I don't diminish the importance of the skill / art / craft of those who came before me or others of my generation - not in the least. In many cases, what they were able to achieve with what they had was truly remarkable. So no, the short answer is that we should not abandon this heritage.

I think (though I have nothing to back this up - it is an opinion - and nothing more) that when a tool set is limited, it forces one to think much more concisely as to how the desired end can be achieved, and it reins one in as well; when choices are limited, our tendency is to better research that which is available to us. As such, we ostensibly learn more about the process, as well as the tools - you could say the same thing of many other disciplines.

From this standpoint, I feel (again, this is just an opinion) that many recording engineers from yesteryear had a better handle on the electro-acoustical characteristics as well as limitations of the transducers and associated electronics, and thus, knew intimately how to achieve the desired end.

Still, I was taught minimalism / getting it to tape accurately (unless expressedly told otherwise - for effect) long ago, by people working in the analog world. Granted, in those days plug-ins did not exist, so analog sends / outboard processing was the way things were done, and even that aspect limited what was available - because of the cost of the associated processing hardware.

Anyway, this method / approach...it's just the manner in which I was taught. This does not make it 'right', but it does make it right for me.

Added: As far as broadcasting goes, it depends on the medium (analog broadcast, bound by FCC regulations regarding modulation and over-modulation as well as guidelines such as S/N versus something like HD radio - they are different beasts). Clearly, limiting / compression have a lot of utility in analog radio, especially if it's a classical or jazz piece, but for most pop / rock music, the crest factor is very low, so while limiting may be a necessity, compression would be of less import. In any case, those who go after things like HD Radio do so because they (for the most part I would suspect) want all of the dynamic range inherent in the signal. Granted, that's a generalization, but fidelity is the draw of HD Radio...and another reason why (to me anyway), most sat radio sounds like...well...you get the point.

[MichaelPatrick]

Thanks guys. This has become an interesting discussion.

In the pre-digital 70s and early 80s I mixed a live weekly FM stereo broadcast and the occasional TV truck. Part of my motivation now is to redevelop those skills and it's just safer with training wheels. I may not use the compressor. Just the limiter. I'll have to start reading scores again, but I'm looking forward to it.

[rumleymusic]

I am also one of those who only messes with the material in post. If for no other reason that it is hard to set up a proper monitoring environment on location and rare that I can get a proper sound check. This is also why I multritrack instead of mixing to stereo while recording. I don't fully trust what I am listening to at the venue.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by rumleymusic

I am also one of those who only messes with the material in post. If for no other reason that it is hard to set up a proper monitoring environment on location and rare that I can get a proper sound check. This is also why I multritrack instead of mixing to stereo while recording. I don't fully trust what I am listening to at the venue.

Agreed. Someone else also mentioned this and it's vitally important.

My only confidence comes from the fact that I know the venues and many of the groups very well. When working in less well known rooms I'll have to mix in post for good results.