Recording choir and a small ensemble with my 388 - bad idea?

M

mr.blisset

New member
I have recently been given the opportunity to record a forty person choir along with a small accompanying ensemble (at the same time). I've been pondering whether the 388 is up to this task or if perhaps I should use my computer/digital interface.

The 388 is certainly a lot more dependable than the computer. My computer is not prone to crashing but still... you just know that if it's going to happen it probably will in the middle of the performance. This is a big consideration for me, possibly the biggest reason I'm considering using the 388.

I am mainly concerned that the tape hiss of the 388 will be too loud in the quiet sections of the performance. I've never really liked using the dbx on the 388, to my ears is lowers the quality of the machine significantly. I'm not sure if this is because I'm usually recording loud bands hot to tape. I'm also yet to record a band who preferred the sound of the dbx engaged. Is it possible to route 4 microphones across all the channels, ie. record 4 channels with DBX and 4 channels without? I'm not going to have a lot of time to experiment on the day.

I know the 388 is quite midrangey, however I have access to a great mic collection and would be using Shoeps, Geffel etc condensers along with LPR35, so I'm thinking I should have no problem getting somewhat adequate top end. However, will it be enough for this type of recording?

I'd appreciate any thoughts anyone might have, as this is definitely a new one for me. Thanks for reading!
 
As much as I love and use tape in the studio...for a session like that, I would use a computer without even thinking about it...and maybe just use the 388 mixer section if needed...if you don't have a large enough, multichannel interface for the computer.

I find it hard to believe that the 388 is "more reliable" than the computer, and the associated tape "flavor" is not something I would risk on a choir and ensemble for a first-time effort, without a lot of time for experimentation...not to mention, you would be using 7" reels. That's like what...?... 15 minutes of recording time at 15ips.
Do you tell them to "STOP!"...while you swap reels? :)

If it was a Rock/Pop band, doing 3-5 minute songs...then the 388 would rock without hesitation. :cool:
 
jpmorris said:
Could you split the incoming signals and record on both?
Click to expand...

I thought about giving the same suggestion...but the only reason I didn't was because of the "I'm not going to have a lot of time to experiment on the day." comment.

Setting up dual rigs and then monitoring both during the session can be daunting in an unfamiliar setting, like on a remote location session, but yeah, that is certainly another option...depending on the routing options in the 388.
 
thanks for the quick replies!

Regarding reliability, I know it sounds crazy to think of a 35 year old tape deck as reliable but it has honestly never skipped a beat on me since I bought it. The 388 is indeed a solid little machine. My computer however has recently had an OS update and so I don't have a lot of confidence in it yet. I'd be much more comfortable on the 388 in general.

The 388 runs at 7.5ips so I can get at least 40mins down but you make a good point miroslav, and I'm not sure of the programming material length yet.

I unfortunately can't split to two recorders as I don't have access to a splitter. I've been called in last minute as the previous engineer pulled out so I only have a few days to get my setup together. I also think that as it's my first time I'm probably better off focusing on one recorder.
 
7.5ips...mmm...not my first choice for this kind of stuff.

If this is a freebie, kind lower key, lower expectations...then go with what is comfortable.
I just feel that going with the computer rig, your audio quality will be much better, considering the type of music and performance.

What is the ensemble made up of...lots of acoustic instruments or mostly electric stuff?
I think that would certainly weigh substantially in the choice between tape at 7.5 ips or a computer rig at 48kH (or whatever you prefer).

Of course, it also depends on their expectations, and how much it's all worth for you...and that comfort zone.
I'm just thinking if this has potential for generating more, similar work I would go for the best quality, even if it put me outside my comfort zone a bit.
Bring both rigs...CYA. ;)
 
I'd bring the computer based simply on the 388 being a big ass heavy machine.

Mic selection, placement and the room, I rhink will have more impact on sound quality than other factors.

Some of the best classical recordings were done with tape and only a few mics.
 
RFR said:
Some of the best classical recordings were done with tape and only a few mics.
Click to expand...

For sure...but I bet the analog/tape gear selection was different. :)
Classical music switched to digital recording bigger and faster than any other music style...mostly because of the tape hiss, but also because changing reels for a 1-2 hour performance was a PITA in a live performance situation.

I think that back in the heyday of analog tape recording, classical recording might have been what pushed the need for the bigger 14" tape reels you see sometimes, and of course, also new machines that could use them.
 
The thought (and horror) of having to make a tape reel change during a live performance recording...reminds me of this scene from "True Lies". :laughings:

 
Aww, feel the dilemma here.
First of all; is this an actually concert? If it ain't why not bring the 388?

I've tried recording really dynamic acoustic on my Fostex G16 and just like you I don't like the sound of noise reduction. Can be done but will be hissy at times so make sure your client can accept that. Ideally get to hear them first to find out their dynamic range at first hand. What I did was to always mute iddle tracks during mixdown but if everything will be based on ambient mics that hardly seems like an option. In your shoes I'd certain boost the top from 14 KHZ to tape and roll off some during mixdown. Also multing tracks during recording so a few "key tracks" are recorded with compression to tape in parallel to the same one without any.

Well, except no one would be able convince me to take my multitrack out of the studio unless they had a crazy insurance or a big bag of money something went wrong during transport. And I don't know such people.
Good idea with the trebly mics.

Do the 388 have direct outs? In that case connecting these to your audio interface and recording on both at the same time seems fairly easy? Don't know the 388 first hand though, could be way off.
 
I don't see the problem with doing both? Why is someone wedded to "analogue" gear having trouble with the simple 'non-problem' of feed two recording setups?

Ok, the best way might be a rake of Jensen mic splitter traffs and there is I understand no time or cash for those but a simple line feed from one bit of kit to the other is child's play.

No 'professional' recording engineer would dream of relying on just ONE capture device, especially if it was an event of some importance or maybe a one off.

"The Show Must Go On!"

Oh! And I would run a line out to a hi fi DVD machine AND a decent cassette recorder!

Dave.
 
RFR said:
Dont forget a recordable VHS or beta machine
:D
Click to expand...

Got VHS! AND Philips digital cassette (got tapes I have yet to unwrap) and 2 Mini Disc recorders! AND....! IF I wanted to lug it (I don't!) a Teac A3440 15ips 4 tracker! #

Dave.
 
Something I read somewhere, recently: "I wanted an analog tape vibe, so I got myself a DAT".

I mean, what works, works. Digital or analog isn't the point. The only advantage of digital is that you can make it sound analog. I can't do it the other way around...
 
The recording worked out great, I ended up using going with digital and glad I did. Definitely wasn't a job for the 388. If I was going to do this more often I would get a splitter and a backup recorder.

I used a simple ORTF pair up quite high behind the conductor. Pretty much as close to the performers as I could get. The audience noise wasn't too bad bit it was almost like some people wait until the quiet sections to have a cough. Whats with that? And someone didn't turn off their mobile phone. Fortunately, the noises weren't loud enough to ruin anything. I could see how that could easily happen though.
 
mr.blisset said:
The recording worked out great, I ended up using going with digital and glad I did. Definitely wasn't a job for the 388. If I was going to do this more often I would get a splitter and a backup recorder.

I used a simple ORTF pair up quite high behind the conductor. Pretty much as close to the performers as I could get. The audience noise wasn't too bad bit it was almost like some people wait until the quiet sections to have a cough. Whats with that? And someone didn't turn off their mobile phone. Fortunately, the noises weren't loud enough to ruin anything. I could see how that could easily happen though.
Click to expand...

Well done Mr B! I am however intrigued by this "splitter" concept? Can you explain further? A very rough block diagram of your recoding setup would be a great help.

Dave.
 
mr.blisset said:
The recording worked out great, I ended up using going with digital and glad I did. Definitely wasn't a job for the 388. If I was going to do this more often I would get a splitter and a backup recorder.

I used a simple ORTF pair up quite high behind the conductor. Pretty much as close to the performers as I could get. The audience noise wasn't too bad bit it was almost like some people wait until the quiet sections to have a cough. Whats with that? And someone didn't turn off their mobile phone. Fortunately, the noises weren't loud enough to ruin anything. I could see how that could easily happen though.
Click to expand...


:thumbs up: :)
 
well ecc83, with the splitter I would probably want it to be a passive design, though I don't think i'll be needing one anytime soon so it's not high on my list of priorities.
 
mr.blisset said:
well ecc83, with the splitter I would probably want it to be a passive design, though I don't think i'll be needing one anytime soon so it's not high on my list of priorities.
Click to expand...

Yes well, you almost certainly don't need a "splitter" as such. Now that audio kit of any reasonable quality has very low output resistances and 10k + input Rs you just need to connect to a handy line output such as that from an AI. It makes life neater and easier to have a 'breakout box', jacks or XLR or a combination but such things are a evenings work with a drill and solder iron. Or you can buy 'splitter' cables? I prefer boxes.

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top