setup for multitrack live-recording

[sniixer]

Hi

I'm into live-recording, and recently I recorded a lot of concert in a contemporary festival in Norway, using a Fostex VF160EX. This worked quite good. The Fostex is reliable, easy to use, portable, and is one of few recorders in this price-range that can offer 16-simultaneous recording tracks. The problem with it, hovewer, is that it takes too much time to transfer the tracks to PC. For the festival the 40-gig harddisk wasnt enough, and I had to dump programs. I spent a lot of time burning CD's, and after a while this is annoying.

So my question is if anybody has a good system for multitrack live-recording.. Some people I have talked to would prefer a laptop soundcard for this, but I'm not sure if a laptop would have the harddisk capacity to handle all these tracks. (16 track is necessary)

I am thinking more about a 24-track harddisk recorder like the Alesis HD24 or Fostex 2424LV, and put everything in a 10-rack unit. I already own 2' 8-channel ADAT-preamps (focusrite octopre and presonus digimax LT) and these would work with both hd-recorders. But I still need a way to monitor the tracks while recording, and for this it might be necessary with a mixer? Perphaps it would work with a patchbay that allows you to listen to 2 channels at a time, through the headphones? (i could route the analog outputs of the hd-recorder into a patchbay)

THe best alternative seems to be the Akai DPS24 + 1 8-channel Adat-preamp, this would give me everything I need with 20 inputs, monitoring, editing and wav-transport to PC.

[deepwater]

Alesis HD24 would work great for that use. You can add the firewire adaptor so you can just pull the Drives and dump the file into you DAW

[DJL]

I like the Alesis HD24's... I have two of them.

[sniixer]

Thanjs, my desire is for the alesis hd24. But what do you guys think about the monitor-issue, will it work to buy a a patchbay and listen to 2 channels at a time? I think it will, because you only need to monitor to chech for bad cables and that you have a decent recording level, and its not necessary to listen to the whole band while recording.

[deepwater]

You can get a DDX3216 very cheap now - $500.00 and w/ the adat cards you can link it to the HD24 and be able to monitor every channel that way. If you want something you can use in the studio the Tascam Dm-24 is a great board.

[sniixer]

The digital mixer from Behringer seems tempting, but I`d like something that weighs less. With 2 of EURORACK PRO RX1602 I can monitor 24 track at once, it will cost something like 230 dollar, and it will be rack-mountable.

[Cave Dweller]

my live recording setup consists of a MOTU 24 I/O and a P4 1.8. It's on the bulky side, as you have to lug around the computer (in a 6 space rack) and a monitor, but it gets the job done for me. the most i've tried was 20 tracks at 24 bit/48khz with no problems. And with the price of hard drives, it wouldnt be too expensive to load a PC up with a bunch of them.

the other feature that I like about it is the cuemix software, which would solve your monitoring problem. in a nutshell, you can route any input through any output with zero latency, allowing you to listen to any input, or the entire band without repatching.

[RawDepth]

Originally Posted by sniixer

I am thinking more about a 24-track harddisk recorder like the Alesis HD24 or Fostex 2424LV, and put everything in a 10-rack unit.

Your recording time will still be very limited. Recording all 24 tracks simultaneously would only give you a few hours at best. They all use older operating systems and inadequate hard drives. If you intend to record longer live shows in higher resolution, you will have to use a PC with a larger drive.

You can figure at 44.1 kHz / 16 bit, (which is probably the lowest setting for most recording hardware,) a typical mono track would use up about 5 MB per minute. (5 x 24 tracks = 120 MB/minute) (120 x 60 minutes = 7.2GB/hour)

Those recorders are also just as cumbersome to transfer files to a PC for editing. You might as well just use a PC to record and be done with it. I have a 24 input / 26 output channel sound card in a rack mount PC and it works great. You just have to do your homework first.

[sniixer]

ok, you made med think about a computer.. what RME Hammerfall 96/52 soundcard with 24 ADAT inputs? I forgot to mention that I also have m-audio octane, which in total gives me 24 adat-preamps. (i was planning to sell this, but if I need it, I`ll keep it!) So then I "just" need a computer that can handle 24 tracks simultaneosly, it should be rack-mountable and not to noisy. (you are of course free to give me advice on this, but I could also do my homework..) and a screen, and I`m ready to go!
Another thing is that I currently only have an old laptop with 10 gig harddisk, so I am going to buy a computer anyway..

Raw Depth, I think you are wrong about the recording time on the 24-track recorders. Both the Fostex and the Alesis can have large and fast hard-drives, and with the Alesis it is very easy to transfer large files to the computer using the firedrive. I did some research on the Fostex, and it seems that it is more complicated to transfer files to the computer.. you could buy an SCSI-drive, but the SCSI-drive cant be more than 2 gigabyte! (because of the formatting system fat dos 16) The best option would be to buy the external ethernet-option for $3-400, but people have had problems with this solution, and it is quite slow.

[deepwater]

Originally Posted by RawDepth

Your recording time will still be very limited. Recording all 24 tracks simultaneously would only give you a few hours at best. They all use older operating systems and inadequate hard drives. If you intend to record longer live shows in higher resolution, you will have to use a PC with a larger drive.

Yea a PC that may Freeze in the middile of a live preformance.

The HD24 can hold 2 hard drives at a time and you can install larger drives for cheap.

Whats wrong the HD24 operating system? I don't know much else that records 24 tracks so faithfully.

[boingoman]

Originally Posted by RawDepth

Your recording time will still be very limited.
You can figure at 44.1 kHz / 16 bit, (which is probably the lowest setting for most recording hardware,) a typical mono track would use up about 5 MB per minute. (5 x 24 tracks = 120 MB/minute) (120 x 60 minutes = 7.2GB/hour).

With an 80 gig drive that's ten hours, if your math is right. The HD24 can handle pretty large drives. Up to 2TB (2000 GB) That's about 250 hours of recording.

[/QUOTE]

[boingoman]

Originally Posted by deepwater

Yea a PC that may Freeze in the middile of a live preformance.

To be fair, nothing guarantees the same thing won't happen to an HD24, though if one is going to have a problem, it is more likely to be on start-up or a be a hard drive problem.

Same result, though- no recording.

As with any recording situation, if it is really important, a back-up system is pretty much a must-have.

[RawDepth]

Okay, my math was not right. The HD24 cannot record in 16 bit word depth, only 24. So worse yet, you would get about 45 minutes for each 10GB. That’s more like 6 hours for 80GB. That is assuming that after you bought it, you removed the standard 10GB or 20GB drive, threw it away, and bought an 80GB. I am not interested in any product that I have to upgrade on the first freakin day that I own it.

Can your HD24 do any mixing? Can it do any EQing? Can it add effects? Can it run plugins such as dynamics and modeling? Can it perform patch-bay style routing? Can it run Mastering Software? Can it burn CD’s or DVD’s? To do any productive editing, (and who wants to produce a finished mix without editing?) you still have to transfer all the files, one at a time, to a PC or editing station. That’s a second system you have to buy anyway. I can’t believe that transferring 60 or 80GB of data (every weekend) is just a one minute task either.

The Mackie HDR24/96 has a scanty Intel 433 Celeron processor, a 20, 30, or 40 GB IDE drive, and 128MB of PC66 SDRAM. I’m sure the Alesis isn’t too far from that either. They are pretty much just older computers in disguise with limited functionality, and yes, they too can crash. Crashing problems in PC’s are generally caused by excessive heat and/or use of low quality, budget components. Too many people go out and buy the cheapest damn PC they can find and then cry the blues because it crashes all the time. That’s where those horror stories come from. If you buy only top quality power supplies, memory, and such, (which isn’t that much more cost,) and provide adequate ventilation, you won’t have crashing problems. I built an $800 recording/editing computer a year ago that will run circles around those so called HD recorders. I used only top quality parts and I have never (that’s NEVER) had a single crash. In fact, I have about 5 good computers in use in my home and I cannot recall the last time I’ve had a crash on any of them.

My rack PC is not much bigger than an HD recorder. You still need front-end gear such as preamps and interface with both systems. You are still going to carry in one or two racks full of gear.

I’m sorry folks. You have not convinced me that they are more practical and convenient for live/location recording.

[boingoman]

Originally Posted by RawDepth

I’m sorry folks. You have not convinced me that they are more practical and convenient for live/location recording.

Well, that was never my intention.

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. All pretty much comes down to what works for you.

The HD24 has on-board 1/4" I/O, eliminating the expense and space of preamps, if one has a board with direct outs.

A PC setup will eliminate the step of transferring, if one wishes to mix on a DAW, like you said.

An HD24 is very easy to get up and running. A PC takes longer, and requires space for a monitor.

An HD24 does not need a sophisticated processor or OS. It is as complex as it needs to be. But it is limited in functions.


A PC is powerful and can perform complex editing and mixing functions. In a live setting, it can also perform audio test functions, and system controls.


All pretty much evens out, if you ask me.

[deepwater]

File transfers are a snap with the Alesis Fireport so thats not an issue anymore.

If you want plug and play remote recording the HD24 is the ay to go. If you want plug and program then get a PC system. With the HD24 all you do is grab the direct outs or inserts and your good to go. As I stated before the HD24 is about the most stable and straight forward recording platforms you can buy.

[boingoman]

Originally Posted by deepwater

File transfers are a snap with the Alesis Fireport so thats not an issue anymore.

That's cool.

Originally Posted by deepwater

With the HD24 all you do is grab the direct outs or inserts and your good to go.

That's assuming

1) There are direct outs or inserts for each channel you wish to record

2) They are available for you to use

Stable and straight forward does you no good if you can't plug the damn thing in.

edit:

I'm not putting either method down, and in fact I would opt for an HD 24 setup, myself.

But ignoring a very real potential complication of either a PC or HD system isn't doing anyone any favors, least of all someone looking for good solid info with which to make a choice.

sniixer, just be aware of the aspects of both systems, and also that no matter which you choose, you are probably going to run into situations where you are gonna have to lay out more $$ to make things work, or use your people skills very wisely to get what you need.

Try convincing a sound guy that your need for his inserts is more important than his need to provide a good mix to paying customers, especially when he knows that if you had the right gear you wouldn't be bothering him at all.

If you end up doing this as a service to people, homework before the gig can make or break you. Most important is finding out where you are going to be able to set up, and how you are supposed to get signal into your recorder.

Nothing more embarassing than getting to a gig and realizing you have no way to hook your gear up.

[deepwater]

Originally Posted by boingoman

That's cool.



That's assuming

1) There are direct outs or inserts for each channel you wish to record

2) They are available for you to use

Stable and straight forward does you no good if you can't plug the damn thing in.

If you can't plug the damn thing in then you can't record with any setup short of bring a rack full of preamps. Even if that is your fear you can get 3 Digimax Lts or 3 Behringer ADA8000 (if you want cheap)

Now you have a 24 track setup with 24 pres in only 6 rack spaces.


People would have killed for that kinda of a setup a few years ago.

[DJL]

Originally Posted by sniixer

Thanjs, my desire is for the alesis hd24. But what do you guys think about the monitor-issue, will it work to buy a a patchbay and listen to 2 channels at a time? I think it will, because you only need to monitor to chech for bad cables and that you have a decent recording level, and its not necessary to listen to the whole band while recording.

I (we) have a small remote recording truck... and use a Soundcraft mixer with Alesis ADAT-HD24's... and we've been using the Alesis ADAT-HD24's for years and haven't had any problems.

Hey, I just read in the new BSW catalog ( LowestPrice@bswusa.com ) on page 29 they're advertising the Alesis MultiMix mixer as a solution for the HD24. I've never used the Alesis MultiMix, so I can't comment about it... but you may want to check it out.

[con_ritmo]

i have an hd24xr. i also have a daw.
no way am i taking a daw on a live gig.

who says you need to monitor what you're getting with a digital board?
just use the analog outs or such on the hd recorder...if you so desire.

as far as media...i believe the hd24's come with a 40gig hd.
besides, you can get 200gig hd's for $100. that should serve you just fine.

the key thing here is live gig. you plug in your cables, and you're ready to go with an hd recorder. no booting up, no looking at a monitor, no navigating with a mouse through menus, it naturally fits in your rack, no crashes....

keep the daw for the studio work. hd recorder for the live work.

[tubesrawsom]

get an a&h gl2200-24 with the alesis 24 track
you cant go wrong ever
peace
live recording is so much fun

[sniixer]

i just came back from vacation, and its good to see so many replies. Buying a computer for recording would probably be abit cheaper (because I currently dont have a DAW), and it wouldnt be much more weightier to carry around. I see the point that a HD-computer is still a computer, so why not buy a real computer? But I dont like the idea of carrying a computer to a gig, if I loose it then I`ll lose many important files, and it will be much work to put the computer into a rack every time I leave the house. It seems more tempting to buy a hd-recorder that sits permanently into a rack, and a computer that never leaves the house.

[DJL]

I've used both live... and I prefer the HD24's.

[RawDepth]

Originally Posted by boingoman

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. All pretty much comes down to what works for you.

I agree. It works for me. I leave the DAW in the rack all the time. I am not afraid to tote it to the clubs now and then. If some of you feel differently about that, that's cool. To each his own.

[sniixer]

many good arguments here, the Alesis seems easier to operate for a newbie like me, but right now I cant afford it.. but sooner or later I will. First I will buy a computer, and maybe keep the Fostex vf a little bit longer.

Rawdepth, where do you find rack-mountable computer, and what kind of specifications does it need to be able to record 24 tracks? Currently I only own Adobe Audition, will this be sufficient for recording and editing?
thanks for everybodys input, i am learning a lot from this site.
Sniixer

[Jmbu]

Sorry to get off the track, but I'm new here and haven't figured out how to start a new thread..

I'm also trying to set up for live recording with 8 tracks, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you could tell me how to make the PA mixer's inserts into direct outs.

Thanks much!