Is it possible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DianneB

New member
I am retired, on a modest pension, and attend an acoustic music jam session once a week The jam is held in a local restaurant with anywhere from 8 to 18 musicians sitting around a large round table. We have some REALLY good musicians here and a few good voices.

Instruments usually include guitars, mandolins, banjos, stand-up bass plus whatever else shows up and I would LOVE to be able to record some of these sessions.

I envisions an ideal setup being 4 to 8 wireless mics (to avoid running cables across the floor where people will trip on them), a mix of dynamic and capacitor mics, including volume control for each on the receiver(s). Each mic would feed to one channel on a digital recorder.

After the session I would load the digital files on to a PC to do the mixing (maybe with Audacity?) and mastering to produce a digital stereo "master" which I would then make available to the musicians (in whatever format they prefer).

Being retired, finances are limited and the operation would be non-profit so I am wondering what I could afford (under $1,000) to accomplish this. Maybe it isn't even possible on my budget?

Thanks for your consideration and suggestions!
 
Wireless is next to impossible, budget wise and technically. 18 Channels would be very expensive. I'm not familiar with radio licenses in Canada, but most systems are limited to 16 channels and even that might be a stretch in urban areas. But even adding 4 channels would eat too much budget if you want quality.

When it comes to an audio interface, I think the Behringer X Air XR18 would fit. That's supposing you already own a laptop to record with.

That would leave around 650 € for mics and cabling. You'd need to shop around for mics, but it seams feasible.
 
As soon as you say "wireless" you get pretty much into stratospheric prices, at least for anything with quality and latency that would make the recording of any use. And 8+ channels, well, the "budget" Zoom F8n, 8 channel field recorder runs about $1k (USD, MAP). 2 of those (for 16 channels) alone would exceed your budget by 100%.

So, for your budget, I'd seriously consider going with fewer channels and foregoing wireless. I used a Zoom H6 for many years. It's 6 channel capable - 2 built-in channels (which can be changed to external dynamic/XLR inputs with an added cost adapter) plus 4 XLR inputs with phantom power. Put that in the middle of the group and let folks cluster around 4-6 mics. A used Zoom F8 (precursor model to F8n) might set you back about $500+ and give you 8 channels, but I'd still suggest putting it in the middle. OR, possibly getting a "snake" and routing one big-ish cable from the center (where everything plugs in) out to the recorder.

Now, you can probably get 8+ channels for a lot less if someone already has a capable notebook and an audio interface with ADAT capability. Then the bump up is a couple hundred dollars for something like the Behri ADA8200.

Others may have more experience with this stuff, I think wireless is a hopeless hope, TBH. Maybe someone could cobble together some cast-offs of pieces that are obsolete (i.e., operating on frequencies no longer allowed), but I just wouldn't want to be involved in trying to make that work.
 
Nice idea, and I hope you find some suitable solution, but I think it'd might be worth throwing bleed into the mix.
Broadstrokes level up/down might be useful with spot mics but be aware that your mixing capability is likely to be seriously limited when throwing up multiple microphones in an uncontrolled environment.

I think I'd be looking at a stereo setup and just try to get a great capture of the group as a group.
I could see offering the singers their own microphone, maybe, to allow some post-control there but, even so, I think I'd be asking them to sing for the microphone and not for the room (bleed again),
so it may complicate matters or take away from the performance.

If the broad idea interests you there are plenty of two-microphone hand held recorders which do damn well for the price,
and some (Tascam DR-40) which have built in pair and also allow two more microphones to be plugged in.

Hope something there is useful.
 
keith.rogers said:
So, for your budget, I'd seriously consider going with fewer channels and foregoing wireless...... possibly getting a "snake" and routing one big-ish cable from the center (where everything plugs in) out to the recorder.
Click to expand...

One cable would be better than 8! (Less of a tripping hazard.)

The musicians take turns leading a song and work their way around the table and it would be nice to be able to follow the lead which is why I was thinking of 8 microphones but maybe fewer would do. Maybe I can figure out a way to rotate a cluster of 4 mics remotely (from the recording position) so I could keep the lead singer in stereo and still pick up the musicians on the opposite side of the table. Or maybe I could do that with just 4 mics and adjusting which mics are "front and centre" during the mixing?
 
Eight channels is completely doable at a reasonable price. Look at this link.

TASCAM US-16x08 USB 2.0 Audio Interface | Sweetwater

Forget the wireless stuff, as the others have said. Also, don't worry so much about trip hazards. Many a rocker have thrashed about on stage for years without tripping on mic cables. It really isn't a problem. Plus, at 25 ft in length, you'll have plenty of cable to snake them out of the way.

Don't use Audacity, it is not meant for mixing. You'll want to use a program dedicated to audio processing like Cubase, ProTools, Reaper, etc. You don't need the full blown versions on them either. All the DAW programs come with lighter versions and are very affordable. Look at Cubase Artist (or is it Elements) for $99USD. or Reaper for $60USD (And that IS the full blown version!!)
 
You are all playing unplugged, right? In this situation, people adjust their playing/volume accordingly (hopefully). Set up an omni pattern condensor mic in the middle of the table, and record it 'as you hear it'. Using multiple mics would just create possible phase and bleed issues.
Although the idea of recording every instrument on a separate track (or at least as many tracks as you can do) seems great, but for this type of jam, is it really desired?
 
DianneB said:
One cable would be better than 8! (Less of a tripping hazard.)

The musicians take turns leading a song and work their way around the table and it would be nice to be able to follow the lead which is why I was thinking of 8 microphones but maybe fewer would do. Maybe I can figure out a way to rotate a cluster of 4 mics remotely (from the recording position) so I could keep the lead singer in stereo and still pick up the musicians on the opposite side of the table. Or maybe I could do that with just 4 mics and adjusting which mics are "front and centre" during the mixing?
Click to expand...
If you have the mics on separate tracks you can, of course, adjust levels during mixing to account for where the focus should be.

Really, you wouldn't want "the lead singer in stereo" but centered in the mix, so as long as the singer can shift/slide to be in front of a mic, that's all you have to worry about. (IMO)

Some mics have a figure-8 polar/pickup pattern. (These are typically not cheaper mics, though.) These might be handy, though there's some risk of phase issues if you're in a lively room with lots of reflections.

While I've done remote recording by packing an interface and laptop in, I really found that for regular usage, a digital/field recorder is a lot easier to manage, with the single downside of needing to transfer the recorded files to your mixing computer. Many of the better recorders have built-in limiter and high-pass filter capability which can give you audio files that have less noise or distortion to start with, i.e., they're designed to work in less-than-ideal environments, where the interface+computer as a mobile solution can be fiddly unless you're able to get cases, rackes, etc., to make that setup easy and less prone to getting knocked about. It can be a less expensive way to test/prototype your idea if someone has existing equipment to use, but it has a higher risk of calamity, e.g., if that computer also has all your tax returns, family photos, entire music library, etc. Just my $.02.
 
Neither one of these may be your best bet... I'm just throwing a couple of possibilties out there - you'll, of course, need to decide what seems best for your purposes:

1) One of the better handheld PCM recorders that typically have decent quality stereo condenser mics built in

2) Or perhaps something like the Tascam DP-24SD (on sale at Musicians Friend right now for $419.00) which is a stand alone digital recorder which has eight inputs and is designed to move song/track files quickly and easily to and from a computer. Of course this option would require cables and mics.
 
I think the OP's idea will work just fine. Dedicated mic for each performer. No worries about phase if she is close-micing each instrument. Bleed, in this case, might be a good thing as it will add to the ambiance of an acoustic jam.

After she gets all that going, then she's going to want to know about mastering, CD duplication, PAs, FOH, stage lighting, marketing, etc.... and we can help her with all that. :)
 
Y'all gonna hate this, but I'm going there.

It's 2018. Everybody at that jam has a halfway decent portable recording device in their pocket. Have some/all of them stick their phones on the table in front of them and record voice memos and then text or email them to you. It'll take some fucking around to get them all time aligned, and you may end up throwing most of them out, but it's an easy and free (already paid for) way to get a bunch of perspectives.
 
Since it's a "table" jam...why not a single mic in the center, going to a small recording device. A single Omni mic maybe?
The way they use to do it way back in the day...the way a lot of bluegrass & folk people do it. They stick one mic out in front to capture everyone, and when people take a lead, they just step up or lean into that mic a bit.

You could also go with a stereo pair, but for a circular situation, I think you would need to get into a Blumlein stereo pair using a couple of figure-8 capable mics. They would capture the 360 degree situation.
 
I've been doing casual recording of acoustic get togethers for a bit now.
For one, it's tough enough to keep four or five guit-players all in tune at the same time! :>)
Haven't used them myself but rigs like the Zoom R16 seem fairly competent.
 
miroslav said:
Since it's a "table" jam...why not a single mic in the center, going to a small recording device. A single Omni mic maybe?
The way they use to do it way back in the day...the way a lot of bluegrass & folk people do it. They stick one mic out in front to capture everyone, and when people take a lead, they just step up or lean into that mic a bit.
Click to expand...
Check post #8.... :guitar:
 
I checked with the guys yesterday and nobody objected to being recorded so now how to do it is the only question....

I can't hang mics from the ceiling - not accessible.

I don't think an omni in the middle of the table would work. Yesterday there were 4 banjo players sitting aside by side and a quiet singer on the opposite side. We also have a harmonica player who leans on his elbows over the table when he plays. To get even recording levels, I would need some control over segments of the circle to turn some down and others up so I was thinking 4 mics would be minimum. Locating in the middle of the table would be almost equal distance to all players and I could run a snake off to the recording location.

I have a couple of dynamic mics from the 1970s but don't know what their response is like - only ever used them for voice.

Still looking for a simple 4 channel digital recorder .......

(BTW I am looking for better than CD quality recording.)
 
Like I said before, I used a Zoom H6 for probably 5 years. It gives you 6-track capability, with 4 external XLR/combo jacks. If your current dynamic mics are low impedance with XLR plugs, you could probably start with those 2 and the built-in stereo mic to see how that works. The mid-side (MS) capsule would give you almost 180º recording from that side, though you'd need to figure out the post-processing steps to use that. Or you could just start with 4 external mics and leave the mic capsule off.

1970 dynamic mics include the SM57 and SM58, as well as decent mics from other manufacturers that don't have quite the brand/name recognition. Probably fine for what you want to do - at least to start.

You can power with an external "power bank" and save a bundle on batteries, too.

Now, about that "better than CD quality recording" bit. CDs are 44.1kHz/16-bit, and any digital recorder save perhaps simple $20 voice/memo gadgets will have at least 48kHz/24-bit so you'll have at least as good or better sampling plus a much higher dynamic range. What you almost certainly won't have is the room/studio sound or performances, so you need to have some realistic expectations about how the recordings will sound even after you've done some mixing to balance levels, set EQ, etc. All those things we love to do :).

Your recording space and the fact that the performers probably aren't really used to being recorded and know how to "lay back" (to help you achieve that balanced sound) are probably going to be a bigger challenge than setting up mics and recorder and getting cables out of the way to keep folks from tripping over them, knocking over mics or pulling the recorder clean off the table! (You'll have that, too, of course...)
 
Since you have 8-18 musicians, putting a mic on everyone is not practical, and a lot of setup time would be needed.

If I was doing this, I think I'd try an omni mic at each end of the table. This would give you an "A B" setup, and a stereo spread probably not too prone to phase issues. Keep the mics far from the banjos, maybe, since that instrument will cut through regardless.

To that stereo spread I would add one cardiod pattern mic, and have the vocalist or soloist position themselves in front of that mic when they are the central part in a song.

I haven't heard these omni mics, but they're cheap and a lot of people seem to like them: (Can't post a link since I just signed up to answer this thread! But I was going to link to the Line Audio OM-1)

The cardiod mic could be anything you have. A Shure SM58 would do the job, or any condenser microphone with a fairly tight pattern (supercardiod or hypercardiod might be nice). If Oktavas can still be found cheaply, that would work. A figure 8 pattern might yield interesting results, since it would also pick up directly across the table from the soloist (who would be very close to the mic)

In the mix spread the two omni signals hard left and right, and put the cardiod signal right in the middle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top