Help with recording live worship...

  • Thread starter Thread starter windwords7
  • Start date Start date
windwords7 said:
One of my primary leaders most recent CD was done ADAT to HD for mixing. Maybe we should do that? I just really want what is BEST for doing the LIVE thing?????? If I do the Aardvark at least we could have the option for mics if necessary? What do you think?
Click to expand...

I still don't know what your whole setup will be. If you need preamps, then sure, the Aardvark may be the way to go. If you already have a mixer, or you can 'share' the live mixer, you might not need those preamps and there might be a cheaper solution for your PC. If you don't want to carry around a PC, ADATs are proven, reliable hardware.

I will say that if you're going to be mobile with a PC I'd get a rackmount PC case in a rack case with some extra space or a rack tray for keyboard, mice, etc.
 
Well, we can do it either way. If you had to choose, what would you choose between preamping or going from the live mixer what would yo choose?
 
I'd say it all depends on how much work you want to do, how much time you have and how much money you want to spend. If you go from the live mixer you have to think about what happens when they have sound problems...feedback, forgetting to turn the mic on/up....issues that accompany a live situation. If you're doing the mic set up and recording straight to the computer, you'll have total control over it all and won't have to worry about the live session. Then again, maybe the console has a great sound that you won't get through a less expensive interface. You could always try it both ways if this is going to be an ongoing gig. Then just listen to the differences and decide for yourself which one you like.
 
You gotta talk to the live guys. They might not want you near their mixer even though you really won't be affecting them (if you are using prefader sub outs, their fader changes won't mess with your recording). They might be annoyed if you run your own mics from the stage. They might be your best friend and want your help twirling their knobs.
 
mshilarious said:
You gotta talk to the live guys. They might not want you near their mixer even though you really won't be affecting them (if you are using prefader sub outs, their fader changes won't mess with your recording). They might be annoyed if you run your own mics from the stage. They might be your best friend and want your help twirling their knobs.
Click to expand...

Ok, I WILL have a brand new high quality digital board to run through. So assuming that this the route that we will take, how would set it up and which specific equipment do you prefer?
 
windwords7 said:
Ok, I WILL have a brand new high quality digital board to run through. So assuming that this the route that we will take, how would set it up and which specific equipment do you prefer?
Click to expand...

This makes your life potentially a lot easier. Find out what format the board can send digital output, and get a soundcard with that input. Probably it supports ADAT, in which case you can get either an ADAT or a soundcard with an ADAT input. That gives you eight channels of digital I/O.

Continue to work with the guy in charge of the mixer; you can get some input into subgroups and maybe even get a couple of ambient mics run through the board.
 
I can't believe I missed this post all week.

I record live worship sets at my church once or twice a month. I went through a lot of the same questions 2 years ago when I was getting started and finally decided that a dedicated hard disk recorder was the only way to get the quality I wanted. The current recorders on the market that are affordable include the Mackie SDR, the Alesis HD24, and the Fostex D2424LV.

I initally tried to record through a dedicated mixer to tape or CD but found that since I was physically located in the worship room that the mixes I got were compromised because, even though I was using good isolation headphones, some of the vibe from the room still gets into your bones and you don't get an accurate mix that can be listened to elsewhere.

I then tried recording 8-tracks on a tape-based ADAT. This was better, but I still had some compromises (ie. I had to submix the vocal tracks and drum kit and keyboards to get it all to fit into 8 tracks). I bought a second ADAT to get me up to 16 tracks and things got better, but I still needed to do a little bit if submixing before recording.

I eventually moved up to a 24-track Mackie MDR hard disk recorder and have been loving the results ever since. In our main worship center, I use the direct outputs from our 48-channel house mixer (I pick the channels that I need up to 24). When I record our youth bands, I have to use the mixer inserts (plug the cable into the first click only, not all the way!!). I do all my mixing these days in Cubase on a PC in my home studio (AMD 2500; 512 Mb RAM; 30 Gb main HD, 120 Gb audio HD, 30 Gb removeable HD swapped between the Mackie recorder and the PC). I just finished mixing a 75-minute set from our July 4th service and it came off great.

I posted all that so you could get some perspective on the pitfalls of not recording everything on its own track. You lose flexibility and quality.

Now, having said that, there are other ways to get there besides the one I chose. If you are set on recording straight to the PC, you could use a MOTU 24i/o interface which provides 24 channels of inputs that are routed into the PC through a dedicated PCI card installed in the PC. You could use your software of choice with that (although I think for Pro Tools you have to have one of their boxes hooked up to run). For Pro Tools, you would have to use the Digi 002 or 002R which can get you up to 18 tracks simultaneously with some creative use of various input formats (ie. 8 tracks ADAT, 8 tracks analog, 2 tracks S/PDIF).

You mentioned a "high quality digital board to run through". Do you know what kind of board you are looking at getting? As mshilarious mentioned you can get a digital board setup with ADAT digital outputs. Then you could use any of several interfaces that accept ADAT inputs for the PC. For instance, the MOTU 2408, or cards from RME or Frontier Design. You just need to assess how many tracks you are likely to record to determine how many channels of input to the computer you need.

I want to mention one other thing before I finish this seminar: I do not personally trust PC software for recording lots of simultaneous channels. This is not from my personal experience, though, but from lots of horror stories I've read. With my Mackie recorder I can record 24 tracks for 2 hours straight without any problems (unless the hard drive fills up!!).

Is that enough to drive you crazy? I hope my input will be of use to you. I couldn't find any advice when I first started out, hence a lot of wasted money on various things until I figured it out. I still have my old ADAT recorders sitting in storage that I need to do something with (I haven't even powered them up for a year now).

Good luck!!

Darryl.....
 
DDev said:
I then tried recording 8-tracks on a tape-based ADAT. This was better, but I still had some compromises (ie. I had to submix the vocal tracks and drum kit and keyboards to get it all to fit into 8 tracks). I bought a second ADAT to get me up to 16 tracks and things got better, but I still needed to do a little bit if submixing before recording.

I posted all that so you could get some perspective on the pitfalls of not recording everything on its own track. You lose flexibility and quality.
Click to expand...

Well this is clearly the Cadillac solution. 24 tracks for 2 hours without changing tapes, and faster transfer to PC is great.

But I'd contend with losing quality with only an eight-track setup. Yes, you lose flexibility, yes, you have to submix. But you're going to have to mix to stereo eventually, and once you learn the venue, musicians, and setup, you can make many mixing decisions during tracking and it saves you a lot of time during mixdown.

It's not that tough to submix drums to stereo, and even lump in bass to the same two tracks. Leave three tracks for vocal, and you still have three tracks for guitar, piano, and something else, and you'll be able to make a very nice final mix.

I am more envious of the time involved in mixing down 24 tracks, I think. I definitely don't have that on a semimonthly basis, so I use the time I have during tracking to start the mix.
 
Mshillarious,

No problem with your contention. This is all about what works and doesn't work. For me, maybe my problems with sub-mixing were related to inexperience (I was just getting started with recording at the time), but I am very happy with what I'm able to do now.

My church has 2 different musical formats that vary from week to week, with one format being very contemporary with a praise band (2-3 guitars, keyboards, piano, percussion, drums, and bass) and a vocal team consisting of 4-6 vocalists, and the other being more traditional with choir and orchestra (including piano, strings, woodwinds, brass, drums, percussion, bass, and 4-6 vocalists). The contemporary services will typically use 18 tracks, and the orchestra services will go 22-24. We use electronic drums now so I just have a stereo feed for those and it is already sub-mixed from the drum processor (which makes life MUCH simpler). Plus, in our current facility, I don't have access to a secondary mixer to do any sub-mixes with so just taking the direct feeds is all I can do.

I can do a rough mix of a service pretty quick (under an hour including transfer time into Cubase), but the fine tuning can take forever, depending on how picky I am. The 75-minute service I did last Saturday took me about 6 hours to fully mix and edit and prepare the master disk for (fortunately I had nothing going on last Saturday and could take the time to do it; there was a ton of music interspersed with lots of patriotic messages and a mini-sermon that I also had to include since our usual 2-track recording of the service failed). That was an extreme. Usually I only have 15-20 minutes worth of music to deal with, so I can knock it out in a couple of hours for decent quality. When I know that a particular service is going to be made available for mass distribution I take a bit more time with the mixing.

Anyway, for me this was a hobby that has turned into an opportunity to provide a service for my church and I just love doing it. i even get a few "paying" gigs now and then as a result of this.

God bless,
Darryl.....
 
Wow, 24inputs! Do I have to have that many? I thought 8 would be enough?! LOL, well let me know please if you have to have that many to do it well. Thanks Darryl!
 
More is better, but there are diminishing returns. 4 is worlds better than 2; 8 will give you better stereo imaging with good control over dynamics; 16 is a step up . . . beyond 24 probably isn't that helpful. Cost is also a consideration, the 24 track hard drive systems are over $1K. It also depends on the size of your mixer; if it's 16 channels than more tracks don't do much.

Maybe Darryl will sell you his ADATs?
 
mshilarious said:
More is better, but there are diminishing returns. 4 is worlds better than 2; 8 will give you better stereo imaging with good control over dynamics; 16 is a step up . . . beyond 24 probably isn't that helpful. Cost is also a consideration, the 24 track hard drive systems are over $1K. It also depends on the size of your mixer; if it's 16 channels than more tracks don't do much.

Maybe Darryl will sell you his ADATs?
Click to expand...

So between 8-16, what would YOU use? The new board I believe is a Yamaha and will have 32 channels. I don't know the specs yet, just heard about it yesterday.

I am off to Alpha Sound tommorow to check some things out.
 
I guess the real question it comes down to is what your budget will be. Obviously, there are several different ways to go, each with it's own plusses and minuses. I was fortunate with my Mackie recorder, and found one that was on clearance from being a floor demo unit, so I got it for $900 (that price alone was a no-brainer; I couldn't have lived with myself if I had passed it up). I had intended to sell the ADATs to help recoup the cost, but in the blink of an eye a year has gone by and the ADATs are basically worthless now. If you did want to purchase them, I'd give you a great deal on them, plus a good supply of tapes!!

But seriously, from our discussions above here are a few options with approximate cost for each one (again, just my take on things).

1. 8 channels of recording direct to PC. Components required (assuming you already have a PC; make sure you have at least a 40 Gb hard drive dedicated for audio and at least 512 Mb RAM) include the following:

a. A multi-channel soundcard interface. Examples would be:
- MOTU 828 MkII, cost $750
- Aardvark Q10, cost $750
- Hybrid using an EMU 1212M audio card ($200) along with a Behringer AD8000 8-channel preamp with ADAT outputs ($225)
-Any of several other 8-channel interaces from RME, Presonus, etc.

b. Recording software. The sky is the limit but here are some approximations:
- Cubase SL ($300) [This is what I use and I love it]
- Cubase SX ($600)
- Sonar Studio Edition ($300)
- Sonar Producer's Edition ($500)
- Pro Tools LE (purchased with an M-Box $450; purchased with a Digi-002R $1150 and includes the audio interface capable of doing 8-channels + simultaneously)
- Other software including Samplitude, Nuendo, etc.

2. 8-channel recording with a dedicated recorder.

a. Used ADAT tape deck.
- $150-200 for a Blackface 16-bit ADAT;
- $250-500 for an ADAT XT-20 (20-bit)

b. Tascam DA-x8 tape deck.
- $500-1000 for a used deck

c. Stand-alone recorder.
- Fostex VF-16 ($900)
- Yamaha AW16G ($1000)
- Any other stand-alone recorder that can do 8 tracks simultaneously.

3. 24-channel recorder.
- Mackie SDR ($1200 new; $900-1000 used)
- Fostex D2424LV ($1300 new)
- Alesis HD24 ($1400 new)

I like the Mackie recorders primarily because they record in standard WAV files on standard PC-formatted hard drives, so the removable hard drives can be plugged into a PC directly without having to go through any transfers. The Alesis recorder has a Fireport adapter that can be used to transfer the hard drive contents to a PC through a Firewire connection. I think the Fostex requires a SCSI interface (not too sure about this one).

Anyway, like I said before, this is the options list as I see it. There are hundreds of variable options available that will depend on your specific needs, so just take this as a launching point to help you fine tune your decision process.

Good luck,
Darryl.....
 
I found out today that I will have regular acess to our brand new board which will be a yamaha dm2000.

Thanks darryl for the input. I am starting to shop! I let you guys know how it goes and I cannot thank you enough for your help thus far.

Jake
 
DM2000............slobber slobber slobber (I'd love one of these in my studio).....

Is this going to be your main house mixing board or just for recording?

Have fun!!
Darryl.....
 
DDev said:
DM2000............slobber slobber slobber (I'd love one of these in my studio).....

Is this going to be your main house mixing board or just for recording?

Have fun!!
Darryl.....
Click to expand...

Main house board bro. Should I go straight from that to the pc?
 
I'm going to have to study up on the output options of the DM2000 to answer your question. I haven't personally ever used one, just lusted after them in the gear catalogs (oops.....lust is a cardinal sin; ummmmm I just think they are really cool.....).

I'll let you know what I figure out. If you do go direct out of it to your computer, though, you'll have to work with your sound guy to configure the sub-mixes the way you want them.

Darryl.....
 
Yeah I'd say if that's the budget than a 24 track HD system shouldn't be a big deal. Really you can skip the PC entirely and mix down on that board. Do you realize this board has 96 channels, each with its own EQ & dynamics, and 8 stereo effects processors (total, not per channel)? Very very few PCs can manage that feat.

To put things in perspective I mix down entirely using the onboard dynamics & effects on the Yamaha DS2416 card, which was based on the 01V mixer, which is a couple of generations removed from that board, and the quality I get is very good. Using the DM2000, your quality should be the envy of most of the people here :cool:

Can we come over and play?
 
The DM2000 has balanced insert outs on each of the 24 main input channels that can be used as direct outs to feed up to 24 channels.

That being said, there are dozens of other options. If you only want to go with 8 tracks as sub-mixes, they can be assigned to the 8 Omni-outputs, or directed to an ADAT option card.

It all comes down to money and convenience and how the board will be used live and which options are available for recording. This is one of the most flexible boards on the market in its niche, so the skies the limit on how to do it.

Personally, I think you will wind up spending over $1000 to get the interfaces for 8 tracks into a PC, and for just a little bit more you could get a stand alone HD recorder like the Mackie SDR and then use the DM2000 post production for mixing. That would be my ultimate scenario.

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