Live Recording Direct Outs

D

dean1964

New member
Hey folks,

I'm about to make a live recording of a musical and at the same time will be mixing live. I'm using a Yamaha LS9-32 outfitted with 2 MY16AT expansion cards adding 32 channels of I/O. I will patch the additional outputs to the direct outputs of each channel thus outputting the consoles input channels directly to a 32 track recording.

The question is at what point in the LS9's signal chain should I tap for direct outputs. The options are Pre High pass filter, what is the earliest point in the chain, Pre eq - Post HPF, and Pre fader, which puts the tap point after the HPF, EQ, and 2 Comps and just before fader/ live mix.

Pre high pass filter sounds good to me because it is unaltered sound captured for later use. Yet it may not be the best idea. It is a live recording and a compressor for security makes me feel better about the possibility of clipping channels. And post EQ might help because we use countryman microphone elements and they generally need a bit of help and I'd hate to lay down a whole bunch of crap.

So I'm kind of at an impasse as to what to do. All the options have a trade off and none of them are perfect so what are your thoughts?
 
For live recording ALWAYS pre everything. You always want the cleanest and most unaltered signal for post work. At least that's what we want. Our clients agree (so far).

As for fear of clipping, set your levels conservatively and record 24 bit if possible.
 
With the exception of phantom power for condenser mics I would also say tap everything pre anything, no processing whatsoever on the way in. Tweak the tracks in the mixing not at the recording stage. You will be stuck with any processing done while recording and if it's not right you wont be able to adjust it to make it sit better in the final mix.
 
I do FOH sound for a working (50 gigs a year) Beatles tribute band.

I had the direct outs on my Midas Venice 320 set to post-gain, post-insert, pre-eq. This allows me to used some gates and compressors (drums only) for my live recordings. But I can run EQ and EFXs out of the box.

I record to an Alesis HD24 in 48/24 and mix on PC with NTracks. When the performance is right (which is 95% of the time) it will sound awesome. My live recordings sound better than some studio stuff.
 
Like people have mentioned, take as much out of line of the recorded tracks as possible. What I would do is pre-everything, including before the HPF. This is one of the nice features of the yamaha digital consoles, they allows you to really choose where you want your driect point. If on the other hand you were only recording the tracks (and not doing FOH simultaneously) I would consider other routing options.
 
Thanks for all the responses.

My first instinct was to go the pre-everything route. The only reason I've considered another option is the fact that the countryman E6 and B3 microphone elements that we use for the actors tend to sound fairly poor until you get them dialed in just right.

I guess the real answer is to experiment and see what works best but my guess is the tried and true pre-everything method will prevail.

Any other suggestions?
 
If you can make it sound better for the FOH mix, you can still record it pre everything and make it sound better in post:)
 
I think I may have a "fix it in post" complex. That phrase scares me but you have said something I have never heard before - "make it sound better in post". This I think I can live with.

I think this is going to be fun times. I've never done anything like it before and am a little scared but its exciting.
 
To me this isn't the same as "fix it in post" . To me that phrase means that you have just accepted something that should not have been accepted and moved on. In the specific scenario you are describing, the source signal does not sound that great AND you probably do not have the option to change the actual source problem. By recording it pre everything in this instance you will now have the ability to do what you need to it for the FOH mix AND have the ability to do what you need to it for the mixdown without one process hindering the other. In this case, this seems to be the best option to me unless your mixdown tools are far inferior to your tools available at the time it is being recorded, or unless you have the option to change the problem before it hits the console.

I firmly agree though that too many people do use the "fix it later" approach instead of just taking the time the fix it before its tracked:)
 
I agree it is not the same as fix it in post. I get a little edgy about that kind of stuff. I like to nail things down the first time if at all possible but sometimes its not always the best idea. During the performance the ticket holder is king and their experience is paramount.

I should say this is an academic project. I'm writing my Senior Practicum on it and will graduate in may. The big question for the project is - Can one engineer produce high quality sound reenforcement, a high quality multi-track recording, and nightly reference mixes. I'd like to explore the idea of creating live to two track reference mixes that are good enough for immediate distribution post performance. And I should also add the question - Can this be done for thousands rather than hundreds of thousands thus putting these options in the hands of many more organizations.

The centerpiece of all this - the Yamaha LS9-32. Yamaha is killing with this stuff.

Perhaps I've said to much. Thanks for listening.
 
We had our first tech rehearsal last night and truthfully the direct pre HPF sounds fine. There were a couple of problems with the body mics sounding bad but we made a few alternate choices and cleared them right up.

One problem - The performers input channels have a crest factor of about 25db on the average and between loud and soft passages I've seen the crest factor as much as 40db! In your opinions is a recorded level of -40 usable in those softer parts? The noise floor in performance is pretty good - about -60db but If i have to boost about 20db to be usable for these moments I'm also adding that much to any noise that might be there under the line. What to do?
 
At 24 bit depth, a signal of -40 should be usable. It's certainly not ideal, but depending on what the source is you will probably be OK.

Other than riding the fader I don't know offhand what else you can do that wouldn't involve patching something in ahead of the recorded signal...

As several folks have pointed out - there's nothing wrong with putting comps, gates, etc. in line before the recorder. As long as you know your gear and are confident in the end result you may want to consider it, especially if it's only a couple of channels that see this swing.

Once you've tracked with an effect, you can't undo it of course!
 
So, if I'm thinking straight, you're exploring the possibility of recording a live show for immediate distribution? If so, you should probably know The Levellers did just that, selling merchandise CDs 20 minutes after the gig finished of the whole show. The recording quality was very good as well, but they have been at it a few years :)
 
Elton Bear

Absolutely. There have been alot of people doing it. My question is how affordable can it be and can it be simple enough to be done on a small scale. Can regional act pull it off achieving quality rivaling the biggest acts?

tnjazz

It seems okay that low but I'm leery of it. But considering that during the moments the extremely low parts are happening there is very little else going it might offer a nice perspective and aide in generating an very dynamic mix. Maybe it will work out as an advantage. Who knows?
 
Elton Bear said:
So, if I'm thinking straight, you're exploring the possibility of recording a live show for immediate distribution? If so, you should probably know The Levellers did just that, selling merchandise CDs 20 minutes after the gig finished of the whole show. The recording quality was very good as well, but they have been at it a few years :)
Click to expand...

Many big name band sell cd's right after their show, such as the allman bros. "Instant Live" is the outfit that did the last allmans show I saw. Decent qualiry, not great but decent. Very much on the fly mixing, limited processing.
 
If it's for immediate sale, like right after the show, set up a mix just for recording and go straight to two track. You'll never have time to mix down a multitrack before the audience is long gone. Get a multiple disc burner and start pumping out the discs.
 
I have worked with a lot of bands that do quick mixes and extensive tracking etc... at their live shows. Often times these mixes are done right from the monitor console, someties just the tape outs of the mains, sometimes a blend of console two track and live mics, sometimes just a taper with a good and thought out setup. One thing to remember, the best mixes seem to come from those with the most flexibility as far as PA and equipment go. Not to mention they all seem to talk about how long it took to get the right setup dialed in.

If you are on a large stage in a large room with a great PA, the board mix should sound pretty good. If the stage volume is contained well, board mixes also benefit. If the PA and room are good, the right 2 track mic setup can sound great. Which style of recording works best often depends on a large combination of many variables, not to mention the people assembling it.
 
In my situation the live to stereo is completely shot. The problems are actors that absolutely cannot shut up backstage and their mics are hot up until the fader. The problem with recording the board mix, or house mix, is exactly as xstatic has pointed out. We are in a small theatre with about 500 seats so we are blending with the sounds produced more than reproducing them for mass consumption. In fact with careful timing the house speaker system disappears.
( google HASS effect or Law of the first wave front). So the levels actually passing through the stereo bus are fairly low and produce exactly what we need in the house but sounds like a bag on tape.

We are still going live direct out, pre everything to multi track and will simply have to cut out the BS later. In the end I can only do one great mix at a time or two less than great ones. Again the ticket buyer is king.

It seems to me the best way, in a small venue situation and a musical theater situation, is to have a another console and a splitter if you want a really solid live to two track. There are a lot of hot mics than need to be muted when not on stage and i cannot possibly make this happen while mixing F.O.H. with out sacrificing it some. It would be much easier if it were a concert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top