Live Recording: MD? DAT? PC?

[Chip Hitchens]

I was just asked to record a live performance of a regional chorus. This will be the first thing I've ever recorded that wasn't just screwing around for a friend.

I was just about to buy a rack-mounted MiniDisc recorder because it's perfect for what I usually do and the quality is plenty good enough for my purposes, but now I'm concerned because:

1) MD only allows for 74 or 80 minutes without going to LP mode and I'm not sure if that's sufficient for classical or choral music--some of that stuff can drag on. DAT would give me 120 min, right?

2) I can't find an unbiased opinion on the actual quality difference between DAT (usually 16 or 20 bit A/D) and ATRAC-R compressed MD (with 24 bit A/D).

3) If it turns out that the client wants to get this mastered and pressed, will a mastering studio expect/appreciate it on DAT?

I really kind of wanted the MD recorder. DAT seems like a big hassle to me and is really more money that I wanted to spend at the moment, but if I'm going to have to eventually go to it anyway... Any opinions? At this point, I'd probably be looking at a used DAT recorder. Is that a bad idea? Or should I just be looking at getting a laptop or HD Multi-track for when I graduate from simple ORTF and need more than two discreet channels?

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[sonusman]

I would personally either do it on a computer with a 24 bit soundcard. This allows the most options for delivering the songs to a mastering facility.

Next, I would go DAT. Why?

1 - Longer tape time. Up to 2 hours.
2 - Reliability. No skips writing to disk or any of that nonsense.

I would avoid MD like a plague. The data compression to "emulate" a 16 bit file is just not worth it. MD has a very distinct sound to it that is NOT natural in the high end.

Ideally, you should possibly multi track the performance. Close up group mics and "ambiant" mics together. You can actually have stereo pairs of mics in various spots in the room to capture different sounds. All of these mics, or any combinations can be mixed together later. In an audio editor, you can even time align the ambiant mics to better match to close up mics, etc....Many options, many textures possible.

Good luck.

Ed

 

[Paj]

Just some thoughts:

Quickest, simplest setups: Fostex VF's, Yamaha AW's, Roland VS's---they would cover the gig with ridiculous room to spare. A Fostex VF-80 would cover you (~32 hours of uncompressed stereo recording) for about $500 (analog and S/PDIF I/O), but you'd probably really want the CD burner option (add $200) for WAV file export. At that price, you might as well opt for the VF-160CD (as low as $800 but usually $900). The VF's are setup to interface with DAT. The July 2003 issue of Pro Audio Review has a review of the VF-160, coinincidentally used to record orchestra/chorale.

If this is going to be an ongoing enterprise, consider Mackie HR's or Fostex 2424's.

Matered and pressed? ADAT is a familliar and flexible format. MD will be your lowest common denominator and may not be appreciated, but a studio will do what you pay it to. No matter what you record on, with a computer or one of the HDR's mentioned above you could master and burn your own and just have the final product duplicated by a service (cheap!).

I'd say that sonusman's suggestion to get as many recording inputs as possible is wise, especially in unfamiliar territory and circumstances. That's why I'd lean towards the HDR or ADAT. Of course, you may already have a multiple-input interface for your computer-based DAW.

Don't learn how to setup, adjust or best use your equipment at the gig. The learning curve on the MD has the advantage there.


Paj
8^)