jmorris
New member
Will there be any signal loss if I use a microphone y-spliter cable for a live application as oposed to splitter boxes?
jake-owa
Banned
Yes there will. Think of a water hose with a y in it...you will split the water pressure in half.
jmorris
New member
I thought so,A splitter box or snake must make up the signal loss I suppose. I want to record my band live but without the expense of the splitter box or snake.
F
fishtop_records
New member
why are you doing it at the mic side?
most folks just take a stereo feed out of the
house mixer to their recorder.
Or if you have a multitrack, record
each track.
Once it is thru the mixer, you can easily
drive two devices at once.
Mic splitter transformers are ususally used
to run two separate mixers, such as
one to a remote recording truck
and the second to the main FOH mixer.
They split it premixer so that each "side"
gets the same quality, and so that the
trades don't argue.
You are right, quality mic splitter transformers are
expensive, but Y cables are cheap and
work great after the mic preamp.
most folks just take a stereo feed out of the
house mixer to their recorder.
Or if you have a multitrack, record
each track.
Once it is thru the mixer, you can easily
drive two devices at once.
Mic splitter transformers are ususally used
to run two separate mixers, such as
one to a remote recording truck
and the second to the main FOH mixer.
They split it premixer so that each "side"
gets the same quality, and so that the
trades don't argue.
You are right, quality mic splitter transformers are
expensive, but Y cables are cheap and
work great after the mic preamp.
Light
New member
Either take the direct out of each channel (or take a sub mix), or get a split snake. A line level signal can handle being split, so you can use the insert send if the console does not have a direct out.
A split snake is the best option, though.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
A split snake is the best option, though.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
D
DJL
Self Banned
Your going to end up wanting a splitter after you waste your money on Y cords... and get one with good transformers.
T
tigerbomb
Member
jmorris said:
A mic output usually has a hard time driving two mic inputs at the same time. Especially dynamics as often used in live situations.
So, another possibility is if there is a channel insert in the board, or if you use an external micpre, you can split the line level signal with very little change in signal quality.
jmorris
New member
I recorded my band last year by taking 1/4" direct out of the copnsole.It sucked! I dont really know why. Just bad tones,peeks in the signal.It was live and loud,lots of bleed threw. I thought if I could split the signal out of the mic into my own preamps I would have more control. I am still wondering why my previous attempt was so bad.It was not horrible but the kick drum was a bitch to try and eq. and its a great gretch kit,tuned great. Bass was shitty,and as I said,way too much bleed threw on vocals. But in general a very poor "tone" to the entire recording,.
D
Dr_Sbaitso
New member
unfortunately, Live mixing and recording are two different things.
if your taking the direct out, then you are generally getting the signal after the gain stage. the gain has been set so that channel will peak in the main mix when the fader is up. if you are going to record this, then bear in mind that the gain has been set for the live mix, not for your recorder. on stage, you have a hell of a lot of bleed. if your in a small to moderate venue in the front row, your probably hearing a lot of direct sound from the instrument amps and drums. they may not need to be turned up very loud in the mix to fill the venue. vocals on the other hand will be very loud in a mix because the onstage singer isn't very loud in comparison to the guitarists amp or the drummer. so if you record out from a desk, then your going to get a lot of vocals and keys, and probably very little drums and guitars. as for vocal bleed, yeah, theres not much you can do about that. on a live stage, the vocal mic picks up heaps of everything else. thats why a lot of live engineers don't mic up the cymbals, because the vocal mic will pick up most of them anyway.
if your taking the direct out, then you are generally getting the signal after the gain stage. the gain has been set so that channel will peak in the main mix when the fader is up. if you are going to record this, then bear in mind that the gain has been set for the live mix, not for your recorder. on stage, you have a hell of a lot of bleed. if your in a small to moderate venue in the front row, your probably hearing a lot of direct sound from the instrument amps and drums. they may not need to be turned up very loud in the mix to fill the venue. vocals on the other hand will be very loud in a mix because the onstage singer isn't very loud in comparison to the guitarists amp or the drummer. so if you record out from a desk, then your going to get a lot of vocals and keys, and probably very little drums and guitars. as for vocal bleed, yeah, theres not much you can do about that. on a live stage, the vocal mic picks up heaps of everything else. thats why a lot of live engineers don't mic up the cymbals, because the vocal mic will pick up most of them anyway.
D
DJL
Self Banned
Live mixing and live multi-track recording sure are two different things... and IMO, requires two different systems and a remote recording truck or isolated room and etc, etc, etc.
jmorris
New member
I have heard some great live recordings but they sure are not mine. As I said,last year when I recorded my band live,in a bid outdoor situation with huge PA etc.,I just took 24 direct out from the main console into my 24 track recorder.The sound was poor.I tried to explain to the live sound guy to keep the chanels from peaking so I would get a clean signal onto tape.He did not understand the comcept of turning the gain down on a chanel if it was peaking and bringing up the fader to compensate. So I had either too hot a signal or too week. Plus too much bleed threw, and the vocals were a mess. Way too much stage noise to (guitars,drums) to bring up the vocals to a level I wanted. I thought splitter cables might help as I could at least control the signal into my 24 track.
Light
New member
jmorris said:
If you record live, you are going to get a lot of bleed. There is no way around it, short of eliminating all acoustic instruments and all speakers on the stage. Unfortunately, the only way to block sound is mass, and you can not put up walls between everyone on a stage. In-ear monitors help, but they are not enough. You will be getting bleed from the guitar amps, the (acoustic) drum set, and the FOH stacks, at the very least. The Plexiglas shields around the drummer also help, but even there you are still going to hear the kit.
No way around it, I am afraid. The best thing is to decide to just work with it, and go for feel.
And tell your singer to eat the damn mic.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
D
DJL
Self Banned
TexRoadkill
Audio Bum
If the venue sounds good and the guy mixing is doing a good job then the best recording will be a simple stereo pair at the mixing location.
If the venue is crappy and the engineer sucks then you are screwed either way. Most direct board recordings sound like crap because the engineer is mixing for the PA and that takes the stage volume and room sound into account.
The only way to capture a live performance as perfectly as possible is by multitracking everything and recording the live sound. Obviously that is expensive and requires a dedicated engineer to watch the levels. A good compromise is to record the board mix to 2 channels and record some ambient room mics to 2 channels.
If the venue is crappy and the engineer sucks then you are screwed either way. Most direct board recordings sound like crap because the engineer is mixing for the PA and that takes the stage volume and room sound into account.
The only way to capture a live performance as perfectly as possible is by multitracking everything and recording the live sound. Obviously that is expensive and requires a dedicated engineer to watch the levels. A good compromise is to record the board mix to 2 channels and record some ambient room mics to 2 channels.
jmorris
New member
Whirlwind??? Yeah,Iknow all about them,they are located in Rochester where I am. The odd thing is as I ve said before.Last year for this live band recording of mine I just took 24 line outs of the main console directly into my 24 track recorder and it sounded like shit. Im talking everything on a seperate track,kick snare,guitar keys sax, trumpit etc. Im wondering if the direct 1/4" outs were post eq. as everthing just sounded terrible..most noticably the kick. The levels werwe also wacky,too hot or too weak. It seems if everything was recorded pre eq it would not be a big deal to sweetin the sound but I had a bitch of a time.Not to mention the plain volume of my band with the bleed through on everything. We are a party band,horn section and all.
jmorris
New member
Light, I understand your point but the thing is,Ive heard lots of live recordings that were great and they had no baffels for seperation and were a lot louder than my band! Hell, Frampton comes Alive is a nice live album done in 1975 and its cool.Bob Seger live..no baffels.How do they get that sound???? They seem to have more than enought seperation between everything to deal with each instrument .
M
mixsit
Well-known member
You seem to be mixing up the issues. Good sound on stage, good sounding sources, and clean signals to your recorder.
Another option that worked for me- rented a rack of great pre's, I controled the gains as my record levels (my only full time responsibility that day), sent a split of the pre's line outs to the pa board, let him have at it.
And have a good guy on the board so item #1 above doesn't make all the other efforts irrelevant.
Wayne
Another option that worked for me- rented a rack of great pre's, I controled the gains as my record levels (my only full time responsibility that day), sent a split of the pre's line outs to the pa board, let him have at it.
And have a good guy on the board so item #1 above doesn't make all the other efforts irrelevant.
Wayne
Light
New member
jmorris said:
Most major label "Live" records are heavily over-dubbed in the studio later, particularly vocals. A bit more than half of Frampton Comes Alive is over-dubbed, including ALL of the vocals. It was also recorded in a million dollar (1975 dollars) recording truck. Besides, the tracks bleed all over each other on that album (from what I remember, I have not listened to it very often). It is also important to remember that engineers in the seventies did not worry nearly as much about separation, as they were not used to having it. They were used to tracks which bled all over one another, and they miced things up with that bleed in mind.
You can get guitars reasonably well by having an additional cabinet off stage, and bass can be run direct. The only major issue after that is the drums, but they are so damn loud that, with some simple gating, they can sound clean. But you still need to have amps and drums on stage, and that is going to bleed into the vocal mic (hence all the over-dubbing). Besides, most singers’ intonation is shit on stage, so you need to overdub anyway.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Light
New member
And tell your singer to eat the damn mic, if you want a fighting chance at using the live vocal tracks. Vocalist "mic technique" is a myth. They never actually pull the mic away when it needs to be, only when they don't, and they always pull it too far. Lips touching, if you want to be heard.
That is what compressors are for.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
That is what compressors are for.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
jmorris
New member
framptons vocals overdubed later?? How do you know this? I highly dought that.I have videos of live bands and there isnt any overdubbing on those and the vocals are nice.
