mic y spliter

[jmorris]

and I find it a bit hard to believe that you can identify bleed through from a live recording by only listeding to the final stereo mix. Particulary if they heavly gated everything

 

[Light]

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.

Read the credits on a live album sometime, you will almost always find a listing for re-recording studio. Every now and then, some music journalist will notice this, and will give someone a hard time about it, but it will never change. Even when there is no listing, most live albums are largely re-recorded. This is particularly true with vocals. It is extremely difficult to sing in key at the volume on a stage, particularly with a long show, and on a long tour. Add to this the fact that it becomes hard to sing with your best phrasing when you are playing guitar is very difficult. You are unlikely to notice this when you are at a show, thanks to the energy and noise. On an album, you are much more likely to notice details, as you are listening in a more controlled environment.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[TexRoadkill]

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.

Considering few bands even play everything live anymore I find that statement pretty funny.

The ONLY way to get a polished live recording is the expensive way. Splitters to seperate pres and a dedicated engineer to watch the levels.

Even the best live recordings usually suck from a technical standpoint.

 

[fishtop_records]

The ONLY way to get a polished live recording is the expensive way. Splitters to seperate pres and a dedicated engineer to watch the levels.

Expensive splitters to expensive pres. And the
engineer is probably expensive too.

Such is art.

 

[t_chance]

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.

Would it make more sense if you reversed this and run a snake to the house out of your recording console's direct outs?

 

[williamconifer]

About 6 months ago, I live recorded a 10 R&B band. They had 24 channels going. I had a m-audio Quattro 4 i/o computer usb audio interface. The main mix had 4 subs going. Vocals, drums, horns, rythm. I simply took sub outs from the board into my Mackie 1402vlz mixer and then ran into my computer via the quatrro. No outboard comps (which I should of had).

This was my first ever attempt at live recording. I had distortion problems with the lead vocals and drums which I fixed with the trim on the Mackie. When all that was figured out, I got a awesome recording. The key is post production and the multiband compressor. I used the multi comp to control the bass guitar which was mixed in with harp, keys and guitar and I eq'd and added sparkle to everything else. BTW, bleed was a gift in this recording, it gave everthing a real open sound. All my cymbals were caught by the 5 vocal mics, no overheads. I evened out the "odd" dry accoustics of the board with reverb during post production. Sparkle, compression, & reverb really make a diff.

I have this competing engenieer telling me I should go 8 or 16 tracks into a computer to get control of more varriables. I'm just not convinced. I got a damn good live recording with 4 and no ambient mics.


jack