Newbie with single microphone bluegrass recording question

  • Thread starter Thread starter DecoDean
  • Start date Start date
D

DecoDean

New member
Hello all! I am new to this forum and need some guidance...

I am in a three person acoustic bluegrass band.
We use the following signal chain:
Vocals and guitar, mandolin, banjo all go into a Berringer C1 then to a yamaha mg102c then to a Toshiba Satellite running Win 8/Audacity
The bass is an acoustic electric that goes to a combo amp with no direct out. It has a dynamic microphone that goes into the yamaha mg102c
Thus, the yamaha mg102c has two inputs: the C1 and the dynamic microphone

I don't know how to set up the yamaha mg102c:
GAIN or COMPRESSION settings
I don't know how to set up Audacity:
Recording Volume (which I set to .60)
..and don't know what Normalization or Compression are all about

I would like to get this set up so the above signal chain and settings are consistent and we can simply set up and sing. If we goof, we start over...no big deal.

Also I have noticed that if I can get these settings dialed in, Audacity's (endless) effects can be mostly ignored...I might just use (sparingly) noise reduction, equalization, and reverb.

Any ideas are welcome and appreciated!

NOTE: The bass amp is set up pointing away from the C1 as its amp's dynamic microphone is doing most of the sonic work. We use the combo amp more as a stage monitor so we can hear the bass...in concert and in recording.

Thanks again,

-DecoDean
 
A lot more experienced engineers than you would not be compressing things on the way in. Don't do it. And ditch Audacity and use a proper multi tracking recording DAW instead, would be my advice. Sorry if that doesn't answer your question but I think you're asking the wrong question.
 
Yep, skip the compression, not just because it's hard to do right when you're also playing, but because it may not be too appropriate for the genre. You can always do it after the fact if you need to. At first I would skip all effects except perhaps a little eq and some subtle reverb.

I would recommend a decent direct box for the bass. It also looks like you need a proper audio interface, but if budget allows only one get a direct box. You'll be able to connect the bass directly to the mixer and to the amp at the same time. That ought to give you better tone to work with than the mic on the little amp.

Set any software record level controls to their defaults. To set levels first set channel gains according to your mixer's manual. Then look at the meters in your software. Each channel should average around -18dBFS on the digital meter when it's around 0dBVU on your analog meter. Hopefully the computer's audio input is right for the mixer's 2 track output. If so then your channel and master faders should end up on their 0 marks.

Definitely consider getting better software. Audacity has its uses as an editor but it's a poor DAW. And a proper audio interface will make the recording process a bit simpler.
 
aw - come on guys, Audacity is free and perfectly capable of doing a two channel recording. If I read it right, he's feeding the single mic into the mixer, and hopefully panning it left, while the bass mic goes into another channel panned right, and the output via USB to the computer for recording. Audacity is perfectly capable of recording that faithfully. Personally, I think I'd rather record the bass via a DI, leaving the combo to it's monitor duty.

The biggest problem is going to be setting the mic position and the positions of the people in the band. It's probably going to be a decent set of enclosed headphones and/or lots of trial an error, moving the mic in and out to get the right balance of performers and room, and then moving the too loud ones away a bit and moving the weaker ones into the mic. Can be done, but is not the easiest thing to do with limited equipment.

I too would forget any form of compression, and just adjust the mixer to get sensible levels without distortion on it's meters - use the channel gains with the PFL to make sure they are just right - as in high enough levels without peaking, then use the master to adjust the output to get the two channels into audacity. You should see a match between the mixer levels and the on screen levels in audacity. It's probably that the won't be a digital level adjustment so what goes out of the mixer is what will be recorded. Once you have the two channels in audacity, you can pan the main mic central, and maybe the bass a bit to one side, wherever you fancy. You'll be able to eq and maybe think about some gentle reverb that will widen the stereo image without being swampy. Bluegrass really doesn't need compressing unless the strong sources are just too much, when you can give it a little squeeze if you must. The vocals will probably be a bit weak, and the banjo too loud, so you need to move them - tricky if the vocalist is also playing banjo. It may be better to consider overdubbing the vocal afterwards for more control and better tone. Distant vocals always sound, well, distant!
 
rob aylestone said:
Thank you all for these responses. Much easier than the endless research I have tried to piecemeal together via youtube vids. Plus the user guide on the yamaha mixer is not very helpful.

I will fool around with these suggestions. Fortunately we have been using a single microphone in practice and concerts since July so we know how to move in and out to "adjust" our mix...including the dominate banjo and mandolin sounds. This is how bluegrass USED to be recorded and presented and part of our interest in it is the tradition of single microphone use. It is more choreography than anything...not getting out of the way in time not only messes up the mix but can also get a guitar neck planted in your face!

Once we get a few tracks down, I will post them somehow for your review and critiques.
Click to expand...
 
I love the one Mic bluegrass dance. It looks great and sometimes works great on stage.

If your going for a recording that sounds like a live performance/rehersal this could be a fun/challenging way to do it.

If you want a good or better quality studio type recording, I'd ditch the one mic concept quick. Even if your going for a "vintage" sound you are seriously hadicapping yourself in the sense of not being able to adjust individual levels/EQ/effects/compression. You can't see the dance happen on a CD, nobody that listens knows or cares how many mics you used when recording.

I've not done the research, but i'd be very suprised to find many bluegrass albums that were recorded with one mic when the band/studio had the option to use more.
 
I agree with the above, the one mic technique is awesome and believe it is a lost art. But, unless it is for a reason for the recording, it is nothing more than vanity, cause no matter how good you do it, no will know. Find a good room, get your count down, set your levels and mic the bass (as I believe he keeps the time), come in, lay down your instruments, vocals. I would refrain from the compressor, just set your levels going in with a good clean recording.

BG music needs all of the dynamics. IMO, in BG, like blues, it is less about the music and more about the players. Capture the players.
 
Rob, AFAICT the mg102c does not have a USB feed?
This means the OP is feeding the 1/8" jack on the Toshy and recording on the internal soundcard. Not good.

If cash is REALLY tight and modest interface not in the kitty (he could still use the mixer, likely better pre amps) then at least splurge 20 bucks on a Behringer UCA202/222.

Dave.
 
Oh Yuk! - My fault, I assumed it had to be be USB equipped - never even bothered to check. Full concur that if he's feeding a sound card then results are going to be in the Ok to simply awful range, with no way for us to know. My wife's old Toshiba was truly dreadful! External interface needed then!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top