Why so many devices with only two inputs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rudy2
  • Start date Start date
R

Rudy2

New member
This is really a newbie question but I would like the input of those who have been there, done that, with live recordings. And I do not necessarily mean rock recordings but other stuff like acoustic string ensembles and woodwinds. No drums, no electric bass, no canned nothin'.

As I learn more I still have a basic question that bugs me. Regarding live recording, why does the Mbox and cheaper types of portable digital recording devices only provide two lines in or out? If you are recording a live performance using a PC or otherwise, wouldn't you want as many individual recorded tracks as possible available for editing later? It looks as if the intent is to run all the mics, instruments etc. through a mixer board that can provide two lines out that can then be recorded using the PC device or digital recorder. Doesn't this provide a huge restriction if individual live tracks would like to be edited individually after recording? And why wouldn’t you want to edit individual tracks?

I am thinking that since a significant number of recording devices offer only 2 inputs the majority of recording sessions done today much be sort of a layered affair, done in the studio, without actually ever recording an entire ensemble. And you cannot do that live. If I attempted a studio session with my folk group, having everyone wear headphones and laying a track at a time it would sound like shit! All the dynamic energy created by the group playing together would be lost. Not everyone using digital is recording rock 'n roll but the digital recording industry seems to think in terms of an artificial (but apparently successful) method of creating a song, one track at a time.


Am I right or not?

Rudy2
 
A Short History Lesson....

Back in the early days of recording 1920-1930's everything was mono (ONE CHANNEL) usually recorded with just one microphone, so all the instruments had to be positioned at the correct distance from the mic to be balanced when recorded.

As electronics improved, mixers were created and more mikes were added, but surprisingly most music was recorded live in one take and in Mono up until the 1950's.

Les Paul and others in the 1950's pioneered multi track recording and it became the standard in the 1960's when stereo recordings were first made.

What does this have to do with your question? Well not much but...
Most professional recordings made from the 1960's to today are layered with basic tracks and overdubs and then vocals added, and yes often recorded with the performers wearing headphones to achieve track separation.

There are still a few purists that make records in true stereo with just two mike, and the band playing all together live.

SO: You may want to purchase a better sound card, or breakout box with 8 or more inputs. Or use a mixer to submix several mikes down to stereo.

Either way the most important part is mic placement! and of course capturing a great performance.

Sincerely;

Dom Franco ;)
 
Classical recordings would surely sound more realistic when a couple of stereo mics are used to record the whole stage right?
 
Well Rudy, the first reason is that good preamps are damned expensive. An Avalon preamp runs about $1200-1500 per channel. Want 8 channels? No problem- $12,000. Actually, your folk group could sound very good in a layered recording, if they are good enough to play it, one track at a time. Saying that you have all this lost energy is another way of saying that you aren't good enough to track it that way.
There aren't that many alternatives. You can use a matched stereo pair and record the whole live studio recording with one or two mics, or use 3 omnis in a triangular array (do a search on Decca tree). Recording the tracks one at a time, with headphones simply produces a set of tracks that are easier to mix, without mic bleed, and makes post production processing much simpler.
The truth is, anyone can learn to track that way, it's just an aquired skill, like playing guitar. However, like playing an instrument, it is work, and you have to practice for a good long time to do it well, It is the fundamental difference between being a musician, and being a recording artist.-Richie
 
Not "good enough" to play a track at a time? You, my friend, have a distorted perspective of musicality and ability. The very best music performance in the world is created at ensemble level and NOT laid down in a sterile studio environment. To suggest that musicianship and musical ability has anything to do with wearing headphones and hacking out an individual track is a perspective that suits recording engineers, or at least some recording types apparently.

In the case of my own eclectic group of folk musicians I would rather try to herd cats than do a recording that way. That is true of many Live groups who rely on spontaneous interaction to create their own special magic.

Thanks for the rest of your comments however.

Rudy2
 
Rudy2 said:
Not "good enough" to play a track at a time? You, my friend, have a distorted perspective of musicality and ability. The very best music performance in the world is created at ensemble level and NOT laid down in a sterile studio environment. To suggest that musicianship and musical ability has anything to do with wearing headphones and hacking out an individual track is a perspective that suits recording engineers, or at least some recording types apparently.

In the case of my own eclectic group of folk musicians I would rather try to herd cats than do a recording that way. That is true of many Live groups who rely on spontaneous interaction to create their own special magic.

Thanks for the rest of your comments however.

Rudy2
Click to expand...


Just to throw my two cents in -

You are absolutley right - the best music is made when an ensemble performs live - NOTHING beats a live show. However, a recording is a different animal altogether. It is something I still wrestle with - I always played live...It's a running joke with the drummer and me (bass), that I need him to keep time for me, I can't keep time with a tape or metronome for nothin'. Him and I are dead nuts on tho.. :)
 
Well, I apologize if I sounded condescending, it wasn't my intent. My point was that responding to the music, rather than responding to the musician, is difficult, and requires a good deal of practice. The Grateful Dead, while known for extensive improvisational skills in a live setting, laid down many tracks that were heavily scripted, and then laid down improvisation on top of it that had a good deal of the magic you refer to. The hardest part is that you have to respond to the sound, without the visual cues provided by the live studio setting, which requires a mental outline of the piece.
There is a worthy compromise between a totally scripted classical piece, where every passing tone and grace note is written down, and flat out jazz improvisation. Layered overdubs require variations within a framework. The emotion of a performance can be there just as well as in a live or live studio recording, but it requires the ability to find that emotion in the music, rather than in the direct psychic input of the guy standing in front of you. The ability to do that is every bit as much magic as the direct interaction of a live performance. The payoff is in discrete tracks that can be EQ'd, compressed, re-amped, panned, and edited independantly. The positive result is a better mix, and a better master. The hard part is to do it without losing the magic you refer to, which requires a hell of a lot of practice.-Richie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top