Hi and welcome.

I love recording a band live like that, but there are limitations to what you can accomplish in the scenario you're describing. It's a matter of what trade-offs you're going to be comfortable with.

I'm getting ready to head out the door, but I do have some quick follow-up questions that will help us help you.

Have you been to the rental house before, do you have any idea what the room sounds like? (relative to how well the 3-mic style will work)

Is the thought of everyone using headphones a possibility, or out of the question? (relative to how well the 3-mic style will work and gobos / baffles)

OR, do you intend to have the guitar and bass amps blaring in the same room with the drums? A small PA or monitor wedges for the vocals? (relative to how well the 3-mic style will work and gobos / baffles)

The 3-mic technique can absolutely work, but by definition it leaves those mics wide open to everything else in the room (for better or worse).

I know you said you'd run the bass direct, but that doesn't exclude using an amp, so I'm just looking for clarification. Will you be using a bass amp too? Even if the bass is through a DI, putting an amp in the room with the drums, or anywhere in the house for that matter, is going to inevitably bleed into the drum mics.

Do you intend to keep this truly 100% "live", and never go back and fix a bum-note on any one instrument to save an otherwise perfect take? How much bleed you have will become a factor immediately when you go back to fix one bad vocal/guitar/bass note and find the bad note still indelibly printed on the drum tracks. (Those Earthworks mic will hear EVERYTHING).

When I'm recording into a DAW, like Logic in your case, I rarely apply any compression during the tracking unless there are special circumstances.

What will you be using for an interface between the mics and the Mac? Your results may vary, but I've recorded numerous live shows with 24 tracks via Firewire from a PreSonus StudioLive into an MBP for hours on end using Capture without any problems at all. Your interface, computer speed, RAM, hard-drive speed, available space, & file fragmentation will all be important factors.

I guess the last thing that I'd want to know is, what your expectations are with the finished recording.

OK, that's some food for thought. I'm out the door. I'll look forward to your reply.

I love recording live. Here's how I'd handle it. I'll leave some suggested mics, for illustration. I will say that earthworks have always left a lot to be desired with drum kits imho. They're better suited for classical, or acoustic testing, again imho. The ones I'll suggest are usually available for rent, or borrow.

Drums.
Stereo overheads- in xy (coincident pair) (large diaphragm condensers in cardiod are my first choice. AKG 414s are nice, u87ai works well too.) (if small diaphragm condesner is your choice the shure sm81 is nice). I like LDC because it picks up the meat of the kick and snare as well, which can be quite beneficial considering the OH is most of a drum kits sound in general. This leaves the option to filter things out if you need/want to later. SDC don't offer this option since they won't pick up as much of the full audio spectrum of the kit.

Kick- close mic w dynamic, AKG, sennheisser, make nice dedicated kick mics. The sm-57 is capable of recording kicks, and the sennheisser md421 does well too, with a bit more meat than 57s. . If your brave, a Neumann 87 kicks butt In this role.

Snare- 57 close. Lots of people use audix i6, but I like the 57 much better in this role.

Guitar- close mic Sm57 or sennheisser 906. The 609 really isn't the same quality level of the other two, and I think isn't a good choice. Imo.

Bass- sm57, AKG d112, or sennheisser kick mic, or md421.

I'd also split the guitar signal, so I can take a DI clean into the daw. This is for both creative and technical reasons.
ditto for DI on the bass, which most amps offer.

Bleed is subjective, and really only good as long as the room is good, or interesting. Close mics aren't gonna pick up much bleed, that said I'll usually toss a blanket over the amp, just to get a clean signal to the mic. And bleed Into an amps close mic is going to be out of phase, and not pleasent. This still allows the guitarist to hear and feel his own amp.

I also toss a blanket over the kick/mic, since this is another area where bleed isn't usually good, or necessary.

With this configuration there's not a big reason to use baffles around the kit, and often there's some cool sounds that develop within the room. When it comes to mix, drum replacement/reinforcement is easily accomplished with things like drumagog, so recoridng with bleed and openness isn't really a compromise.

It's a good idea to record a few kick and snare single shots, in case you need samples of the actual kit as micd. Don't wait till the end like a lot of guys would, do it in the beginning when the drums are tuned and the heads still crisp.

So that's how I do it, in general when it's a situation where the band is all in one room. It keeps track counts low, gives no compromise in flexibility for the mix, and helps capture the irreplaceable vibe of air moving in the room. It doesn't have to be technically 'good' air, 'interesting' is just as cool.

If you have the opportunity and extra mic and channel, you could also toss up a single or pair of room/ambient mics, for fun. It could be a pleasent surprise, or something that never makes the final cut, but could even be useful for momentary swells, or for effect, ala super compressed room. Or gated verb.

Cheers!

Hey guys -- thanks for your comments and thoughts. To answer some of your Q's...

• We will probably play live w/o headphones and thus probably have bass and guitar amps in the same room as the drums.
• So, yes, we will have significant bleed and do not not intend to punch in to fix any clams.
• The only thing we won't do in the initial takes is record vocals; possibly might overdub some solos too.

class="xf-ul">

I found this tutorial last year. It may be useful.

[GALLERY=media, 304]Recording Drums, Part III: Placing Room Mics - YouTube by audiokid posted Mar 24, 2015 at 12:00 PM[/GALLERY]

Man what a nice little studio. I haven't looked back since I've used the "aim mic at wall" technique. It works amazingly if you do that technique in an adjacent hallway. You adjust the reverb time by how open the door is. The more open the door the less the reverb tail. The more you close the door, the longer the reverb tail. Essentially balance the direct sound, vs ambient reflections, with the doorway.

I've gotten pretty good results with X-Y plus kick. And this was live in the sense of live on stage with an audience, amps at performance volume and no goboes.

You could go without isolation but that takes away a lot of options. Sometimes committing up front is good, but I tend to like options. I would tent the guitar amp, go direct with the bass and use headphones.

How about the nature of the rental house, and the room you see yourself setting up in?
Have you been there before, are you familiar with its sonic qualities?
And what interface, or digital mixer, do you have to work with as your front-end?
What's your goal? (A retail-ready album? A good demo? Doing it just for the fun of it?)

Clever acoustic mic techniques for drums sound great in an excellent sounding room, with the other players in a different room. If you use these acoustic techniques in the room with the guitars, then lack of separation will wreck it. So you have drums, bass and guitar and 8 tracks max to record. Do you have to waste 3 on vocals, or are all for D,B and G? With 5 channels for the drums - kick snare O/H with a couple for toms. With limited channels, my preference is not to have stereo OHs.

dvdhawk, post: 439170, member: 36047 wrote: How about the nature of the rental house, and the room you see yourself setting up in?
Have you been there before, are you familiar with its sonic qualities?

Those are excellent questions, and the answers will probably determine the best approach more than any other factors.

Lots of records - particularly from a few of the bands you mentioned - were done using 8 tracks or less.

You may want to consider trying the Glyn Johns drum mic technique...

Still haven't gotten around to trying this technique going to have to use it sometime. Although it was news to me about opening up the mic 10 DB more and pulling the Fader down. Very interesting. I wonder if this applies to both digital and analog.

If you ask me :

1. BD
2. SN
3. OV
4. OV
5. Bass
6. Guitar
7. Second mic on guitar cab or acoustic or bac vocal
8. Lead Vocal
   class="xf-ul">
   For the overhead, it's tricky since the bleeding will be high. I'd use space pair or x/y
   If you could have GOBOs or a couch to have a bit of seperation between players, it migh help.

   Another option is to close mic the drum and record it through a Group bus on a mixer

1 mic.

Yup, the mic should be first and foremost, ears to the capture. Pretty simple when you think about that.

Good post Kurt.

If the room is pretty live gobos won't really help much. Every instrument will still get into every mic. Gobos in a dead room would work fairly well on non-bass stuff.

The best option is what I mentioned above, tent the guitar amp, run bass direct and use headphones. If you're not going to use headphones just remember that if the drummer can hear the guitar clearly so can the overheads.

Here's an example of a tented amp that I've recently recorded. There's an AC30 in there set to normal stage volume and yet it's almost inaudible in the overhead mics. I'll try to post samples of this exact setup. The bass rig is off and he's going direct.

A mics null point(s) are just as important as what is facing. A tight patterned mic like a 441, or even regular cardiod like a 57 does wonders reducing off axis gunk.

bouldersound, post: 439502, member: 38959 wrote: Here's an example of a tented amp that I've recently recorded. There's an AC30 in there set to normal stage volume and yet it's almost inaudible in the overhead mics. I'll try to post samples of this exact setup. The bass rig is off and he's going direct.

[MEDIA=soundcloud]bouldersoundguy/overhead-bleed-sample

heres one from my old bands demo.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aardynbabhk8c71/brother.wav?dl=0

.wav (16/44.1) might take a min to load

Recorded live in an unfinished basement, to Tascam 34 reel to reel. Vocals overdubbed in the basement w a 57, into the art. We surrounded the drummer with aurelex pamels glued to pegboard which i made. Ditto for vocals.

We used a nady kick mic, 57 on snare, 414 oh. Kick and oh thru an art pro vla. All thru mackie Vlz mixer. Drums sub mixed (thru mackie) to 1 track, guitar track 2, bass 3. 57 on guitar (jcm 900). Bass (ampeg Svt 3 pro) micd w at 3035. Crappy bass due to my crappy playing and tone.

Among the problems with this recording, bleed isn't one of them. IMHO anyway. Setup was guitar off to the side like in boulders pic, bass on other side of kit.

We mixed in DP7 at the studio. No other overdubs on this one.

I love those old studio photos of The Wrecking Crew (y)

Not only was there a lot of bleed, but there was also live monitoring, too ( the two speakers in the background, notice the lack of headphones on the musicians).

I think it's safe to say that they managed to make it all work pretty well for the Pet Sounds album. ;).

DonnyThompson, post: 439620, member: 46114 wrote: Not only was there a lot of bleed, but there was also live monitoring, too ( the two speakers in the background, notice the lack of headphones on the musicians).

I think it's safe to say that they managed to make it all work pretty well for the Pet Sounds album. ;).

I think it added to the sonic character of the music...today we are so obsessed with eliminating things like bleed, too busy snapping tracks to a grid and EQ'ing the death out of tracks that IMO it all adds up to create a sterility and artificialness to the music which then loses its spontaneity, feel and nuance.

We have become spoilt with the choice to fix this and that, making everything perfect that it sometimes loses the human touch and feel.

Don't get me wrong, I love the ability technology has given us to be able to correct little things, but when its taken to the extreme with every note of every track then I feel the line becomes blurred between where the musician stops and the computer programmer takes over.

I remember my first recordings were done with a small Yamaha mixer from the 70's into a National 1/4 inch 2 - track reel to reel from the 60's. One, maybe two takes...that was it.
There were limitations to how things could be improved, you either fixed it in how you played, where the mics were placed, or balancing the tracks going in / out of the mixer.

There were limitations...it made you play better...the songs had swing and groove because everything was tracked live...we were happy with how it sounded and when it was done it was done.

Now there is this infinate ability to keep on fixing and changing and overdubbing that sometimes its hard to say thats it...done.

i have to agree with Sean on this one .... too much engineering "look what i can do" happening now days. the biz has been over run with control freaks.

DonnyThompson, post: 439620, member: 46114 wrote: Not only was there a lot of bleed, but there was also live monitoring, too ( the two speakers in the background, notice the lack of headphones on the musicians).

I think it's safe to say that they managed to make it all work pretty well for the Pet Sounds album. ;).

such a cool picture Donny. that looks like Western ..... THAT'S how to record!

in that pic, i believe they are laying a rhythm track. i know they did use HPs when they over dubbed. lots of video evidence for that. the A1's there were used for playback and talk back to the musicians. as for bleed, they were most likely recording to one track (they had 8) so no one cared about bleed. isolating tracks only came along when we started working on 16 tracks.

Sean G, post: 439621, member: 49362 wrote: I think it added to the sonic character of the music...today we are so obsessed with eliminating things like bleed, too busy snapping tracks to a grid and EQ'ing the death out of tracks that IMO it all adds up to create a sterility and artificialness to the music which then loses its spontaneity, feel and nuance.

If you're using close mics you're already way down the road of artificiality. My objection to bleed is more practical than aesthetic. If I were recording that level of musician it would up to them to get it right, and then the bleed just needs to be manged properly. But if there's a chance someone might need to retake something isolation becomes a requirement. Also, if the room doesn't sound that great there's no point letting too much of it into the mics. Heck, if the band really had it together and the room was awesome I'd just use an X-Y to capture it.

i have to ask, if the band isn't up to snuff and the room sounds like shit, why are we recording it?

Sean G, post: 439621, member: 49362 wrote: Now there is this infinate ability to keep on fixing and changing and overdubbing that sometimes its hard to say thats it...done.

Having technical limitations had its benefits... the first was that, in knowing that you couldn't slice, dice and julienne the piss out of audio files like we can now, meant that the performances counted more. It took talent to be able to record full takes; whereas these days, as has been made painfully obvious in the past few years - anyone with an "image" can record a song, the engineer can correct each and every bad note or phrasing faux pas, and all the human elements of a performance can be removed - every breath, every voice break, every accident that in the end turned out to be cool...

It also took doing the recordings correctly - proper miking, gain staging, adjusting on the fly,

That's not to say that there weren't plenty of no-talent hacks back in the golden days of studios; I recorded and mixed plenty of those 'artists" - if they had the money, I'd roll tape. But, there was far less studio trickery for the performer to hide behind in those days; even the best engineers and producers with the best gear could only do so much, and this did help a bit to narrow the field of those who were investing the money it took to have a professional recording done, weeding out the serious artists from the no-talent wannabees... Unless you were filthy rich, you had to be pretty confident in your own ability as a musician to drop the $100 an hour (minimum) that it took to make a professional recording.

In this day and age, with all the tools we now have available to us, pretty much anyone can be made to sound at least halfway presentable to the average listener, and with more than enough hack "studios" out there charging $8 per hour, there's the ultimate result of acts that sound exactly like that's what they paid.

Just blue-skying here, but...

Wouldn't it be good to take that early gear you first used, coupled with what you know now of the recording process, and see what could be achieved with it?

It could be called the $100 Dollar Recording Challenge, with the gear used to be the same vintage / quality of the gear you first used and no more than $100 to buy if you don't already have it.

No DAWS, no plug-ins, just pure analog...I'd be up for it

Kurt Foster, post: 439637, member: 7836 wrote: i have to ask, if the band isn't up to snuff and the room sounds like $*^t, why are we recording it?

Because I want to and because the best music doesn't always come from the best musicians. "Best" of course is highly subjective.

bouldersound, post: 439652, member: 38959 wrote: Because I want to and because the best music doesn't always come from the best musicians. "Best" of course is highly subjective.

.... personally, i have never heard good music from bad players. we'll have to disagree on this one. i won't waste my time recording crappy songs with crappy players in a crappy room and then trying to fix it in the mix. i just don't see the point of it.

Kurt Foster, post: 439654, member: 7836 wrote: .... personally, i have never heard good music from bad players. we'll have to disagree on this one. i won't waste my time recording crappy songs with crappy players in a crappy room and then trying to fix it in the mix. i just don't see the point of it.

Reductio ad absurdum.

dimittit omnes deinceps Latine...;)

bouldersound, post: 439655, member: 38959 wrote: Reductio ad absurdum.

I don't think it's at all absurd to hire talented people to do a job, or to want to have the right space or the right gear to record with. I do think it's absurd to hire sub par players and then expect to get performances from them that are worth keeping.

The more talented a musician is, the higher the expectations - but then again, great musicians will be much more likely to give great performances - and in my own experience, much more frequently - than hack/wannabee players will.

Is it possible to get a decent take from less-than-good players? Yeah, I suppose it's possible, but it's not probable. The odds are way against that happening.

At that point, it pretty much comes down to luck, or coincidence, or the fact that if you do enough takes, then you're more likely to get a keeper eventually - but, you'll probably end up having to do far more takes and spend much more time than what is necessary to get that keeper track; and that's just not a gamble I'd be willing to take if I was a producer hiring session cats to do a project with the studio clock running and a deadline looming.

I've done - Gawd, I don't even know how many sessions in the last 3+ decades - and during that time, I rolled tape on plenty of sessions with inferior players, ( unfortunately, more of those sessions than the ones where a group of great musicians were playing) and I can't recall even one session in that whole time where poor players turned in great - or even good - performances.

The energy a raw band brings to the table sometimes can more than make up for their less than perfect execution.

Nowhere did I say "bad" players. I said "not the best" which includes many very good players. By interpreting what I said in the worst possible light you are reducing a reasonable statement to absurdity. I have no more patience for such childish games.

dvdhawk, post: 439659, member: 36047 wrote: The energy a raw band brings to the table sometimes can more than makes up for their less than perfect execution

I agree with Dave, that sometimes, not always, but sometimes, just capturing the raw or live energy of the room and the performance can exceed that of more talented musicians who do not bring that create energy to the table. I think even a bunch of reasonably talented musicians when locked in together can sometimes create magic, and when it does happen its electric.

There are times sure when the talent is there and thats obvious, but like I'm sure many of you have also, Iv'e played with some very talented cats over the years, and there have been a few who definitely lacked that energy. When you are playing with some very talented musicians it has an effect of making everyone step up to the plate and that can help bring that energy to the room.

The most talented guitarist I have ever played with was someone who would rather stand in a room on his own and play facing his amp in the corner...seriously...and when you put him in with a bunch of other talented musicians on par with him you'd need a set of jumper cables to get the energy flowing in him. All talent in the world and no ambition.
It had the opposite effect on many sessions and was very frustrating at times...this guy sucked the energy right out of the room instead of creating it.

Sean G, post: 439656, member: 49362 wrote: dimittit omnes deinceps Latine...;)

Lesson learned.

bouldersound, post: 439660, member: 38959 wrote: Nowhere did I say "bad" players. I said "not the best" which includes many very good players. By interpreting what I said in the worst possible light you are reducing a reasonable statement to absurdity. I have no more patience for such childish games.

i see little difference between mediocre or bad when it comes to making records. i guess i'm just spoiled. i have been lucky enough to have been exposed to some of the most talented musicians while living in the Bay Area and over time i guess i have developed an intolerance for anything less. shut my mouth. lol.

bouldersound, post: 439663, member: 38959 wrote: Lesson learned.

I wasn't having a go at you boulder, I was just making light of the fact that the thread had morphed into quoting Latin ;)

Sean G, post: 439687, member: 49362 wrote: I wasn't having a go at you boulder, I was just making light of the fact that the thread had morphed into quoting Latin ;)

It looks like you wrote "unput all ahead Latins" or "next time don't use Latin". Right, lesson learned. I'll stick with English since it is the lingua franca.