Hello,
The best way I've found to record our church's choir and band, was to use an 8 track (or 4 track in your case) recorder. You can use either tape or digital based. Then take your outputs from the mackie board and feed them into your recorder, and mix it to your liking later to 2-track tape. You can use either aux outs or the inserts as your signal sources from the Mackie. Then your live mix can be independent of your recording mix.
Paul

Thanks, Paul. I have been considering renting a digital recording device for recording the "important" events like Easter. Meantime, what I'm trying to do is experiment to see if I can get a decent mix. I like your approach - I'll have to find out how much the rental would be on such a beast, and then talk to our director...

Hi Tim,

Welcome.

The goal of recording and providing reinforcement (PA) from the same console at the same time is often a compromise. I would also recommend setting up the recording on a pair of aux sends. This way you can create a separate mix that is tailored for the recording.

From your description, it sounds like the piano's lid is closed. This can make the sound very boxy-boomy unless care is taken to locate the best spot. It's not easy to do. The quality of the microphone will affect the sound as well. It's always better to have the lid open, at least on short stick if possible.

Since the piano over-powers the choir, is there any reason to put the piano into the PA? You might try dropping it out of the PA.

Peter.

Thanks, Peter. The piano lid is open, but not very far. The mic is on a boom, with the mic positioned near the hammers - actually, that might be a lie... I'll have to check. Probably somewhere back of the hammers, towards the middle of the sound board, but I'll check. Can someone please explain to me what is meant by "short stick" and "long stick"? Not clear on that - does it describe the mic stand/boom?

I'll examine the board today to see if I can discover alternatives for hooking up the recording device. I just downloaded the owner's manual, so I'll be studying that for tips. I'll let you know how it goes...

Thanks,

Short stick and long stick describes the device inside of the piano that holds the lid up at two different heights. It's actually a piece of wood, hence the term "stick".

In many cases, it's one smaller piece of wood nested inside the other, with a little hinge to let you select either height; the short stick for keeping the lid barely open, and the longer/bigger stick for the full open lid. The lid itself may have a second divot as well, allowing for a third (or fourth) height adjustment, but generally, there are two; commonly reffered to as "short stick" and "long stick'.

Short stick is often used for smaller, quieter sound, and/orwhen the pianist is accompanying a soloist, etc.

Long stick gives the most sound, usually for solo recitals, and "piano vs. orchestra" contests. :twisted:

.

JoeH wrote: In many cases, it's one smaller piece of wood nested inside the other, with a little hinge to let you select either height; the short stick for keeping the lid barely open, and the longer/bigger stick for the full open lid.

There is sometimes even a "tiny" stick, even smaller than short stick, for just cracking the lid.

I seem to remember seeing a video where the GOD of piano, Sjatoslav Richter, was playing chamber music with some friends, Leonard Kagan etc and came up to the piano, pushed the short or tiny stick outside the boundary of the instrument and hung his jacket on it.

The lid itself may have a second divot as well, allowing for a third (or fourth) height adjustment, but generally, there are two; commonly reffered to as "short stick" and "long stick'.

Each indentation in the lid is only ever intended for use with one stick, the outer indentation is for the short stick ONLY and the one 9 inches or so in is for the long stick. The reason is that when the stick is placed into the correct slot, the supporting stick is perfectly perpendicular to the lid, and hence there is zero force sideways on the stick, ie the stick is taking pure compression, no sideways force to slide the stick out causing a catastrophe.

I smile, when I see engineers setting up a piano and putting the stick in the wrong hole. This is a misunderstanding of basic physics. I notice Yamaha, Steinway, and Kawai now have to put deep slots in the lids so that some legal case cannot be brought against them when ignorance reigns. But the older instruments had a beautiful little spherical surface into which the curved surface of the stick would sit perfectly.

Mix magazine once had a cover shot of some 10 bazillion dollar studio, wood parquetry floor and the obligatory grand piano with the lid up on full stick in the outermost hole. Made me smile.

Btw., Tim; Welcome to the world of recording "Acoustic" Music. You have good instincts and good intentions, I think you'll do fine.

You're halfway there to making some listenable recordings, and you have the right mindset; you're inquisitive and keep trying to get it better each time out. (Regular Sunday services sure help that too! You have a new chance each week to go at it again.)

You didn't say what model of the Mackie you have, but I'm guessing it's at least a 1402 or 1604...something with more than four mic pre's? All of them have insert jacks for each channel (and we'll get to them in a bit.)

For the sake of time and space, let's avoid the analog tape deck (fine in their day, and I remember them well - cut my teeth on them, actually but) since you said you may want to make a CD someday. That means you're going to get into the digital domain sooner or later.

You have three ways to go about this:

1. Mix via the aux outs to CDr (You can get a stand-alone CD recorder for about $500 USD these days, and then you can simply rip the tracks right into your computer for editing.)

2. Use the insert jacks from each channel of the board to send to a laptop computer with an interface to capture everything on digital multitrack and mix it all later. Sounds like you can probably squeeze it all into 8 tracks comfortably.

3. Pick up a new or used multitrack digital recorder; a Tascam DA-38 (digital tape) comes to mind, or even a Mackie HD (hard disc) recorder, or Fostex, or Tascam. These get pricey though, and you'll probably still end up mixing in a computer anyway - after you've transferred your tracks.

But to start at the beginning: If your live mixes sound good to everyone, then they ARE good. Leave 'em alone (or keep your tweaks at a minimum). Remember that mixing "Live" (right next to, or as a part of) the sound will be almost "Mix-minus". You are using the PA system to reinforce the weak stuff; the "Natural" sound carries just fine on its own. Your audience is hearing that sound blended naturally. (Hopefully, your sound company has done a good job of blending natural and amplified sound.)

So if you just use the board mix to make a recording.....you can more than imagine what you're getting: just the amplified stuff. SO, DO NOT go nuts trying to just mix for the recording. That's counter productive, and if I were the music director, I'd have to come over there and smack you (gently) upside the head for messing up their live sound at the expense of your recording. :lol:

There are a few ways around this.

One is to use the Aux sends to do an entirely independent mix. (Dunno which Mackie you have, but most of them assign Aux 1 to Pre-Fader. Don't want that! Find out which ones are post fader. (probably Aux sends 3 & 4 are post-fader on your Mackie if you have that many) Remember, you need 2 sends; make them L&R assigned. For Mono or center imaging, you'll want to have both sends per channel set at the same levels. You will probably be post-EQ with this, so be aware of that as well.

Another way is to use the sub outs, (if you have a 4 bus board like the 1604, etc. which will definitely be post-EQ) but the only way
to turn off/on a channel is the latching switch near each fader. Your mix will be the same as the house, but if you need to take something out of the sub mix entirely, these switches will do that.
I use the sub outs for CDr mixes when I want to shadow the main mix, and see/hear what I've done live.

The "sub outs mix" have another use: You can use more inputs than you need for the live mix; perhaps hang or place two mics out in the sanctuary to capture "Live" amdient sound, audience, er..."congregation" response, sing-alongs, etc. and if your mixer has enough input channels, you can bring these mics back into the mixer. Assign the mic's ONLY to the sub outs you're recording with, but NOT the main outputs. (That way, the ambient mics are going to your recording, but NOT out to the house/sanctuary.)

But the main way to go, assuming you can find the $$ for an interface (and maybe use an existing laptop from somewhere?) is the direct outs for each channel. The Mackie manual (available online, if you can't find yours) should describe this in detail. Macke suggests a "half-insert" for the insert jacks, letting you take signal out, without interrupting the signal. I have never trusted this to work perfectly every time, so I came up with an alternative.

Radio Shack sells a great adapter (#274-365 in their catalog). It's a stereo-to-mono adapter - a 1/4" male plug that comes out to a MONO, Female RCA jack. You can insert these ALL the way into the "insert" jacks on each channel, and voila; no interruptions of your signal path, but a perfect place to take a pick-off for the signal to send to your recorder. (Note: We're not talking stereo here, it's actually using the tip/ring as the send/return. The "Mono" adapter part just automatically re-links the send/return functions so there's no interrupt at the insert point on the jack) It's still mono, remember, and it's ALSO unbalanced. (Keep your runs short, and away from trasnformers, light dimmers, etc. - you COULD add noise here.)

So, this way, you can now mix independently (and after the fact) via your multitrack recorder - a laptop, stand-alone MDM, or whatever.

You mentioned a pair of cheap mics that didn't sound good. Who knows? For now, they may sound OK when used with a spare pair of channels in the Mackie, and MAYBE you could use them as ambient mics (as described above) out in the sanctuary.

Hope that makes some sense and gets you started. Feel free to email me privately if you've got more questions on this method (esp with the Mackie), or post more here.

Good luck making the Easter recording, too!

Wow! Joe & David, thanks for taking the time to reply, and for being so detailed, as well. One thing... I never suspected how much there was to learn with this stuff!

A bit about me: I'm 49, been doing the 'church guitarist' thing pretty much all my life (since 13), and I'm starting to get into music and recording a bit more seriously now. I've got Cubase SL 2 on my computer at home (along with an interface called Steinberg MI4), so I've been using that to re-record the analog tape into the computer and master it. With the Christmas recording I had to do a LOT of EQ and compression in order to make it listenable, and I'm hoping to avoid that with the Easter recording.

Yes, we have the Mackie 1402, and as I said, I now have the owner's manual, so I'll be able to learn a lot more about it. I didn't bring my TEAC to church today, but I was regretting it, because I made some changes to the levels (brought down the inst. levels and brought up the voices, then upped the master), and from what I could hear, the mix was much better, so I wish I had some tape to verify. Oh well... next week.

Yes, the piano is short-stick (thanks for the explanation), mainly because the director likes to use the piano for shelf space (!). Also, I think if the lid was open more, the pianist might have trouble seeing the director. I'll check on that, and ask if we can try long-stick one or two weeks. See how it sounds.

I'm definitely gonna have to investigate what it would cost to rent a multitrack recorder. Sounds like using the aux outs is the way to go... then I can mix it in the digital domain, and produce the best recording possible. That would be fantastic - I'd really impress "the folks at home". I'll check on the budget. We spent (I'm told) about $10,000 on the sound system a few years ago... I bet we could scrape together a few hundred now...

I've discovered I can rent a Fostex VF160EX for a week for about $60, so that's what I'm planning to do for Easter - I'll pick it up on, for instance, Tuesday before Easter, which will not only give me time to become familiar with it, but I'll also be able to make recordings on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Saturday night (Easter Vigil) and Easter Sunday, which should give me LOTS of material to go onto a CD for the parish. I'll hook up the aux sends on the Mackie into the inputs in the Fostex, so I'll be able to mix it after-the-fact for the best mix. This sounds like a plan! (finally!)

Tim, I hope you mean the direct outs for this (or maybe a combination of both?)

If you've got 6 mics going into the 1402, then by all means use the direct outs with the insert-to-RCA patch point. For anything going into the four stereo line inputs (channels 7-8, 9-10, 11-12, 13-14) you can do aux-send submixes. (You'll probably need about $25-30 worth of adapters and cables, but then you're DONE with it, you'll be able to use 'em all the time.)

I don't know much about that machine its abilities, but it sure sounds like you're off to a good start. Even if you have to mix within the box itself (or if you're able to transfer it to a real workstation/DAW), you'll still get much better results than trying to do it on the fly the old way.

Good luck with all this, and please keep us informed on your progress.

JoeH wrote: ...(or if you're able to transfer it to a real workstation/DAW)...

Not sure if it's a "real" DAW (I'm sure most here would not call it that...) but I do have Cubase SL2 on my home computer (purchased as Cubase System 4, with the Steinberg MI4 audio interface), so I do at least have a rudimentary DAW for mastering...

JoeH wrote: Tim, I hope you mean the direct outs for this (or maybe a combination of both?)

Yes, of course I meant the direct outs. I'm still studying the owner's manual for the Mackie, and still learning about it. Last evening, from what I was reading, I was worried it didn't actually HAVE direct-outs like this, but of course upon review this morning, I now realize it does, and I'm beginning to get an idea of how to hook this up. This should be good!

We have 5 mics going into the Mackie on channels 1-5, all of which are using balanced inputs. Channel 6 is my guitar, which is a Takamine with saddle pickup, so I'm plugged in directly also. The VF-160EX has 8 1/4" inputs, so this will definitely do the trick. I'll just need 6 regular low-noise cables with 1/4" phone jacks to make the connections. Shouldn't cost too much. The other nice thing I'm pleased to learn is that the direct outs on the Mackie are post trim and low-cut, but pre-fader, so I don't have to worry about modifying the live mix for the recording - I'll be able to mix later and have the best of both worlds. Can't wait to try it!

Sounds like you're moving quickly, there, Tim! The only thing I'd add would be some ambient mics, but I think you're out of usuable inputs with the Tascam...? EVen so, you may only be able to record up to 8 tracks at a time anyway, so you're fine for now.

Make recordings, work on the mixes, and see where it leads you. You're gonna get hooked on this, I can tell... 8-)

JoeH wrote: You're gonna get hooked on this, I can tell...

Oops... too late! I bought the Cubase System 4 just about a month ago or so, and I can't leave it alone. Since then I've also acquired a copy of Reason 2.5. I'm recording music at home, plus working on the Church Choir project. Just wait till I start collecting sample CD's and mic's and other gear... my wife is gonna be pi$$ed when she realizes just how expensive this new hobby will be... :wink: but hopefully I can make it self-financing... :D

I've always had a "dream" of being able to record my own stuff, but never dreamed how affordable it could be. Of course, the entry level is just the beginning... and you're right, once you get a taste, it's hard to keep the brakes on...

That's geat, Tim!

I hope your wife understands this is a very healthy addicti.....er....HOBBY/lifestyle for you, and you'll stay out of trouble in other aspects of life by spending all your free (non-spousal) time lugging mics and gear around, editing recordings, designing CD labels, editing still MORE recordings, and then doing it all over again for the next job. And, you can do 50% of this right there at home! (Sure beats hanging out at the go-go bars, or racking up gambling debts! ;-)

I had a funny thought: There could be a lot of folks out there complaining that they've had trouble with their spouses over someone they met "on the internet." In our cases, this puts a whole new spin on things. Heheheh :twisted:

(don't anyone tell him about Samplitude yet, ok? Shhhhhhhh....)

JoeH wrote: (don't anyone tell him about Samplitude yet, ok? Shhhhhhhh....)

You bugger! You obviously knew I wore bifocals... :roll:

Again, too late. Anyway, my shopping list is set for the next while...

1. A 120-gig hard drive
2. A decent mic for recording vocals/accoustic guitar
3. A decent pair of studio monitors
4. A MIDI keyboard to use as a controller
5. Reason 3.0
6. A really good orchestral sample disk set, like GPO...

by then, I might start to feel the need for a serious upgrade... :!:

Well, now I'm starting to get excited. I'll be picking up the rental multitrack this evening - a Fostex VF160 (16 track, 8 inputs). This will allow me to begin refining my technique this Sunday, so I can make any adjustments I need to before the "big event" later next week. Last night at practice I set the levels on the Mackie, and the choir sounded awesome.

A short description of our sound setup:

A Mackie 1402 board

3 "button-type" condenser mics hanging above the choir - one in front (micing the sopranos), one in the middle (alto/tenor) and one in the back (basses). Not really sure just how to describe these mics, except to say that they are small and round, about the size of a walnut, and they run on phantom power off the Mackie

Condenser mic on the (baby grand) piano (short-stick)

Condensor mic for the announcer/cantor (this will also be picking up some ambience, which I may mix in or leave out, depending...

My guitar (Takamine accoustic-electric), plugged into the Mackie

Not an ideal setup, to be sure, but the best I've got. I'll be connecting channels 1-6 from the mackie outs into the Fostex multitrack. That way I'll be getting each channel individually, and I can mix later on my PC (using Cubase).

I'll be recording each mass we do, starting this Sunday, and we're doing Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Vigil (Saturday) and Easter Sunday morning. Out of all that, I'm certain to get enough good material for a CD we can sell to the congregation (yes, we'll be buying mechanical licenses for all copyrighted work).

So I'll have the multitrack for 10 days, and I should be able to get used to it fairly quickly, I hope. The final product won't be nearly up to the standards most of you apply, but it'll be light-years ahead of my previous efforts, so this is exciting!

Sounds GREAT, Tim; you're going to have a lot of fun with this.

Keep us posted on how it all works out, and enjoy!

Thanks, Joe, I will. Even better, I am within probably about 2 weeks of buying my first "proper" vocal mic! Currently considering Studio Projects B3 or Apex 460 (both in the $250-$275 CDN price range)...

Did my trial run this morning, and it went off pretty much without a hitch. Everything did what I expected it to do, and I did manage to get the sounds I was expecting.

Of course, after lunch I spent about 3 hours transferring the tracks to my computer! Everything is recorded on the Fostex on 6 tracks, but of course the only OUTPUTS on the thing are the stereo-outs (yes, there is SP/DIF, but I don't think that'll help me). So I can only transfer 2 channels at a time, which means I have to re-record each song onto my computer 3 times. Not a huge deal, but it means I'm gonna be REAL busy Easter Sunday night (after the company goes home), because the unit goes back to the shop on Monday. ...

On the bright side, I can already tell that I'll eventually be able to mix this up into something nice, although that's also not going to be nearly as easy as I had thought... I'm sure I have many hours of mixing ahead of me, trying to bring out the good sounds while not emphasizing the unhappy ones. OTOH, I think most of the songs will need the same sort of things, like EQ on the piano, and maybe a bit of compression here and there (nice that I can do this kind of thing on each individual channel, rather than trying to EQ the whole mix at once), so once I get "into the groove" with the first few tunes, the rest may not take all that long, but we'll see.

Bottom line, I think this is going to go very well, and will certainly outshine my Christmas effort completely! :D

it seems to me that if you are getting a good response from the crowd and bad response from the recording, then try just recording with a stereo mic arrangement set somewhere in the church. Your could try many different types of stereo techniques, but i would try the M-S micing technique which involves a cardiod and a bi-directional mic positioned withe the bi-direction pointing to the left and the cardiod pointing straight ahead. when sending the signals to the mixers allow two channels for the bi-directional and pan them left and right respectively and invert the phase of the right channel, and have the cardiod centered...this will allow you to adjust the spectrum of the recording to as wide as you want and give a nice live sound. You might have to tweak the volumes of the instruments playing live to get a good sound, but if it sounds good in the church, the mics (depending on how good they are) should give you an accurate recording of what people are hearing live.
I could be wrong here, but its just a suggestion...

I'm not speaking for Tim, but I think this all began as a way to do better recordings off the board he's already using for live sound reinforcment.

He started out with the same mix as what feeds the house, and wondered what to do to get better results. We collaboratively suggested using a multitrack, fed by direct outs from his Mackie 1402 VLZ mixer, independent of the mix in the Santuary. He's going to mix it all later after transferring the tracks out of his rented multitracker into his DAW.

I don't know if he's got enough spare channels (at this point in time) in either the mixer or the multitracker to pull off an M-S recording in addition to what he's got right now.

It does sound like a good idea at some point, but I suspect Tim has his hands full at the moment tweaking & tinkering with the tracks he's gotten so far. One thing at a time, eh? 8-)

Of course, Tim can decide for himself...something tells me he's HOOKED on this now, and there's no turning back for him....hehehe...... :twisted:

JoeH wrote:
I don't know if he's got enough spare channels (at this point in time) in either the mixer or the multitracker to pull off an M-S recording in addition to what he's got right now.

It does sound like a good idea at some point, but I suspect Tim has his hands full at the moment tweaking & tinkering with the tracks he's gotten so far. One thing at a time, eh? 8-)

That's exactly right, Joe... one thing at a time. I do have two spare inputs on the Fostex that I could plug extra mics into, but at this point I'm reluctant to add anything else that'll just add work for me, not to mention cost to the project (we'd have to rent the extra mics and stands). Plus, I have no idea if I could logistically work things out in terms of mic placement. I'm completely out of time for experimentation at this point. I know that I can get a decent recording with the equipment and techniques I've got so far. I also know I can make it better in the future. I'm thinking if we do make money on the CD, we can re-invest some of that in gear. We'll see...

A few additional notes/impressions on this process I'm involved in, just in case anyone's interested (no big surprise if I end up talking to myself...):

1. One of my objectives with this is to obtain the recordings in as unobtrusive a manner as possible - no noticable intrusions into the service. To that end, I'm really pleased with this setup, because a casual observer in the congregation would not notice any difference from the usual - there are no mic towers or anything in the way, and nobody taking up pew space with sound equipment. No doubt we'd get a much better result, technically, if we went that route, but I bet we'd have some trouble getting approval from the pastor for that sort of thing. The other way to go would be to do the recording separately... have separate sessions during "off hours" specifically to get the best possible recordings. That is also not really an option, as the members all have lives and obligations, and such an enterprise would no doubt require many extra practice sessions and several recording sessions which would take a long time. Since we're not going after a commercial product here, that would really be over-the-top at this point.

2. Given that I am performing a dual function here (guitarist and recordist), the current setup is pretty much all that I can manage without having to show up an hour early to set up. My wife and daughter are both in the choir, and getting the daughter out of the house on time on a Sunday morning (she's 21) is a major undertaking as it is. I just had enough time yesterday to set up the multitrack, connect the cables, tune my guitar, get my music set up, check the initial levels (mostly by guesswork, since there was no time to run a sound check, and I didn't have headphones either) and compose myself for the start of Mass. Luckily there were no snags. I'd have been completely sunk if there had been. The extra trouble of setting up a pair of ambience mics would have been completely out of the question, especially given that I would be completely guessing about placement and configuration.

3. Using an extra pair of ambience mics would also add to my post-production efforts, since I would then additionally have to worry about extra noise from the congregation, who could not be expected to remain silent. So the extra trouble would probably not be worth it in the long run.

4. Luckily for me, I was able to find a place for the multitrack right beside me on the left, which makes it easy for me to watch while playing, as well as start and stop it at the right times without distracting me too much from my main (guitarist) function. We also have a flutist, who sits to my left, so it was far from certain I'd be able to put it there, but it worked out. Also, we have a mic on a stand for the cantor, which is in front of the choir adjacent to the flutist, so this mic also picks up the flute, which is not otherwise mic'ed directly. It gets a bit challenging when we're doing something where the cantor is leading, such as a psalm, but in this case I can transfer that channel twice to the computer... one channel where I'll set the level to emphasize the cantor at the expense of the flute, and the other where I'll trim out the cantor and let the flute come through.

5. Doing the transfer to the computer is an interesting challenge, given that I'm transferring 6 channels 2 at a time. This introduces the extra challenge of keeping everything in sync. I've been able, so far, to do pretty well with this... for each song, I choose a point on the counter to start recording in Cubase, so for each pass, I watch the counter and click the mouse at the right time. However, I just know there's going to be some tweaking necessary to make sure all the tracks are properly aligned. I'll have to remind myself to make sure this is done BEFORE I start doing any trimming in the tracks, so I only have to do it ONCE...

6. My ear must also be improving, because even during the transfers yesterday, I could hear delay between some of the sources. For instance, the piano is picked up by the mic inside it, but also by the mic over the front row of the choir. For another instance, when the cantor is speaking/singing, she gets picked up first by the mic she's singing into, then by the mic over the front row of the choir, and additionally by the mics further back. It sure is lucky I can trim out the "extra" sounds from the other mics, otherwise I doubt there'd be any way to proceed. Of course, before I do any serious trimming, I will make sure there isn't something there that I WANT...

Anyway, all in all it's an interesting gig...

Oh, and MANY thanks to JoeH for his help and encouragement, and for pointing me in the right direction on this project. I feel like I should give him a credit on the CD!

Thanks for the kind words, Tim! I'm always glad to help out any way I can, and I've been in your spot before. (If we lived closer to each other, I might have been able to help more, but it sounds like you're well on your way, anyway.)

I'm curious how you're transferring tracks into your computer. (what does your multitracker put out? SP/DIF? ADAT?)

I might make one suggestion regarding your recording method. If you have enough hard disc space, let it record for the whole time, instead of starting and stopping. It can distract you needlessly, (while you're concentrating on performing), and it's just that many more times you have to start and stop it. Also, you never know what you might miss while it's off.

Assuming your church service is an hour to an hour and half, you shouldn't need too much more than about 7 gigs of HD space for the track count you describe, and after they're all transferred, you can just wipe the HD for your next session. (Ditto for transferring you tracks: set it up to just play back for the whole performance. You can go have lunch or something productive while it's all going into your computer, even with just 2 tracks at a time.)

I realize you're returning it after this Easter service, but give it some though, esp if you have enough HD space. I start my recorders a few minutes for the scheduled downbeat, and I let it roll long past the final applause at intermission or the finale. (In your church's case, that would probably be the recessional. :wink: )

JoeH wrote: (If we lived closer to each other, I might have been able to help more, but it sounds like you're well on your way, anyway.)

I'm curious how you're transferring tracks into your computer. (what does your multitracker put out? SP/DIF? ADAT?)

Interestingly, I used to live in Yardley, PA.

Anyway, I'm doing the transfer using the L/R outputs. Basically an analog mixdown, two tracks at a time. I pan each of the two tracks being transferred hard L/R for separation before the transfer.

I do have the option of using S/PDIF, but I don't have a cable. Would that method let me transfer all 6 channels at once? That would certainly be an improvement.

As for recording the whole session at once (and transferring it again that way), I don't like that option - that would represent a LOT more editing later on, and re-exporting to separate the songs from the chaff. The Fostex does have plenty of disk space, but I think it's more efficient locating and transferring each song, and recording only the songs means I don't then have to listen to 20 min of in-between to find the beginning. My preference, but I do hear you about being careful not to miss anything.

I've taken Monday off, so I'll have some time to transfer the music from the multitrack before it has to go back, and I won't find myself working into the night on Easter Sunday just to accomplish that (phew!). I went out last night and bought a new 80Gig hard drive for my computer so I can be sure I won't run out of space (only had 40Gig before, and mostly maxed).

Anyway, if you can fill me in on S/PDIF, I'd be grateful...

[Edit]: My media interface is the Steinberg MI4, which has coax S/PDIF in-out, so I think I'd only be able to get 2-channel input with that, which would make it no better than the line-in I'm using now (except it would be digital). I'd still have to transfer only two channels at a time. If using S/PDIF in, would it then be easier to get the tracks in sync? For each pair of channels I'm transferring, I have to time the start so that I get it "close", and then tweak it to line the pair up with the others. It would be great if a digital transfer could spare me that...

Hi Tim,
we are all following your project and hope everything works out. You are on a very good start. And I´ve been there myself.

No, S/PDIF is strictly stereo, only two channels. You earn a bit of less noise and so, not having to first DA and then AD the signal. Might be only a small difference though, but if all you are missing is the cable, I would go for it.

Gunnar Hellquist

Actually, although I have to confirm this for sure, I think the Fostex digital-out will not be compatible with the MI4 digital in, as the Fostex only has an Optical connector, and the MI4 only has the Coax connector. I'll have to confirm that tonight, tho...

Still, using the analog connections is a WHOLE lot better than what I had before, given that all media are now digital...

Hi Tim!

If you spend too much time here I'll tell the boys over at Cubase.net :wink:

Cheers
Dave

Dave! You found me! Actually, it was someone there who sent me here in search of enlightenment. Since then, I've also found prosoundweb and others. Help, make it stop... :lol:

Okay, this is REALLY starting to get exciting now.

The other day I started doing a mix from one of the songs I recorded in church last Sunday. I wanted to be able to put it on a CD as a sample for our director. I've only spent a few hours working on it, but...

WOW!! This evening I exported it and burned it to CD, and listening on the stereo, I am REALLY, REALLY pleased with it so far! Yes, there are still LOTS of things I need to do with it... the mixing process is really only begun, but it already sounds amazingly good, especially compared with what I did at Christmas.

One thing about it... I was wondering whether this mix would exhibit a tendency of my work so far to be very soft. I have learned a few things about mixing and mastering, and the proof was listening to this mix... it's got volume! Now, realize that it is in NO WAY squashed or brick-walled - I just viewed the resulting waveform in GoldWave to be sure. But my reaction on listening to it was that I might want to back off on the RMS a bit, and see if I can get it to sound better... more dynamic range. I have not used much compression at all - only on a couple of the individual channels and none at all on the mix track, but I was riding the faders a bit. I think I might just try a quieter mix and see how that sounds. Maybe also back off a bit on the EQ.

This is FUN!! Off shortly to do another mass, and record it, of course...

I´m really sorry to break it to you, but you are now stuck. From your postings you exhibit every sign of an addicted recorder. This can never end in any good place.

Gunnar.

PS: Love your story. Been there myself. I´m addicted.

There IS that wonderful moment, when you first begin playing with the tracks you've just recorded, panning them in the stereo field, setting levels, adjusting ins and outs.....a little EQ here, a little room sim there....it's SOoooooo much fun. 8-)

Of course, NONE of us are addicted and we can stop any time we want to, right?

RIGHT?!??!? :lol: :twisted:

Okay, well... I spent all morning transferring music to my computer from the mass last night (it seems to take me about 3 hours to transfer each mass, which consists of about 40 min of music). Then, of course, Good Friday service at 3. Just got home about half an hour ago, I'm planning to transfer that music after supper, so I'll at least have tomorrow pretty much free. We're doing another mass tomorrow night, of course (Easter Vigil), and also 10:00 am Easter Sunday. Phew!

I've taken Monday off work so I'll have some time to transfer the music to computer before I have to return the multitrack (which goes back Monday). That way I won't have to be transferring tracks at midnight or 1:00 am Easter Sunday after the guests have gone home. Again... "Phew", I say!

I'm starting to get an inkling of just how massive this project really is. So far, everything's going pretty much like clockwork, although of course, since I'm doing everything myself, I know there are some clipped transients in many of the songs. Hope most of them won't be too apparent to unpracticed ears.

JoeH wrote: There IS that wonderful moment, when you first begin playing with the tracks you've just recorded, panning them in the stereo field, setting levels, adjusting ins and outs.....a little EQ here, a little room sim there....it's SOoooooo much fun.

Yeah, I'm starting to get a sense of that. I think for the most part, that moment will come in the next week or two, as I begin to mix and tweak some of the best songs. Again, I've got FOUR masses of songs here, and of course not all of them will make it into the final product, but I'll have to go through most of it anyway, just to make possible a decision on what tracks we'll release. I'm thinking we'd actually have enough material to release another CD, or a double set, in the fall, assuming this first one does well. We'll see...

JoeH wrote: Of course, NONE of us are addicted and we can stop any time we want to, right?

Yeah, right. I sure hope so... I want to get around to recording my OWN stuff soon!

Tim; In addition to all the fun you're having, one of the "take-aways" you may find in all of this is a combination of time and data management. It will only get better for you, once you get your
own system, I assure you. You'll get faster and faster at this over time.

In the old (analog) days, everything had to be transferred & worked on in real time. (not unlike your current transfer situation). Even final mixes and dubs took the same amount of time to play them as it did to copy them; it was all real time. (Of course, nowadays you can burn a CD in under 10 minutes, and clone those even faster with a duplicator tower.)

After doing so many remotes like yours (and the resultant post-production that goes with it), many people come to find that the real work shouldn't be spent doing the minutia stuff - transfers, specifically, general engineering/housekeeping stuff, as well. It's easy to lose sight of that; that's not where the hard work should be, and until modern digital technology, that's been the bane of existance for most, including myself.

Nowadays, I try to make sure my time is spent on the two truly important pursuits: The recording itself (realtime, of course!) and the post production. I feel that any other time spent is lost time. (ok, driving to/from the remote and setup/teardown times are going to be with us pretty much forever, until they get that whole teleportation thing figured out... :-) ) I am fortunately pretty busy this time of year, so the time & data management issue is ever the more crucial for me here.

So, I've come to the point where removable/portable HDs are the way to go for capture, transfer & long term storage of all of our recordings now; the time being saved is amazing compared to not so long ago.

For example, we'll use a Firewire HD on location with a laptop (still using tape backup, at least for now.) Once the gig is over, I then take the HD back home and plug it into my workstation in the studio; no transfer time, and I'm working immediately with the actual files - sometimes as soon as the same evening, if I'm working on a deadline. (Even my second system - a Fostex 24 track, uses a hard disc recorder, and even though it's its own proprietary system, I set up the transfers back at the shop for unattended, single-pass transfers via ADAT optical - we hit "play" on the fostex and "Record" on the PC, and some time after lunch, it's all in there, ready to go.) I never wait around for it, I always plan out something else while the transfer's going on.

I then mix, edit, and finally master to several resolutions: 24 bit for DVD-A, Archives, etc., and 16 bit for CDs, soundtracks, etc., all still on the same HD as the project. Burning CDs takes no more than a few minutes, and once the HD is full, I put it away in storage (With the CDr copies, tape backups, etc.) and move on to the next one. It may sound extreme or extravagent, but remember; it's about the recording & production, NOT the lost time spent making backups & transfers.

I'm stating all the obvious here just to make a point: The data is the most important part of the process, of course, but managing it cost-efficiently is crucial to succesful time management. With the cost of HD's dropping to record lows (and the sizes getting bigger all the time), it's never been a better time to use mass storage for projects like these. I have several clients that bring in repeat business, and they are beginning to warrant their very own HDs.

I now have a few removable HD bays that let me slide the AT drives in and out. (They claim they're hot-swappable, but I always turn the power supply off, regardless!) Stand-alone external firewire HD's are expensive to keep buying, (you're paying for the caddy & power supply over and over again), but if you spend the initial $50-60 on a FW/USB2.0 drive caddy, all you need to do is buy the raw drives for each new project or client base.

You can certainly spread the cost of it out over time, if you think of it that way. (You've already described three or four Masses that you've recorded; I'll bet the cost of renting that recorder is approacing the cost of a blank/bare 80-120 gig HD is starting to balance out, eh? )

Just keep that in mind as you build your dream system. (I'm not singling YOU out to make this point) I've just been dealing with this QUITE a bit recently, and want to point out the easiest solution I've found yet: Buy 120-160 gig HDs and use them for everything - from location recording to backup. Depending on the size of each project and track count, you may find it breaks down to $10-20 per client/project. (Ask yourself what your time is worth to do it any other way - DVD-Rom, exacbyte tape, etc. etc.) They'll make your life SOOOOOOo much easeir in the long run, and you can build it into the price of each project, should you start charging for this service.

I used to (and still) make CD rom backups (and then DVD-Rs as well) of everything, but it takes an amazing amount of time. Retrieving them (even nowadays with better drives and media) is always dicey. With the actual HD, it's so much easier, and LOT more reliable, IMHO.

Anyway, have a great weekend and good luck with everything!

Joe, thanks for the advice. I'm sure I'll refer back to this thread for those nuggets as I get to the point of acquiring more gear.

[quoteJoeH](You've already described three or four Masses that you've recorded; I'll bet the cost of renting that recorder is approacing the cost of a blank/bare 80-120 gig HD is starting to balance out, eh? )

Actually, I rented the Fostex for 10 days at a cost of $71 (Canadian), and that's paid by the church, so all this isn't costing ME anything but time. Ah, but you're right, that's a significant cost. My total transfer time for this week will likely be something like 12 hours. THEN comes the post-production work. And, yes, the transferring itself isn't much fun, and for each song, I have to watch the levels and be careful to guard against clipping. I am getting into a groove with it now, but it sure would be a lot better to just swap a hard drive in and out, or do the transfer with the ADAT signal. If I do more of this in the future, I'll definitely look to go that route. I don't see myself doing this kind of thing more than once or twice a year, tho...

One question that's popped into my mind... what is the definition of "Producer"? I.e. what does a producer do? The reason I'm asking...

I'm doing this project out of my own interest, and because I know our director has long wanted a recording of our choir. However, the scope and shape of the project is mine entirely - I've made all the decisions about how to proceed and what to record (and HOW to record it!).

The director (through the church music budget) is paying all the bills. For instance... I need 6 20' cables ($100), I just bring her the bill and it's paid. I need $80 to rent the multitrack? No problem. In fact, I described in advance what I was planning to do and what it would cost (approx.) and she just said "Go ahead."

I'm doing ALL the acquisition of equipment, setup, teardown, level setting, engineering, mixing, mastering, etc. Also playing guitar. Also (now) setting the live mix levels (a new responsibility, because I'm learning the Mackie as a side-effect of this project). As I said, I've also made every decision about the project so far.

I'll be creating a reference disc for the director, with all the cuts on it, and she'll make the decision about which ones specifically will go into the final product. However, I'll be telling her which ones (and how many) I think we should include, as well as the cost (and availability) of licensing (and details about from who and where), and basically helping to boil down what the product will cost given the tracks we want to include.

I will also likely create the cover art myself.

I've given her a timeline that basically suggests we should have product to ship by late May.

So... I'm thinking she's in effect the "Executive Producer" and Director, and I'm Producer, Recordist, Re-recordist, Mixing, Mastering, etc., etc...

Not looking for glory, just curious...

That sounds about right, Tim.

The term "Executive Producer" is used a lot more in movies - usually the person who's actually paying for it and owns a big part of the returns. Sometimes it's a studio, sometimes it's a person acting on their behalf. (Mel Gibson's company - Icon productions - did this with "The Passion of the Christ" - and you can imagine who's getting the profits on that one.)

I don't see the term "Executive Producer" on too many CDs, but there's no law against it. You may also want to say something like: "Special thanks to", and/or Produced & Recorded by (Your name here) for "THe Church of...." (Your church's name there.) If you have a company name (or want to create one) you can always use that as well. (My own credits usually state something like: Recorded by JoeH, Mixed & Mastered at Weston Sound, for The Churhc of So and So....) Don't forget contact info (Website, email address, etc) for all the new potential clients who will get this CD and want to hire you to do THEIR production for them.

Sounds like you're on the right track in any case; just make sure you've got her title as Music Director (or whatever it may be) correctly, make sure it's on the face of the label as well - always gotta give props to the MD. Doesn't hurt to list the musicians (esp the accompanist) as well, whever you have space in the booklet, tray card, etc. (Hint: When someone's name is on it, theyr'e far more likely to want to buy a copy for themselves, esp if they've worked hard on their input. )

Thought you might enjoy a short selection from last night - "Since By Man Came Death" from Handel's Messiah. Keep in mind the following:

1. We are NOT professionals. We are AMATEURS. Therefore, the less you expect, the less disappointed you'll be.

2. This is a VERY ROUGH, initial mix. I've done hardly anything to it, other than editing out some background noise during the silences. A bit of EQ on the piano, that's about it. Lots left to do.

Instrumentation for this is... um.. unconventional. Piano and guitar... that's it. Enjoy!

(edit) - Oops... I just realized I didn't even remember to take a second to pan stuff left and right... so it's mono. Aauggghhh!!! Sorry about that... I'll fix it either later tonight, or sometime tomorrow (or maybe Monday... I'm gonna be busy... company comin')...

(further edit Monday evening) - fixed the pan, at least for an initial "take"...

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://home.cogeco…"]Since By Man Came Death[/]="http://home.cogeco…"]Since By Man Came Death[/]

Happy Easter, everyone! Company will be here any minute, so I'll be busy with things other than recording, and it feels good! Got Easter Vigil and Sunday Morning in the can, and tomorrow will be the work of transferring them to the computer, but for now, the pressure's off. Got some great tracks... I can't wait to start massaging them! I know we're gonna have a great CD out of this...