Jump to content

ftngrave

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

ftngrave's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. I'm recording the audio for the performance of an electro-acoustic piece in a large rectangular art gallery type space with very high ceilings (i'd guess maybe 20 feet high if not a bit more). The setup of the piece is: one human performer on vibraphone/glockenspiel and vocals at front center stage (which both vocals and instruments will be miced and amplified). There are then 6 speakers, 2 front stage left and right, 2 behind the audience back left and right, and 2 on each side, forming a hexagon around the audience. A tape/computer part will be coming out of the front and back speakers, and the amplification of the performer's vocals and percussion will be coming out of the side speakers. I'm having a videographer shoot video of the pieces, and am wondering how to go about recording the audio live in the space. I have a Tascam DR-40, a pair of SM58s, and a ~$1000 condenser mic with figure 8 polar pattern I could borrow from a friend (i can't remember which mic he has that has this pattern, i just know he has three ~$1000 condenser mics). The Tascam's internal mics can be set to an XY pattern. I have two ideas for the recording setup and was wondering peoples' thoughts and opinions on the setups or if anyone has better ideas. I'm thinking of setting up the mics in the center of the audience, like section off the center of the center aisle, and do some sort of stereo recording, which I'm not too experienced with. My first idea, and probably weirder idea, is to recreate a blumlein pair setup. Basically, have the internal mics of the Tascam facing towards the back in an XY setup. Then have two SM58s facing the front, set up in an XY setup. This might be a dumb idea as you're supposed to have two figure 8 mics in an XY setup for a blumlein pair, and my two front and two back mics are different. But the idea is interesting to me because you have four mics facing different directions from the center point of the room. This second setup idea would also be in the center of the audience, sectioning off the center of the center aisle. My second idea is to do an MS setup with the figure 8 condenser with the SM58 facing front. And then just maybe having the Tascam facing front with its internal mics in an XY setup for possible reinforcement when mixing. I would think the mics will readily pick up sounds from the back speakers, and that's how they'll sound to the audience's ears anyway (coming from behind). Anyone have any thoughts? Am I crazy to try and record live a spatialization piece with 6 speakers surrounding the audience, or could it be cool? The computer/tape part coming out of the front and back speakers gets pretty complex. Would I be just as well off of setting up the Tascam in the center, setting good levels, just using its internal mics and hoping for the best? This is a bit off topic and side point but I also don't understand a few things about how MS micing works. I understand how to set it up and even decode it. My questions are when mixing and have to do with the theory. Once you have your three tracks, bringing up the levels of the two side parts increases the stereo image. I know one sets the side parts extreme left and right, but do people ever pan them somewhat more towards the center but still placed left and right, just not extreme left and right? Is this a technique used for affecting the stereo image? The other thing I don't understand is how your side R part and side L part are 180 degrees different in polarity, but when set to left and right they are still audible. How can they be audible? I also read if you move both side parts to the center you hear silence, because of the polarity differences. But even if you place them extreme left and right in stereo, I would still think you'd hear silence and neither of the side parts, because of their 180 degree polarity difference. Thanks very much for anyone taking the time to respond to this. It's certainly an interesting recording situation where hopefully some people on harmony central have experience with a similar situation. Thanks again!
  2. There's about six days to go on the auction, and thought I'd mention it here so that anyone looking for one of these won't miss out. Here's the link on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220657302492&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT Here's the description which is also on that page: Zeta VC-225 Violin MIDI Controller with MFS-40 Footswitch Controller. This Zeta VC-225 interface is a pitch-to-MIDI converter. MIDI messages from the interface can then be sent to a synthesizer or computer. This interface was the first of its kind by Zeta, with the Zeta Synthony II being the current version. Virtually instant frequency analysis, and provides fast and accurate pitch and amplitude information. Responds to various types of bowing quite well. The MFS-40 footswitch allows access to sound changes during live performance. The power adapter doesn't work but I'm including it so that it might help winning bidder find a replacement. Everything was tested and everything works because I have another VC-225 which has a power adapter that does work so I used it to test everything on this unit. Message me with any questions or if you'd like more photographs. I will ship item and notify winning bidder as soon as paypal payment has reached my checking account, so it might take a couple of days for me to ship. I'm selling a lot of music equipment that I no longer have much use for, and I can't afford to ship everything without receiving some payments first. Check out my other listings, all items are no reserve.
  3. There's about six days to go on the auction, and thought I'd mention it here so that anyone looking for one of these won't miss out. Here's the link on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220657302492&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT Here's the description which is also on that page: Zeta VC-225 Violin MIDI Controller with MFS-40 Footswitch Controller. This Zeta VC-225 interface is a pitch-to-MIDI converter. MIDI messages from the interface can then be sent to a synthesizer or computer. This interface was the first of its kind by Zeta, with the Zeta Synthony II being the current version. Virtually instant frequency analysis, and provides fast and accurate pitch and amplitude information. Responds to various types of bowing quite well. The MFS-40 footswitch allows access to sound changes during live performance. The power adapter doesn't work but I'm including it so that it might help winning bidder find a replacement. Everything was tested and everything works because I have another VC-225 which has a power adapter that does work so I used it to test everything on this unit. Message me with any questions or if you'd like more photographs. I will ship item and notify winning bidder as soon as paypal payment has reached my checking account, so it might take a couple of days for me to ship. I'm selling a lot of music equipment that I no longer have much use for, and I can't afford to ship everything without receiving some payments first. Check out my other listings, all items are no reserve.
  4. I was wondering if anyone could inform me as to what one should consider between purchasing the fender hot rod deville with either 2 12 inch speakers or 4 10 inch speakers. What's the difference between these two setups? The only thing the fender web site mentions that's different in the two amps' descriptions is that the 4 10 inch speakers deliver big, bright tone. So is it only a slight difference in sound? Or is it more involved including things like overall loudness and how the amp breaks up when adding more gain? And is the circuitry inside any different? Thanks.
  5. wow, very interesting thread. i've gotten into hendrix the last few years, and I mean gotten into IT. I think two things are pretty relevant. One kind of already being said, that one has to consider the recording technology/capabilities of his time. I think this is also amplified by the fact that jimi was highly original and ambitious with recording techniques, so his recordings sound great, but I do think his vision for his RECORDINGS would have benefited from more time, better engineering, and simply modern technology. I mean, Are you Experienced was recorded so quickly it's incredible. mojo magazine did a great article and showed how it was done in a handful of days. the other point i think is that jimi is really a chameleon on different songs. after initially thinking "no way" was he sloppy, i think he was on songs he wanted to be. this ties in to the fact that although he is my favorite guitarist, i mean hands down for the 60s and 70s, ironically he's a sort of da vinci in that he's also a great songwriter, producer, and almost something of a composer. and i really think he would have been more of a master at any of them if he hadn't cared so much about all of them, which is what makes him great. his versatility as an artist can be seen in his evolution over such a short period of time. Interesting that he seemed to be focusing more on songwriting before he died. last case in point. I did listen to the first purple haze solo, and it could be called sloppy. then i switched to the wind cries mary. I've been playing that song for weeks and it's taken me much longer than I thought to sound as clean and right on as jimi. also, the solos in that song (i listened to it on headphones quite closely), show something about his style, especially on the whole first album. his rhythm soloistically kind of dictates everything else. you don't really notice until listening closely to all parts. there's a sort of mozart-esque slight offness to it, like illuminating the fact he's in the spotlight, but i think that a great solo in every moment makes you a little uneasy, you're just not quite sure where it's going to go or fall. maybe that's at the root of the debate. anyway, in my journey of jimi I can't believe how much more I now like electric ladyland; that album's really a fusion; he almost throws the idea of a solo or part in terms of pitch out the window, everything's about the overall sound or texture of a part.
  6. Mike, does my last post simply not make sense? Or do you just not know of any information that would be helpful to do what I am describing?
  7. I appreciate all the feedback. With the Onyx interface, of course with a DAW program that supports surround, you could have surround. For my example, which would be to use outputs 1, 2, 3, and 4 to have ANY or ALL recorded tracks (voiding surround oriented panning or control)-even on DAW software that doesn't support surround, it seems to be possible. And the following examples of assigning what occurs on each of the 4 outputs over time would allow one to have different individual tracks "bounce around the outputs..but not move smoothly as in panning in different directions." For 1-2 and 3-4 to have exclusively different tracks, each track would simply be assigned to one of the two output pairs (which we now acknowledged was possible with the interface routing); for 1 to have an exclusive track that's not heard on 2, one would simply pan all the way to 1. For 1-2 and 3-4 to have the same tracks, I would assume you could duplicate the track on your DAW software, and assign one of them to the 1-2 output and its clone or duplication to the 3-4 output. This configuration to have two separate output pairs with one track is similar to your example of two separate output pairs with one stereo mix-"I suppose you could bounce your mix to a pair of tracks or a stereo track, make a copy of that mix, un-assign the outputs from all the raw tracks and assign one mix to outputs 1-2 and the other mix to outputs 3-4." Thus my thinking is that most simple DAW multitrack software could use the routing of the Onyx's included mixing software to do this. I hope this overall example makes sense, and if you, Mike (or anyone else), are still with patience, please comment on it.
  8. Thanks a lot for the info Mike. I just want to clarify a few of the things you covered. It is now clear to me that the built in mixer is not meant for surround. To clarify, this is because it seems that any of all the recorded tracks you have on your DAW can EACH only be assigned and distributed to two outputs? I understand that surround mixing would work if your DAW supported assigning a track to any number of outputs, plus pan control that supports more than one dimensional movement. My other question concerns the onyx built in mixer or even the Tracktion 2 software that someone else says is not surround capable. In the somewhat near future, I am interested in say, 4 separate outputs where the music/sounds for the 4 tracks could bounce around the outputs as to where they were assigned, but not move smoothly as in panning in different directions. Although my question seems to maybe imply that even some panning might be possible. My question: with either the built in mixer or Tracktion 2, couldn't one duplicate certain tracks-let's say, a line of music ultimately mixed down within tracks 1 and 2 could be duplicated to be ultimately mixed down within tracks 3 and 4-thus this duplication within assigning tracks in the DAW would get around only being able to apply certain tracks to only 2 outputs? If, like the above example, I only wanted to have 4 separate outputs with any of my tracks assigned to each, and I also only wanted to be able to change where each of the 4 mixed down tracks appeared out of the 4 monitors while the music progressed over time, then couldn't I achieve this by duplicating tracks and assigning them to other tracks? I hope this is clear. My implication with these questions is that one could have multiple outputs without surround capability within the DAW, given that one didn't wantt to do surround panning.
  9. I've been reading this review for the last several days and it's difficult for me to know where to start. I am a songwriter, composer of currently mostly chamber music, and for over a year now have gotten more and more into electronic music. This last year I was able to study and work in a studio where there was always somebody available to address any technical difficulty I might have been having. Anyway, I am about to make a few various purchases to setup my own personal recording studio with my computer (which has pretty decent capability)-and reliability, and "for things to just work", is pretty important as I already have a future deadline for a project. So, my above interests were mentioned to show that I have discovered that I'm a bit of a unique consumer in that I have a plurality of things I want to perhaps achieve with an interface, an small example being I could want to record a string quartet as well as my band. My biggest concern with the Mackie Onyx 400F is its stand-alone mixing capability and the included software that routes I/O's, adjusts levels, ect. Mr. Anderton I believe stated, "It probably goes without saying, but this is obviously a stereo device…surround need not apply. I suppose if there was enough demand for surround capabilities, it would be possible to devise a mixer configuration that accepted up to eight DAW outs and fed them to the eight line outs. Call me wacky, call me crazy...but why do I think that few, if any, people reading this thread are going to complain about lack of surround capabilities?" I had almost ultimately decided on the Mackie right before I read this. I actually talked to Mackie on the phone a couple of days ago to specifically make sure all 8 outputs could be assigned for separate monitoring and they said that it could. I'm pretty sure also I got this quote from the mackie web site, "The 400F's eight individual outputs can be used for surround mixing, or for sending four discrete stereo headphone mixes to a headphone amp like one of our new HM Series (coming soon)." Perhaps only the simple included mixing software cannot do this, but it could obviously be done with most multitrack editors? Would Tracktion 2 allow one to configure the daw outs to more than stereo for example? Someone said elsewhere, "Also, I think it would be a good idea for the matrix mixer to allow the selection of which daw outputs get sent to a particular pair of outputs rather than having daw outs 1 & 2 hardwired to physicals outs 1 & 2, daw outs 3 & 4 hardwired to physical outs 3 & 4, etcetera." Are not the daw outputs whatever is assigned to channels 1 and 2, then 3 and 4, and so on? Couldn't different tracks be assigned to outputs 1 and 2, and then 3 and 4 for example for a four monitor setup that would each have different sounds coming out? Or do all output pairs have to have exactly the same stereo mix? If not, then the most recent quotation would just be an annoyance for the user to keep in mind as he went along what was assigned to the daw outputs. I dont' personally have 8 monitors, but would like to configure surround setups, what non-songwriters call spatialization, in performance spaces that do. Hopefully my question is somewhat clear and someone can help. To me, the Presonus Firepod seems quite affordable and reliable but it doesn't really operate as a standalone mixer, and surround routing would be a big plus for me (although I wouldn't do more than stereo without a computer). Or if I decide that i can wait until later purchases to record many simultaneous inputs or to have surround mixing/output, I might just go with the focusrite saffire with the assumption that perhaps I am looking for too many different capabilities with a firewire interface right now (the Mackie is the most expensive that I'm considering). As for the high whine problem, I'm going to be using a plug-in firewire card with a windows operating desktop for now, so I can only hope that I will not be one of the unlucky few. Mr. Anderton also said, "I tested several electronic synths, and was able to kick the meters into the -10dB range on peaks. That’s not really all that bad – you’re basically throwing away less than 2 bits of resolution..". Although the 4 line inputs it seems could have had more included gain, does this mean then that some old gear w/ only unbalanced support would at least provide a decent signal? Anyway, hope some of you can address my questions. I've really appreciated every one's insight as I've been silently following the review. Something no one's mentioned that I just thought of, I believe the included Tracktion 2 doesn't have a lot of plug-ins that comes when one buys it separately; Mackie's web site says it's missing Soundfont-1, M-Clav, M-Pad, ZR-3, AmpliTube LE, Sample Tank 2 SE, RM IV, Free Alpha, Slayer 2, Claw, Hexaline, DualDelay, NastyShaper, and Mabento.
×
×
  • Create New...