So, as the title says I want to talk and ask some questions about topic, which is multitrack recording and mixing. I want to point out right away that I'm not a professional engineer, I don't have a legit education, I just tend to dream about working in this field because it seem to be the most interesting to me.

If we think about big symphonic orchestras + choir, we know that it could reach a crazy amount of microphones, up to 40. But it really can be simplified to a couple of different stereo pairs (including the main one, which will act as a reference) and spot mics for sections and soloists. And what I want to make the main theme of this question is ITB vs OTB in terms of efficiency. By OTB I mean getting a real mixing desk, which when reaching 24+ channels is not portable. And by ITB I mean getting a separate DAW controller (with motorized faders) and separate preamps (maybe a rack consisting of 3x 8-channel blocks).

If we look at the cheap all-in-one mixers, like Tascam Model series (the only really portable from which is a Model 12, with weight of 3.5 kg), they tend to be not very well suited for working with DAW's, so we are bond either to somewhat meager set of prebuilt FX, or getting some additional hardware. We don't need much of the FX when it comes to classical music, but we're not strictly attached to only classics, right?

Some people say that having a tactile feel of faders under your hand takes your mixing process to another level, which is right, because using your mouse is a discrete type of movements, - just point and click, and it must be none as fast as classic faders in front of your face. But at the same time, benefits of the DAW (i.e. Reaper) are just unmatchable: you can automate things in it which is, again, completely different level of workflow.

So, what do you think - what are pros and cons of getting either
1) AIO recorder/mixer
2) Rig consisting of separate parts, suited for work in the DAW?

 

2. Parts to use with DAW. Any AIO hard drive recorder and Mixer locks you in to whatever you buy at that time, and leaves little room for upgrades and expansions. Your comment about 40 mics alone suggests you already know how many individual channels of instruments' midi and audio you intend on having in your projects. Otherwise, some current iterations of the old Roland VS-2480 style hd recorder/mixer combinations could be great. Are there any you are already looking at?

The preferred setup for most of the older guys doing Orchestral music still remains Cubase and VSL. Tons of RAM and possibly more than one computer. But they are mostly using Virtual Instruments. If you go the virtual instrument route, you can always add a control surface "mixing interface" or a Digital Mixer which can function as a controller but also handle incoming audio like any other analog mixer.

The absolutely last thing I would recommend would be attempting to do any/all of this with analog gear. Unless you are ok with selling your house.

 

Last edited: Sep 17, 2023

Well, I really like how Tascam is suited, but it's either portable or sufficient. And if we chose the second, then why don't check things like MIDAS M32. But after what you said, I really don't consider having a classic mixer as my "nobrainer".

I'm thinking about something like Audient id44 + 2x ASP800 for expanding. But honestly, both of these could be replaced with some other interface with big amount of I/O and preamps. It's a matter of vendor quality. Now I'm reading some nasty thing about id44... being on fire after not being able to ride these ASP's... Maybe I should look into RME or focusrite, but now this is a vendor-talk which I don't really like. I like to keep it more idealistic, without this everlasting fight of brands (more of fools, who praise what they got)

P.S. Now I'm thinking (After reading bad reviews regarding pops and crackles no matter of actions in iD44) that maybe when we're talking about strictly live sets (when the recording is a second most important after performance itself) we may need some rig to act FAULTLESSLY. By it I mean it should NEVER mess up the performance! That's where mixing desks and mixers may shine, because of their relative simplicity, correct me if I'm wrong...

But when it comes to recording, we can have different takes, have a pause for double-checking, etc-etc. Maybe that's just a Audients faulty, they are known for driver issues. Maybe I just need to check other vendors for the same rig (I/O's + preamps)..

 

Last edited: Sep 17, 2023

So, to continue, can anybody please clarify one thing to me? F.e. I got a bunch of microphones on the scene, they go through a buch of repeaters to my rack of ASP800's, then they connect via ADAT to my RME Digiface USB connected to my PC a-and... that's all? I can CREATE? Anything I missed?

Another question is cabling, I don't really understand now how we suppose to take signal from scene to a engineers "cabin"? Do we use some sort of repeaters? I know about "snakes", special cables which can carry many little cables at once. But as I know, longivity affects signals clarity, how do we fight it if the distance between performer and engineer is around 10 meters?

 

I have used audio multi-cables successfully for live sound that were over 100ft (30+ meters) long from the stage back to the mixing area. As long as everything is low-Z and you have decent electronics at both ends you should be OK using "snakes" to get your signals back to the mixing/recording desk...

 

@saccamano Thank you for your comment! Yes, that clears it up a little.

Do I need "converters" for setups like microphones>preamps>interace>PC? I just really don't understand if things like iD44 and/or Digiface do need some external converters, or it's just a synth thing

 

Another common tactic is to use "stage boxes". This is getting into some serious $$$ stuff

Something like this https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MDL32--midas-dl32-32-input-16-output-stage-box
will let you start looking at numbers and comparisons between your possible approach to this. This particular unit's specs indicate (read:claim) that it will operate at a distance of 328 feet when connected via CAT5 ethernet cabling. This is a "standard" accepted number for the distance a CAT5 cable can reach before a repeater is needed. I would take that number with a bucket of salt and not a grain. This kind of thing is where you start looking at Dante devices and other very high end "money is no object" stuff: https://apogeedigital.com/products/symphony-io/dante

If I happened to find myself in a situation as described I would get with Sweetwater and get your Sales Engineer involved from the get-go because of the numbers. It is network topology and requires a lot of planning and $$$$$ resources. A touch screen tablet would even be helpful to draw out ideas. Many people only get to learn this stuff by education and volunteering/interning at some kind of House of Worship like churches and so on.

Way beyond an ID44 lol ;)

 

Are you absolutely sure you need more than 24 channels when recording on location at the beginning of your carreer?
You're getting in sphreres where national broadcasters send their broadcasting vehicles for a 5.1 mix that goes around the world like the viennese new years concert.
Sure such a setup eats up mikes.
But people make very decent recordings with 3 to five mikes for main plus a wide A-B plus some support mikes for wood, strings, percussion and brass (and some here and there).
This is a setup where you can get a nice 5.1 mix if you're into that. That would still leave about 10 mikes for the choir if there is any.
I don't want to discourage you, but if you're starting a carreer, are you sure you're going to be booked for gigs on that level?
(That said, you would deliver more than adequate mixes with 24 channels if you were).

So what I would do: Have 3 8 preamp 1" Preamp AD Converters that go to adat and feed that to an RME card.
Or one of thoes 8 preamps 1 Units 19" usb soundcards with 2 or 3 more adat ins. (steinberg has some decent one)
Yes, that yould be location recording in the box, but thats what most guys do.
For balancing things out for the headphone the built in mixing applets just do fine on your laptop, and I guess your feed is not going to be live on national TV?
Yeah, I know, 48khz is so 90ies, but 48khz (or 44.1 that is in Music) is fine.
16 bit was way worse than those 48khz 24bit converters we got today and I have no problem enjoying som Karajan stuff from the 90ies.

Highly respected concets venues have mixing desk installed in a seperate acousitcally treated room and some even have schoeps handing from the cieling all year long, but these won't be your first gigs.

And just think about the costs of getting 40 mikes decent enough for orchestral work.

Don't think that what you see in orchestral studio work is usually replicated in the field.
They put support mikes every 2 meters, because why not. I doubt every single one of them is uses.
Support mikes can be a pain in the ass.
Mixing (and editing! 200 edits inserting the better takes from the rehearsal it not uncommon) 40 mikes is not something that goes easy peasy.
So I would say travel light, and have some decent studio/desk setup where you feel at home to finish things up.

If you're not able to get a get a 60 pieces orchestra sound awesome with 24 channels I would invest in schooling not in huge amounts of mikes. Thats not me being a dick saying that. Don't underestimate the skill needed. And experience.

 

I don't think of it as of carreer, as I said, I'm not a professional and not planning to become one, for me learning is a pleasure in a first place, that way I can better understand world and surroundings.

However, I agree with you and I think this question is good. 24 channels can be seen as 12 stereo ones, what if I want 3 stereo pairs on my main rig (2x SDC cardioid, 2x omni, 1x stereo schoeps-like mic), and then 2 pairs on piano just to be sure of what I'm getting? Or experiment. That's 10 channels already, and only stereo ones.

Of course, engineering is the art of fighting the limitations, and that's why I agree with you. Your commentary on difficulty of this sophisticated process is realistic, yet, where I live humans life tend to be of little value, and imagining the need of relatively big orchestra to be recorded and heard is easy. I've watched this video

(timecode 8:23) with an example of a recording made in late 80's with just two stereo pairs placed in the middle of band. I think that quality issue we can clearly hear comes from a source (which is VHS casette), so not microphones to blame. And this video confirms your point of view that it's more than possible and practical to record with a limited amount of microphones.

Yet we can look at audio engineering as a supporting art, or try to implement more width based on abundance of resources, which is ofc rarely the case...

Regarding ITB vs OTB theme, that's what I thought in a second place, but I'm yet to understand my forseeable goals.

Thank you again for commenting, it really helps a lot.

 

Last edited: Sep 17, 2023

Here's the simple explanation, if I'm understanding correctly that you're wanting to record a remote event DIGITALLY.

To record Microphones digitally (either 48vpp or dynamic) you'll need pre-amps (the better the pre-amp stage the better your recorded signal given that the mic's are of good quality) then the outputs of the pre-amps connect to AD (analog to digital) converters which are connected thru a digital computer interface (usually a external box or a card) to your computer for the mixing/ storing/playback of your digital audio data.

For recording line level instruments (keyboards/guitars/bass, etc) most often times (depending on the particular instrument you might need a DI box first) you can simply omit the preamp stage above and plug the instrument directly into your AD converters.

There are digital recording "consoles" that basically are all the separate things mentioned above, i.e. all the inputs/outputs, pre-amps, AD, DA, faders, metering etc combined into a nice neat package. In some cases the console itself has the capability to record and play back audio or there will be a computer interface that connects the console to a computer do the recording/storage/playback part. IN many instances these days these consoles are merely providing physical controls for the virtual computer DAW software running on the connected machine. But all the key pieces of the digital recording puzzle mentioned above are there in the one console package.

The digiface is basically a digital optical audio "hub" with monitoring built in. It's designed to take signals from external optical outputs (i.e. from other converters that output TOSLINK optical digital audio) via fiber cable and condense it all down to one USB to computer connection. Control of it all runs on the computer host machine via TOTALMIX. TOTALMIX (its a virtual version of that "console" mentioned above) is RME's audio hardware control platform that is installed on the host machine as easily as you would a driver. TotalMix is the platform for controlling any RME audio device they make. And yes, you will need pre-amps/converters that output TOSLINK optical to connect to a digiface usb, then to a computer.
https://rme-audio.de/digiface-usb.html

There are many preamp/converter options (even from RME) that combine all or mostly all of the components mentioned above into single packages to successfully record QUALITY digital audio to computer. It all basically boils down to how much front end AD/DA I/O is needed to complete the project at hand. Like how many mics/instruments (i.e. recording channels )are required to get the job done.

 

Last edited: Sep 18, 2023

As I see, ASP800 already got converters

so maybe in my case, simply putting them in between of mics and interface (Digiface, which doesen't have converters) will do?

 

Yeah, that should be ok, though as indicated above, recording an entire orchestra... you'll be expected to additionally supply a substantial assortment of quality mics with reliable boom/mic stands, adaptors, holders xlr cables, di-boxes etc. Plus numerous stage boxes & snakes to your audio adaptor(s)/PC rack - which will definitely need a proper mains power conditioner... all in a fair amount of weighty/expensive pro kit that will most certainly require at least one other person to help out or heaps of pre-performace time available to supply and set-up. Do you even have capacity to securely store it all at home?

Imho you're looking to run before you can barely walk. If i were you, i would initially go for a more modest/practical live recording rig now to develop essential real-world experience in quality live music recording i.e. bands/quartets etc., before even attempting to enter the top-tier/real-pro market. The trick now is to simply ensure that whatever kit you buy is solid for building upon later if/when you feel ready & professionally able to expand the scope of your live recording services.

EDIT: Yup, pretty much what @Plendix already wrote...

 

Last edited: Sep 18, 2023

What I think is a brilliant idea is RME implementing a way to capture every recorded track with what they coin DURec (Direct USB recording), essentially turning each Fireface unit into a self contained stand alone recorder. This could be vital if your hard disk crashes and/if your laptop/desktop goes down in flames. You'll not lose a thing and be a hero.

 

Many thanks to you, I'm certainly hearing for the first time about power conditioning!

Well, can it be put up more simply and straightforwardly than you did? I doubt so! That is indeed a known point of view, "gradual development" and stuff. Can't say that I agree with it, in my world we believe in quantum leaps. Of course distance from small ensemble to orchestra is rather small, and they are similar in terms of "liveness", but that's different worlds.

See, I'm saying for the third time that I'm not interested in "pro-market". I'm not living in an institutionalized conutry, we don't have such a thing as a "free market" of yours. Audio recording market is oversaturated with great recordings (even though there still are many great composers who are waiting their time to come) one can simply not overcome forementioned Carajan or Count Harnoncourt in terms of quality! Yet, we live in a world of internet trafic, and all your "pro"-talk is really just doesen't make sense. In 60's and 70's rock musicians were expected to play well, but then punk came and showed who is the boss. However, all of them probably had good technicians, so big part of your view really is right (not to mention listed competencies by you, they are ALL right).

I'm not into market, because I don't believe in it, nor do I have access to it. I praise Market, because when big market boys f.e. change processors on their servers, we get access to second hand Xeons. Everything that people of countries with institutions throw away is being collected and used by less fortunate dwellers of the world... That's how you can look at this post - some chinese enthusiast is trying to replicate big guys setups using some cheap and crappy hardware.... He probably will get something exploded, but maybe (maybe) he will learn something on his way to the dream

 

thanks for the great contribution...

https://reflex-by-fly.com/

 

if we're talking about around 64 channels for orchestra, which is plenty (and 32 should suffice to say), speaking from real world experience, then a MacBook Pro from 2014 with Reaper (because fuck ProTools artificial channel count limitations), RME Madiface XT and DirectOut Andiamo (or Prodigy MC nowadays), optionally paired with some fader console for local live sound like Soundcraft Impact - this whole rig fits in 2 cases and frankly there's not much better to upgrade further

 

Is there really any evidence of Mac being more stable than a PC? Previous poster, @Lois Lane , mentioned really important thing: a safe way to foresee and prevent possible malfunctions. That's one more point in favor to analog recording (with digital carrier though, as SD-card or USB f.e.).

 

Can you name the Mac equivalent of the famous Blue Screen of Death?

 

no, I'd even say it's worse than Windows because you get no hardware-accelerated ASIO,
assuming you know howto disable Windows Updates, or even better, never use recording rig on an internet network, you're good to go;

on the other hand, MacOS offers native support for MIDI over IP (Windows needs some rtpMIDI, not sure if that project is still actively developed) and allows multiple applications access MIDI device simultaneously (Windows users can only dream, and rely on third-party drivers doubting to support that, or maybe try loopMIDI project not sure it's being developed either), so in that particular case it's easier to get remote control of preamps with MIDI over MADI

 

Last edited: Sep 18, 2023

sure