Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BeachTek DXA-8 & live music gig options...

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 3:35:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hey folks!

I video tape live music gigs, still learning much of the audio side of
things.
http://www.ncf.ca/~af895/misc/rasputins/rasputins.html

To date, I've used a Mini-Disc recorder with a little stereo mic
http://www.minidisc-canada.com/shopexd.asp?id=20 but want to save the step
of having to import the audio from the mini-disc in post.

Thing is, the master camera is often a miniDV without adjustable mic levels.
So, I'm looking at options for giving me some control over audio.

The BeachTek DXA-8 with it's automatic limiters looks great and the reviews
all seem positive.

Anyone with experience with that unit or perhaps some alternatives I should
look at?

One more thing: I understand the BeachTek has dual mono-XLR inputs. If I
want to use the mini-stereo mic, I'd have to split the output from that and
plug into both of the box inputs, correct?

One idea I'm toying with but would like some input from you guys on:
recording stage audio to one channel and camera audio on another.

I'd treat each mono-track as stereo in post to give me the option of two
audio mixes: one "stage" audio and one "audience" audio.

Anyone done that?

Thanks!
Chris
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 1:02:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

C.J.Patten wrote:
>
> Thing is, the master camera is often a miniDV without adjustable mic levels.
> So, I'm looking at options for giving me some control over audio.
>
> The BeachTek DXA-8 with it's automatic limiters looks great and the reviews
> all seem positive.

Does it need to attach to the camera?

The Sound Devices 302 is far more flexible and has the best metering
available on any field mixer (metering is a big deal, especially when
working with limited dynamic range inputs like those on DV cameras.)
<http://www.sounddevices.com/products/302master.htm&gt;
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:29:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:ArKdnUbm5pPl4BzfRVn-sw@rogers.com...
> Hey folks!
>
> I video tape live music gigs, still learning much of the audio side of
> things.
> http://www.ncf.ca/~af895/misc/rasputins/rasputins.html
>
> To date, I've used a Mini-Disc recorder with a little stereo mic
> http://www.minidisc-canada.com/shopexd.asp?id=20 but want to save the step
> of having to import the audio from the mini-disc in post.
>
> Thing is, the master camera is often a miniDV without adjustable mic
> levels.
> So, I'm looking at options for giving me some control over audio.
>
> The BeachTek DXA-8 with it's automatic limiters looks great and the
> reviews
> all seem positive.
>
> Anyone with experience with that unit or perhaps some alternatives I
> should
> look at?
>
> One more thing: I understand the BeachTek has dual mono-XLR inputs. If I
> want to use the mini-stereo mic, I'd have to split the output from that
> and
> plug into both of the box inputs, correct?
>
> One idea I'm toying with but would like some input from you guys on:
> recording stage audio to one channel and camera audio on another.
>
> I'd treat each mono-track as stereo in post to give me the option of two
> audio mixes: one "stage" audio and one "audience" audio.
>
> Anyone done that?
>
> Thanks!
> Chris

Hello again.

You might want to take a look at the post I just put up about HD Recorders
(when it gets some answers). They may be more versatile than just two
tracks.

Also, what I would suggest is tap the main board for a left and right AUX
or see if the mixer has an extra out they are not using. You'd be surprised
what they may have for you.

The DXA8 looks good but it's only two-track. There's no real way to fit two
stereo signals in there. What it's basically doing is putting one mic on
the "left" channel and one on the "right" channel. You'd have to pull them
into Audition and separate them into two mono files in order to use them
separately.

I'm looking for a good HD recorder with 4 to 8 tracks. This gives me one
for the groom, one for the officiate, and one for room noise. You might end
up with two tracks for the stage and two from the mid audience (if you can
do it without getting in someone's way). If you get 8 tracks you can even
take steps to creating a 5.1 layout but that's getting ambitious (I'd love
to try this with a wedding. Setup a couple of mics around the outside of
the chapel and then mix to 5.1 in post).

Tom P.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:29:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Henry Padilla wrote:
>
> I'm looking for a good HD recorder with 4 to 8 tracks. This gives me one
> for the groom, one for the officiate, and one for room noise.

The Edirol R-4 meets those requirements, but no timecode.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:29:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> Henry Padilla wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm looking for a good HD recorder with 4 to 8 tracks. This gives me
>> one for the groom, one for the officiate, and one for room noise.
>
>
> The Edirol R-4 meets those requirements, but no timecode.

Have you seen any specs which indicate how many of those 24
bits contain signal at minimum gain and what the EIN of the
pre is?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 7:38:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>> The Edirol R-4 meets those requirements, but no timecode.
>
>
> Have you seen any specs which indicate how many of those 24 bits contain
> signal at minimum gain and what the EIN of the pre is?

IIRC, Doug Oade made some measurements on the R-4. His comments are
most likely in this thread
<http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/dcboard.php?az...;
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 1:42:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d5ttb80np5@enews2.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:

> > The Edirol R-4 meets those requirements, but no timecode.
>
> Have you seen any specs which indicate how many of those 24
> bits contain signal at minimum gain and what the EIN of the
> pre is?

I've seen specs for EIN of a preamp when it's a preamp, but it's rare
to see that spec for a device _containing_ a mic preamp. And I don't
think I've ever seen a spec that says how many of the 24 bits are
signal at minimum gain.

In fact, just what does that mean? Are you looking at how many bits of
noise there are when the preamp gain is set to minimum? I don't know
what the significance of signal at minimum gain is. What input level?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:33:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <d5ttb80np5@enews2.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:
>
>
>>>The Edirol R-4 meets those requirements, but no timecode.
>>
>>Have you seen any specs which indicate how many of those 24
>>bits contain signal at minimum gain and what the EIN of the
>>pre is?
>
>
> I've seen specs for EIN of a preamp when it's a preamp, but it's rare
> to see that spec for a device _containing_ a mic preamp. And I don't
> think I've ever seen a spec that says how many of the 24 bits are
> signal at minimum gain.
>
> In fact, just what does that mean? Are you looking at how many bits of
> noise there are when the preamp gain is set to minimum? I don't know
> what the significance of signal at minimum gain is. What input level?

At minimum gain, the pre is contributing the least to the
noise figure which gives a good indication of the dynamic
range of the converter. I just find it more convenient to
think in bits than dB.

Ein would be best determined at high gain to get it well
above the converter's level.

I'd like to separate the noise before the gain from that
after it for pre/AD combo's like the R-4.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:48:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d5v4c601gcq@enews1.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:

> At minimum gain, the pre is contributing the least to the
> noise figure which gives a good indication of the dynamic
> range of the converter. I just find it more convenient to
> think in bits than dB.

OK, so you're looking at the noise after the mic preamp. I've
generally found this to be pretty much negligible (or at least they're
all pretty much in the same ballpark) with "utility" products these
days (where I'd lump the R4). I keep trying to get one for review but
no success yet. Clearly, though noise (and its character) can be a
deciding factor when it comes to high end A/D converters.

> I'd like to separate the noise before the gain from that
> after it for pre/AD combo's like the R-4.

Nice to know, but in practice, you may not be able to separate the
functions.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:15:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:35:26 -0400, C.J.Patten
<cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:

>
> One idea I'm toying with but would like some input from you guys on:
> recording stage audio to one channel and camera audio on another.
>
> I'd treat each mono-track as stereo in post to give me the option of two
> audio mixes: one "stage" audio and one "audience" audio.
>

I'd treat the audio on the camera strictly as a guide and use a separate
audio recorder for the real soundtrack. You can then combine them in post
production. Your suggestion would leave you with a mono mix - most bands
are going to be expecting full surround in the not too distant future. If
you really want to do this seriously then I'd suggest teaming up with
someone who is used to doing live recording - you really need to know your
way around a mixing desk in order to know where to plug in to get the best
results.

I've seen your very helpful and knowledgeable responses in the video
newsgroups - to an audio guy your question comes across as a 'what $200
camera will allow me to shoot a feature film?' type of question. Don't
take this the wrong way but you've a great deal to learn about sound
recording so it might be better to involve someone with more audio
knowledge in your venture.

Cheers.

James.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 5:15:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Certainly not taken the wrong way James!
I fully expected there's more to know (and more details to include) than I
do right now.

Right now, this is low end stuff - local bands, good musicians but not rich
by any means. Productions don't need to be cosmic, just clean.

The BeachTek units were interesting to me at first for the ability to use
the balanced inputs. The bands I deal with have most of their own gear
(mixers, mics etc) and I was thinking plugging in to their equipment might
be an advantage.

Sticking with the minidisc and mic seems to work fine. Getting the audio in
camera would save step but, again, I'd need to be using an external mixer or
attenuator or something as the master camera lacks manual gain control.
(unless I can enable it with a service remote sometime down the road; rumour
is you can but I digress...)

The bands seem to love to audio. I don't know that any of the people I'd be
filming in the next few years would even think of surround as an option but
I'll keep it in mind. (mixing the master camera mic as the surround channels
would add the "audience experience" - if I go that route) BTW: can Audition
be used to mix AC3 5.1?

Thanks,
Chris


"James Perrett" <James.Perrett@noc.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:o psqnwcql7djgvgv@news.nerc.ac.uk...
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:35:26 -0400, C.J.Patten
> <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> One idea I'm toying with but would like some input from you guys on:
>> recording stage audio to one channel and camera audio on another.
>>
>> I'd treat each mono-track as stereo in post to give me the option of two
>> audio mixes: one "stage" audio and one "audience" audio.
>>
>
> I'd treat the audio on the camera strictly as a guide and use a separate
> audio recorder for the real soundtrack. You can then combine them in post
> production. Your suggestion would leave you with a mono mix - most bands
> are going to be expecting full surround in the not too distant future. If
> you really want to do this seriously then I'd suggest teaming up with
> someone who is used to doing live recording - you really need to know your
> way around a mixing desk in order to know where to plug in to get the best
> results.
>
> I've seen your very helpful and knowledgeable responses in the video
> newsgroups - to an audio guy your question comes across as a 'what $200
> camera will allow me to shoot a feature film?' type of question. Don't
> take this the wrong way but you've a great deal to learn about sound
> recording so it might be better to involve someone with more audio
> knowledge in your venture.
>
> Cheers.
>
> James.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:19:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:BMqdnRpO9ep9_x7fRVn-vA@rogers.com...

> The bands seem to love to audio. I don't know that any of the people I'd
> be filming in the next few years would even think of surround as an option
> but I'll keep it in mind. (mixing the master camera mic as the surround
> channels would add the "audience experience" - if I go that route) BTW:
> can Audition be used to mix AC3 5.1?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris

Yes. And very well, I might add.

It has a real nice interface that should be easily understandable (one of
the few things in Audition that is). You basically take each track and
place it in the "surround space" then Audition figures out how to encode
that into a file that is specifically 5.1

Premiere does kind of the same thing. Check out the help file for
"surround" in both apps you see what I'm talking about.

I can be more specific from home 'cause I can look at the screens (and I
have the TotalTraining disks to look at).

Tom P.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:19:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:buKge.1230$1A6.350@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> news:BMqdnRpO9ep9_x7fRVn-vA@rogers.com...
>
>> The bands seem to love to audio. I don't know that any of the people I'd
>> be filming in the next few years would even think of surround as an
>> option but I'll keep it in mind. (mixing the master camera mic as the
>> surround channels would add the "audience experience" - if I go that
>> route) BTW: can Audition be used to mix AC3 5.1?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>
> Yes. And very well, I might add.
>
> It has a real nice interface that should be easily understandable (one of
> the few things in Audition that is).

What is it about the interface that you find difficult to understand? I
came to CoolEdit/Cool Edit Pro/Audition by way of a decade of analogue tape
production and then an older program called Fast Eddie. I found
CoolEdit/Audition to be very intuitive. On the other hand, many people are
enthusiastic about Vegas as an audio program, and I am struggling with it
;-( It seems way kludgey compared to Audition.

Steve King
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 7:19:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

No no, that's cool! Once I know a piece of software can do something - and
do it well - I can make it work. :)  Thanks!
C.



"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:buKge.1230$1A6.350@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> news:BMqdnRpO9ep9_x7fRVn-vA@rogers.com...
>
>> The bands seem to love to audio. I don't know that any of the people I'd
>> be filming in the next few years would even think of surround as an
>> option but I'll keep it in mind. (mixing the master camera mic as the
>> surround channels would add the "audience experience" - if I go that
>> route) BTW: can Audition be used to mix AC3 5.1?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>
> Yes. And very well, I might add.
>
> It has a real nice interface that should be easily understandable (one of
> the few things in Audition that is). You basically take each track and
> place it in the "surround space" then Audition figures out how to encode
> that into a file that is specifically 5.1
>
> Premiere does kind of the same thing. Check out the help file for
> "surround" in both apps you see what I'm talking about.
>
> I can be more specific from home 'cause I can look at the screens (and I
> have the TotalTraining disks to look at).
>
> Tom P.
>
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:01:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve King" <steve@TakeThisOutToReplysteveking.net> wrote in message
news:T8CdnYAGZ_yG5B7fRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> "Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:buKge.1230$1A6.350@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:BMqdnRpO9ep9_x7fRVn-vA@rogers.com...
>>
>>> The bands seem to love to audio. I don't know that any of the people I'd
>>> be filming in the next few years would even think of surround as an
>>> option but I'll keep it in mind. (mixing the master camera mic as the
>>> surround channels would add the "audience experience" - if I go that
>>> route) BTW: can Audition be used to mix AC3 5.1?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>
>> Yes. And very well, I might add.
>>
>> It has a real nice interface that should be easily understandable (one of
>> the few things in Audition that is).
>
> What is it about the interface that you find difficult to understand? I
> came to CoolEdit/Cool Edit Pro/Audition by way of a decade of analogue
> tape production and then an older program called Fast Eddie. I found
> CoolEdit/Audition to be very intuitive. On the other hand, many people
> are enthusiastic about Vegas as an audio program, and I am struggling with
> it ;-( It seems way kludgey compared to Audition.
>
> Steve King

I, personally, don't find it difficult to understand. I have been into
audio for quite some time and still have my CoolEditPro 1.1 CD at home.

I'm referring to your normal person (I don't know about you but I know I am
not normal). Audition, with the screens of parameters and FFT filters and
so forth, can seem pretty undecipherable unless you already know what that
means. (Heck I still don't know the difference between some of those
dithering methods).

The answer is always easy when you know it. :) 

Tom P.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:02:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:p e2dnQFfjNwn5B7fRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
> No no, that's cool! Once I know a piece of software can do something - and
> do it well - I can make it work. :)  Thanks!
> C.

Some people learn better by doing, some by showing.

I just didn't know which one you were.

Let me know if you need something.

Tom P.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 8:02:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ancient Chinese Proverb:

"Tell me and I may forget.
Show me and I may remember.
Involve me and I will understand."

:) 

I like the interaction between the usenet (rec.audio & rec.video) folks and
then being able to go try stuff on my own. I'm sure I'll be back with a ton
of questions.

Thanks!
C.


"Henry Padilla" <padillah@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6Lge.1252$1A6.1190@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> news:p e2dnQFfjNwn5B7fRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
>> No no, that's cool! Once I know a piece of software can do something -
>> and do it well - I can make it work. :)  Thanks!
>> C.
>
> Some people learn better by doing, some by showing.
>
> I just didn't know which one you were.
>
> Let me know if you need something.
>
> Tom P.
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:23:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:06:26 -0400, C.J.Patten
<cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:

> Certainly not taken the wrong way James!
> I fully expected there's more to know (and more details to include) than
> I
> do right now.
>
> Right now, this is low end stuff - local bands, good musicians but not
> rich
> by any means. Productions don't need to be cosmic, just clean.
>
> The BeachTek units were interesting to me at first for the ability to use
> the balanced inputs. The bands I deal with have most of their own gear
> (mixers, mics etc) and I was thinking plugging in to their equipment
> might
> be an advantage.

The best low budget way to get a good live recording is to plug in to the
band's mixer which will give you a stereo mix AND to use a stereo
microphone to capture anything that isn't going through the PA. You really
need 4 tracks to do this although you could try mixing on the fly (but
this is rarely as successful as it could be). It might be worth thinking
about an all in one hard disk recorder like those made by Korg, Roland or
Yamaha which include a mixer section with microphone inputs. Alternatively
you could always use a laptop with a 4 channel audio input box.

Cheers.

James.
!