Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

MOTU 24I/O ?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
June 22, 2005 5:38:11 PM

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

6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz with MOTU 241/O to pc
(dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)

Any good idea? If so ,what would be the
best harddisk solution?

Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be
better ( more reliable)? In that case I would have to transfer the files to
the pc
anyway .

Lemmy

More about : motu 24i

Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:38:12 PM

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

+ wrote:

> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz

This is potentially a non-starter. Each channel's .wav file
calculates out to be almost 6 GB.

Given that a .wav file can't be larger than 2 GB for
internal structural reasons...

I presume that your musicians will have to occasionally take
breaks. Likewise for your recorder...

> with MOTU 241/O
> to pc (dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)

Usually, dual CPUs have few advantages and sometimes are
disadvantageous for audio when device drivers are not
properly written for them.

For straight-up recording, CPU power is not at a premium.

> Any good idea? If so ,what would be the
> best harddisk solution?

Depends on the software. For example with Audition/CE, up to
three hard drives can be well-exploited. Ordinary
high-capacity 7200 rpm drives seem to get the job done.

> Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be better ( more
reliable)?

In the end, its computers of one kind versus computers of
another.

A dedicated hard disk recorder makes all of the relevant
choices for you. The PC solution essentially leaves them up
to you.

> In that case I would have to transfer the files to the pc
anyway .

Yup. You're talking close to 150 GB per session. There are
some fairly immense logistical issues here. Backup could be
a problem.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:38:12 PM

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

In article <Fibue.8018$ez2.1039@reader1.news.jippii.net> 123@4567.fi writes:

> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz with MOTU 241/O to pc
> (dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)

I assume there's going to be some breaks. That can make for some
pretty unmanagably large files (about 500 megabytes per track per
hour), though with the latest version of everything, I think the
Windows' maximum file size limitation is 4 GB so you'll be safe from
that. Is anyone actually going to listen to this?

> Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be
> better ( more reliable)? In that case I would have to transfer the files to
> the pc anyway .

That's certainly how I'd do it. You could put each night's recording on
one 80 (a bit of a squeeze) or 120 GB drive. With a project of that
nature, you might even consider mixing it "outside the box" and
bypassing the computer entirely other than perhaps as a mixdown
recorder.

If you're being paid for this, you're free to do it any way that's
efficient for you (and that the client will go along with) but if this
is a volunteer effort, working with your recordings is going to get
old fast, no matter how much you love the program material. I speak
from experience.


--
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
Related resources
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 5:38:13 PM

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

In article <SrOdnbm_vpV32CTfRVn-1g@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> > 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz
>
> This is potentially a non-starter. Each channel's .wav file
> calculates out to be almost 6 GB.

Half that, since we're dealing with mono files.

> Given that a .wav file can't be larger than 2 GB for
> internal structural reasons...

It seems that I've read recently that by some means this had been
extended to 4 GB, but 2 GB is the limit on my Mackie recorder (which
doesn't use Windows).


--
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
June 22, 2005 5:38:14 PM

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <SrOdnbm_vpV32CTfRVn-1g@comcast.com>
arnyk@hotpop.com
> writes:
>
>>> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz
>>
>> This is potentially a non-starter. Each channel's .wav
file
>> calculates out to be almost 6 GB.
>
> Half that, since we're dealing with mono files.

Agreed. So we're talking 3 GB mono files.

>> Given that a .wav file can't be larger than 2 GB for
>> internal structural reasons...

> It seems that I've read recently that by some means this
had been
> extended to 4 GB,

http://media.vcs.de/download/content/show/04345113457 agrees
with the 4 GB size limit for traditional 32 bit .wav files
and also mentions a 64 bit-based format that has some
cross-vendor support.

So this isn't quite mission impossible, just a difficult
mission.

>but 2 GB is the limit on my Mackie recorder (which doesn't
use Windows).

But, it might use a file format that has the 2 GB limit
built-in.
June 22, 2005 6:42:42 PM

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

The task came from a need to get better quality
soundtracks to videos that are shot at a band contest (5 to 6 bands per
evening)
I should be able to make quick mixdown every day during the contest, or to
be able to archive the files for later mixing.
There is a dual layer dvd-burner in the pc. I might be able to get few
Terabytes for backup purposes too if I have to.The source is direct outs
from the foh desk.
And yes, the software will be Adobe Audition.

Lemmy


"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:SrOdnbm_vpV32CTfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>+ wrote:
>
>> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz
>
> This is potentially a non-starter. Each channel's .wav file
> calculates out to be almost 6 GB.
>
> Given that a .wav file can't be larger than 2 GB for
> internal structural reasons...
>
> I presume that your musicians will have to occasionally take
> breaks. Likewise for your recorder...
>
>> with MOTU 241/O
>> to pc (dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)
>
> Usually, dual CPUs have few advantages and sometimes are
> disadvantageous for audio when device drivers are not
> properly written for them.
>
> For straight-up recording, CPU power is not at a premium.
>
>> Any good idea? If so ,what would be the
>> best harddisk solution?
>
> Depends on the software. For example with Audition/CE, up to
> three hard drives can be well-exploited. Ordinary
> high-capacity 7200 rpm drives seem to get the job done.
>
>> Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be better ( more
> reliable)?
>
> In the end, its computers of one kind versus computers of
> another.
>
> A dedicated hard disk recorder makes all of the relevant
> choices for you. The PC solution essentially leaves them up
> to you.
>
>> In that case I would have to transfer the files to the pc
> anyway .
>
> Yup. You're talking close to 150 GB per session. There are
> some fairly immense logistical issues here. Backup could be
> a problem.
>
>
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 6:42:43 PM

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

+ wrote:

> The task came from a need to get better quality
> soundtracks to videos that are shot at a band contest (5
to 6 bands
> per evening)

That seems doable.

Our current guesstimate reads 72 GB of data for 6 hours of
recording with about 3 GB per each of the 24 track files.

One major means for saving time - do 16 track recording. It
will cut *everything* by 1/3-1/2 with no audible losses
given the context.

> I should be able to make quick mixdown every day during
the contest,
> or to be able to archive the files for later mixing.

I'd look at removable media. Removable say 160 GB IDE drives
in a removable carrier are very economical.

> There is a dual layer dvd-burner in the pc.

Those do about 8.5 GB per slice of media, for a total of 9
discs per day. Typically these discs don't write at a full
16x, so you're looking at hours and hours for a DVD-based
backup to run.

> I might be able to get few Terabytes for backup purposes
too if I have to.

5 160 GB removable drives is 0.8 terabyte.

>The source is direct outs from the foh desk.

Good choice.

> And yes, the software will be Adobe Audition.

The time it takes to close an Audition track file is
approximately linear with the size of the file.

I'd guesstimate about 6-12 minutes per 6 hour track file to
close, for a total of about 3-6 hours to close all 24 files.
There's a trick to making this run without manual
intervention between file saves.

The good news is that they will open and close much more
quickly for non-destructive editing.

However, mixdowns could be a bear.

I'd seriously consider doing one set of files for each set.
How long is the longest set?

You will probably have enough time between sets to do the
necessary save.

I recommend 2 temp disks, one of which can be the
boot/program storage plus the mountable disc drive in a
removable drawer for a total of 3 hard drives in the machine
at any point. IOW a minimum of 7 drives for a week's work
not including archiving.
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 7:11:07 PM

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

"+" <123@4567.fi> wrote in message
news:Fibue.8018$ez2.1039@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz with MOTU 241/O to pc
> (dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)
>
> Any good idea? If so ,what would be the
> best harddisk solution?
>
> Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be
> better ( more reliable)? In that case I would have to transfer the files
to
> the pc
> anyway .
>
> Lemmy
>
>


----- Original Message -----
From: "+" <123@4567.fi>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:38 AM
Subject: MOTU 24I/O ?


> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz with MOTU 241/O to pc
> (dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)
>
> Any good idea? If so ,what would be the
> best harddisk solution?
>
> Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be
> better ( more reliable)? In that case I would have to transfer the files
to
> the pc
> anyway .
>
> Lemmy
>

Lemmy:

First off, I am not a pro, and have a lot to learn so you can take this for
what it's worth. I am a volunteer that does the sound for our church, and am
trying to do the very best and most professional job I can.

I was asked to run the PA and recording system for our 9 day international
church camp meeting (attendance between 850-1,000 people
www.thechurchofgodonline.com ). We had two systems so there would be a bit
of redundancy. Everything was a capella so we had 5 vocal mics, 4
choir/crowd mics, and one lapel for a total of 10 tracks.

The main system was a Yamaha 01V96 board, a Dell 3 GHz computer, 512 Ram,
80gig OS HD + 250gig Audio HD, with an RME 9652 optical interface and Adobe
Audition 1.5 for recording software.

The back up system was something like a Mackie 1604 VLZpro, a 3 GHz computer
with 1 gig ram, 40 gig OS HD, + 100gig Audio HD, with an M-Audio Delta 1010
audio interface. He was using Cool Edit Pro (he did upgrade to Audition 1.0
at one time, but reverted back to CEpro because of stability issues). The
was also a Maranz CD recorder, and a Marantz Cassette deck for backup in
this rig.

I ran the main system and a friend ran the backup.

The 01V96 was connected to the main computer via lightpipe, and I used the
"one-click method" to send the vocal mics, lapel, and the 2 of the
choir/room mics to the Delta 1010 interface pre-fader. He than routed the
outs of the delta 1010 to the Mackie 1604 so that he could mix down to 2
tracks live for the Cassette and CD recorder.

I don't know why, we may have somthing configured incorrectly, but we had no
end of problems with Audition and CEpro. They would freeze and crash
frequently. We would have lost about 30% of the meeting if we had not run
two computers. As it was they crashed simultaneously a couple of times and
the only recording we got was the cassette (he was not using the CD recorder
at the time).

We are both really looking into getting different recording software, and if
that doesn't work any better, we may look into getting a separate stand
alone HD recorder. Although I'd love to be proven incorrect, it doesn't
seem to me that Audition is suitable for live multi-track recording. The
interface is very pretty, and easy to use, but if it crashes it is IMHO
useless.

regards
Ron Wiebe
June 22, 2005 9:33:57 PM

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

I could do with 16 bits.I guess that would help things a lot.

Lemmy

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1119443356k@trad...
>
> In article <Fibue.8018$ez2.1039@reader1.news.jippii.net> 123@4567.fi
> writes:
>
>> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz with MOTU 241/O to pc
>> (dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)
>
> I assume there's going to be some breaks. That can make for some
> pretty unmanagably large files (about 500 megabytes per track per
> hour), though with the latest version of everything, I think the
> Windows' maximum file size limitation is 4 GB so you'll be safe from
> that. Is anyone actually going to listen to this?
>
>> Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be
>> better ( more reliable)? In that case I would have to transfer the files
>> to
>> the pc anyway .
>
> That's certainly how I'd do it. You could put each night's recording on
> one 80 (a bit of a squeeze) or 120 GB drive. With a project of that
> nature, you might even consider mixing it "outside the box" and
> bypassing the computer entirely other than perhaps as a mixdown
> recorder.
>
> If you're being paid for this, you're free to do it any way that's
> efficient for you (and that the client will go along with) but if this
> is a volunteer effort, working with your recordings is going to get
> old fast, no matter how much you love the program material. I speak
> from experience.
>
>
> --
> 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
June 22, 2005 9:33:58 PM

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

+ wrote:
> I could do with 16 bits.I guess that would help things a
lot.

Agreed. I recently shifted my weekly live recording from 32
to 16 bits with no loss of sound quality.
June 22, 2005 10:02:13 PM

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

The thing is that each participating band gets a video of their performance
and so far the soundtrack has come from the foh console stereo out.Not much
editing done either.
I guess recording 24 direct outs even at 16 bits would be a conciderable
improvement.
Rec levels could be an issue then?
Any point using a limiter?

Lemmy





"+" <123@4567.fi> wrote in message
news:KLeue.8084$l44.4038@reader1.news.jippii.net...
>I could do with 16 bits.I guess that would help things a lot.
>
> Lemmy
>
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1119443356k@trad...
>>
>> In article <Fibue.8018$ez2.1039@reader1.news.jippii.net> 123@4567.fi
>> writes:
>>
>>> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz with MOTU 241/O to
>>> pc
>>> (dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)
>>
>> I assume there's going to be some breaks. That can make for some
>> pretty unmanagably large files (about 500 megabytes per track per
>> hour), though with the latest version of everything, I think the
>> Windows' maximum file size limitation is 4 GB so you'll be safe from
>> that. Is anyone actually going to listen to this?
>>
>>> Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be
>>> better ( more reliable)? In that case I would have to transfer the files
>>> to
>>> the pc anyway .
>>
>> That's certainly how I'd do it. You could put each night's recording on
>> one 80 (a bit of a squeeze) or 120 GB drive. With a project of that
>> nature, you might even consider mixing it "outside the box" and
>> bypassing the computer entirely other than perhaps as a mixdown
>> recorder.
>>
>> If you're being paid for this, you're free to do it any way that's
>> efficient for you (and that the client will go along with) but if this
>> is a volunteer effort, working with your recordings is going to get
>> old fast, no matter how much you love the program material. I speak
>> from experience.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
June 22, 2005 11:07:02 PM

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

Anyway , thanks to you guys.Now I got much clearer idea what to do. Luckily
I got plenty of time before I have to start building the system.

Cheers Lemmy



"+" <123@4567.fi> wrote in message
news:D afue.8093$Ld4.3181@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> The thing is that each participating band gets a video of their
> performance and so far the soundtrack has come from the foh console stereo
> out.Not much editing done either.
> I guess recording 24 direct outs even at 16 bits would be a conciderable
> improvement.
> Rec levels could be an issue then?
> Any point using a limiter?
>
> Lemmy
>
>
>
>
>
> "+" <123@4567.fi> wrote in message
> news:KLeue.8084$l44.4038@reader1.news.jippii.net...
>>I could do with 16 bits.I guess that would help things a lot.
>>
>> Lemmy
>>
>> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>> news:znr1119443356k@trad...
>>>
>>> In article <Fibue.8018$ez2.1039@reader1.news.jippii.net> 123@4567.fi
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz with MOTU 241/O to
>>>> pc
>>>> (dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)
>>>
>>> I assume there's going to be some breaks. That can make for some
>>> pretty unmanagably large files (about 500 megabytes per track per
>>> hour), though with the latest version of everything, I think the
>>> Windows' maximum file size limitation is 4 GB so you'll be safe from
>>> that. Is anyone actually going to listen to this?
>>>
>>>> Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be
>>>> better ( more reliable)? In that case I would have to transfer the
>>>> files to
>>>> the pc anyway .
>>>
>>> That's certainly how I'd do it. You could put each night's recording on
>>> one 80 (a bit of a squeeze) or 120 GB drive. With a project of that
>>> nature, you might even consider mixing it "outside the box" and
>>> bypassing the computer entirely other than perhaps as a mixdown
>>> recorder.
>>>
>>> If you're being paid for this, you're free to do it any way that's
>>> efficient for you (and that the client will go along with) but if this
>>> is a volunteer effort, working with your recordings is going to get
>>> old fast, no matter how much you love the program material. I speak
>>> from experience.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
June 23, 2005 1:01:56 AM

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

In article <KLeue.8084$l44.4038@reader1.news.jippii.net> 123@4567.fi writes:

> I could do with 16 bits.I guess that would help things a lot.

It would cut the size down by 1/3, so your files would be roughly 2GB
rather than 3 GB. Still, it's a lot of backup, file transfer, and
listening. You might want to use hard drives as your primary storage
medium and just put them on the shelf if there's a need for storage
for some time. I just bought an 80 GB drive today for $89.95 with $70
worth of rebates (isn't that silly?) for a net cost of twenty bucks
for what could be a couple of days worth of your project. Of course
there's only one rebate to a customer, but still there are some pretty
good deals out there.

Figure on recording the live mix to CDs, perhaps with a stand-alone CD
recorder, and then listen to those for material worth mixing. You can
save listening to a lot of multitrack recordings that way. And you
might just find that your stereo mix is usable for the application,
save the multitrack disk for a couple of weeks just in case, and then
re-format it and use it for another project.


--
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
June 23, 2005 1:01:57 AM

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

In article <dafue.8093$Ld4.3181@reader1.news.jippii.net> 123@4567.fi writes:

> The thing is that each participating band gets a video of their performance
> and so far the soundtrack has come from the foh console stereo out.Not much
> editing done either.

Well, there you have your reference copy.

> I guess recording 24 direct outs even at 16 bits would be a conciderable
> improvement.

It would only be an improvement if you thought that you could do a
better mix. Just for watching a band's set, the stereo mix is probably
just fine. If they want to do a video of one or two songs, you could
pull those up off the multitrack disk, try to do a better mix than the
live mix (which may not really be much of an improvement, depending)
and save yourself a lot of time. Then either sell the band the hard
disk if they think they might want to produce other videos from the
material, or tell them that it's going to turn into a pumpkin in 30
days.

As far as limiting goes, I'd just watch the levels and make sure that
the recorder's input sensitivity is set so that it doesn't clip any
sooner than the mixing console does. Don't limit on your recording.
You can't un-do it easily if you decide that it's too much.

--
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
June 23, 2005 12:57:28 PM

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

Well consider getting a used 24 channel mixer and mixing the direct
outs live. For what you would pay for all the PC interface gear you
could get a mixer for less. It depends on your time frame. If you have
the time to mix from the recording and manage the sync to video then
sure you'll likely get better product. But if this is for one off quick
work mixing live will get you there with less headache.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 2:21:44 PM

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

Does the FOH console have a spare pair of Pre Fader Aux sends?
June 23, 2005 7:45:09 PM

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

No, the direct outs would definitely be better cause due to the acoustic
nature of the venue some of of the loudest instruments are hardly or not at
all present in the foh stereo mix.
A stereomix out of the direct outs would be one way to go , but that would
mean a pretty big mixer and I don´t have room for it, unless there would be
some kind of rackunit size A/D gizmo, and the mixing done in the pc.
Multitrack way would IMHA (A stands for assumption) would produce the best
outcome , but I don`t know yet do I (we) have enough time for all the hazzle
it requires.
I guess I `ll check also stereo mic recording, maybe combined to some other
sources.
As I said before I have plenty of time to concider different options .It`s
really nice to have them.

Cheers Lemmy







"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1119468452k@trad...
>
> In article <KLeue.8084$l44.4038@reader1.news.jippii.net> 123@4567.fi
> writes:
>
>> I could do with 16 bits.I guess that would help things a lot.
>
> It would cut the size down by 1/3, so your files would be roughly 2GB
> rather than 3 GB. Still, it's a lot of backup, file transfer, and
> listening. You might want to use hard drives as your primary storage
> medium and just put them on the shelf if there's a need for storage
> for some time. I just bought an 80 GB drive today for $89.95 with $70
> worth of rebates (isn't that silly?) for a net cost of twenty bucks
> for what could be a couple of days worth of your project. Of course
> there's only one rebate to a customer, but still there are some pretty
> good deals out there.
>
> Figure on recording the live mix to CDs, perhaps with a stand-alone CD
> recorder, and then listen to those for material worth mixing. You can
> save listening to a lot of multitrack recordings that way. And you
> might just find that your stereo mix is usable for the application,
> save the multitrack disk for a couple of weeks just in case, and then
> re-format it and use it for another project.
>
>
> --
> 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
June 23, 2005 7:45:10 PM

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

+ wrote:

> No, the direct outs would definitely be better cause due
to the
> acoustic nature of the venue some of of the loudest
instruments are
> hardly or not at all present in the foh stereo mix.

This is common problem with live recordings.

> A stereomix out of the direct outs would be one way to go
, but that
> would mean a pretty big mixer and I don´t have room for
it, unless
> there would be some kind of rackunit size A/D gizmo, and
the mixing
> done in the pc.

Yes, 24 channels.

You could probably do something in the analog domain with a
number of expandible line-level mixers chained together.

The lowest-cost approach would probably be to use 2
Behringer RX1602s, chaining the first one into the second
one via a pair of its inputs, for a total mixing capacity of
30 channels of which you only need 24.

> Multitrack way would IMHA (A stands for assumption)
> would produce the best outcome , but I don`t know yet do I
(we) have
> enough time for all the hazzle it requires.

I mix about 30 minutes of 20 tracks most weeks. The most
time-consuming part for a starter mix is just setting levels
and channel balance. It really helps to have good
documentation about the input assignments. If you get fancy
with adding EFX and enveloping gains, and correcting musical
errors, then you can burn any amount of time.

> I guess I `ll check also stereo mic recording, maybe
combined to some
> other sources.

The stereo mic recording might not be too bad, if the mics
are good. I find that my two Behringer ECM8000's about 10'
from the stage, about 10' up and spaced about 20' apart
don't do a bad job.

> As I said before I have plenty of time to concider
different options

Calendar time to work out the alternatives is a valuable
resource.

>
June 23, 2005 7:46:09 PM

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

No, the direct outs would definitely be better cause due to the acoustic
nature of the venue some of of the loudest instruments are hardly or not at
all present in the foh stereo mix.
A stereomix out of the direct outs would be one way to go , but that would
mean a pretty big mixer and I don´t have room for it, unless there would be
some kind of rackunit size A/D gizmo, and the mixing done in the pc.
Multitrack way would IMHA (A stands for assumption) would produce the best
outcome , but I don`t know yet do I (we) have enough time for all the hazzle
it requires.
I guess I `ll check also stereo mic recording, maybe combined to some other
sources.
As I said before I have plenty of time to concider different options .It`s
really nice to have them.

Cheers Lemmy







"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1119468452k@trad...
>
> In article <KLeue.8084$l44.4038@reader1.news.jippii.net> 123@4567.fi
> writes:
>
>> I could do with 16 bits.I guess that would help things a lot.
>
> It would cut the size down by 1/3, so your files would be roughly 2GB
> rather than 3 GB. Still, it's a lot of backup, file transfer, and
> listening. You might want to use hard drives as your primary storage
> medium and just put them on the shelf if there's a need for storage
> for some time. I just bought an 80 GB drive today for $89.95 with $70
> worth of rebates (isn't that silly?) for a net cost of twenty bucks
> for what could be a couple of days worth of your project. Of course
> there's only one rebate to a customer, but still there are some pretty
> good deals out there.
>
> Figure on recording the live mix to CDs, perhaps with a stand-alone CD
> recorder, and then listen to those for material worth mixing. You can
> save listening to a lot of multitrack recordings that way. And you
> might just find that your stereo mix is usable for the application,
> save the multitrack disk for a couple of weeks just in case, and then
> re-format it and use it for another project.
>
>
> --
> 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
June 23, 2005 9:56:19 PM

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

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:SrOdnbm_vpV32CTfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>+ wrote:
>
>> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz
>
> This is potentially a non-starter. Each channel's .wav file
> calculates out to be almost 6 GB.
>
> Given that a .wav file can't be larger than 2 GB for
> internal structural reasons...

Use Vegas and choose recording format as "W64" . I'm sure other apps have
their own >2GB file formats too ....


geoff
June 24, 2005 12:14:06 AM

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

Actually the foh console has 32 channels ( Soundcraft MH 3 ), but not all of
them are usually in use.Then again in some occasions they are.

Lemmy

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:vJqdnaKyAKL5USffRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>+ wrote:
>
>> No, the direct outs would definitely be better cause due
> to the
>> acoustic nature of the venue some of of the loudest
> instruments are
>> hardly or not at all present in the foh stereo mix.
>
> This is common problem with live recordings.
>
>> A stereomix out of the direct outs would be one way to go
> , but that
>> would mean a pretty big mixer and I don´t have room for
> it, unless
>> there would be some kind of rackunit size A/D gizmo, and
> the mixing
>> done in the pc.
>
> Yes, 24 channels.
>
> You could probably do something in the analog domain with a
> number of expandible line-level mixers chained together.
>
> The lowest-cost approach would probably be to use 2
> Behringer RX1602s, chaining the first one into the second
> one via a pair of its inputs, for a total mixing capacity of
> 30 channels of which you only need 24.
>
>> Multitrack way would IMHA (A stands for assumption)
>> would produce the best outcome , but I don`t know yet do I
> (we) have
>> enough time for all the hazzle it requires.
>
> I mix about 30 minutes of 20 tracks most weeks. The most
> time-consuming part for a starter mix is just setting levels
> and channel balance. It really helps to have good
> documentation about the input assignments. If you get fancy
> with adding EFX and enveloping gains, and correcting musical
> errors, then you can burn any amount of time.
>
>> I guess I `ll check also stereo mic recording, maybe
> combined to some
>> other sources.
>
> The stereo mic recording might not be too bad, if the mics
> are good. I find that my two Behringer ECM8000's about 10'
> from the stage, about 10' up and spaced about 20' apart
> don't do a bad job.
>
>> As I said before I have plenty of time to concider
> different options
>
> Calendar time to work out the alternatives is a valuable
> resource.
>
>>
>
>
June 24, 2005 12:28:31 AM

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

<tymish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119547304.208091.12350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Does the FOH console have a spare pair of Pre Fader Aux sends?
>

No
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 1:33:14 PM

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

It was just a thought. I've done recordings of live shows with a
seperate submix for recording from a pair of Aux sends. Much better
results than the FOH mix. I was mixing FOH too so I had access to the
mixer.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 10:28:04 PM

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

In article <1119630794.780508.172810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> tymish@hotmail.com writes:

> It was just a thought. I've done recordings of live shows with a
> seperate submix for recording from a pair of Aux sends. Much better
> results than the FOH mix. I was mixing FOH too so I had access to the
> mixer.

I often set things up the other way. Since I'm always feeding the
house in mono anyway, I turn a set of post-fader sends all up to 7 and
send that mix to the house. If there's anything I don't want to send
to the house (rarely the case since I do almost exclusively
all-acoustic shows), I just turn that send on that channel off. It's
very rare that I'll send something to the house that I don't want to
send to the recorder.

With this setup, I can use the pan pots, channel faders, and main mix
fader to control the recording mix and don't have to pan by turning
one aux send up and the other down. I rarely have the luxury of
working on a console that has stereo auxiliary sends, though they're
getting more common now with the popularity of in-ear monitors.


--
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
June 24, 2005 11:08:27 PM

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

Correction. There is a pair of Pre Fader Aux sends available and that would
work just fine but its better have the level knobs where the meters and the
recorder are.

Lemmy





"+" <123@4567.fi> wrote in message
news:wpCue.8392$Yc3.6525@reader1.news.jippii.net...
>
>
> <tymish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1119547304.208091.12350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Does the FOH console have a spare pair of Pre Fader Aux sends?
>>
>
> No
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 11:08:28 PM

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

+ wrote:
> Correction. There is a pair of Pre Fader Aux sends
available and that
> would work just fine but its better have the level knobs
where the
> meters and the recorder are.

With the sort of recording you are doing, if you have to
ride knobs and watch levels, you've probabaly lost it. Far
better to simply set things up with a bunch of headroom,
push the record button, and get on with the rest of your
life.
June 26, 2005 1:17:05 AM

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

I think there is is a possibility in MH-3 to set pre fader aux sends stereo,
so everything could be done from the foh console.But since I have the pc in
separate room second floor I`ll put a pair of Behringer Truths and rest of
the gear there and connect things with a snake.So who ever does the foh
console doesn`t have to bother with these things.
Depending on the evenings act ,foh man might allready have enough work
without
this extra hassle.


Lemmy

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1119644748k@trad...
>
> In article <1119630794.780508.172810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> tymish@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> It was just a thought. I've done recordings of live shows with a
>> seperate submix for recording from a pair of Aux sends. Much better
>> results than the FOH mix. I was mixing FOH too so I had access to the
>> mixer.
>
> I often set things up the other way. Since I'm always feeding the
> house in mono anyway, I turn a set of post-fader sends all up to 7 and
> send that mix to the house. If there's anything I don't want to send
> to the house (rarely the case since I do almost exclusively
> all-acoustic shows), I just turn that send on that channel off. It's
> very rare that I'll send something to the house that I don't want to
> send to the recorder.
>
> With this setup, I can use the pan pots, channel faders, and main mix
> fader to control the recording mix and don't have to pan by turning
> one aux send up and the other down. I rarely have the luxury of
> working on a console that has stereo auxiliary sends, though they're
> getting more common now with the popularity of in-ear monitors.
>
>
> --
> 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
August 16, 2005 3:14:39 PM

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

Western digital sata 10,000rpm , these are by far the best in my opinion.
I love the asus/intel combo :-) .

check out www.tigerdirect.com



Marko.

www.spielbergaudio.com


"+" <123@4567.fi> wrote in message
news:Fibue.8018$ez2.1039@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> 6 hours (5 nights a week)24 channels 24 bit 44.1kHz with MOTU 241/O to pc
> (dual xeon 3,2Ghz, Asus board ,Intel chipsets)
>
> Any good idea? If so ,what would be the
> best harddisk solution?
>
> Or would a dedicated harddisk recorder be
> better ( more reliable)? In that case I would have to transfer the files
to
> the pc
> anyway .
>
> Lemmy
>
>
>
!