Jump to content

Mixing of live concert vs the CD


BobK

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

That is a pretty basic unit you have in

I think i found it or its close the LCD looks the same.  Its says they go from 8ok-130k for one.

 

http://www.fohonline.com/home/72-product-focus/8710-solid-state-logics-live-console.html

 

So it that a mixer and 24 track(Like) recording device all in one?

there. It doesn't have anything to do with recording, it's main purpose and design is making

So you go to your link on that board and this is what is says in the first paragraph:

"The word is out. At last month’s Musikmesse/Prolight+Sound show in Frankfurt (see report), Solid State Logic, a leading manufacturer of studio consoles and processing tools, has launched “Live” — its first console designed for sound reinforcement applications. This is definitely big news, but hardly the first time a studio-oriented manufacturer has entered the live console market, with notable examples being the Avid VENUE and PreSonus StudioLive series"

So mixing boards are typically made for studio/recording applications, or "sound reinforcement applications." "Sound reinforcement" means the giant PA system. It can be a permanent install in a building, with additional speakers brought in by the band, it call be all broughtin as with the case of a typical stadium show. Some places sound pretty good, others are notorious for how bad they sound, and there is everything in between. These mixing boards try to give a sound engineer the flexibility to come up with the best sound he/she can given what they have to work with.

A recording console has a different set of parameters that are trying to be optimized for that application. For example, it doesn't need to be ruggedized like a live console does. Mixing is typically a post recording process. Individual tracks are recorded, and then mixed together. For a live recording, you want as pure and raw a signal as possible on media to go and mix at a later date, because that is going to be mixed for consumer audio. Unfortunately, what that is, can vary widely. If the mixing engineer is an audiophile, with audiophile studio monitors it is going to sound one way. If it is a studio with sub-standard monitors with limited frequency response it is going to sound different. If the guy is mixing it with headphones on, it is going to sound another way entirely.

You could use the sound reinforcement mixer to record, but you wouldn't want to, it isn't designed mix different signals to capture sound. It is designed to make live presentations sound as good as possible within a particular venue, and with a specific speaker system. They can be permanently installed, like in a church, or music hall, but they are typically capable of being moved from one place to the next. They need to make a minister's sermon come through clear and crisp, a soprano's aria have emotion, and let a rock band ROCK.

The reason sound engineers will record their own two track version on their laptop is to make their job easier at the next gig. They can play that back after everything is set up, with reference settings, and they know how they want it to sound. The band and come back and listen to how it sounds and give input about the mix (which they obviously cannot do during a live sound check). They don't have to start from scratch every time, they can look at the venue, see what is closest to what they already have on file, and start from there.

Chris A has linked to some threads on some programs that allow you to re-equalize that recording back to something that may be entirely more pleasing for your room, your speakers, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

This is a monitor board, the only thing this guy is doing is making sure that the monitors that allow the performers to hear what they are playing/singing. It allows for EQ, the performer can prefer a certain sound. It can sound completely different than what is playing to the audience. It can mix the other performers instrument's into that monitor depending on what else that performer prefers in order to stay on beat, etc. Monitor boards are much more common now with many artists preferring in-ear monitors as opposed to the ones that sit on stage facing the performer.

You could record off of this mixing board, but you wouldn't want to if you could record off of the mixing board at the front of the house (FOH). It has a limited, and very specific function, letting the musician/singer hear what they think will allow them to give their best performance. It is totally subjective to each performer or singer, and can change from song to song, and within a song, that is why there is a guy standing there to make adjustments.

post-13028-0-97880000-1462587752_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

This will answer all of your questions, USB output, why they have it, and how they can use it.

NOTICE, they are using a separate module for recording, separate and clean from the mixing board. They don't record from the USB output of the mixing board.

Edited by dwilawyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son in Boston at a school function and seeing a lessor known band called The Brian Jonestown Massacre.   He messaged me saying  the board I posted is not what was used.,  he said the LCD similar but not that wide etc.   So the links I gave are not what was used.  Sorry I failed.

 

dwilawyer you are assuming that what I have is in some way displeasing on my home audio.   And what I have been trying to say is its the OPPOSITE of your assumption.    I have a real CD version of the concert and I have the rip this mixer guy did.   Of the two the mixer guys rip sounds better on any home system than the store bought.

 

I did not realize that can't be done with a standard mixer.    So then I then I was trying to see if I had a real photo of it.  I used my poor memory and came close but I was not quite correct.

 

My only guess is he had equipment other than a standard mixer.   It was computerized at least some of it.   So I am guessing it must have been some kind of digital multi-track recording because it sounds  better than store bought CDs.  

 

But for some reason you think that it does not sound good and could be further processed.  I have the further processed version too , the store CD.  So we were able to A/B apples to apples.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say I had a band and I wanted to make a LIVE CD.   What would I record?  Where would it be?   What would be the source?

 

I think this is what they he did.    So don't assume it was just a mixing board at work here, it might have been more.

 

I read this

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/nov11/articles/recording-live-show.htm

 

I'm thinking they maybe had a mic somewhere because I could hear the crowd.  

 

"Once you know what signals you're dealing with, you can decide what sort of recording system you need. My first piece of advice is to keep your setup compact and simple. It's perfectly possible to take your laptop, audio interface and ADAT expander units if you need more inputs, but this will be a delicate and cumbersome system"

 

I wish I took a photo as the process is more complex than I thought.    From the finished result it appears it was more than just a mixer copy, more of a source to be used for a live recording.  

 

I know he did not use one of those PCix expander cards because he was using a laptop not a desktop computer and it was one big file.   I was thinking that was a all or nothing approach,  one mess up in that chain and the recording is poof! gone.

Edited by BobK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

My son in Boston at a school function and seeing a lessor known band called The Brian Jonestown Massacre.   He messaged me saying  the board I posted is not what was used.,  he said the LCD similar but not that wide etc.   So the links I gave are not what was used.  Sorry I failed.

 

dwilawyer you are assuming that what I have is in some way displeasing on my home audio.   And what I have been trying to say is its the OPPOSITE of your assumption.    I have a real CD version of the concert and I have the rip this mixer guy did.   Of the two the mixer guys rip sounds better on any home system than the store bought.

 

I did not realize that can't be done with a standard mixer.    So then I then I was trying to see if I had a real photo of it.  I used my poor memory and came close but I was not quite correct.

 

My only guess is he had equipment other than a standard mixer.   It was computerized at least some of it.   So I am guessing it must have been some kind of digital multi-track recording because it sounds  better than store bought CDs.  

 

But for some reason you think that it does not sound good and could be further processed.  I have the further processed version too , the store CD.  So we were able to A/B apples to apples.

My mistake, I did completely misread what you said, and I am sorry for the confusion. I didn't realize that you were comparing an official CD release of the same performance to the one straight from the board. I thought you were comparing the live sound to what was output from the mixing board for comparison. Looking back at your post, and Oldtimer's initial responses, I don't know how I was so far off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My son in Boston at a school function and seeing a lessor known band called The Brian Jonestown Massacre.   He messaged me saying  the board I posted is not what was used.,  he said the LCD similar but not that wide etc.   So the links I gave are not what was used.  Sorry I failed.

 

dwilawyer you are assuming that what I have is in some way displeasing on my home audio.   And what I have been trying to say is its the OPPOSITE of your assumption.    I have a real CD version of the concert and I have the rip this mixer guy did.   Of the two the mixer guys rip sounds better on any home system than the store bought.

 

I did not realize that can't be done with a standard mixer.    So then I then I was trying to see if I had a real photo of it.  I used my poor memory and came close but I was not quite correct.

 

My only guess is he had equipment other than a standard mixer.   It was computerized at least some of it.   So I am guessing it must have been some kind of digital multi-track recording because it sounds  better than store bought CDs.  

 

But for some reason you think that it does not sound good and could be further processed.  I have the further processed version too , the store CD.  So we were able to A/B apples to apples.

My mistake, I did completely misread what you said, and I am sorry for the confusion. I didn't realize that you were comparing an official CD release of the same performance to the one straight from the board. I thought you were comparing the live sound to what was output from the mixing board for comparison. Looking back at your post, and Oldtimer's initial responses, I don't know how I was so far off.

 

Lol, no problem.  I was just curious how it all worked technically.   

 

My son sent me two songs from the concert and said which one do you like better.    They sounded similar but one was better it was the one the mixer guy gave him off the laptop he had hooked to the mixer thing.

 

He was pretty busy so he did not have much time to answer my techie questions.    But it makes sense what you said about only being mono tracks and so many inputs.    So i was trying to figure out how he did it so well.

 

I read this post on recording from a mixer and a guy said "You can only do two channel from a mixer"  The fellow that made the video corrected him telling him  "Multi Track recording is no problem".

 

So my guess is the concert had say 20 inputs into that mixer which I guess could in theory yield 20 different tracks or 20 different files.

 

So he combined all those inputs either in the laptop or in something before the laptop and was able to make it like a stereo Flac file.

 

I swear he was using audacity on the laptop too.    I'm not familiar with what was needed all I know is the file he made sounds very good and better than most concert CDs I have heard. 

 

I guess I opened a can of worms in asking how, its a little more involved that I thought.  Maybe somewhere on that table he had a hard drive and did have all 20 tracks and mixed them to be sent to the laptop.  

Edited by BobK
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All live sound mixers, whether analog or digital, are actually 6 or more "mixers" in one box. The faders along the bottom of the boards send audio to FOH while the auxes take care of effects, monitors, and recording. The aux sends are located on the channel strips above the faders, or possibly on a layer in the case of a digital mixer. The aux returns are located in the master section, or possibly in an aux layer in a digital board. Monitor or recording aux sends are pre-fader and effects sends are generally post fader. Pre-fader sends can often be configured pre or post EQ.

 

One big advantage of digital boards is the ease of routing signals such as auxes. They can be assigned pre or post fader and/or pre or post EQ with the touch of a button while analog boards usually accomplish these tasks with internal jumpers.

 

Nearly any mixer can be used for recording if unused auxes are available. With digital mixers, the audio can be kept digital all the way through the recording process without extra A/D and D/A conversions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...