using REAPER on location for classical, chamber and piano recording

[studer58]

I watched the following Reaper tutorial video: Multichannel Recording in multiple channels and wondered if there are not some big similarities between the multi-miked drum kit example used and the multiple mics of a classical, chamber or piano recording on location ? Leakage and bleed between nearby mics would present similar issues, for example.

The 'takes in lanes' method of displaying the successive takes seems to be a great way of representing them for easy review, choice and selection...rather than doing patch or repair takes and having these placed later in the timeline ?

Providing the cursor timeline were placed far enough prior to the desired repair segment, the musicians could get enough 'run-up' to the drop-in section (perhaps with the help of a playback speaker in the hall or church) before punching into the relevant section...very much in the manner of a rock studio session ?

Editing would then be a matter of sliding the grouped series of crossfade points (as shown in the video) to and fro and making the edit. Does anybody else think that this could be a viable and practical way of proceeding at a CD location (not concert) recording session...with the benefit of making later editing much more straightforward, without the need for Source-Destination or 4 Point cut and insert procedures ?

The individual take sections (eg from bar 36 to bar 39) would of necessity be longer than the 1 or 2 stick hits shown in the drum example, but that would be easy to nominate with the aid of drop markers inserted during recording, corresponding to bar numbers.

Alternatively, this video shows how the various mic inputs could be instead recorded to one track, although the overall principle is very similar: Multi-Channel recording to One Track in REAPER

[Bob Bickerton]

No problem using multi-track sessions for recording classical music, well that is, if you need more than a stereo pair, however I haven't used 'dropping in' techniques with classical musicians. Rather you'd identify sections or bars that needed to be repeated and record them with suitable lead in/out bars with the musicians playing at the same tempo (they're rather good at that).

I've even seen this method used with a large professional orchestra.

Bob

[studer58]

I don't doubt a small or large group of trained musician's ability to replicate correct timing (they are following a score, with bar markings, after all !) The 'get a good run up method' using speaker playback of some of the earlier take could help or hinder this, depending on their open-ness to trying the method ?

The drop-in point would be at the discretion of the session producer....and traditionally this might involve longer passages of overlap to cover the fault than you might see in a studio session, where a few drum hits or 3 fumbled words might be the duration of the repair punch-in.

I'm keen to try this with a single instrumentalist first, just to see if he's comfortable with the overall principle, before imposing it upon a whole ensemble.

[Aural Reject]

Depending on who it is you're planning on recording, potentially the biggest hurdle you'll cross is this one...

depending on their open-ness to trying the method ?

.....as I'm fairly sure you'll come across large reticence to change what is essentially the tried and tested method outlined by Bob, especially if they're a seasoned bunch of performers.

[Mike Stranks]

No problem using multi-track sessions for recording classical music, well that is, if you need more than a stereo pair, however I haven't used 'dropping in' techniques with classical musicians. Rather you'd identify sections or bars that needed to be repeated and record them with suitable lead in/out bars with the musicians playing at the same tempo (they're rather good at that).

I've even seen this method used with a large professional orchestra.

Bob

Absolutely agree!

I tend to multitrack all the time now for location classical/semi-classical. But that doesn't mean I'm slap-dash about the siting of the 'key' pair - whatever stereo config I'm using. Oft times I'll not use any of the spot tracks, but it's nice to have them if needed. Should also mention that If I'm using outriders then the ability to balance them against the main pair is invaluable.

I grew up in the 'straight to stereo' school (well, mono actually when I started! ) and did that for over 30 years. The option to lay tracks and do the mix later when options can be explored was a luxury beyond price!

As for multiple takes I never use drop-ins. Far too complicated. I used to worry about comping takes, but experience and practice has shown that it isn't really an issue. No-one yet has been able to spot the joins! If you're aware that timing between takes can be an issue then buy a 'light-flash' metronome and let the conductor or leader use it. Also I never do cross-fades, but very tight edits. When you're used to working with your editor of choice it's surprising how tight you can get them.

[ConcertinaChap]

The thing is classical ensembles have a way of rehearsing that we normal mortals may not know about. If you look at a classical score then you'll see numbered bars and also letters marking out sections. These are put in by the composer to assist in rehearsal. The ensemble will play through the piece and if the conductor spots something he or she wants to work on they'll stop the musicians, explain what they want done and then say, "right, let's restart from F" or from bar 145 or whatever.

So, when the time came for me to record a piece by my wife for a dozen musicians and 6 singers (one of whom was me) + conductor. I set my mics up and after the usual checks started the recorder running and left it. I'd previously explained that if the conductor heard an error or thought something could be done better he would do just as he did in rehearsal - stop the ensemble, take them back to a logical point a number of bars before the error and restart. Among other things that meant the restart matched the original tempo very closely.

Back at the studio I had about an hour and a half of music which I edited down to 45 minutes simply by excising the errors and fluffs. As an approach it worked very well and meant I could give myself over to singing my part. The conductor is much better placed than the engineer to detect problems and restart the ensemble as necessary.

As I wasn't close miking anything (2 mics in X-Y plus a couple of outriders some feet back from the ensemble) leaking and bleeding were not an issue.

CC

[Aural Reject]

The conductor is much better placed than the engineer to detect problems and restart the ensemble as necessary.

Slightly off-topic, but that's not necessarily true.

Allowing sessions to be solely run by the (wo)man in the middle can create issues in a number of ways. It does, of course, depend on who's engineering or indeed producing the session and whether or not they're familiar with the genre, but even the best conductors miss things (and sometimes the other way around - they think they've heard something but haven't)....the other issue is session timings....quite often you're limited on time and using a producer is the best way of keeping to the schedule.

[ConcertinaChap]

Horses for courses here, I suspect. Depends on the circumstances, the ensemble and the piece, but of course in this instance as one of the performers I had no choice. If you the producer are controlling it then it will also help hugely if you can read the score.

CC

[Aural Reject]

Horses for courses here, I suspect. Depends on the circumstances, the ensemble and the piece, but of course in this instance as one of the performers I had no choice. If you the producer are controlling it it will also help hugely if you can read the score.

CC

Absolutely

[Hugh Robjohns]

Does anybody else think that this could be a viable and practical way of proceeding at a CD location (not concert) recording session...with the benefit of making later editing much more straightforward, without the need for Source-Destination or 4 Point cut and insert procedures ?

Yes, it's viable, and it could be made practical, but it's really not necessary, or expected, and it has no significant advantages as far as I can see.

Multitracking on location is commonplace simply because the technology makes it so easy to do these days, and there are occasions where having access to individual mics can help when problem solving. But generally I concentrate on recording a live stereo mix that does all I want it to do, and the iso tracks are just there should a rebalance be necessary later on.

I don't see the point of dragging a playback system into the recording venue. Any faults in classical work are historically resolved by recording complete sections or short patches and editing them in after the recording event, not by dropping in to the original tracks live at the event. This latter approach strikes me as unnecessarily cumbersome and time consuming, and with no practical benefit.

In the pop studio where you're often overdubbing individual performers one at a time, drop-in editing makes much more practical sense, but I don't see it as a technique that has any merit or benefit in classical recording applications.

H

[Ariosto]

In years of recordings in various studios as a performer I've never come across the "drop in method" with classical recording. It's always either record two takes and edit the best from one to the other - or the re-recording of small sections to edit in. Professional classical players are good at going back a few bars and getting the exact same tempo - whether its an orchestra or a small group.

[studer58]

Does anybody else think that this could be a viable and practical way of proceeding at a CD location (not concert) recording session...with the benefit of making later editing much more straightforward, without the need for Source-Destination or 4 Point cut and insert procedures ?

Yes, it's viable, and it could be made practical, but it's really not necessary, or expected, and it has no significant advantages as far as I can see.

Multitracking on location is commonplace simply because the technology makes it so easy to do these days, and there are occasions where having access to individual mics can help when problem solving. But generally I concentrate on recording a live stereo mix that does all I want it to do, and the iso tracks are just there should a rebalance be necessary later on.

I don't see the point of dragging a playback system into the recording venue. Any faults in classical work are historically resolved by recording complete sections or short patches and editing them in after the recording event, not by dropping in to the original tracks live at the event. This latter approach strikes me as unnecessarily cumbersome and time consuming, and with no practical benefit.

In the pop studio where you're often overdubbing individual performers one at a time, drop-in editing makes much more practical sense, but I don't see it as a technique that has any merit or benefit in classical recording applications.

H

Hugh, I'm certainly not advocating a drop-in correction process exactly as implemented in the pop studio...for one thing the REAPER method is non-destructive, and simply adds new takes cumulatively in place, and doesn't over-write the existing take (that would be disastrous and counter-productive) The notion (and perhaps I've misnamed it) of "dropping in" is simply to line up all the new takes to an (approximately) common start point.

The main attraction of the REAPER method, when I saw the video, was the apparent ease with which various takes (or repairs) could be A/B/C compared almost instantly....vs the time honored classical recording method of starting with your base take and then, somewhere down the time line, recording your repair patches. The REAPER method seemed to promise a more streamlined edit process, in that repairs were vertically stacked in situ and available for instant comparison. So it struck me as a (perhaps selfish) method of streamlining the editor's job, rather than making things any easier for the musicians !

I take your point about not burdening the session with playback speakers...the only purpose of these was to assist with reliably cueing the start point of each of the repairs...which can be done as easily by the engineer hitting record at the appointed spot.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The main attraction of the REAPER method, when I saw the video, was the apparent ease with which various takes (or repairs) could be A/B/C compared almost instantly....vs the time honored classical recording method of starting with your base take and then, somewhere down the time line, recording your repair patches. The REAPER method seemed to promise a more streamlined edit process, in that repairs were vertically stacked in situ and available for instant comparison. So it struck me as a (perhaps selfish) method of streamlining the editor's job, rather than making things any easier for the musicians !

Sure. I can see that. It's a similar idea to the comping functions available on several DAWs.

Personally, I just place track markers on SADiE (usually following the score letter markings) as we record to instantly playback any take from the most suitable position ...

I take your point about not burdening the session with playback speakers...the only purpose of these was to assist with reliably cueing the start point of each of the repairs...

Still don't see the point.

It seems to me that you would be forced to take and rig/derig additional playback equipment and persuade the musicians to perform in an unfamiliar way, just to be able to work with aligned takes in the DAW to make your life negligibly easier when editing.

If it works for you, then great, but it doesn't honestly hold any appeal for me or offer any advantages that I can see.

H

[Mike Stranks]

I think you're over-stating the case.... Those of us who do a lot of this stuff have explained how we approach it and why any form of drop-in technique can often be counter-productive.

I'll do retakes for several reasons:

* The conductor/leader isn't happy and stops the recording. They'll either just briefly explain why they stopped and then say "from bar x" and off we go or ask me to pause the recording while a more detailed discussion occurs.
* I hear a fluff that the conductor/leader has missed.
* I think the group/soloist etc can do better - perhaps just in one section
* There is a technical issue that the players/singers may be unaware of, noises-off, kicked stand etc.

As for comparing takes, I have two approaches - depending on the preference of the leader/conductor:

* Just give them the RAW files (or rough mixes) of the pieces in question and let them choose what bits they want from where. (This works best with experienced musos - either professional or skilled amateur.)
* Line up the various takes, giving me the ability to do instant compares and select the best. (This is what I tend to do with less-gifted amateurs who do not perform consistently. I recently worked on one piece that the player found it extremely difficult. It was five complete takes of a 4-minute piece with multiple selections of sections - probably about 20-25 in total - in order to build something like a decent recording.)

If you want to do it as you've suggested then fine... but others of us prefer different ways of working and find they work for us and the people we're recording.

Edit: Hugh was quicker than me! His post appeared while I was still typing!

[Aural Reject]

I'm in a similar situation to both Hugh and Mike wrt workflow.

At the end of a session I'll end up with a marked up score (either from the Producer or maybe me depending if I'm running solo...which is admittedly fairly rare...but this score indicates where the flaws were in a given take), a set of take notes with start and end points per take, based on the score rehearsal marks...and a linear series of takes in a multitrack project...then it's just as simple as copying the bits of the multitrack take you want then sliding it over to where you want it and editing the crossfade.

The only real time I'd consider what you were suggesting is if I was actually tracking something to a pre-existing guide etc...and that would also usually involve headphone feeds etc...it's a more complicated setup.

[Bob Bickerton]

The fundamental issue here is that you're describing a process which may make your life easier as opposed to providing the optimum environment in which the musicians can perform, which should always take priority. There is no advantage in the method you describe for the musicians and they will likely be distracted by the process.

So, as has been said, take good notes, use markers, engage a producer if necessary and be prepared to edit away.

Oh and has been alluded to, multi take comping has been available for many years in different platforms. Nothing particularly special about that, but it works best for drop ins against an existing track or if you're working to a click, both of which require the musician to use headphones.

Bob

[studer58]

Thanks to you all for your thoughts and considerations, the points you make regarding keeping the musicians at ease and focussed are of course paramount in such a session, and indeed anything which threatens to derail that is to be avoided. In my situation the producer will act as the go-between and be in charge of getting the best performance from the musicians, calling for re-takes as necessary.

To use the tape recording analogy, I think what I'm suggesting is no more than (let's assume the speaker playback idea is completely discarded) rewinding the tape to the beginning (+ a bar or more) of the faulty section and hitting Record. Perhaps even doing this multiple times. The takes get layered at close to the same point in the time line. From the musician's point of view, they are simply doing a couple of re-takes from the same start point each time....compared with perhaps completing that movement, then returning to the questionable section at the end for 'repairs' ?

So it's now down to a preferred working method for musicians and producer. Are they going to get greater satisfaction and motivation from hammering out corrections almost immediately and then moving on, or is it better to get the 'big picture' completed first and then return for repairs at the end ? If it's a case of maintaining timing/tempo continuity, I suspect they may opt for the former....while the tempo cues are still fresh in their minds ?

As long as the bars are marked on my timeline, this 'method' is amenable to either of these approaches....all that differs is where on the timeline the repairs are 'stored' ?

My guess is that both approaches might be equally valid and preferable, depending on the skill, confidence and persistence of the producer and musicians...in other words, they can decide (not the recording engineer...all he has to do is find the right bar marker/cursor point and hit record....and do so quickly enough that there's a maintained sense of flow and continuity) ! The method has to serve the musicians...I get that message loud and clear. What I'm suggesting is thus not the great departure from the tried and true methods you are referencing here as standard practice ?

[Bob Bickerton]

I would be against trying to 'wind back' the takes (to use a tape analogy) on the fly. It takes time, will make for a messy project, you'll only be able to get to an approximate point and then you'll be layering up not in sync.

My preferred method is to just let the recording run and note the time of when takes happen, if there's false starts, intonation issues, dropped notes, ambient noises etc.

Your focus should be fully on auditioning what's being recorded. Leave everything else to post.

Making good notes are the key. Here's a link to a recording log (I stole from Robjohns years ago), which I always have with me on recording gigs. If you read a score sure mark one up with pencil but I prefer to make notes and refer to a score afterwards if necessary.

Bob

[Aural Reject]

As Bob says, locating appropriate start points can be a serious PITA as - depending on the score of course - rehearsal marks may be few and far between...and if you only want a single bar that's right between two distant marks, that's a lot of downtime while you rummage around trying to find it.

Additionally, there's the response time that the MD / ensemble will be expecting from you. Depending on who it is you're working with, they may let you move at your own speed with the expectation that you'll meet the time criteria but sometimes they will drive you to essentially work 'faster' by locating the next section as soon as the light is off and their patience can wear very thin when there's a lot of umming and erring going on.

It's probably not what you wanted to hear - I can see why you think it'd make your life easier - but all I can foresee are issues I'm afraid.

[studer58]

Additionally, there's the response time that the MD / ensemble will be expecting from you. Depending on who it is you're working with, they may let you move at your own speed with the expectation that you'll meet the time criteria but sometimes they will drive you to essentially work 'faster' by locating the next section as soon as the light is off and their patience can wear very thin when there's a lot of umming and erring going on.

It's probably not what you wanted to hear - I can see why you think it'd make your life easier - but all I can foresee are issues I'm afraid.

No, I'm appreciative for your advice, and it corresponds with all the sessions I've participated in to date, whereby nailing one section and then moving on to the next is very much the order of the day..it keeps everyone on their toes and 'deliberation time'is held very much to a minimum...and generally the producer drives that ! It's very much a 'taxi meter ticking' situation, in my experience....

Most of the ensembles I record bestow great faith in the judgement of the producer, and are able to deliver the improvements or variations requested immediately with no conferring or grumbling...and they similarly expect the tape op/engineer to be on top of his game as well ! Adopting a new method which could jeopardize that quick response and overall flow is not to be taken lightly.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I think what I'm suggesting is ... The takes get layered at close to the same point in the time line.

Yes. I think we all get that. It's basically a technique that makes it easier for you to keep track of which takes belong where in the master-track timeline.

And as previously discussed, I think most of us have evolved simpler alternative solutions using markers in the DAW timeline and/or handwritten notes and/or marked-up scores to do the same thing.

From the musician's point of view, they are simply doing a couple of re-takes from the same start point each time....compared with perhaps completing that movement, then returning to the questionable section at the end for 'repairs' ?

In my experience it's most usual to record at least one complete take, and then go back and repeat any sections needed for repairs. But I have also recorded sessions where a take is stopped immediately if there is an obvious problem, and a retake of the relevant section performed immediately, carrying on until another mistake occurs or the piece is completed.

The choice of technique is generally that of the conductor/producer and it makes no difference to me as a recording engineer or editor which method is chosen.

As I see it, the most significant practical issue with the way you're suggesting working is that the conductor (as a minimum) and/or the orchestra will need to hear a playback of the previous take in order to be synchronised with the previous recording.

Clearly that can be done with headphones fairly easily -- and it is a standard practice when recording film scores to picture in the studio, for example. But few traditional classical conductors like using headphones for this kind of purpose, and headphones for each musician requires lots of additional equipment on the recording venue floor. A playback system based on loudspeakers would involve slightly less equipment on the floor, perhaps, but potentially cause major problems with unwanted spill and technical issues in muting the speakers at the appropriate moments without causing a major distraction to the musicians that affects their performance.

It seems to me a massive amount of technology, hassle, inconvenience and compromise, with only minimal benefits either during the recording session or the edit...

As I said earlier, there are numerous studio applications where the ability to layer synchronised overdub takes is a real benefit of the DAW, but I just don't see it as a benefit in a classical location recording scenario.

H