Moving swiftly on - new classical recording rig project

[tacitus]

Well, I have to report that my attempts to get my old MOTU 896HD's 8 mic inputs into the ADAT in of my Audient iD14ii have been unsuccessful and the thing has become more like the Hunting of the Snark, or of Martin Bormann, than I enjoy now, so I'm going to put it aside and start looking at what I could do instead.

This is going to be an on-location classical recording rig. As you see, I have the iD14 and I like it. I've expanded it to 4 inputs with my dbx386 of similar vintage to my 896, and apart from needing a co-ax to optical converter, it's been easy.

I started recording in the late 90s with a few dodgy mikes, a small Soundcraft Folio mixer and a Sony DAT. The dbx 386 was a large step up even if it restricted me to a single pair of mikes. I got hold of the 896 to remedy that situation in the early 2000s, but never got a chance to do much with it as I had a sudden, 15-year plus diversion into PA.

Now I'm recording again and feel the need to be able to record more than 2 channels. I'm recording direct to my iMac at the moment - I take it off my desk, put it in a mixer case and unload it in a church somewhere, in front of an organ or ensemble playing a gig. In future I can see myself recording some bigger ensembles, maybe large concert wind bands and similar, for which I'd want more than 2 pairs of mikes. Hence the attempt to rehabilitate the 896, and now that's not going well, to look for something else.

My thought before I realised I might be able to use the 896 was to add an Audient ASP800 or 880 to the iD14, so that's one option. Or start again with something with more inputs; I don't see myself needing more than 8 inputs very often, so 8 channels would be simpler in most cases - plug in the interface, plug in the mikes and go (sort of!). the Evo range seems OK though I don't have recording experience. Would I miss the ASP's quality? Or maybe change the iD14 to an iD44, use the 386 to get to 6 channels and buy an 8-way unit later if the needs arises. Not that it has to be Audient, but I like what the iD14 gives me ...

TBH, I think the id44 plus the dbx386 would be enough channels for 90% or so of what I'm likely to record, and needing more would be a "nice problem to have". But obviously a single unit with 8 channels would be simpler for, what, 98% of the time?

I like the idea of having 10 or 12 inputs of comparable quality, but that's probably colouring my judgement and that's before considering the 1,001 other options available. Because of this I find it difficult to set a budget, but a couple of thousand pounds should be manageable. I don't want to do it twice!

My mike locker is in the budget to no-frills range: Rode NT55 pair, several Oktava 012s, Line Audio CM3s and Omnis, and so on, down to the bottom of the barrel. Plus loads of SM57s and Beyer 201s from the PA side. It would be nice to have some really good mikes, but until I know how this is working for me it seems a bit premature.

Can anyone see a path through this? I suppose quite lot of options would work, but I'd like it to work smoothly and quickly as I'm short of time, both age-wise and in terms of setup time at gigs.

[Drew Stephenson]

Have you considered a portable recorder like a Sound Devices MixPre10?

[ajay_m]

While I guess any of the high end multichannel audio interfaces would work, with you controlling them from the laptop, there is a recent option which in my opinion is worth considering (and a month ago I bought one and reorganised the home studio around it and I'm absolutely delighted with the result)

You could consider the new Yamaha dm3s which would give you 16 very nice mic/line channels, an 18:18 audio interface which will handle 96khz, a full powerful digital mixer and a control surface though I'll caveat the latter by saying your daw needs Mackie HUI support. All in something that weighs just over 6kg and is not a lot bigger than a laptop. All up this is £1500.
It will also record a stereo pair to a usb drive. (But not unfortunately full multitrack)

This puts you behind a proper, but diminutive, full mixing desk and if I were doing location recording I would be very comfortable with this setup since you could mix quite separately to what you record on the daw and capture that directly to a usb drive so at the end of the performance you already have a pretty nice live recording (and you have some very nice quality reverbs etc built in if you need them).

The preamps have a huge gain range and are extremely quiet. Hugh would point out that a boutique convertor might top them by a few dB but see the specs below, for the first time I have absolutely no digital noise or hum on any input, I can't fault them.

Specs here

https://uk.yamaha.com/en/products/proau ... oduct-tabs

[Sam Spoons]

Have you considered a portable recorder like a Sound Devices MixPre10?

That's where I'd be looking, or, a bit cheaper but still very capable, a Zoom F8n Pro
https://zoomcorp.com/en/gb/handheld-vid ... rs/f8npro/

The Yamaha dm3s looks like a good option too if a laptop and DAW is a requirement.

[Bob Bickerton]

Support here for a high quality portable recorder - so much easier!

I use a Soundevices MixPre10 for all sorts of location acoustic music work, including orchestras, choirs and chamber music and would replace it tomorrow if I had to. As has been said the Zoom F8 offers a cheaper option, but if you have the budget I’d go with the MixPre as you’d never hanker after better preamps than that.

Some decent stereo pairs of mics would be a next step. I’m currently using MKH 8000 series, others would have alternative choices, but I think they’re good value for what they deliver.

Bob

[Hugh Robjohns]

I'll third the small portable recorder suggestions.

I bought an F8nPro recently as a backup machine for a Nagra VI (which is my primary location recorder) and I'm very impressed with its versatility and convenience, plus its superb value for money.

If I was being picky, the machine's ergonomics and preamps aren't as good as those in the Nagra (although that only provides 4 mic inputs). But it's a tenth the price and a quarter the size!

Regarding the Sound Devices suggestion, the Kashmir preamps are also a tad better than the Zoom's and you get 8 in the MixPre10 mkii.... it's a versatile machine and well designed... but more expensive than the Zoom. Also, you'll need to budget for external battery packs of some kind for the Zoom/MixPre.

Both machines offer a 32bit-float record option for those situations where you can't manually set record levels. I've recorded a couple of events now with the recorder placed at the base of a mic stand supporting a stereo array (or tree), and just let it get on with it. No cables across the floor, fast placement, no concerns over setting levels. Not my ideal method of recording, but very pragmatic.

If you're looking to keep costs down and you're not using top end Schoeps, Sennheiser MKH, and Neumamn mics, the Zoom F8n pro is a very attractive option... and even if you are using high end mics the F8s preamps are still pretty darn good (better than most interfaces) and will rarely if ever be the weakest link in the chain. (And with enough gain to make those M201s viable!).

[ajay_m]

My word, Nagra!. That takes me back to my teenage years when I was lucky enough to acquire a Revox A77 (my lovely father managed to acquire it for me from the company he worked for when they decommissioned an audio-visual setup that used it), but Nagra, Uher and a few other names were the pinnacle of portable recording back then with truly scary prices (mind you looking up the price of your Nagra VI does cause a sharp intake of breath, but what a lovely little piece of kit!).

[Hugh Robjohns]

Nagra, Uher and a few other names were the pinnacle of portable recording back then with truly scary prices (mind you looking up the price of your Nagra VI does cause a sharp intake of breath, but what a lovely little piece of kit!).

Mine is the special edition with the milled faceplate and proper Nagra pointy knobs (rather than the standard plastic edition)... so it actually looks like a Nagra!

It's a bulky machine by modern standards, but I prefer having some space between the controls, and a display I can read without glasses.

It has four stunningly good mic preamps, plus two line inputs which double as AES3 inputs.

So I can run four mics just with the Nagra, plus two line inputs (from a keyboard or other line source etc), or six mics with an external stereo preamp (I use a battery-powered SoundDevices MP-2) or eight mics with a digital preamp (I use a Focusrite ISA428).

I bought mine pre-loved, so not as cripplingly expensive as the list price, but it is a thing of genuine beauty, aesthetically, engineering-wise, ergonomically, and sound-wise. And undoubtedly the best sounding recorder Nagra ever made, building on the basis of the Nagra-D.

[sonics]

I much prefer the flexibility of a computer-controlled system here. I like having a big screen for monitoring the audio (so easy to understand what's coming in and find issues), as well as for quick edits, playback control, plugins, quick balances, reviewing takes, running off rough mixes, uploading etc. All easier on a computer. I would recommend getting a new 8-channel interface or find a standalone 8-channel one. It's also the cheapest option.

The Zoom is very good indeed, but if all your recording is inside you don't need the "field" aspect.

It will also record a stereo pair to a usb drive. (But not unfortunately full multitrack)

Which makes it useless in this instance, surely?

[ajay_m]

No, the DM3 stereo recording limitation isn't an issue I don't think - I'm assuming the OP might prefer to continue recording to their computer, so the stereo recording off the desk is just a mixdown that could be created during the performance.

It's a pity A&H don't make an SQ3 because the SQ5 *can* do multitrack recording directly to a USB drive but it's a bit beyond the OP's price range and rather bulky - an 8 fader version with 16 ins and the same multitrack capability would be rather nice here. Wouldn't be surprised if A&H were considering that though, if they see Yamaha being successful with the DM3.

[tacitus]

I’m reading all these suggestions - thank you all very much for your trouble - and assessing what they would mean for me.

I’ll get a more considered reply to you presently, but I’m rehearsing tonight after dealing with my kids’ sleepover plans. This comes to you from McDonalds …

I’m thinking I’ll either be going for the portable recorder or staying with a computer-based system. But I have more questions, too.

[Nazard]

For on-location classical recording, or any other field recording, I would always go for a field recorder, not direct to computer, whether Mac/Win/Linxux or anything else.

Less connecting everything together with a field recorder, no problems with device recognition etc. and Sound Devices and Zoom recorders allow for simultaneous USB recording backup. (Depending on the model).

If studio bound, however, then a computer makes sense.

[OneWorld]

A DAW is more of an editing machine, a portable recorder is more of a recording machine (obviously) horses for courses, record on the recorder and transfer to the computer which of course is infinitely more suited to editing.

Yes a DAW wins hands down when it comes to flexibility and a computer is far less pernickety than they used to be. But for quick and effective recording I do like the immediacy of a recorder, as the occasion demands it. I switch my recorder on and off I go.

When I turn the DAW on I will invariably be met with 'Updates are ready' and yes the download and installation be seemless, but there is the occasion when it demands a restart and before I know it the shut down has commenced. If only Microsoft would treat us to a lean and mean OS that was free of digital bri-a-brac, and we, the users had total control, my recorder would go on eBay anmd it wouldn't be squeaky bottom time when there was a mission critical job of recording to do.

[James Perrett]

If only Microsoft would treat us to a lean and mean OS that was free of digital bri-a-brac, and we, the users had total control, my recorder would go on eBay anmd it wouldn't be squeaky bottom time when there was a mission critical job of recording to do.

I have a Wi-Fi switch on the side of my computer. If I switch it off, the machine works exactly like that. If I switch it on, I have it set up so that it asks me if I want to do updates and doesn't do anything without my permission.

I always keep Wi-Fi and internet switched off when doing anything critical.

[tea for two]

There is also a consideration of just one 1 mic placed approx 12ft above the orchestra.
It does make it a whole lot easier to mix as the blending of instruments is already present, rather than trying to blend from more mics placed in different sections of the orchestra. Not to mention lesser number of mics lesser chances of phase distortion, lesser unwanted noise from various areas.
1 mic is also more as the audience in the auditorium concert venue would hear orchestra.

[Bob Bickerton]

There is also a consideration of just one 1 mic placed approx 12ft above the orchestra.
It does make it a whole lot easier to mix as the blending of instruments is already present, rather than trying to blend from more mics placed in different sections of the orchestra. Not to mention lesser mics lesser chances of phase distortion, lesser unwanted noise from various areas.
1 mic is also more as the audience in the auditorium concert venue would hear orchestra.

Now just how many audience members have you met with only one ear? The ones I see going to concerts all have two.

The earliest surviving stereo recording of classical music appears to come from 1932, so you’re only 90 years behind the times.

Maybe you forgot to include your usual “LOL” in your post?

Bob

[tea for two]

Now just how many audience members have you met with only one ear? The ones I see going to concerts all have two.

The earliest surviving stereo recording of classical music appears to come from 1932, so you’re only 90 years behind the times.

Maybe you forgot to include your usual “LOL” in your post?

Bob

90 that's not too bad could been worse I have been known to be a few millennia behind the times : Lol just for you Bob.
Two ears one ear well there's plenty folk can only hear from one ear or not too well in one ear.
Main thing is the clarity of orchestral recording with zero phase distortion and as little unwanted noise : 1 mic makes this rather more straightforward; 2 cardioids at ORTF also.

[Hugh Robjohns]

In ideal circumstances, 1 mic (or two if you believe in that new-fangled stereo idea) can deliver stunningly good results. I like Blumlein fig-8s treated with a bit of shuffling...

However, two mics capturing a performance is not the same as a person with two functioning ears in the same location. Something to do with integral portable dsp between the ears I believe.

...which is the reason why countless recording engineers have developer numerous mic array alternatives and multimic techniques in efforts to better capture an acoustic performance in the less ideal real world.

[Bob Bickerton]

You don't need to LOL for me, I was thinking more for the readers who may think you were being serious.........

And yes, you can make useful recordings with minimum phase by using the usual well-known stereo arrays which are well covered elsewhere in these fora.

But you might be onto something here and I'm happy for you to use the following suggestion (provided I'm not credited for it):

Name of Label: VAN GOGH RECORDS

Beautiful MONOPHONIC soundscapes designed especially for the partially deaf, sufferers of SSD, frustrated artists and those who have CALLOSAL DISCONNECTION SYNDROME.

The SNAKE OIL surrounding stereo recordings has been with us far too long. Cut off an ear, burn your second speaker and immerse yourself into the wonderful world of 'SONOS ANGUSTUS'.

Bob

PS: LOL

[tea for two]

In ideal circumstances, 1 mic (or two if you believe in that new-fangled stereo idea) can deliver stunningly good results. I like Blumlein fig-8s treated with a bit of shuffling...

...which is the reason why countless recording engineers have developer numerous mic array alternatives and multimic techniques in efforts to better capture an acoustic performance in the less ideal real world.

Tru.
For an amateur myself, not pro as your dear self and dear Bob, the 1 mic helped me out when I recorded a String Quartet with the mic placed approx 12feet above the Quartet placed centrally pointing down. It was the only such recording I've done approx decade earlier.

So in a roundaboot way for the OP I was suggesting becoming proficient professional even with 1 or 2 mics thereafter venturing into the world of multi mic arrays.

[tea for two]

But you might be onto something here and I'm happy for you to use the following suggestion (provided I'm not credited for it):

Name of Label: VAN GOGH RECORDS

Beautiful MONOPHONIC soundscapes designed especially for the partially deaf, sufferers of SSD, frustrated artists and those who have CALLOSAL DISCONNECTION SYNDROME.

The SNAKE OIL surrounding stereo recordings has been with us far too long. Cut off an ear, burn your second speaker and immerse yourself into the wonderful world of 'SONOS ANGUSTUS'.

Bob

PS: LOL

Oh dear.
I can't even lol to this, even though I get the jest you meant it Bob, there's possibly readers would take umbrage of Vincent's tragic situation being disparaged this way.

Anyhoo I looked this up.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/fin ... recordings
Mercury Living Presence Classical recordings
"counting the single-mike mono (1951–55), and three-mike stereo (1955–67) releases, numbered some 300 titles. With hi-fi best-sellers like the 1954 mono and 1958 stereo recordings of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture."

There's these utube on Mercury Living Presence.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BzNf-mIQDtY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds12GFl4RI0

[tacitus]

Other than the acoustic differences from having an ear with the ear flap, there’s no evidence that Vincent was deaf in his mutilated lug-hole, is there? I just don’t know. Besides which his other problems must have dwarfed this one.

Back on topic: I’m finding the whole direction this thread’s taking mildly alarming; not because I disapprove of anything said, but you’re all making such good and interesting suggestions I’m inclined to all of them, which is clearly not practical.

So, in the interests of economy, I’m likely to do the following:

1. Get out and record some more concerts or sessions with what I already have. The practice will do me more good than pursuing a killer recording rig.

2. In case I find I need more mikes than I can have on a single interface, I’ll investigate aggregate devices on the iMac. I could get 8 mikes with two of my interfaces, and still have two more stereo interfaces to add if I go positively mad.

My very brief investigation into this topic is coloured by recollections of early users finding it flaky and fogged by there being more recent users claiming it works well.

3. I’ve just realised that the mixer I use for function-band PA will theoretically run 16 mikes into my computer (Soundcraft Signature 22 MTK). I have no idea how well, but I can soon find out …

4. Go to no. 1.

So, no spending just yet, beyond maybe some cables and stands. My thanks again for all your suggestions; I’m not too proud to acknowledge a generally much higher level of awareness and experience at work than my own. Time for hands-on learning!

[Drew Stephenson]

Plan sounds good. A decent, high stand will be a friend for life.

[Arpangel]

I think the Zoom F8 or even something like a Tascam 100 series, would be more than adequate as a recorder, personally, I’d spend most of my money on mic's, the most important thing.

[tea for two]

2. In case I find I need more mikes than I can have on a single interface, I’ll investigate aggregate devices on the iMac. I could get 8 mikes with two of my interfaces, and still have two more stereo interfaces to add if I go positively mad.

I hope you don't mind me saying, I feel with these numerous mics just making life difficult : both with recording and mixing.
Multiple mics arrays are more the domain of those that have years experience under their belt Classical recording, mixing.
When Bob, Hugh also John Willett advise they have decades of experience in recording mixing commercially released Classical with multiple mics arrays.
For a person starting ooot as yourself also myself making your recording mixing life as straightforward as you can with minimal mics is the way to go I would say until becoming proficient.

Mics are what makes the most difference. A £15 mic on a MixPre3 would sound fairly awful.
A well regarded £1K mic on a £100 24/96 handheld recorder would sound rather lovely : other variables permitting.

For me I would do it the Mercury Living Presence way 1 high quality mic or 2 or 3 high quality mics budget permitting :
the MixPre 3 II is made for facilitating such also for the Decca Tree.

For a 2mic rig utilising such as Blumlein fig-8 mentioned earlier by Hugh or ORTF or Gerzon written here by Hugh https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/gerzon-array.
soforth whichever suits circumstances.

For a 2mic rig : SoS highly rated review Cranborne mic pre one of Hugh's favourites.
Such as the EC1 £325 a 2mic pre into a 24/96 Tascam 100 hand held recorder mentioned by Arpangel or Tascam X6, Tascam X8 handheld recorder reviewed by Concertinachap for SoS magazine. Using just the 24/96 recording facilities of the Tascam, the rest Cranborne.
This would make a high quality portable rig with EC1 mains powered as the front end on a Tascam 100 MK2 24/96 approx £100.
It's something I am considering future.
Thereafter spending on 2 well rated mics.

Matt mentioned this in the review using the Cranborne as a front end to a recording interface.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/cr ... camden-ec1

https://www.cranborne-audio.com/camdenec1
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r75PhPWhP ... VjMQ%3D%3D
Video of Cranborne EC1 as a front end connected to Focusrite Scarlet computer audio interface.

Similarly utilising the EC1 mains powered as a front end to a hand held 24/96 recorder.
Thereafter spending on well rated mics.

::

For their best selling in USA at the time Tchaikovsky 1812 was recorded on 1 mic by Mercury Living Presence in 1954.
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/p ... io-italien
"A single microphone was hung approximately 15 feet above and slightly behind the conductor’s podium and maintained in this position during the course of the recording. "
It is in mono. (The transfer on this utube isn't the best).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9NLx292 ... 5jZSAxOTU0
"The music of the 1812 Overture was recorded on December 4, 1954, at the Northrop Auditorium in Minneapolis. The orchestra was placed in normal concert formation on the bare stage, with the University of Minnesota Band brass choir being placed immediately alongside the regular Minneapolis Symphony brass players."

A few years later 1958 Mercury Living Presence released their 3mic version of Tchaikovsky 1812 with same orchestra. Can tell by the cover : there are different locations named for the recording.

Mercury Living Presence stayed with just 1 mic for their Classical releases 1951-1955.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/fin ... recordings

Thereafter moving to 3 mics for the rest of their releases 1955-1967. Either 3 Schoeps or 1 Schoeps with 2 Neumann U-47.
https://elusivedisc.com/rafael-kubelik- ... stered-lp/
"with a Schoeps M201 microphone in the center and Neumann U-47s on the left and right sides."
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLA ... jB_wePLXPU
"Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition, arranged by Ravel, with Rafael Kubelik conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Recorded in the Eastman Theatre in Rochester, NY, on October 28, 1956, "