Advice request: recording a multi-synth piece of music

[Ben Asaro]

Good day,

I am in the process of writing a piece of music that will have several synths playing simultaneously. It is going to be an improvised piece of music so the thought is to record the piece live.

I will have something in the order of 6-7 synths, acoustic guitar, and external delays and reverbs (two of each). I also a Mackie CR-1604 mixer.

My original thought was to have each synth going into the Mackie and then direct channel out into my interface (I have a Focusrite OctoPre as well as an 18i20), using aux sends for the delays and reverbs.

However, there are flaws with that plan in that the Mackie only has 8 channels of direct out and the aux returns input to the master bus, so any effects would be lost when going into my interface.

So now I am thinking of just feeding the master out from the Mackie into 2 channels of my interface and keeping it WYSIWYG.

I am not sure if there are any alternative methods that would be worth the effort (such as using the direct channels out and use the master output as a wet-only effects track recording simultaneously with the direct tracks) or if it makes the most sense to go old school and keep it to 2 tracks.

I am the performer as well as engineer in this case, so there is no client to check with, nor do I need to have stems.

Any thoughts from anyone who has done something similar would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[Hugh Robjohns]

However, there are flaws with that plan in that the Mackie only has 8 channels of direct out and the aux returns input to the master bus, so any effects would be lost when going into my interface.

Recording the individual sources will obviously allow you to re-balance the piece afterwards, which I presume is why you started down this road.

The effects can always be added again afterwards, provided you note down the settings, by running each source out of your interface, through the effects, and back in as a post-production exercise.

H

[Ben Asaro]

Good point, thanks! I think that is exactly what I will do.

[CS70]

Well if your interface has enough inputs and the Mackie is the bottleneck, you could simply rent a larger mixer for the session? Or a small one and use that and the Mackie in parallel.

[molecular]

Is it the kind of 1604 that has 16 inserts, though, even if only 8 direct outs? (I think the VLZ does).

In which case you could tap those, and use desk channels as your FX returns so they could go out again from insert points.

[Ben Asaro]

Is it the kind of 1604 that has 16 inserts, though, even if only 8 direct outs? (I think the VLZ does).

In which case you could tap those, and use desk channels as your FX returns so they could go out again from insert points.

Can you please illustrate how that would work?
Thanks!

[molecular]

Well if it has 16 channels and each channel has an insert, then you are just trying to access the "send" bit of the insert without breaking the signal path, and so using it as an unbalanced direct out.

You can do that by...

1. plugging a TS cable into the insert, but only half way (i.e. till it goes through the first click, but not all the way). If the desk has wobbly inserts or is likely to get knocked during the gig that might be unreliable, but if it's a stable setup it works.

2. making or buying adaptors which you push in all the way to get the "send" but which don't interrupt the signal going on through the desk. I think the set-up is that it is an unbalanced lead with TS jack (or TS socket) at the interface end, and a TRS jack to go into the insert point, but inside the TRS jack the tip and ring are connected together, and the signal wire is connected to either. The downside of this is that they might be a PITA to get hold of or make, and as mentioned borrowing a bigger desk for the recording might be easier...

If you have enough spare channels, you could then send your FX on auxes, but bring them back into the desk on channels, rather than aux returns, and also record the FX return channels from the insert sends.

You'd just have to remember not to turn up the aux sends on the channels you're using to bring the FX back in...

That's it!

[molecular]

Maybe a clearer explanation:

http://silentsky.net/wordpress/archives/113

[Ben Asaro]

Thank you!

[Ben Asaro]

Thanks for the article, molecular, but unfortunately that doesn't solve the fundamental issue of being able to track the direct outs with effects, as the effect returns are to the master bus. I have used the inserts on the channels before to do similar work to what the article suggests.

I think what I will do is a variation on Hugh's suggestion and record the direct outs, solo the aux returns, and record the effects separately onto their own track; I can then blend it as needed, or if I need to revisit the effects, I can re create the original effects with some careful note-taking.

[molecular]

Thanks for the article, molecular, but unfortunately that doesn't solve the fundamental issue of being able to track the direct outs with effects, as the effect returns are to the master bus.

I think the bit of what I was trying to explain that was relevant to this is:

If you are going to external FX units from the Mackie's Aux, then instead of bringing them back in on Aux Returns, bring them back into the desk on the line input of normal channels.

That is, if you have enough normal channels...

Then you can send them to the live mix on the fader and the record from those channels' insert points.

You might have maxed out all 16 line inputs with synths, though, in which case yes I'd go with Hugh.

I guess one more thing worth checking is whether your aux FX have multiple outputs (like XLR and Jack, or XLR Analogue and SPDIF) which you might be able to use simultaneously to split the FX there and go to both desk and interface...

[Ben Asaro]

Ding! I think that Option 2 will work! I am using patch bays, so multing the outputs from the effects should be doable!

Thanks for the clarification, also!

[molecular]

Nice one!