The standard approach for recording one-man, multi-instrument 'bands' is to make it all digital. That isn't the topic but rather another way to do it.
The biggest problem to solve is capturing what it really, really, really sounds like in the room when I'm playing. Digital won't do that. You can stand on your head and bark and it won't do that.
Possible answer is to mike the speakers. There are sufficient Sennheiser stage mikes here (I believe) to use two near the speakers and two more at the back of the room. It's not big enough for any distance effect and there's no audience noise to capture. The reason for doing it is the potential fatness they may add. I may not use them but good to have and the mikes aren't doing anything right now anyway.
Here's the audio path:
The biggest problem to solve is capturing what it really, really, really sounds like in the room when I'm playing. Digital won't do that. You can stand on your head and bark and it won't do that.
Possible answer is to mike the speakers. There are sufficient Sennheiser stage mikes here (I believe) to use two near the speakers and two more at the back of the room. It's not big enough for any distance effect and there's no audience noise to capture. The reason for doing it is the potential fatness they may add. I may not use them but good to have and the mikes aren't doing anything right now anyway.
Here's the audio path:
- Mac laptop sends audio out to the primary mixer via channels rather than USB
- Insanely magical music happens coming in through a secondary mixer that drives the looper
(Everything goes through the looper regardless of whether I will use it in a loop)
- Looper outs to the primary mixer which outs to the main speakers
- Speakers are miked to Mixer X which outs to the iMac where the signal is broadcast and recorded.
That's about $100 (approximate) for a small Yamaha MC102 (I think) mixer. This is good so long as I don't have to get an interface from the mixer to the computer as that's another $100 and change. That model of Yamaha does not have a USB out so it requires an interface but, for the same small money, some other may. Yamaha is preferred because it's particularly difficult to break.
That's about $100 (approximate) for a small Yamaha MC102 (I think) mixer. This is good so long as I don't have to get an interface from the mixer to the computer as that's another $100 and change. That model of Yamaha does not have a USB out so it requires an interface but, for the same small money, some other may. Yamaha is preferred because it's particularly difficult to break.
The main situation is that it would not take another computer to do it as that would mean death, no chance of that happening and there wouldn't be any particular benefit anyway. The new used computer isn't top of the line but it does step out at a proper pace on things. The only improvement would be in a five-figure Apple video blaster in their top of the line. It'd be cool but it's not required.
I'll almost certainly do this as soon as I can cobble together $100. This means I change NOTHING in my kit for a live set no matter where it happens. Nothing more than this can be done to make it authentic as this is it. You hear what I hear. Yep, this has got to be tried. For $100, this experiment is so worth it.
I'll almost certainly do this as soon as I can cobble together $100. This means I change NOTHING in my kit for a live set no matter where it happens. Nothing more than this can be done to make it authentic as this is it. You hear what I hear. Yep, this has got to be tried. For $100, this experiment is so worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment