I have a wedding in two weeks at my Church. I am also fortunate to be one of the sound guys that handles the mixer when needed. We have a tape deck that I believe is wired to a line out on the mixing board. We have never used it before. I was thinking of recording the entire service to tape this way and using this for the ambient sound and Priest during the ceremony. I also plan on having the groom miced with a wireless lapel . My question is. Do you think this sound will be acceptable, even if it is to analog tape (with potential for hiss) I will add all the audio together in post.

Thanks!
BK

If it's a good recorder, with high-quality chrome or metal tape, receiving a good signal, then it should be ok. Probably not any better than ok, but you should test it ahead of time to see if it meets your expectation.
Of MUCH greater concern is drift versus the video. And, a pitch change versus the deck you use for playback. Analog tape is terrible in this regard!! Do you have anything more stable you can record on? CD, DAT, another camera, flash recorder, anything?
If you go with the tape deck, you'll have to decided if you want to employ any noise-reduction during recording or playback. Sometimes this can be too harmful to the sound quality. Often you can employ mild EQ to combat hiss without hurting the frequencies you want to keep.

No, unfortunatly I don't have anything else. I'll probably just have to use my cameras on board mic for the ambient sound. Unlesss I could hook my laptop up somehow and capture into the mic input....?

The audio quality is not the issue, the drift is however.

Don't you have a back-up camcorder that you can use as an "audio-recorder"? It doesn't have to be digital.

VHS normal audio should be equivalent to audio-cassette, VHS HI-FI is on par with DV-audio. However, I believe you will need to send a picture feed to a VHS deck, whereas a VHS/SVHS camcorder has black already built in.

No, I don't have another camera. I am using my only 2 for the cermemony. I do have access to an IPod, but I don't believe there is a line-in on it. I will try and borrow my sisters Hi-8 camera and run a line out from the board into this.

Thanks for the advice...

Don't forget MD recorders, MP3 recorders, and any other digital source. In a real pinch, you can use a laptop and the Windows Media recorder too.

Hey Brent, generally two cameras should be enough for your audio needs as long as you can split the audio into two channels per camera, giving you a total of four potential channels. Use one wireless source per camera and then with the other available chanel use the onboard mike .

If you can only do one channel per camera, you might want to ask here about modifications to your camera so that you can have two separate audio feeds. If you do have a Hi-8 camcorder available and you want to use it as a back-up audio source you definitely need to test out the set-up well ahead of time for both audio level compatibility and to make sure the camcorder actually still works.

If you plan on going with a battery instead of a power supply for the Hi-8 Camcorder you will want to check out the run time of the battery, run it down, charge it up, and then run it down again and see how long it lasts. If no one is monitoring the camcorder you may want to darken the viewfinder brightness setting as that probably will then draw less current.

Finally, there was a topic on this forum several months ago about running a wireless feed from the audio board to your camcorder, is that an option or are you concerned the feed may be "sloppy" and therefore unuseable.

Cool, thanks for all the replies.
Here is my potential setup....

Stationary Sony MiniDv on tripod behind alter with frontal shot of bride and groom with onboard mike.

I will man my Canon GL2 from stage left of the alter also with onboard mic.

Groom will be miked with a lapel and an iRiver mp3 recorder in his pocket to catch the vows.

I will have the High8 camera (plugged in AC outlet) and try and run a line out from the mixing board (this will have the Preachers wireless mic, mic for soloist, and mic for lay readers) running into it. So for audio tracks in post, I'll have 4 channels of audio to tweak.

That should work, Brent. Of course, those onboard mics will be useful mainly for finding your way around and helping you to lip-sync the wild sound from the external recorders during post-production, plus for room tone.

BTW, the iPod can definitely be used for recording, but it requires an accessory like the $35 Griffin iTalk, something like what you are already doing with that iRiver.

What I'm not liking about your set-up is the two most important feeds (the feed going into the HI-8 and the grooms River mike) are not being monitored by you.

I assume you will check the line level issues with the HI-8 before the shoot day and make sure the camera records and playsback for at least an hour, before the wedding?

If your laptop has line input that would be a good way of recording the audio from the mixer.

Is everybody using laptops on video shoots?

Everybody? I doubt it. Me? I try to bring my PowerBook along, mainly to make post-production in the field a real possibility, using Final Cut Pro. Also, it's my portable office/graphic design studio.

But so far I haven't used it for audio recording; it has Soundedit but that's wimpy...I'd prefer Logic or ProTools to be really comfortable. So I usually take the board feed right into my XL1, the 16-bit 44.1 KHz audio of DV is basically CD-quality...just don't overload it.

On laptops, the headphone jack is the line input. Problem is, on most computers, the sound card is so lousy you want to bypass that and use USB audio with the appropriate adapter/breakout box.

Some people have actually begun recording video directly onto computers and skipping the tape (and subsequent capture).

I prefer to always be a tape guy. (Edit, when it comes to location work)

I just can't imagine turning to my client, even if it only were to happen one out of 500 times and say, "um, the harddrive crashed, filled up, had a virus, and basically, your project doesn't exist."

Me too, I am a real throwback, dating back to the days when Sony and Ampex, and later Teac and ReVox, ruled the home audio market with their 1/4" reel-to-reel machines. And I still record my video on tape. But I have learned that sometimes we resist trends at our own peril. That's why I thought it would be relevant to bring up the harddrive shooters.

Having said that, I can't say I've NEVER had a problem with tape. I had just finished a shoot, using the same type of tape I always use, went to capture it in my computer and discovered that the tape was corrupt and loaded with all kinds of rectangular artifacts! Fortunately I was able to schedule a reshoot, had the talent dress the same and they actually spoke their dialogue better. (Whoof! survived that one!) Wouln't want that to happen on a one-time-only live event!

I have been in the habit of using one of my cameras when recording audio-only, but I also have the optiion of using my HHB CDR830. It uses ordinary (cheap) CD blanks, and has the advantage of immediately producing a recording that can be played back on anything that plays a CD. And it's as easy to use as a tape recorder.

I know that it's only a matter of time before I take the hint and follow the lead of the serious multitrack guys that use ProTools or Logic.

> serious multitrack guys that use ProTools or Logic.

Pro-Tools is obsolete in the studio where I work. We use something called Digital Performer, absolutely awesome. Some people in the PC world speak very well of Steinberg Nuendo (now Yamaha, it seems) and of course venerable Vegas.

Ah yes, MOTU! Hadn't even thought about them! No extra hardware (unlike ProTools), I like. As long as you don't run across anyone who refuses to deal with you unless you are using PT (like those unpleasant "no Mackie" tech riders that some musicians have in their contracts). I guess the producers of Lord of the Rings weren't concerned.

As for Vegas, I know it's popular. If I ever throw away my Mac and buy a pee see, I'll give that one a go. :-)

Cheers
m

I wasn't clear in my previous post. I was refering to location work where you only get one chance to capture a moment.

> I wasn't clear in my previous post. I was refering
> to location work where you only get one chance to
> capture a moment.


Probably the safest bet will be using a portable MD or CD recorder connected to the mixer and with battery backup. A well mantained computer or DAT machine would be almost as good. The computer might have better bit depth and higher sampling rates --given the right extra hardware-- and more storage capacity.

In regards to location computer recording.

Has anyone actually determined if computers that never surf the internet are more reliable for location production work than computers that have surfed the net (because of viruses and such?)

> anyone actually determined if computers that
> never surf the internet are more reliable for
> location production work than computers that
> have surfed the net (because of viruses and such?)

For me it has been the other way around. Having the Mac connected to the 'net means I am always using the latest patches to the OS and QuickTime, and I am easily up to date with the apps I use.

Hmmmm, don't know. I don't think they make very many viruses for OS X. But you do need to disable wireless networking on your machine when running some of this recording software due to potential system conflicts. And in general I wouldn't try running other applications while asking the computer to do the processor-and-memory-intensive job of running ProTools or Final Cut Pro.

> And in general I wouldn't try running other applications while
> asking the computer to do the processor-and-memory-intensive
> job of running ProTools or Final Cut Pro.

Absolutely. Although for today's computers recording a pair of tracks of audio --even at high sampling rates and bit depths-- is not really a sweat at all. But you should turn of all networking, disable anti-virus, defragmenting and any other automatic tasks when recording.

Ignacio, you bring up an interesting issue. Mike, I'm sure that was helpful to others out there who do or might consider using computers for field recording.

-----------------------

Live production work usually revolves around having 3dimensional knobs and dials specifically so one can "mult-scan" their engineering environment to make sure everything is set correctly.

On computers these settings have to be menu accessed and that to me is asking for trouble.

> I wasn't clear in my previous post. I was refering
> to location work where you only get one chance to
> capture a moment.

Actually, it was pretty clear to me, that's what I thought you meant. On-location field production can be real high anxiety whenever you have a concern about reliability of equipment. You really do get only one chance.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I'm stating that menu controlled operations can be a nightmare for live field recording situations. Menu control doesn't mean these systems are less reliable, However it is more difficult to check the status of how one has "set-up" the equipment because one has to access a menu to gather technical information rather than just check a knob or a switch setting.

For me it's more a matter of tactile access, as in the fact that you can quickly move your hand to slide a fader or tweak an EQ or pan pot etc. with "non-virtual" equipment.

That's the advantage of "3 dimensional knobs."

Conversely, with the virtual studio displayed on your screen, even if everything is all laid out as virtual knobs, sliders and meters (and whatever you need to do is accessible without resorting to pull-down menus), you have to grab the mouse, move the pointer to the exact location, and precisely click and tweak and not mess it up.

It's just nowhere near as ergonomic as old-school hard components.

I have noticed the difference when DJing using virtual DJ-console software. The tactile sense is gone, and there goes your rhythm and flow. (Of course, I love not having to carry in thousands of CDs, and it's nice to be able to pull up a song in a few keystrokes.)

> On computers these settings have to be menu
> accessed and that to me is asking for trouble.

Hmmm. I think and think about this and it just doesn't fit reality for me. At least in my case, all pro equipment I have access to has inputs with an analog gain control, which is not at the computer at all. And when recording there is no audio processing and --in the case of live gigs or a wedding-- no mixing, so I still think the computer is a great option.

Most trouble will usually have to do with mics, cables, preamps, direct boxes and so on.

I of course wouldn't dream of using such a setup for live mixing. Well actually I have thought about it but as a purely academic exercise. Real time control is so important with live mixing...

... then again wouldn't it be cool to have the monitor mixes and channel processing all set up before a show, or from the previous show, short setup time, almost instant soundcheck? But that would mean using the same monitors, microphones... not the usual case for me and the band I work with.

Back to the subject: I guess my opinion on this issue might also have to do with the fact that I use macs for audio. And especially in regards to the effect of having the computer connected to the 'net, it seems so different to the mainstream platform. At the studio we keep all macs fully networked with access to the IP backbone and everything works perfectly, no problem at all. We sometimes even stream audio files accross the network in cases of emergency. Of course for this to work you need switches instead of hubs. Whereas the PC we have (just one) is often in trouble because of viruses or trojans or, in many cases, for unknown reasons. I use both PCs and Macs and I like both, I am by no means trying to start a platform war, just sharing my experience.

>>>Real time control is so important with live mixing...

How right you are, Ignacio!

>>>.. then again wouldn't it be cool to have the monitor mixes and channel processing all set up before a show, or from the previous show, short setup time, almost instant soundcheck?

Well, isn't that one of the big selling points of digital mixers? Actually, I have very limited experience with these, I had a small one from Roland on which you could store scenes and all kinds of effects setups and had built-in simulations and stuff, but it was such a pain in the --- for me to use, I went right back to the good old Mackie analog board. :-)
(...or Allen & Heath, Soundcraft, etc.)

At the end of the day, I see no harm in having a PowerBook take the place of a DAT or other recorder to "tape" a board feed in the field.

"I'm stating that menu controlled operations can be a nightmare for live field recording situations."

How right you are Alessandro!