Underwhelming Live Recordings

[PSea]

Everyone finds their own way of doing things, but I'm still be in the camp of "never use a PC to mix a live gig." Horror stories are anecdotal, but I've got one:

About 5-6 years ago, I played at my friend's church. They had upgraded when wedges to IEM's. I was used to using IEM's with my cover band, so that was no problem. The problem was that my friend who was leading the band from drums did not trust the sound guys at the church. So he had all the signals going to his MacBook first so he could EQ and add effects before sending it to the board. I can't remember if he sent the channels separately to the board or if it was just a stereo mix.

Anyways, we were playing one of those slow ballad songs they play before "The Message" that's designed to emotionally engage people. This one starts off quiet, then has a long build up before everyone really comes in with a big sound. Well, we did the build up and just as we went to get into the big part, the MacBook messed everything up. All the channels had latency/delay by like a second or so. Everything was direct (guitar, bass, drums, keys), so there was no way to take out your ears and hear correctly.

It resulted in all of us playing very apart from each other. I'd strum a chord and then hear it a second later. All of us on stage were looking at each other like, "what do we do?" until we just stopped playing. It really sound like when you fail a song on Guitar Hero or Rock Band. We then just stood there in silence in front of about 400 people. After about 5 seconds, some old lady started clapping. Everyone joined in. We just walked off the stage in embarrassment. We quickly found humor in the situation. I wish I had access to the video they took of the service. It was hilarious watching it back.

Of course any piece of gear has a chance to fail. I think a PC/Mac has a higher chance of failing in a live system. You're running a full OS with all sorts of stuff running in the background just to have a single software program do something that mixers are designed solely to do. I get there's a learning curve on how to use the gear, but it's a really valuable skill to have, so it's worth it to learn. Honestly, you can make a lot of money running sound for other local bands if you want to as well.

To be fair, I have mainly used XR-18 (X-Air), X32 (in different formats), and M32. We have had a couple issues over the past 8 years, but none of them were show stoppers and properly doing things or maintaining the rig will prevent them:

• XR-18 (X-Air): I bought this unit used from a bar through a friend who thought it was broken for $100. I believe he just had XLR cable issues, but it may speak to it not being in the best of shape. I used that mixer for home use, small gigs, and as an IEM mixer for my original band until recently. I noticed that sometimes, I would turn it on and the power light would be blinking at different rates and the mixer would not work properly. The only way to "fix it" was to whack it a few times before the power light went steady. I think the Power Supply is going out on it. I upgraded to the M32C before it ever fully died at a gig.
• X32 Rack: We use one of these in my cover band's IEM rig. A few of the production companies we work with will just connect their iPad to our mixer to mix, especially at smaller venues. A year ago, we had an issue all of a sudden where the mixer wouldn't connect to the networked stage box (DL32) we use to connect all the channels (the rack only has 16 XLR inputs and we need more). Turns out that the ethercon (maybe it was just an ethernet cable) got pinched and shorted out the connection and fried the network jack in the X32. If we did better maintaining of that cable, that wouldn't have happened. In that case, we were lucky that the production company had another X32 rack in their trailer. We were able to bring it in, hook new network cables up to it, load our scene from the first X32 on it, and still start the show on time with our Scene/IEM mixes saved.

Just my experiences I thought I'd share.

what would be the alternative to running a digital mixer w a computer or tablet? i bring both.

 

[RockYoWorld]

what would be the alternative to running a digital mixer w a computer or tablet? i bring both.

I think there's some confusion. I think what you're doing is standard and totally fine. The mixer is doing the work and the computer or the tablet is controlling the mixer. If the computer crashes, the mixer continues to do the job. Sound keeps going. You just can't make changes.

The scenario I mentioned was using the computer to do live effects and mixing. @Riccardo Ros mentioned his workflow. He is using a Behinger U-Phoria UMC1820 Audio Interface connected to his computer instead of a mixer. I'm not ripping on him and I'm happy that this setup works for him. However, what that setup is doing is sending all the audio data to the computer and the computer is doing the mixing using Reaper. My personal opinion is that that isn't very reliable and may have more latency than a dedicated digital mixer like the XR-18. But it sounds like it works for him, so who am I to tell him to do it differently.

By default, a digital mixer is doing all the processing in the mixer itself. Your tablet/computer is just controlling it. Imagine your tablet as a robot that is moving the faders or twisting the knob. That all the audio data stays in the mixer itself.

The next step is when you're multi-track recording like you're doing. Now the audio data is also going to the computer. That's also fine. If the computer messes up, it is only messing up the recording, not the live performance. Might be an issue if you're being hired to multi-track record and mix a project, but that's another thing.

You could then take the next step and process some channels on the computer and send the audio back into the mixer. It's basically a digital version of using rack gear as an insert. People do this, and that includes talented professionals. Reasons why you might want to do that is some intense effects like pitch correction, room correction, or other fancy EQ or multi-comp plugins that are designed for live use. I know people that do that, but they also know what they're doing and usually have some sort of "Panic Button" that disables the insert if the computer takes a crap on them so it doesn't completely kill all the channels going through the computer.

Large tours that depend on computers to do processing for the actual sound usually have a fancy setup where they have two of the same computer running and doing the same thing and if the main computer has an issue, the secondary computer automatically takes over.

To answer your question about an alternative to running a digital mixer with a computer or a tablet, there are digital mixers that have physical controls. For instance, I have an X32 Compact. This allows you to control everything with physical controls if you want. You can also hook it up to a computer or a router and control it with a tablet if you want. I like to have a tablet and the physical controls.


If you want to have physical controls on your XR-18, I believe you can use an X-Touch with it. I've seen a colleague do that with his XR-18. I'm not sure exactly how you hook it up. It essentially is serving as his tablet/computer in your case.



IMPORTANT SUMMARY: You can get down a rabbit hole with this stuff. Your setup is just fine. You're just learning how to use it. We went down this rabbit hole of explaining how your audio signals are being processed. The important points are:

• You're recording right after the mixer's preamp, which is what I would suggest.
• Anything you do in the mixer besides changing the gain will not be seen in your multi-track recordings
  • On that note, we didn't talk about gain staging. Do you properly adjust the gain for each of your channels to ensure you have a good signal-to-noise ratio while still having headroom so it's not clipping?
• Speakers and room are going to heavily change how these recordings really sound and feel. A good guitar tone for live and recording can be two different things.

 

[PSea]

I think there's some confusion. I think what you're doing is standard and totally fine. The mixer is doing the work and the computer or the tablet is controlling the mixer. If the computer crashes, the mixer continues to do the job. Sound keeps going. You just can't make changes.

The scenario I mentioned was using the computer to do live effects and mixing. @Riccardo Ros mentioned his workflow. He is using a Behinger U-Phoria UMC1820 Audio Interface connected to his computer instead of a mixer. I'm not ripping on him and I'm happy that this setup works for him. However, what that setup is doing is sending all the audio data to the computer and the computer is doing the mixing using Reaper. My personal opinion is that that isn't very reliable and may have more latency than a dedicated digital mixer like the XR-18. But it sounds like it works for him, so who am I to tell him to do it differently.

By default, a digital mixer is doing all the processing in the mixer itself. Your tablet/computer is just controlling it. Imagine your tablet as a robot that is moving the faders or twisting the knob. That all the audio data stays in the mixer itself.

The next step is when you're multi-track recording like you're doing. Now the audio data is also going to the computer. That's also fine. If the computer messes up, it is only messing up the recording, not the live performance. Might be an issue if you're being hired to multi-track record and mix a project, but that's another thing.

You could then take the next step and process some channels on the computer and send the audio back into the mixer. It's basically a digital version of using rack gear as an insert. People do this, and that includes talented professionals. Reasons why you might want to do that is some intense effects like pitch correction, room correction, or other fancy EQ or multi-comp plugins that are designed for live use. I know people that do that, but they also know what they're doing and usually have some sort of "Panic Button" that disables the insert if the computer takes a crap on them so it doesn't completely kill all the channels going through the computer.

Large tours that depend on computers to do processing for the actual sound usually have a fancy setup where they have two of the same computer running and doing the same thing and if the main computer has an issue, the secondary computer automatically takes over.

To answer your question about an alternative to running a digital mixer with a computer or a tablet, there are digital mixers that have physical controls. For instance, I have an X32 Compact. This allows you to control everything with physical controls if you want. You can also hook it up to a computer or a router and control it with a tablet if you want. I like to have a tablet and the physical controls.
View attachment 135078

If you want to have physical controls on your XR-18, I believe you can use an X-Touch with it. I've seen a colleague do that with his XR-18. I'm not sure exactly how you hook it up. It essentially is serving as his tablet/computer in your case.
View attachment 135080


IMPORTANT SUMMARY: You can get down a rabbit hole with this stuff. Your setup is just fine. You're just learning how to use it. We went down this rabbit hole of explaining how your audio signals are being processed. The important points are:

• You're recording right after the mixer's preamp, which is what I would suggest.
• Anything you do in the mixer besides changing the gain will not be seen in your multi-track recordings
  • On that note, we didn't talk about gain staging. Do you properly adjust the gain for each of your channels to ensure you have a good signal-to-noise ratio while still having headroom so it's not clipping?
• Speakers and room are going to heavily change how these recordings really sound and feel. A good guitar tone for live and recording can be two different things.

much appreciated. a few points you raised...

1. gain staging. yes, first thing i do is set the input gain for ea channel

2. "Anything you do in the mixer besides changing the gain will not be seen in your multi-track recording". whoa! so adjusting faders wont have any affect on the recording? im guessing because i have it set to record pre-fader? i assume that would be the same for eq since pre-eq is also pre-fader?

just learned something new! thank you!

 

[RockYoWorld]

much appreciated. a few points you raised...

1. gain staging. yes, first thing i do is set the input gain for ea channel

2. "Anything you do in the mixer besides changing the gain will not be seen in your multi-track recording". whoa! so adjusting faders wont have any affect on the recording? im guessing because i have it set to record pre-fader? i assume that would be the same for eq since pre-eq is also pre-fader?

just learned something new! thank you!

YES! CORRECT! This is the big takeaway! This is what @chris and I were trying to explain yesterday!

This is actually the beauty of multi-track recording a live performance instead of just recording the stereo MAIN mix! You can take those raw signals and then mix them in Reaper after the fact! It's a different mix from your live mix. And what's cool is that you can make a template in Reaper based on a live mix so you don't have to redo ALL the mixing each time you do it. That's what I do for rehearsals. We get decent recordings while we're writing songs.

 

[petesv650]

@PSea Yup, you've got it!

I'll quickly add that it's worth understanding what is included in each "tap" of the output stages. I believe the default on the XR18 is that compression/effects come after the EQ. So if you want EQ but no compression, you'd choose "Post EQ". If you want EQ and compression, you'd choose "Pre-Fader" (going off memory here, read the manual to be sure).

So for example, tapping Post-Fader might be useful if you want to capture exactly how the mixer is coloring stuff and capture the general mix, but still be able to slightly adjust and mute channels in Reaper without having to lug the mixer out to run back through it. Maybe the band is working on a new song, the mixer sounds good and is doing its thing, but you want to take the recording home and mute just your guitar part because you want to try a new idea. You can then re-record just your part, mix it in with the rest of the band (just as they sounded in rehearsal), and save it down to an mp3 to share. You wouldn't be able to easily do this if you just recorded at "Input", because you'd lose any EQ/Compression settings on the mixer, plus you'd lose the overall mix settings because everyone would come through at their "raw" input level.

 

[Fractur3d]

I understand that my suggestion isn’t addressing your overall situation. Have you tried removing the cab block from your presets? I am not familiar with mixing. Do your band mates send their signals to FOH after the cab? May use a filter block and a GEQ to replace the cab giving you more of an equalized amp sound to FOH. Forgive my ignorance, I’m reading along, learning.

 

[chris]

I understand that my suggestion isn’t addressing your overall situation. Have you tried removing the cab block from your presets? I am not familiar with mixing. Do your band mates send their signals to FOH after the cab? May use a filter block and a GEQ to replace the cab giving you more of an equalized amp sound to FOH. Forgive my ignorance, I’m reading along, learning.

What would removing the cab block do or improve?

 

[Riccardo Ros]

The scenario I mentioned was using the computer to do live effects and mixing. @Riccardo Ros mentioned his workflow. He is using a Behinger U-Phoria UMC1820 Audio Interface connected to his computer instead of a mixer. I'm not ripping on him and I'm happy that this setup works for him. However, what that setup is doing is sending all the audio data to the computer and the computer is doing the mixing using Reaper. My personal opinion is that that isn't very reliable and may have more latency than a dedicated digital mixer like the XR-18. But it sounds like it works for him, so who am I to tell him to do it differently.

I agree with you, there's more lag than a direct mixer.
Anyway, adding also the wireless devices lag, it's lower than 10ms (noticeable but not a problem as soon as you start playing and the brain makes his magic).

As I added we're amateurs and I preferred to use what I already had at home... so it's just another option, even if not the optimal!

 

[PSea]

YES! CORRECT! This is the big takeaway! This is what @chris and I were trying to explain yesterday!

This is actually the beauty of multi-track recording a live performance instead of just recording the stereo MAIN mix! You can take those raw signals and then mix them in Reaper after the fact! It's a different mix from your live mix. And what's cool is that you can make a template in Reaper based on a live mix so you don't have to redo ALL the mixing each time you do it. That's what I do for rehearsals. We get decent recordings while we're writing songs.

i actually set up a template in reaper already and saved the settings on Air Edit for recording. all i have to do is change the computer's settings fr Direct Sound to ASIO and i can move on to tweaking levels.

really appreciate everyone's help! hope some day i can pass the info on to others.

 

[PSea]

I understand that my suggestion isn’t addressing your overall situation. Have you tried removing the cab block from your presets? I am not familiar with mixing. Do your band mates send their signals to FOH after the cab? May use a filter block and a GEQ to replace the cab giving you more of an equalized amp sound to FOH. Forgive my ignorance, I’m reading along, learning.

no worries! for the sake of this discussion, im really just focused on my tone. im using EV monitors on stage/backline and EV ELK 15's for FOH. so both FRFR. So far the only tweaking ive done outside of individual presets, of course, is to tweak my output1 eq. i take a bit of the lows out because ive increased the bass levels at both powered FOH speakers. we only have a 12" sub. but those 15" speakers (wood enclosures btw) w some increases bass really helps our bass/kick drum...but not so much my signal. it's unnecessary.

the cabs are very important to my tone. i believe only 1 preset doesnt use a cab. it's for acoustic gtr.

the bass and other guitars are using their amps' line out direct to the PA.

Hope that helps.

 

[ishockyou]

I like running one ambient mic for recording that captures the room sound in addition to line ins. That really improves the experience. I get direct sound that I can eq and compress plus the ambient recording that I blend in

 

[tubelessone]

Interesting that you're having this problem. Mine's the opposite. Always fussy to record live tones by mic'ing a cab etc.
Now all my direct live recordings sound great!
I also use the XR18 into a daw.

 

[petesv650]

I like running one ambient mic for recording that captures the room sound in addition to line ins. That really improves the experience. I get direct sound that I can eq and compress plus the ambient recording that I blend in

Do you run an ambient mic for gigs or just rehearsals? If gigs, any tips on placement? And what kind of mic?

 

[Fractur3d]

I use a FRFR cab also.
Have you tried your preset with IR next to a preset using a filter and GEQ? comparing them.
So you use output 2 FOH, signal path after amp and output one with your complete preset to your FRFR?
FOH gets the amp signal dry, correct? Like the rest of the guitars using DI from their amps.
Wouldn't that provide the FOH with a signal to mix and your preset with your IR is output to your FRFR cabs?

 

[chris]

I use a FRFR cab also.
Have you tried your preset with IR next to a preset using a filter and GEQ? comparing them.
So you use output 2 FOH, signal path after amp and output one with your complete preset to your FRFR?
FOH gets the amp signal dry, correct? Like the rest of the guitars using DI from their amps.
Wouldn't that provide the FOH with a signal to mix and your preset with your IR is output to your FRFR cabs?

How does this affect recording?

 

[Fractur3d]

How does this affect recording?

I thought the performance would be recorded after everything was mixed. My bad. Aren't most live recordings captured then remixed somehow?
Post production through the DAWS? Is this just a case of "the performance was great for the audience but I don't like how my recording sounds?" Then like I said at the outset, I apologize for my ignorance.

 

[ChristThePhone]

I think there's a reason why professional live recordings of rock music never happen indoors. The amount of adjustments it takes on every level to accommodate to the room simply renders the recording less usable. At minimum it requires heavy EQing.

 

[tubelessone]

I think there's a reason why professional live recordings of rock music never happen indoors. The amount of adjustments it takes on every level to accommodate to the room simply renders the recording less usable. At minimum it requires heavy EQing.

I'm not so sure about that.... a lot of recordings from back in the day, to now, were made with everyone in the room playing at the same time. A live performance indoors. That extra person in the air, to me, adds to the character of recordings. All my live band demos are in a big rehearsal stage playing live.

 

[ChristThePhone]

I'm not so sure about that.... a lot of recordings from back in the day, to now, were made with everyone in the room playing at the same time. A live performance indoors. That extra person in the air, to me, adds to the character of recordings. All my live band demos are in a big rehearsal stage playing live.

Fair point. My personal experience is that open air gigs usually were a lot easier to mix and record. But that's just me and I'm not a professional sound engineer.

 

[playmusic]

My experience is that board recordings rarely to never reflect what the audience heard. Sure, you can take the raw tracks and play them back through the board if you have the board's settings from the show saved and the entire PA set up. Now your only challenge is you have to play them back in the same room/space/venue they were recorded in to get a truly accurate sense of what they sounded like there. Btw, not talking about making a "live" album here, just trying to get a sense of what the show sounded like out front.

A room recording is a much more accurate reflection of what people in the space were actually hearing. It will include any EQ or effects added by your soundperson, more accurately show how your instrument sat in the mix, phase cancellations, room reflections, how the rooms walls ceilings and floors were treated, just to name a few of the factors that can differentiate a board mix from a room mix.

There are challenges with an in-audience recording too. They will be colored by whatever mics were used to record the show, whether they were standalone or something like a Zoom recorder or a video camera. Add to that the fact that people in the audience speaking near the mics can impact the auto-leveling if you are using it. The mics placement in the room will also make a big difference. Particularly if it is close to the stage as you will be picking up more of the onstage monitor mix in addition to the FOH. Recordings made close to the back wall will pick up more reflections, etc...

Still, after hearing many shows back from both board and in-audience recordings, the recordings made out in the audience still gave me a better idea of what it sounded like to audience members. Those are the recordings I use to give me a better idea of what the mix in the room sounded like. Of course, if your tone is egregious coming from the FM9, a board recording may reveal that but there's always the chance that your soundperson mitigated that in the FOH.