PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Trying to figure out a way to do vocals with having to bring around my vocal channelstrip. I was hoping I could really feed the vocals through a vst to do minimal comp and eq.. but the delay makes it too hard to sing.. so maybe I do need to do all the comp/eq in hardware.. btw, my audio io (saffire 6) doesn't have onboard dsp stuff.

with 24 bit recording, you shouldn't need to use a compressor to record. with the right mic, you don't need to eq when you record, either. you can compress and eq to your heart's content after. or just use a Scope card or an XITE...

Dont think his PC with the Scope cards is working. Just record dry and comp/eq it with resurrected Scope later when you buy a new PC - c'mon - you know you want to

Monitoring chain & recording chain being 2 different setups is a very common approach.

but again, with 24bit recording, there is no need for compression to get a good recording. it is a very bad practice to routinely use any signal processing that can't be removed later, when recording...

garyb wrote:but again, with 24bit recording, there is no need for compression to get a good recording. it is a very bad practice to routinely use any signal processing that can't be removed later, when recording...

Is this effective even using -10dBV AD interface?

-10db has nothing to do with the converter.. its just an input level, and the converter will use the full 24 resolution of whatever signal you put into it - as long as your input signal is driving the input to use the 24 bits. (actually you should record so the digital meter of your daw is about -3 or -6 at the peaks...)

oops, sorry, this is for live. Ya, for recording I wouldn't mess with the signal on the way in.. Just for live I want to do a bit of compressing to keep the vocals from bopping in and out of the mix when the vocalist's alignment changes.

the19thbear wrote:-10db has nothing to do with the converter.. its just an input level, and the converter will use the full 24 resolution of whatever signal you put into it - as long as your input signal is driving the input to use the 24 bits. (actually you should record so the digital meter of your daw is about -3 or -6 at the peaks...)

-10dBV is the maximum amplitude of the signal for a device (like the LunaBox), in analogic domain; this amplitude range is smaller in comparison with devices handling +4dBu. Then some compression could be needed... even for recording, or not?

Afaik, 24 or 16 bit is the number of digital steps between 0 and the maximum level after conversion.
....16.7 millions of steps is a huge difference in comparison with 65.5 thousand; just... probably, lot of step will have the same value if the analog headroom is small.

no, compression is NOT needed. there's plenty of headroom with plenty of bit depth at 1/3 up the scale.

if the track is a vocal only track, you can do a very good job without compression, and can compress after as much as you like. if it's a stereo track of a live performance, then latency isn't an issue, and you can process as you like.

garyb wrote:no, compression is NOT needed....

I'll try that... I hope soon.

valis wrote:Monitoring chain & recording chain being 2 different setups is a very common approach.

That involves an hardware mixer in the path, I guess... I can see no other ways to split the signal.

In my working environment monitoring and recording chains could be both on DAW, though; I can't notice latency as an issue. What is the whole latency (from analog input to analog output) for a common signal chain in Scope environment? Does it correspond to the value in ULLI settings, or it's twice that plus processing time?

garyb wrote:no, compression is NOT needed. there's plenty of headroom with plenty of bit depth at 1/3 up the scale.

if the track is a vocal only track, you can do a very good job without compression, and can compress after as much as you like. if it's a stereo track of a live performance, then latency isn't an issue, and you can process as you like.

oops!
i meant 2/3 up the scale...

I usually do need compression for bass guitar direct input (no amp, no mic), expecially 5 strings bass; thicker strings output is higher than thin strings; it's a huge output difference from B string to G string... whatever the pickups setup.

Cochise wrote:

valis wrote:Monitoring chain & recording chain being 2 different setups is a very common approach.

That involves an hardware mixer in the path, I guess... I can see no other ways to split the signal.

In my working environment monitoring and recording chains could be both on DAW, though; I can't notice latency as an issue. What is the whole latency (from analog input to analog output) for a common signal chain in Scope environment? Does it correspond to the value in ULLI settings, or it's twice that plus processing time?

With most of my soundcards I can do 'hardware monitoring' and send out some form of custom mix to dedicated outputs. With me RME Multiface or my cheap M-Audio firewire card, I would setup a custom mix (which is MUCH more customizeable with the RME's mixer) and then do compression and etc on the analog chain after the output that custom mix is sent to.

However integrated DSP is popular on many portable soundcards now as well...

Focusrite offers gating, compression & reverb in their dsp based soundcards especially for monitoring, which might also be useful during live performance. So does TC iirc, and MOTU has also recently gotten into that game. As of the Babyface, RME will also have the same DSP capabilities in the Babyface (and by extension the Multiface UC)...

Recording live while constantly adjusting IEM and FX for singers is a major PITA.
I succeeded and made 24 Large in 4 months.
But I had to chug mass quantities of Jager just to babysit a stage of cackling Hens.
I vowed to never do it again.............
I only used an Expander to boost the lows, and a Limiter to cap the highs on the live Buss.
For recording I eventually ended up using a Limiter because of inconsistant mic technique by the " vocalists " and the usual Bass and Guitarists adding more gain after the soundcheck.
I am really suprised we haven't seen more Bands being publicly executed by freaked out FOH's.

XITE-1/4LIVE wrote:Recording live while constantly adjusting IEM and FX for singers is a major PITA.
I succeeded and made 24 Large in 4 months.
But I had to chug mass quantities of Jager just to babysit a stage of cackling Hens.
I vowed to never do it again.............
I only used an Expander to boost the lows, and a Limiter to cap the highs on the live Buss.
For recording I eventually ended up using a Limiter because of inconsistant mic technique by the " vocalists " and the usual Bass and Guitarists adding more gain after the soundcheck.
I am really suprised we haven't seen more Bands being publicly executed by freaked out FOH's.

Been there (on the receiving end)
FOH engineers need dart tranquilizer guns.

Nowadays they also have to throttle the fuggin' autotune effect.

G

well, what do you expect?
EVERYONE is a freaking expert and you can't tell anybody anything, like "get the fuck off the mic, and don't cover it with your hand".

you can't make chocolate pudding with shit.

yes, a brickwall limiter would be useful live, but really, your recording levels are probably just too high. there's still a strong desire to get the levels as close to red as possible left over from the analog days, but digital really doesn't benefit from that. halfway up the scale in 24bit world is 12bits, plenty of bit depth with good equipment, especially if you're going to end up with a 16bit master cd, or even stupider, an mp3.

as to FOH and monitor mixes, yeah, nothing but jerks who play too loud and then blame the vocal mic's feedback on the poor soundman who's just trying to get the vox somewhere near the level of the band, and then a big whine-fest from the singer. i won't deal with stupidity like that anymore. it's improved my life, and the sound of the group...

Yeah, just record flat, simple, raw basic levels with NOTHING on it, and EVERYTHING can be normalized during mix and properly dithered at mastering stage. Done. No doctoring or needless compensation needed.

Greg

the thing is, even when i get that grouchy, i'm not trying to hurt anyone. i was thinking about the yayhoos who think they're a star because they play in front of their friends and a couple of drunks. those guys should be a little more humble, but they saw everything they need to know about show biz on that tv show, that movie, that video the other day. the kind of guys who think that a hit is made when a couple of buddies just start jamming and then a magic montage happens and they immediately sound like people who've been honing their craft for 20 years recorded by a 30 year vet recording engineer with 2.5 million dollars worth of gear and just KNOW it's the soundman who is screwing up their sound. the kind of guys who buy a recording studio and then say things like "i'm a musician, not an engineer", when they should just pay a competent engineer who's worked hard to find out what it takes to do a good job, or become a bit of an REAL engineer(you know, read a couple of real books, or the yamaha sound manual, at least) and stop whining.

the kind of self absorbed idiots that i mention, who we almost all are to some degree these days, are the same guys who will ask a question, and then begin to talk over the answer, because no matter how painfully obvious it is that there are gaps in these people's knowledge, their own delusion refuses to allow them to see those gaps, even as they beg for help.

oh, dear...this will teach me to watch Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei(goodbye mr dispair). i'm truly finding this kind of rant hilarious and it's DEFINITELY NOT aimed at anyone in particular. it was simply triggered and i've allowed it to run rampant...

reading your stuff today GaryB has been the most entertainment around here since the bcell global parrot warming thread fizzled out...

Unfortunately I'm not sure I'll ever be able to enjoy chocolate pudding ever again