2

I'm helping out a friend with recording his gig, it's a rather small venue, amplified.

There are two PA speakers with a sub. The club's mixer is Xenyx 802, not good, but it will do it, because there will be only two mic inputs for the performers.

The thing is, I would like to multitrack record of the session, but I think I can only record one of the mics via FX send and then the PA mix via phones out.

I'm bringing UMC1820 for recording — is it a viable option to feed the second microphone to my audio interface, and use UMC's OUT to send it to the main mixer and record it directly that way? Could there be any downsides to this or any alternative way with very limited gear how to do this? Thanks.

1 Answer 1

2

It's viable, but not ideal. The Xenyx 802 doesn't have much to work with, you could only get one isolated signal AFAICS from the fx send.

This is a bit out there but you may be able to set the PA up such that it is mono, and feed it from the fx send. Then hard pan the 2 signals and record left and right as channels 1 and 2, acheiving separation. As the FX send is before any panning you could then mix the PA on those knobs and use the desk output to get two channels.

Otherwise I would put both signals first into your audio interface and record in your DAW, then either send them to the line outputs in your DAW and take the line outputs from the 1820 to the 802, balancing the mix on the 802, or just send a mix from your daw to the 802 and do all the balancing in your DAW.

Benefit to the second solution; you can add some fx on the way through and get better control of eq, compression and reverb etc.

But drawbacks to that method are that the live sound now goes through the 1820 interface. This is not ideal as if your computer freaks out or drops out then it will also cut the pa sound, some DAW's will just stop recording and still pass through record-enabled tracks on certain errors, but if you get a crash or larger error the recording device pass-through may cut sound entirely until fixed/rebooted. Additionally it will introduce some latency. Set at the lowest buffer settings this is unlikely to be off-putting for the performer, especially in a live situation when they are hearing room reflections and so on anyway, but is less than ideal.

I would go with option 1, but if you trust your computer and it doesn't often throw any errors when recording, and you can get you latency lowish, around 10ms, then option 2 might be ok. In you favour is that it's only a 2 line setup so nothing will be stressed that much, and you won't be using any panning (most likely) for the live sound. Test the setup you go with first and see if it all hangs together!

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.