Recording A Big Drum Set: Opinions and/or Suggestions

[Starcross]

As I understand it, we could link more Paris interfaces for more simultaneous tracks, but the software limitation is 16 tracks at playback. However there is the option of opening up subprojects within the main project, each of those having 16 tracks. But, this is really no different than what In10city is already doing, as you have to bounce each subproject down to a stereo file before you can bring it into the main project. It's really not that big a deal to rebounce one set of tracks and import them into another. It only takes as long as it takes to listen to the song. On the previous album I did this some with vocals, submixing all instrumental tracks except drums (which were already submixed) and then opening a new file with a stereo drum track and a stereo "other instruments" track, which left me 12 tracks to do what I needed with vocals. This was only necessary on the tracks with a lot going on vocally. But it's really not as big of a deal as it sounds.

Having said all that, I'm pretty convinced that before we record our 5th cd we'll break down and get something newer and more flexible. I'm considering Cubase. But that's a subject for another thread.

[In10city]

I've been watching eBay for almost a year for Paris components. They made a Modular Expansion Chassis where you could install seperate input/output cards and work your way up to 64 tracks but they are few and far between. I was bidding on a control surface for the system out of a studio in Nashville but it went out of my price range. When Paris stuff comes up on eBay, it usually sells for more than I'm willing to pay for a system that's no longer in production. Eventually we are going to have to upgrade but for now, we can still manage most of what we need with what we have.

[brandondrury]

It's really not that big a deal to rebounce one set of tracks and import them into another.

It's no big deal to walk a mile either. That doesn't mean that driving isn't going to get you there quicker.

If you are telling me that you don't compromise on my your mixing with submixed drums, you are full of shit. That's kind of like listening to mixes on a boombox and making changes to the mix. It's simply not efficient. Every single change you do to the drums has to be bounced. There is no way you could get down and dirty and REALLY mix this way.

I'm not sure what good a control surface would do in this situation. A control surface is meant to make automation easier, but that can't do much good when working with bounced tracks either.

It's a bummer that that the Paris stuff is still expensive. 5 years ago, people were all about this system. I was tempted to go with something like Paris. Man, I'm glad I didn't. While I've switched computers several times and even switched software programs my hardware is still rocking at a price that was probably less than your original stand alone system. (At least for the hardware)...maybe not.

If you are low on cash, you are low on cash. I understand that. Just remember that if you wait until your next album to "do it right", you will still have to figure out how to work all this stuff before then.

In closing, it's totally possible to make a great recording in this fashion, but it's like working with your hand behind your back. Hell, you never know. This method may turn out better. Limitations can be a good thing!

Brandon

[In10city]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

I'm not sure what good a control surface would do in this situation.

All I was saying is that in the year I've been watching eBay, that's all I've seen been listed relating to the Paris system. Sure, it would make things easier but it was not worth more than $300 to me.

[Starcross]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Every single change you do to the drums has to be bounced. There is no way you could get down and dirty and REALLY mix this way.

This isn't quite correct, although the gist of it is. When most of the final tracks are in place, he can bounce all of them and put them in the drum project, then make as many adjustments as necessary, rebounce the drums, and put them back in the main project.
Efficient? Heck no. Effective? sure.

[brandondrury]

Efficient? Heck no.

Maybe we are just different in our mixing philosophies, personalities, etc. I get seriously pissed because I have to use a mouse, fader, etc. I want to plug a USB cable into my brain and have my thoughts make the changes in the audio immediately. There is no way I could keep mixing this way. I would leave my control room and start messing around with this drum forum.

I would start messing with the drums and then notice that a vocal was .2dB too quite in a few words and have to submix the drums and then tweak that one vocal. Then I'd notice the drums again and start playing with a reverb send or a parallel compression, etc. Then I'd notice something else or decide that I needed to tweak that vocal some more. So I'd have to submix the drums again.

It's clear that a person could not work the way I'm used to working. That's okay. You guys mix when you want to finish an album. I mix more often than I take a shower. har har

Brandon

[Starcross]

Brandon,
Just so you know, I'm not trying to be unappreciative of all the advice you've given. Many of the pointers and ideas from you and others on this forum are instrumental in the success we've had so far getting the drums to sound as good as they do. But right now, it's just not feasible for us to dump a bunch of money into a major studio upgrade. Sure, we'd all love things to be more efficient, and hopefully one day soon they will be, but right now, as you yourself said, we've used our limitations to make us better at finding ways around problems and, more importantly, to make things sound the best they can right from the starting point so there is less work to do later, again something you have stated.
So thanks for the ideas and suggestions, and keep 'em coming, and please don't take it the wrong way when I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to find out how we can do the best we can do with what we have.

[brandondrury]

The forum was made for disagreeing. If everyone got along, I would have shot myself in the head a long time ago.

There is no room for crybabies on either side here. This is a big boy forum where naughty words are sometimes said and with that comes a certain amount of responsibility to be able to agree to to disagree sometimes.

Personally, I try not to half ass anything. If I'm serious about whatever, I jump in and do it as hardcore as I possibly can without seriously screwing my life up any worse. I believe that I'll only live once and so I try to make each recording the best it can be. While I'm probably the most $$$ conscious person I know (I think "cheap ass" is the word) I put my money where it counts in order to make me happy.

For many bands, putting money into video games, DVD collections, etc at the expense of their music is how they choose to do things. This is okay until they expect me to make them sound like god while they continue to halfass life.

So run your band as you see fit. For some people, it's only a hobby. For some people it's more. There is no wrong (as long as you are not ruining other people's lives in the process). As I said above, sometimes these limitations can be blessings. In the end, it's up to you to figure out if your music is being compromised or gaining benefit from your gear choices.

I understand that there is more to life than music and recording and sometimes the $$ just isn't there. Sometimes the cash outlay can go up exponentially while the benefit barely increases at all.

As I said up above, my standards for mixing gear should be higher than your standards. I mix just about every single day. You mix when tracking is done.

Enough said.

Brandon