Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    depends.
    
    IF everything went on tape that could be availible for monitoring,
    then there would be no need for mix down. Since we know of no groups
    that employ that technique (for good reasons), you have 2 focii:
    
    1. Record time: dry, no effects. Syncronization is everything.
       Sure, the lead singer is insecure and HAS to have reverb, delay,
       Aural exciter and harmonizer, but thats the final product. Bet
       that he/she can live with reverb in their monitor mix no problem.
       Still the signal recorded is dry.       

    2. Production time. Add the effects. Tweek EQ. Ride levels. Its
       mix down time.

    So its simple: anything that CANT be modified (like synth patch
    	or special distortion on special guitar amp ) in step 2 HAS
        to be recorded in step one. Gloss ("my voice doesnt sound right")
        should be easily fixed in mixing. Assuming Pro artists here.
        er, and 24 tracks or so, and a good engineer...and....
        

    
    As .1 said, it depends.
    
    
    I have to get by with only three tracks, so I have to stack a lot
    of parts on each track.  Therefore, EQ and effects have to be just
    right at the time of recording.  I also have to anticipate what
    else will be in the final mix when tweaking the basic tracks.  Like
    it's OK if the bass and drums sound too loud now, because when I
    add two or three more parts they will still cut through, etc.
    
    This approach works OK at home where you have the option of doing
    everything over and over until it as close to perfect as you want.
    Also it helps if you remember what you did so that if you have to do
    a similar recording again you won't have to start experimenting all
    over again.
    
    Not too good at studios where you are paying by the hour.  If you
    have lots of tracks (16 or more) do what Ron said, record everything
    dry, put effects in the monitors if the performer needs them.
    
    
      

    I second Walkin' Waun's approach. Take a nice "dry" monitor sound
    for yourselves and add the whiz-bangs later.
    
    At home I mix straight to stereo cassette. By using MIDI, I can
    duplicate a performance exactly. By using the PFL headphone jack
    I can listen to each synth with NO effects and make sure all the
    parts are tight. (Effects only enhance, using them to cover up
    a sloppy performance is a cheap-shot. Note - I'm not accusing
    anyone of doing this.)
    
    Think of it this way; Would you want to do a gig without a monitor?
    
    Edd
    

In my 2_track**2 studio (two 2-track R-to-R decks), I use the old bounce-
and-add technique, 2 tracks at a time.  I always add effects on the fly
(with two tracks, there's no such thing as final mixdown).  I always monitor
the input to the tape deck that is gonna be doing the recording, so I hear
the entire mix at the time I add another track.

I always retain the stereo field when adding tracks, and spend lots of time
getting a good stereo sound using 2-channel-reverb, stereo delay of 10-50 ms
or so, stereo echo, individual guitar string outputs (via Arp Avatar),
drum panning, etc.  Can't stress a good stereo sound enough.

I have no problems in listening to the *total* mix at the time that a track is
added.  Roll tape, bounce and add for about 10 seconds, roll back tape, 
listen.  If the mix sounds good, bounce and add for the entire tune length.
Oh yea, don't listen thru headphones!  My biggest nasty habit.  Being a
drummer, I always have headphones on in the studio.

Some day I'll take the plunge into multitracking - when I can afford an
8-track, a big mixing board, more FX boxes, lots of DBX, a drum machine
with individual outputs, a tape_sync/MIDI box, more sound modules, a
bunch of patch bays, and a sequencer with lots of memory.  Multitracking
high quality sound is the road to spending mucho bux.

Todd.

    
    	I've concluded that a dry monitor in monaural is best. The
    situation I'm faced with is in trying to get as much as possible
    on 2 tracks - a virtual "live" recording - leaving 2 tracks to "play"
    with.
    
    	The "mixdown" is simply the last iteration on the slides and
    EQ. Ooops! Bass drum was "a little" too loud last night - oh well,
    damn! We'll have to remember to turn it down some. Wish we had someone
    to run the desk - someone who "heard" like we do...
    
    	When a performer has to worry about the mix, it can show up
    in his playing - the "dry monitor" idea locks out the possibility
    of this happening. Also, like I mentioned previously, I dont think
    you hear the same when your wail'in your guts out in performance.
    Keeping the "product" mix different from the "performer's" mix allows
    the performer to concentrate on the performance only.
                                                                   
    	Monitoring in Stereo seems to confuse the performer. (The
    particular performer also cant imagine why you'd ever want to pan
    anything outside of dead center) So we pan everything all over the
    place in the mix, yet his lead guitar is dead center between his ears
    in the monitor -
    	
    	The ideal mix for a performer is to mostly hear *themselves*
    - with just enough of the rest_of_the_song to be able to play along
    to it. I've yet to see a board that has 4 - 5 monitor circuits.
        
    	Joe Jas
    

    Yamaha has a new line of boards out with *8* monitor circuits.
    
    Fairly cheap. $4K for 24 channels.
    
    Edd

    One place I know of runs two boards- a 24x8 matrix-style for monitors,
    and a 24x4 slider-style for the PA.  The two boards share the 24
    inputs by means of a expensive and kind-of-crufty 24-pair lo-Z snake.
    	
    Why did it have to be snakes?  I hate snakes!  :-)
    

    
    Like Edd said, having 8 or more monitor sends is pretty common
    for large sound reinforcement systems or in a big multitrack board.
    For 4-track, though, it's overkill.
    
    CdH