Best sound card for performing live?

Hello,
A friend of mine wants to perform live, singing various songs. Does anyone have any experiences with good equipment for this? Type of microphone, type of soundcard.., how the singing and the background are mixed together? Your help is appreciated.

Geez, another "my friend" post. What, no one can post for themselves anymore?

Anyway, for getting high quality audio into the computer, I would not recommend using a sound card at all. Instead, use a good ASIO recording interface. There are many to choose from. If you -- I mean your friend -- has a a US$600 to invest, the Tascam FW-1082 is great device. It's a 10-channel zero-latency mixing console, an audio control surface, and a recording interface, all in one. I really love mine.

http://www.guitarcenter.com/TASCAM-FW-1082-10-Channel-FireWire-Audio-MIDI-Interface-102951944-i1166615.gc

If you -- whoops, I did it again; I mean if your friend is on a tighter budget, then less complicated recording interfaces start at around US$79. I can't speak to the quality of the cheapos, though. I recommend firewire over USB (lower latency), but USB devices tend to be a bit lower in price. Whatever you get, make sure it's got at least two input channels, so it can pick up an instrument and a mic at the same time.

Another option is just to go with a regular (non-computer-intended) mixing board, and just run a a stereo cable from its tape out or main out to your soundcard's line in. It's nowhere near as flexible a solution as using a real recording interface, but it will work. unpowered mixers run anywhere from $50-5000, depending on the number of channels and features you want.


As for what kind of mic to use, you can't go wrong with a Shure SM-57 or SM-58. Those have been the industry standard for performance mics for at least the past 20 years. They sound great, and they last forever. They're not terribly expensive either. They tend to go for around US$100 new, or about $75 used.

If you want to go with cheaper mics, you certainly can, and probably no one will know the difference, since streamed audio tends to be low quality anyway. But SM-57's and 58's are always good investments. As I said, they last forever so you'll always have yours to use for as long as you want it, and they're always in demand and they don't depreciate much, so you can always sell them if you no longer wish to use them.

From the question asked I gather you and your friend are new to this. The best place or way to find your answers is to get to know some of the live musicians in SL and ask them......all I've spoken to have been more than willing to tell you anything you want and need to know (which is surprisingly quite a bit). I think you will find you don't need a sound studio to stream music and songs to SL...........more like a good Sound Blaster audio card. My 5 year old Sound Blaster Live! 5.1 will do what is necessary to get music into SL. A card that cost less than $50 bucks brand new in the box.

I don't pretend to know exactly what is involved in streaming music to SL. I simply have no desire to learn so I've never really thought much about it. But I do know that the musicians I've spoken to do not have elaborate sound cards in their computers....heck, one didn't know what card he had but thought it was some onboard audio chip that came with his computer (HP, if I remember correctly). Just remember, when you ask how to ride a bicycle and someone comes along telling you to look into getting a Harley Davidson Sportster your goal is learn how to ride a bicycle BEFORE you jump into the heavy duty performance. Keep it simple and ask questions from the people doing it.........you'll get much better advice.

Peggy, nothing you said is untrue, but none of it addresses the most important question, which was how to track multiple instruments and vocals at the same time. The sound card itself (usually) has nothing to do with that. What's needed is a mixing device, such as a recording interface, a PA mixer, a DJ mixer, etc.

You're absolutely right that a sound card need not be expensive to capture an audio signal at suitable quality for SL purposes. Just about any hunk of junk will do the job, as long as it's got an input, and it's functional. But creating a decent source signal in the first place does require equipment designed for that purpose. For that reason, this is really a music equipment question first, and a computer hardware question as a distant second. The gear that's needed is found at music stores, not so much at computer stores.

If the mixing device being used does not have a built-in computer interface, then a sound card or an integrated audio chip can of course be used to capture the raw audio feed. But if the mixer does have a USB or Firewire output, then the sound card wouldn't be involved at all. The mixer itself would have the necessary encoder built right into it.


Kieran, allow me to expand on my earlier post. Here are three possible configurations, in order from best to worst, in terms of features and flexibility:


1. Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) - mixing/recording interface (and optionally, a control surface) connected to computer via USB or Firewire, no sound card necessary

This is the setup I use for recording and audio editing. I don't actually do live streaming, but I certainly could if I wanted to. The audio principles are exactly the same.

The computer I use for my (DAW) actually has its sound card disabled, and no speakers are plugged into it directly. All audio functions are handled by that Tascam board I mentioned. I've got a pair of powered Yamaha studio monitors plugged into the board's main audio outs, and the board itself is connected to the computer via Firewire. This gives me the ability to capture up to 10 simultaneous audio sources (microphones, instruments, tape, etc.), which are encoded on the spot, and transmitted straight into the computer digitally. The feed can be recorded and/or streamed, as either a master mix or as 10 individual tracks.

With a setup like this, it's actually best not to involve a sound card, even if one is physically present in the computer. The interaction of two separate audio interfaces can cause latency issues, which manifest as pops or distortions in the audio. It's best to stick with one interface, and let it handle everything.

The advantage of this setup is you have total control over every aspect of the audio tracking and mixing, just as you would in a recording studio or radio station booth. The disadvantage is there can be more of a learning curve involved with some of the equipment and software than with non-computerized music gear. For some of us, that's half the fun of it, though.


2. Mixed Audio Capture - line output of mixer plugged into line input of sound card

If you're already a performing musician in RL, chances are you've got a mixing board of some sort lying around, or at the very least, you've got access to one. If you're in a band, you guys use a PA for practice, right? If so, then this option will be really easy for you. Any mixing board will work, and all you need is a stereo Y cable to go from the mixer's output (tape out tends to work best) to your sound card's line input.

The obvious downside here is you don't get a whole lot of post-capture control. You have to make sure the mix from the board is exactly right, since the feed to the computer will be the output mix, not separate tracks. In other words, you won't be able to use the computer to compensate if the mix isn't quite how you want it. For recording, this can be very problematic. For live performance (whether streaming or in person), it's obviously not as big a deal, but it's still important.



3. Unmixed Audio Capture - instrument and mic plugged directly into sound card

Most sound cards on the market today have several inputs, including at least one mic input and one line input. If you're capturing vocals and one instrument, then technically, that's all you need. Just get the necessary adapters to go from standard mic and instrument cables to the 1/8" RTS jacks that almost all sound cards have.

The advantage of this setup is obvious. It's dirt cheap. The disadvantage is you have almost no control at all over levels and quality. You'll be using your sound card's driver settings to control the input gain mix, which can be a bit of a nightmare, especially if you need to make changes in real time.




Needless to say, I don't recommend number 3, unless you're impoverished. And if you are, you've likely got much more important things than SL on which to spend what little money you have, so we probably shouldn't even be having this conversation. Number 1 is the best way to go. Number 2 isn't bad, if you have someone with some skill manning the board.


If you're leaning towards number 1, I'll throw out that DAW equipment and software can get expensive if you want quality. But of course, the same is true of all musical equipment and instruments. Prices and quality levels run the full gamut, from extremely cheap to professional grade.

My Tascam board would fall toward the low mid range of that spectrum, by the way. For an amateur or semi-pro (I'm semi-pro when it comes to audio), it's a very nice, fairly high-end piece of equipment. For a serious professional, though, it's not quite the bottom of the barrel, but it's close. Pros pay 10 times more, and get 10 times better stuff.



All that said, by all means follow Peggy's advice, and talk to other musicians. Find out first hand what they're using. Musicians love to talk shop almost as much as computer geeks do. Anyone who's performing in SL is both, of course, which means there's at least a 99% chance they'll want to talk your ear off all day long about exactly how they do what they do.

I guess we need to know what the OP is wanting to do.........I mean really wanting to do. I read the question as one coming from a couple of amatuer (even semi pro) musicians who want to streaming their songs and music to SL.........in other words put on a live music event. If that's what they are looking for then my suggestions and a decent audio card will do the trick. Recorded background music can easily be played and streamed as the singer sings. Most live musicians I've spoken to do it that way and the songs, sang to the previously recorded music, is very good (considering the level of quality SL allows).

You (Chosen) seem to have read the initial post differently. From the detailed information you have given I get the impression you think the OP is planning on setting up a full fledged band in their basement or livingroom and putting on a concert. If that's the case then the OP can ignore everything I said.

But, I think my accessment is closer to the what the OP is considering. If they were well versed in how to mix audio they just wouldn't have needed to come to this forum to ask the question. They would be, at least, as well informed as you are. Sometimes too much information is not a good thing......at least not initially. Had I asked the same question and gotten that complicated answer I likely would have thought..........."Hmmm, maybe I don't want to do this afterall."

Chosen, I hope you understand I do appreciate your information on most things. But, I really don't think you understand that these forums are not a classroom. Keep it simple and you probably would help more people in the long run. I know we have batted heads on similar stuff in the three years I've been posting in these forums..........and I know you know I'm not a mean person as I know you are not. But, geeze, Chosen it's not all that complicated. Most everyone here is an amatuer..............give us a break sometimes.

Peggy, if you think my posts contain too much information, don't read them. It's as simple as that. I won't deny anyone any potential need-to-know facts, just because Peggy Paperdoll might happen to prefer posts be short and neat.

Kindly stop trying to change who I am and how I write, Peggy. You'll never be successful at it. I am who I am, and my style is my style. If you don't like it, you're free to mute me, and then you'll never have to see it. Otherwise, please keep such personal opinions to yourself. It does no one any good to have to read your lectures about why I should or shouldn't make true information available.

I haven't forgotten that we've had similar discussions on this kind of behavior before, even though it's been a while. I sincerely hope this will be the last occurrence of it.



In any case, I completely disagree with your assessment that just because someone might already know how to use a mixing board, they'd somehow magically have no need to ask any questions on the best way to get their mix into a computer. Not everyone can add A + B to arrive at C on their own. Most musicians I know (and I know a LOT of them) wouldn't have the first clue, and that includes a good percentage of those who are live sound engineers, as well as almost all of those who are analog recording engineers.

If we want to play that game, I could turn it right around and say that if your guess is right about what he's looking to do, then the OP should just be able to draw upon his existing knowledge of how to use CD player and how to stick his face in front of a microphone, and then just as you said, he would have no reason to ask any questions here. But clearly there's more to it than just that, because he DID have need to ask. There's simply no reason to debate that.

Look, the point here is that this stuff is far from immediately obvious to the majority of people. To simply figure it out requires an uncommon mix of knowledge from different disciplines. Not all musicians are comfortable with computers, and not all computer users know anything about music equipment. It's pretty rare that someone will have established experience with both, and even rarer that they'd be willing or even able to share their knowledge if they do. Of all the hundreds of musicians and computer geeks I know, I could name two, possibly three, besides myself, who would have been able to give a well informed answer to the OP's question. It's just not a common combination of skills.



As for the question of whether the OP (or his friend) is planning on singing along with a recording, with a band, or with a full symphony orchestra, the answer is it makes no difference. The principles are exactly the same, no matter the size of the ensemble. Whatever the size, the task is is still to mix multiple audio sources together, and bring them into a computer. Whether it's two sources or 200 sources is just a question of scale. At its core, the system is exactly the same, no matter how many sources are involved.

I'm so sorry that you have chosen to be so defensive (mad?) over my disputing you on your view as to what the OP must do in order to accomplish what he/she (and his/her friend) want to accomplish. For some reason you take great exception to anyone (not just me) offering a different method or way to accomplish the stated goal.

I will not mute you.......as I didn't mute you the last time you invited me to do so. However, I would not have one problem if you muted me.........go ahead if you want. I happen to read all your posts on subjects of interest to me. I've learned to ignoren most of your biases on just what is right for a particular situation or endeavor someone might encounter. You have a problem with anyone disputing you....I don't know why but I have my opinions (which will remain out of any public discussion).

Someone asks a simple question (the topic of this thread is not a complicated one) and your answer gets so technical that only the very experienced can grasp what you are even talking about. That, my friend, is not helping the person who asked the question in the first place. All it does is "impresses" the masses. It may help the very few "also experts" who read your answers but not the stupid like me..........it just confuses or turns them off to anything further discussed.

So, I'll continue to read your posts.............and I'll dispute you when I see fit.

To the OP.............sorry for this distraction.

Peggy, please don't confuse the issue. I don't mind in the slightest that your advice to the OP differed from mine. In fact, I told him to take your advice, or did you miss that part?

What I took issue with was your personal attack on me for having given "too much information". That was wrong.




No, I don't have a problem with people disputing me, as long as the dispute is based in fact. If you've got better factual information to share than I do, by all means go ahead and share it. I'll always welcome that, and I'll thank you for it.

What I won't tolerate, however, is these tirades of yours about how you don't like my writing style, or whatever it is you're really trying to say. It's wrong, and you really should cut it out. It's also against the rules of the forum.




I'm sorry if you personally couldn't follow me, but I highly doubt that "only the very exceptional" could. Give people a little credit, will you? They're not as dumb as you seem to want to think.

In any case, my first response could hardly be described as "too technical" in any way. The OP asked for specific equipment recommendations, and I gave mine. First he asked what sound card to use, and I suggested an ASIO interface instead of a sound card. Then he asked what kind of microphone to use, and I recommended either of the two most commonly used microphones in the whole of the music industry. What exactly was hard to understand about that?

You're the one who complicated the situation by making the leap toward assumptions about motive, rather than simply answering the specific questions that were asked (which I notice you still haven't done). Your post essentially said, "You won't get good advice here. Ask other people in other places." When I read that, I figured I should offer some more details, in order to show that any information the OP might need actually CAN be found here, contrary to your pretense otherwise.

I explained in very simple terms three different potential setups the OP could use, none of which were hard to follow. They basically just said "Take this, and plug it into that." Are you seriously trying to tell me you think it takes a genius to follow along with that?




Let me get this straight. Someone asks "What microphone should I use," I recommend a microphone, and that's not helping? But somehow, "Go find a musician somewhere and ask them," without offering any suggestions on where to find one is better?

You're purportedly so afraid I'm scaring people away from the forums with my big scary informational answers to information-seeking questions. Well, let me ask you. How exactly do you believe saying "Go find your answer elsewhere" encourages anyone to come back?



You really think my motive is to impress people? Wow.

Look, I'm really sorry if there's something so lacking in your life that you can't bring yourself to believe that someone would volunteer as much time as I do answering questions just because they genuinely enjoy helping others, but I can promise you, that really is the ONLY reason I do this. I very much enjoy sharing what knowledge I have, in order to be of as much help as I possibly can to as many people as possible. That's how I've been for the three and a half decades I've been on this planet, and it's how I'll always continue to be. Again, I'm not about to change just because you seem to have some sick need to believe there must be something more sinister to it.

I'll admit I took some liberty to poke a little fun with the "my friend" stuff, and I probably shouldn't have. That wasn't necessarily helpful. But other than that, my only goal was to answer the OP's questions, exactly as they were asked, as always, and that's exactly what I did until you decided to pretend my answers were no good.




First, it's quite obvious that you're nowhere near as stupid as you might like to pretend to be. But if you want to call yourself that, then fine, you're stupid. I won't argue.

I'll let you in on a little secret, though. The vast majority of people in the world are anything but stupid. The posts you refer to as so unbelievably technical were all of 5 and 18 paragraphs. Most people are more than capable of reading that amount of text without any trouble. I'm sorry if YOU can't, but that doesn't mean most other people can't.

If my posts are over your head, understand that you're in a very, very, very tiny minority. It's not like I'm asking anyone interpret Shakespeare or do rocket science. I'm writing in very plain English, with simple step-by-step instructions for anything even remotely technical. How much more dumbed down do you want it to get?




If you want to dispute anything factual, go right ahead. I'll always welcome that, as long as you know what you're talking about. If you just want to offer insulting opinions about why you think I'm too long-winded or something, keep it to yourself. No one needs to read that kind of trash.



Well, nice sentiment, at least. I'm glad that you can see that this kind of thing is in fact a distraction. Now if only that would stop you from actually doing it.



Kieran, if by some freakish chance, Peggy happens to be right, and there's any part of my answers you didn't understand, feel free to ask for more in-depth explanation, and I'll be happy to walk you trhough whatever you need.

Hi Chosen,

Suppose that I will be using my M-Audio Delta1010LT soundcard (8 analog i/o, 2 mic preamps) with Reaper (http://www.reaper.fm). I know that some programs like virtual dj (which I am using for djing right now) can broadcast master (which may also include click sounds, windows sounds etc.). In theory, I got to set up reaper and then set my broadcast program to master so it will broadcast what I hear from my speakers.

As you well know, running this many programs may be a problem depending on the channels and VSTs you use on your DAW. Is there a program that will broadcast specified channels so I can, lets say route my 1 to 4 channels to broadcast and use the remaining 5 to 8 channels for monitoring purposes. I know that reaper has some kinda plugin working like that but I am not sure.

Thanks in advance.

I'm afraid I don't know much about broadcast programs, sorry. DJ'ing is not really my thing. I use my DAW for recording and editing, not for broadcast. I can offer a few suggestions, though, to eliminate the Windows sounds, with the setup you've got.

First, does Virtual DJ support ReWire? I know Reaper does. If VDJ does as well, then in theory, you should be all set. Just enable ReWire in both apps, and then map the outputs for tracks 1-4 to VDJ, and leave the outputs of tracks 5-8 right where they are, to go to your monitors/headphones.

If ReWire is not an option, then you might want to give Virtual Audio Cable a whirl. It sets up a collection of virtual devices on your system, each with their own inputs and outputs, so you can route the output of any audio source (hardware or software) to the input of any other. In theory, you should be able to send the outputs of tracks 1-4 to VAC, and then the output of VAC to VDJ for broadcast, while simultaneously sending tracks 5-8 to your monitors/headphones.

VAC is free to try, and only $30 to buy. It's a handy little tool. http://software.muzychenko.net/eng/vac.html

That's a lot of software running at the same time, though, as you've already pointed out. You may run into latency issues, or start to run out of memory. The only way to know how well it will work will be just to go ahead and try it.

The better option, of course, would be to find a broadcast program that has its own built-in multitrack capabilities. I tried Googling for some just now, but didn't find anything. It seems (unsurprisingly) that DJ programs are set up to replicate typical DJ mixers, with the primary focus being on media players, rather than on more than one or two live inputs. It may be that running multiple programs is indeed the only option.


For what it's worth, this sort of thing is one reason I much prefer external hardware for DAW interface, rather than cards. With my FW-1082, I can send each track either to the computer, to the monitors, or to both, with whatever mix I want, and control it all right on the board. The computer doesn't have to know or care about monitoring at all if I don't want it to. That can save tremendously on computing resources.

My DAW machine doesn't even have a soundcard in it at all anymore, by the way. I removed it a couple weeks ago. It was just taking up unnecessary IRQ resources as it sat there, unused, so I finally gave it the boot. It's now sitting on a shelf in my closet. The FW-1082 handles everything.

I realize it doesn't help you in the here and now, but when it comes time to upgrade/replace equipment, you might want to consider ditching that M-Audio card for an external device. If you like M-Audio, they've got tons to choose from.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I want such a setup for live band performance. Djing is quite easy with programs like Sam or Virtual Dj but my main expertise is live performance (guitar player). Ok, I can just input my instruments, mics and use some broadcast program but I will need mixing abilities as I won't be using any outboard effect hardware except maybe a floor board processor for guitar. Besides if I try to use drums I will either use a drum VSTi (ez drummer, addictive drums etc) or try playing on sample (which will eliminate any chance of improvisation which is the point of live performance IMO)

I was thinking that someone should have already thought of this and had written a plugin for such purpose but I am mistaken it seems (my search on this subject was not successful neither). Eliminating a stand alone program for live performance and being able to use a DAW for such purpose should make it fairly easy and have better quality (if you don't have hardware capabilities) with low budget. I mean who likes a vocal with no reverb anyway Even winamp has such ability with a little plugin called shoutcast. I know for a fact that Reaper can broadcast via plugin called Ninjam which allows you to join a music room and jam with other people online but it only works with Ninjam setup servers so it is obvious that this is possible. I think I will bring this up in reaper forums.

Thanks anyway for the answer. I think a bit more field research would be in order for me (talking with live musicians and bands). Btw I just checked your hardware and it looks cool really. I could use something like that in the future but since I am originally a Protools user, my choice of hardware is limited with M-Audio and Digidesign unfortunately.

Have a nice day,
Ebenezer

Actually, you were very clear. I understood exactly what you meant. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my response.

What I'm saying is that using a DAW interface device like your M-Audio card, along with a multitrack recording program (Reaper seems like a fine choice) is the only way I know of to track multiple instruments into the computer at the same time, with full mixing capability. But as you know, recording software won't broadcast all by itself. For that, you need a broadcast program. And since you already have VDJ, it seems sensible to route the output of Reaper to the input of VDJ, and call it a day.

It would be better if there were a multitrack broadcast all-in-one program available, but since there doesn't seem to be one, using the two you've got, either with ReWire or Virtual Audio Cable to bridge the gap, seems like the way to go. If I were looking to broadcast a performance, that's how I'd do it. (Except it would be Audition instead of Reaper in my case, and probably whatever freebie broadcaster I could find.)




Can you not use Reaper as your mixer? Or am I misunderstanding you?



Good idea. Let me know what you find out over there.



If you're attached to M-Audio, the ProjectMix I/O is very similar to the Tascam board that I have. It's about double the price, though.

Yamaha and Mackie also make some similar boards, for what it's worth. I went with Tascam primarily because the price was right. When the time comes to invest some more money in my DAW, I might explore whether the more expensive brands are worth the extra money. In the mean time, the Tascam suits my needs well enough.

Oh sorry I was talking about a scenario without a DAW in that sentence. Anyway it seems that sometimes the answer is in plain daylight but we go searching some dark holes and look under the stones and miss it. Here is what I found.

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=6755&highlight=shoutcast

I was right when I said someone must have already thought of this. I haven't been able to field test yet but it seems that at least I can connect to the stream server I use. I will have to make some more tests when the club is available.

without reading all the above dribble ..
the sound card you choose may work or not
the most important of all is when you hook it up and crank it up do you hear noise from the computer..
if so change the card for one with more isolation caps on it .
it that don't work then you will likely have to change your system board or swap puters.
when streaming its best to have 2 computers anyway one for sl hog and one to stream and have all your music and streaming controls depending on what client you use for streaming.
a old puter will stream fine if the buss will not introduce noise into the stream.

get someone with good ears and speakers to listen to your stream while is quiet and when your a blasting.

i find a lot of cards have lousy inputs and attenuate the signals badly depending on the source mic or line. so matching the input impedance can be difficult too.

just my 1/2 sense cents there

Ah, cool. I'll be curious to hear how well it works. Keep us posted.





Yeah, sorry about that. Part of this thread got derailed -- well, actually, killed would probably be a better word -- until Ebenezer came along and injected more on-topic discussion. Unfortunately, there are those who for whatever reason can't seem to stop themselves from hurling personal attacks at writers, while falsely claiming that the content of the writing itself is untrue. I still haven't figured out if it's better to ignore those people or to continue to dispute them when they challenge the truth, as I did here. Either way, a thread is in trouble whenever it begins.

With any luck, hopefully we can keep it 100% on topic from here on in. Thanks for ignoring the "dribble", and my apologies once again for having gotten too caught up in it myself, if that is indeed what I did.




I'm not sure what you mean by "isolation caps" in this context. Can you explain?

And are you saying that signal can bleed from the sound card to the speakers, even if the mixing/routing software isn't engaged? I've never experienced that, ever. Or am I misunderstanding you? Please clarify. Thanks.



Good tips.

the issue i hear most with some combination's of sound cards and motherboard
is that the digital noise of the mb's buss is injected/bleed into the sound stream
most often its the hard drive access's that are heard but not entirely always.

there is no way to know if your buss is noisy till you crank up the vol
cheap sound cards work sometimes
expensive sound cards have the same issues

integrated sound cards almost always have this issue of no isolation from the buss
the digital background of sound is always there..

so did i say it enough ways to understand.

if you look on a sound card and it has a lot of capacitors the it will most likely have
enough isolation and noise dampening in the circuits to have a nice clean signal upon
broadcast.

now if you your using usb external recorders then this is not normally an issue.
but most folks use their sound card to record and stream with.

Interesting. I'd had no idea that could happen. Thanks for explaining further.

Greetings,

Since I have no access to my own set up for the moment, I had to try with my office computer which has an onboard sound card.

I used reaper rewired with reason and used a small program called 'virtual midi keyboard' which allows you to use computer keyboard as a midi keyboard. Opened some instruments in reason and then set-up the shoutcast plugin for reaper. It is not working as a plugin that works on a channel but it is used with bouncing process. Instead of saving it to the disk, it broadcasts the recording (or monitoring out in this case). Connection was a success as I said earlier and this time I played some and was able to hear it in our club in SL(19 seconds latency ftw ). Although there have been incidents of drop-outs but it may be due to my connection going bad so answer to this problem will require more field-test.

Since it is using the bouncing process, I am not sure if I can route other outputs only for monitoring while sending some to broadcast.

Will keep you informed in the future. Hope this topic provides good reference for those want to go for live performance in SL.

Sincerely,
Ebenezer

Many computers have decent built-in soundcards, which can be used to record reasonably high quality audio for the purposes here. I recorded an original CD (you can listen to it here: http://learjeff.net/cd1/index.html. I recorded about half the tracks for this using my laptop builtin; the rest were recorded using a MOTU 828. Let me know if you can tell the difference. I would have to dig in my archives, because I sure can't, and I've listened to these tracks ad nauseum in the production process.

The biggest drawback to most built-ins is the mic input, which is not suitable for recording music. Worse yet is the built-in mic on a laptop, which picks up fan noise.

These built-ins are indeed limited and aren't pro quality, but the line inputs are often fine for the purposes here. What's more important is a decent mic (like the ones Chosen recommended) and a half-decent mic preamp.

The cheapest way to get a half-decent pream is to buy a small mixer, like this one:
http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHXENTX802. (They make an even cheaper one, but without phantom power, which you might want some day, if you get a mic that needs it.)

Plug the mics into that, and plug the line outputs of that into your soundcard's line inputs (probably using a stereo 1/8" to RCA adaptor cable, which you can find at Radio Shack).

To get low latency using your built-in, use ASIO4ALL (google to find it; free). This adds low-latency ASIO drivers to your built-in soundcard. Note that low latency is nice but not necessary. In any case, you won't want to listen to your stream through SL while performaing, THAT will have high latency regardless what you do.

Latency is the delay between when you play and when you hear what you played. If you listen to your little mixer rather than your computer, latency won't matter. However, with low latency you can listen to the actual mix you're producing in your computer, and that can avoid not noticing problems.

This is pretty much the minimum, and assumes your soundcard is decent. If you got a bargain basement computer, it might not be, and there are other issues you can run into.

===========

OK, next step up: get an inexpensive USB or Firewire audio interface (often called "soundcards" even though they're not cards that go in your computer). USB is fine because you do NOT need ultra low latency, and many of the past problems with USB sound are history these days. However, Firewire has a better reputation for less worries, if your computer has a Firewire port. (If not, you can get an firewire adaptor, but that's yet another part to hassle with.) Rest assured, lots of people use USB interfaces and are happy with them.

Most of these come with a mic preamp built-in, which is a good idea, especially if you didn't start with the cheapest option, above.

This option is SIMPLER than the cheapest option. It adds about $100 or less to the total cost. This is the route that most folks would take, and what I'd recommend.

Examples are Tascam US122L, M-Audio MobilePre, EMU 0202.

=============

Next step up is NOT to get a better soundcard (as most folks will try to tell you) but to get better mic preamps. The preamps built into most mixers and audio interfaces are "half decent" (and they're the kind I used in my CD). But even with a simple, inexpensive mic like the Shure SM58, you'll get much better sound using a "decent" or high-quality mic preamp. Makes far more difference than upgrading the converters (which also does make a difference, but usually not noticeable until you're a pretty darn good audio engineer).

The cheapest decent mic preamp I know is the Studio Projects VTB-1, for $140 per mic. In general, though, mic preamps start at about $500, per mic.

In rough order of importance to the end result, and assuming all are at least "half-decent":

1) performance, composition, arrangement
2) instruments
3) mics & mic preamps
4) engineering
5) audio interface

Keep this in mind, and hope it helps! Of course, #1 isn't a budgetary issue, but it should be your primary focus.

This is the first acid test of whether a soundcard is decent. (Well, after you've determined that it has line inputs. If it only has a mic input, then it's a no-go.)

When you do this, it's best to put a "short plug" into the input. A short-plug is just a plug with all the conductors wired together right in the plug, so the input is engaged but with no signal being sent or noise injected. It's easily made if you have an old plug and a soldering iron.

However, what's missing from the above is "how loud"? The problem is, no matter how good your soundcard is, if you crank it up enough, you'll hear noise from your amplifier or whatever you're using to listen.

So, to calibrate this, put on some commercially recorded music you like, and crank it up to "real loud" but not deafening, and then see how loud the noise sounds when monitoring the input.

There's another way, which will give you numbers, rather than saying, Well, when I crank it up REAL LOUD, I hear buzz. (Because that's true on any but the most ideal setups with seriously expensive gear, or gear that just won't go up very loud!) Benchmark your soundcard using http://audio.rightmark.org/products/rmaa.shtml, RMAA (Rightmark Audio Analyzer).

Use it in "loopback" mode, connecting your line or headphone outputs to the line inputs.

I have compiled RMAA data for lots of audio interfaces, but it's all at least 3 years old. Ask if you want the link.

Ebenezer, thanks for following up. Sounds like you're getting there.

Lear, excellent posts. Superb information. Thanks a bunch for chiming in.