# Computer vs Portastudio



## david henman

...i have steadfastly resisted all advice to upgrade from my portastudio (tascam 2488) to a computer based studio, which would involve a computer, monitor, keyboard, 24-track mixer PLUS decent mic preamps PLUS decent compressors PLUS all the neccessary cables, connectors, interfaces etc etc etc etc.

not to mention the cost and the learning curve. i spend forty hours per week at a day job. when i'm making music, i need to be able to simply hit a red button when its time to record (once the levels are set). i have no need for editing suites, nor programming, configuring and so on.

however, if the technology has progressed to the point where a computer, a 24-track mixer and a firewire cable (along with the neccessary software) are ALL that is needed, the time may be right for a guy like me, assuming that the learning curve is minimal and the plug-and-play process is completely straightforward.

am i on the right track?

-dh


----------



## Guest

My personal opinion here is that the Windows based stuff is still not as easy to use as "plug in, turn on and hit the red button". Maybe it's different on a Mac but I've never tried it. The tactile interface of a Portastudio type machine is expensive to replicate in the personal computer world. You get lots of powerful editing and plug in capabilities but it comes at a cost. There's a very good reason studios buy one version of a particular DAW software and stick with it for many, many years: once you get it working and get your engineers trained on it you don't want to breathe because it's a big deal to get it all working again and get everybody productive on it again.


----------



## nine

I don't know about you guys, but if you know how to use a computer and have recorded in either a studio or on a decent multitracker, most recording programs are a piece of cake.

Personally, I use Adobe Audition and it's really simple. All of the controls that you'd expect on a board are right there in the software interface. Not to mention that you can do a lot more than a standalone multitracking unit. I still used my Yamaha aw16g for recording the drums and then transfer those files to the computer and record everything else on there. No fussing with billions of menus displayed on a tiny 3/4x2 inch monochrome screen. 

My advice would be to dip your toes into computer recording using whichever program you want, get used to it and then transition from the standalone to the computer over time. There's a reason that lots of people have transitioned to the computer. It just offers a heck of a lot more to make your life easier.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

Windows stuff is a pain and for that reason I'd recommend a Mac and a Mackie Onyx board.

I've never used a mac but from everything I've read I think it might be a better fit for you.

IMac -> Firewire Cable -> Onyx It won't get any simpler than that. Your toughest decision will be which software to use. I use Cubase.


----------



## traynor_garnet

David,

What are your needs? Are you tracking live drums? How many tracks do you need to record at once (a full band or just one musician at a time)?

Mac once dominated music production but that hasn't really been the case for a long time. In fact, you will notice that many hardware developers first develop PC drivers etc before Mac stuff (the PC install base is much bigger). This isn't to say Macs are bad by any means.

TG


----------



## david henman

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Windows stuff is a pain and for that reason I'd recommend a Mac and a Mackie Onyx board.
> I've never used a mac but from everything I've read I think it might be a better fit for you.
> IMac -> Firewire Cable -> Onyx It won't get any simpler than that. Your toughest decision will be which software to use. I use Cubase.


...thanks for confirming this, jeff. i've been trying to ascertain the price of an onyx 12 channel mixer (i can do the 24-track test mixes on the computer itself, correct?) but no luck so far.

i'm also assuming that the hard drive is my storage/archive/backup medium, and that i can just swap hard drives as needed, depending on the song, project on which i'm working.

i need to be able to record as many as twelve live tracks simultaneously and, once the raw tracks have been recorded, send them to a professional studio for mixing and mastering.

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

david henman said:


> ...thanks for confirming this, jeff. i've been trying to ascertain the price of an onyx 12 channel mixer (i can do the 24-track test mixes on the computer itself, correct?) but no luck so far.
> 
> i'm also assuming that the hard drive is my storage/archive/backup medium, and that i can just swap hard drives as needed, depending on the song, project on which i'm working.
> 
> i need to be able to record as many as twelve live tracks simultaneously and, once the raw tracks have been recorded, send them to a professional studio for mixing and mastering.
> 
> -dh


Well then I'd suggest the Onyx 1640, it's 16 channel with 16 preamps. Just plug your mics in and go. Onyx preamps are good sounding preamps.

You might want to look at a secondary external hard drive when working with that many tracks. You'll be able to mix 24+ tracks fine with a second hard drive. You will want to go USB2 with it and leave firewire handling the Onyx. As for backups, I'd just suggest burning DVD copies of your files/projects.

PC's will get the job done, and it's what I use, but man it took me weeks getting it stable.


----------



## nine

PCs are not that bad. I've never had a problem.


----------



## nine

david henman said:


> i'm also assuming that the hard drive is my storage/archive/backup medium, and that i can just swap hard drives as needed, depending on the song, project on which i'm working.


Yeah, the tracks get saved as .wav files or whatever, but you won't need to be swapping drives. A heck of a lot of songs get stored on even a small hard drive. As a rule of thumb, you're looking at 10 megs for every minute of audio. So, a five minute song that has 20 tracks is about 1 gig. Just get a big, fast hard drive and you're all set.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

nine said:


> PCs are not that bad. I've never had a problem.


Never had issues with them either until I tried recording 16 tracks at once. Hardware conflict issues really start showing then.


----------



## ne1roc

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Never had issues with them either until I tried recording 16 tracks at once. Hardware conflict issues really start showing then.


 I'm glad you cleared that up because I've never had any issues with Sonar on my laptop. The most I've recorded at once is four tracks. For the average home studio musician, you won't be recording much more then this at one time unless you have 12 arms and four legs.

If you are a PC guy, I suggest sticking with what you are used to. Sonar is an incredibly easy software to use.


----------



## david henman

ne1roc said:


> The most I've recorded at once is four tracks. For the average home studio musician, you won't be recording much more then this at one time unless you have 12 arms and four legs.


...or, as in my case, you are recording an entire trio live off the floor. i need roughly seven channels for drums, three for vocals and one each for guitar and bass.

-dh


----------



## Hamm Guitars

david henman said:


> ...i have steadfastly resisted all advice to upgrade from my portastudio (tascam 2488) to a computer based studio, which would involve a computer, monitor, keyboard, 24-track mixer PLUS decent mic preamps PLUS decent compressors PLUS all the neccessary cables, connectors, interfaces etc etc etc etc.
> 
> not to mention the cost and the learning curve. i spend forty hours per week at a day job. when i'm making music, i need to be able to simply hit a red button when its time to record (once the levels are set). i have no need for editing suites, nor programming, configuring and so on.
> 
> however, if the technology has progressed to the point where a computer, a 24-track mixer and a firewire cable (along with the neccessary software) are ALL that is needed, the time may be right for a guy like me, assuming that the learning curve is minimal and the plug-and-play process is completely straightforward.
> 
> am i on the right track?
> 
> -dh


Hi David,

This may not be as simple as what you are after, but you could ease into a PC based DAW. If you pick up a computer that has a sound card with S/PDIF 24bit 44.1Khz input (RCA connector), you can continue to use your existing setup and expand into the computer realm at your own pace. All you will need are two RCA cables (S/PDIF out of the mixer into the computer and S/PDIF out of the computer back into the mixer), a midi cable and your choice of recording software.

This will give you limited capabilities, but it will allow you to get your feet wet and determine where you want to go with it. It is easy to expand the system by adding in the audio interface of your choice at a later date.

You may also be able to use your current mixer to control your recording software, although you may want to have someone come out and set everything up for you initially, if you are not so inclined.

I see that there is at least one software package (mixermuse) that will allow you to expand upon the features that are available for your product.


----------



## david henman

Hamm Guitars said:


> Hi David,
> This may not be as simple as what you are after, but you could ease into a PC based DAW. If you pick up a computer that has a sound card with S/PDIF 24bit 44.1Khz input (RCA connector), you can continue to use your existing setup and expand into the computer realm at your own pace. All you will need are two RCA cables (S/PDIF out of the mixer into the computer and S/PDIF out of the computer back into the mixer), a midi cable and your choice of recording software.
> This will give you limited capabilities, but it will allow you to get your feet wet and determine where you want to go with it. It is easy to expand the system by adding in the audio interface of your choice at a later date.
> You may also be able to use your current mixer to control your recording software, although you may want to have someone come out and set everything up for you initially, if you are not so inclined.
> I see that there is at least one software package (mixermuse) that will allow you to expand upon the features that are available for your product.


...i have a tascam 2488 24-track portastudio that has worked well for me and my band up until now.

however, we are looking at upgrading our studio so that:

1. we can record live off the floor

2. we can record the best possible raw tracks which can then be turned over to a pro studio for mixing and mastering (the idea here is to avoid having to do any tracking in a studio, which i detest and cannot afford).

we have limited space and, especially, limted time. i am probaly better off with a simple akai portastudio (which records up to 24 tracks simultaneously) and a few decent mics. 

however, everybody in the entire known universe tells me i need a computer-based studio, so i feel i should at least investigate that possibility.

if i can find the components for a computer-based studio that will:

1. take up as little real estate as possible

2. operate as a simple plug and play system

3. require an absolutely minimal learning curve

then it might make sense for me to go straight to a computer set up. i'm trying to narrow it down to a simple computer + mackie 16-channel mixer + mics.

-dh


----------



## traynor_garnet

If you want it as easy as possible look into one of the companies that make "turn key" systems. They will tailor a system to your needs, match all your hardware and software to work perfectly together, and take care of any potential problems before you get the computer.

You can find out all the info on your own but it takes time. As far as portability goes, a laptop with some external converters and a small mixer is all you need. You can mix right on the computer so you don't need a massive board.

TG


----------



## Guest

If you're in or near Toronto stop by Saved By Technology. Recording is what these guys do. They're very friendly and they can certainly help you price out a system that will work well and meet your tracking needs.

Someone else mentioned that 16 tracks is really going to show the limitations in your hardware and I agree. You're talking a dedicated computer with nothing running on it but your DAW software. No virus scanners. No games. Nothing. Dedicated to recording only. Kept clean and lean and only running the exact processes you need to get the job done. You should also consider very good drives, fast spindles with high I/O rates. And the interface(s) you choose will need to be fairly high quality (MoTU or Presonus) units to track 16 tracks simultaneously.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

traynor_garnet said:


> If you want it as easy as possible look into one of the companies that make "turn key" systems. They will tailor a system to your needs, match all your hardware and software to work perfectly together, and take care of any potential problems before you get the computer.
> 
> You can find out all the info on your own but it takes time. As far as portability goes, a laptop with some external converters and a small mixer is all you need. You can mix right on the computer so you don't need a massive board.
> 
> TG


That's a good idea. Though a little more expensive, there is some peace of mind and first level support.


----------



## ne1roc

david henman said:


> ...or, as in my case, you are recording an entire trio live off the floor. i need roughly seven channels for drums, three for vocals and one each for guitar and bass.
> 
> -dh


Portastudio is the way to go if you are recording live at shows IMO.


----------



## david henman

iaresee said:


> If you're in or near Toronto stop by Saved By Technology. Recording is what these guys do. They're very friendly and they can certainly help you price out a system that will work well and meet your tracking needs.
> 
> Someone else mentioned that 16 tracks is really going to show the limitations in your hardware and I agree. You're talking a dedicated computer with nothing running on it but your DAW software. No virus scanners. No games. Nothing. Dedicated to recording only. Kept clean and lean and only running the exact processes you need to get the job done.



...yep, that is a given.

thanks for reminding me about saved by technology. i used to know the owner. good tip.

my former bassist suggested this:

http://www.musicxpc.com/prodtemplate.asp

-dh


----------



## david henman

ne1roc said:


> Portastudio is the way to go if you are recording live at shows IMO.


...i doubt that we will be recording our shows - this is strictly for a permanent set up. but i have limited space.

-dh


----------



## david henman

traynor_garnet said:


> If you want it as easy as possible look into one of the companies that make "turn key" systems. They will tailor a system to your needs, match all your hardware and software to work perfectly together, and take care of any potential problems before you get the computer.
> You can find out all the info on your own but it takes time. As far as portability goes, a laptop with some external converters and a small mixer is all you need. You can mix right on the computer so you don't need a massive board.TG


...it would need at least sixteen xlr ins, however.

i agree that a system tailored to my needs by experts in the field is the way to go for a "noobie" like me. it would be worth the extra expense to avoid costly mistakes. excellent advice, tg.

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

ne1roc said:


> Portastudio is the way to go if you are recording live at shows IMO.


I have to disagree. You are running a main mixer and then running individual line outs to the portastudio. Worring about 2 levels, clipping, and EQing set properly for the venue and recording etc.

The Mackie Onyx 1640 and a laptop are the perfect live system. The 1640 has 16 channels/preamps 4 buses(subgroups). 6 Auxes for monitors.

Single firewire cable running to the laptop, and the signal is sent pre eq so you know you are getting completely raw individual tracks not the EQed club levels. You set the preamp gains appropriately and that's all you have to do on the recording side. You can then EQ and adjust your main levels for each individual as per the venue requirements.

http://www.mackie.com/products/onyx1640/index.html

The only issue you will have to deal with is ground loop hum from the computer. But it's easy to solve with some APEX isolation transformer boxes between the 1640 and the monitors/mains.


Jeff


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

david henman said:


> ...it would need at least sixteen xlr ins, however.
> 
> i agree that a system tailored to my needs by experts in the field is the way to go for a "noobie" like me. it would be worth the extra expense to avoid costly mistakes. excellent advice, tg.
> 
> -dh


David if I was in T.O., I'd certainly help you get an Onyx/PC system configured and ready to roll. I know it like the back of my hand.


----------



## david henman

Jeff Flowerday said:


> David if I was in T.O., I'd certainly help you get an Onyx/PC system configured and ready to roll. I know it like the back of my hand.


...is that what you would recommend for a fixed installation?

a friend also suggested this:

"The route I chose was an RME Haamerfall soundcard with 24 inputs across 3 ADAT lightpipes. (~$800). I then bought (2) presonus 8 channel digimax LT preamps (~$1000 each) which plug directly into this soundcard giving me 16 channels of clean preamps, no EQ, effect or anything. I record straight to cubase (~$400) and do all my sound molestation up there. So, for about $4,500 you have a 16 channel studio (off the floor at once)."

-dh


----------



## traynor_garnet

You could use the Mackie board Jeff is talking about or you could buy some rack mounts mic pres.

I wasn't sure of your budget and wanted to let you know that you can completely mix within the computer: you don't need to break the bank on a digital mixer with fxs, flying faders, etc. That said, there are some great boards out there but it seems you prefer simplicity over a billion options (the digital boards have their own learning curves).

TG



david henman said:


> ...it would need at least sixteen xlr ins, however.
> 
> i agree that a system tailored to my needs by experts in the field is the way to go for a "noobie" like me. it would be worth the extra expense to avoid costly mistakes. excellent advice, tg.
> 
> -dh


----------



## david henman

traynor_garnet said:


> You could use the Mackie board Jeff is talking about or you could buy some rack mounts mic pres.
> I wasn't sure of your budget and wanted to let you know that you can completely mix within the computer: you don't need to break the bank on a digital mixer with fxs, flying faders, etc. That said, there are some great boards out there but it seems you prefer simplicity over a billion options (the digital boards have their own learning curves).TG


...thanks, tg. yeah, i was aware the mixers/preamps are only needed for getting the signal _to_ the computer and, after that, they are out of the equation.

which makes me wonder why no one has developed a simple "input system", ie a sixteen-input "input bay" as it were, with a simple interface to the computer.

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

david henman said:


> ...is that what you would recommend for a fixed installation?
> 
> a friend also suggested this:
> 
> "The route I chose was an RME Haamerfall soundcard with 24 inputs across 3 ADAT lightpipes. (~$800). I then bought (2) presonus 8 channel digimax LT preamps (~$1000 each) which plug directly into this soundcard giving me 16 channels of clean preamps, no EQ, effect or anything. I record straight to cubase (~$400) and do all my sound molestation up there. So, for about $4,500 you have a 16 channel studio (off the floor at once)."
> 
> -dh


Not necessarily. You really don't need the whole mixer solution then. Though in the end it might be cheaper than the above solution and allow you use it live. I don't know what you use for a board right now?


----------



## Guest

david henman said:


> ...yep, that is a given.
> 
> thanks for reminding me about saved by technology. i used to know the owner. good tip.
> 
> my former bassist suggested this:
> 
> http://www.musicxpc.com/prodtemplate.asp
> 
> -dh


I seem to remember Saved By Technology being a reseller for Music XPC. I think you'd do better with a very compact PC than a laptop. Laptop drives have horrible throughput and spindle speeds. You'll end up having to hang firewire drives off it to support streaming that much audio to it. Downside to the compact PC is now you're talking monitor, keyboard, mouse. Lots of bits and pieces to haul to a gig. You could rack it all up with the Mackie mixer though.


----------



## david henman

...just to reiterate: this is for a permanent/fixed installation. i have no intention of trying to record gigs/shows.

but, i do want the ability to record (12-16) live tracks in my studio, which has limited space.

-dh


----------



## david henman

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Not necessarily. You really don't need the whole mixer solution then. Though in the end it might be cheaper than the above solution and allow you use it live. I don't know what you use for a board right now?


...tascam 2488 (completely self-contained digital recording studio).

but this whole discussion/investigation has got me thinking:

the sole purpose of a mixing desk in this context is simply to get the signal _to_ the computer. after that all mixing etc is done _on_ the computer, and the mixer is no longer part of the process.

why has no one developed a simple 12-16 channel "input system" to record directly to the computer?

-dh


----------



## Guest

david henman said:


> why has no one developed a simple 12-16 channel "input system" to record directly to the computer?


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking for but that's the whole idea behind things like this: http://www.presonus.com/firestudio.html. No faders and EQ. Just good A/D and lots of input channels.


----------



## nine

david henman said:


> why has no one developed a simple 12-16 channel "input system" to record directly to the computer?


I'm no expert, but you can certainly buy 8 and 10 input firewire or pci card/breakout box setups. It seem possible to me that you could run two of them at the same time. Or, maybe it isn't possible to run more than one of those setups at once due to firewire or PCI bandwidth issues. 16 tracks at the same time is a fair amount of data transfer, but it seems like those buses should be able to take it.

M-Audio makes the kind of thing you're talking about. And I see what you're going for with it. I don't see the need for a board either if you can just get the 16 tracks right into the computer. Then you just use the software as a board.


----------



## nine

Yeah, what iaresee said as well. Same kind of thing. There are quite a few companies that make that kind of stuff.


----------



## david henman

iaresee said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking for but that's the whole idea behind things like this: http://www.presonus.com/firestudio.html. No faders and EQ. Just good A/D and lots of input channels.


...now this looks like what i have in mind!

thanks, mate!

-dh


----------



## Guest

david henman said:


> ...now this looks like what i have in mind!
> 
> thanks, mate!
> 
> -dh


No problem. There are a ton of 8-in units like that in about the same price range (~$800). You should talk to Saved By Tech because they'll give you the lowdown on what works best when you're using multiple units and which manufacturers have the best driver support for your OS of choice. Off the top of my head you'll want to look at Presonus, Mark of the Unicorn (MoTU) and maybe Apogee (but they tend to be higher end) and Digidesign (again, they tend to be higher end though).


----------



## david henman

jroberts said:


> Here's what I'd get...
> Any decent modern PC ($1,000)
> DAW Software of your choice ($500)
> Apogee AD-16X Converters ($3,700)
> Apogee X-FireWire Card ($400)
> Vintech 473 ($3,200)
> Chandler TG2 ($2,300)
> API 3124 ($2,700)
> Sytek MPX4Aii ($900)
> A-Designs Pacifica ($2,100)
> Cables, etc. ($500)
> That's, uhh, I guess a little over $17,000. But you'd have one seriously kick-ass tracking studio! Of course, there's the small matter of mic's as well.
> :rockon:


...i'm not sure what most of that stuff is, but you may have convinced me to go back to thinking about a simple all-in-one portastudio like the akai 24 track.

fancy processing and editing suites i don't need. all i want to do is record raw (unprocessed) tracks and turn them over to a professional studio to be mixed and mastered.

i recorded my first cd on a tascam 2488, which now goes for $800, along with some very inexpensive mics.

while its not "broadcast quality" or whatever, it sounds pretty good.

-dh


----------



## david henman

jroberts said:


> I was just kind of kidding with my suggestion, given the price tag, but it is actually a very simple setup. All I've listed are 16 channels of mic preamps (Vintech, Chandler, API, A-Designs, Sytek), an interface to get the signals from the preamps into a computer (Apogee), and then the computer itself. It's basically a duper-deluxe, world-class pro studio version of a Presonus Firepod.


...whew!

i'm still curious about how friendly the recording software is these days. i guess i'll have to drop by sbt for a quick test drive.

-dh


----------



## Guest

david henman said:


> i'm still curious about how friendly the recording software is these days. i guess i'll have to drop by sbt for a quick test drive.


There's a lot of choice on the software side these days. You can go with something simple like Guitar Tracks. To the intermediate tools like Sonar and Cubase. And then on to the what-they-use-at-Metalworks stuff like Nuendo and ProTools. Plus there are some companies making very excellent non-linear audio tools. Stuff like Abelton Live. Basically set your software budget and feature requirements and you'll be able to find something that meets it for sure.


----------



## traynor_garnet

david henman said:


> ...whew!
> 
> i'm still curious about how friendly the recording software is these days. i guess i'll have to drop by sbt for a quick test drive.
> 
> -dh


Here is how I picked mine. Go to all the major manufacturers and download their trial versions. Without reading any help files or tutorials see if you can get something simple recorded. The main question: which software package works like you do and makes the most intuitive sense.

Since you don't want to do a bunch of processing and editing you may even want to download the cheaper versions of a company's product: all the "flagship" versions are loaded with stuff you may never use.

After you have played with a few packages make sure to go back and try the first one again (you will learn something while comparing and therefore later packages may artificially seem easier than the first package).

Good luck and have fun
TG


----------



## david henman

iaresee said:


> There's a lot of choice on the software side these days. You can go with something simple like Guitar Tracks. To the intermediate tools like Sonar and Cubase. And then on to the what-they-use-at-Metalworks stuff like Nuendo and ProTools. Plus there are some companies making very excellent non-linear audio tools. Stuff like Abelton Live. Basically set your software budget and feature requirements and you'll be able to find something that meets it for sure.


...from the very little i know, i'm leaning toward cubase. plug and play simplicity and ease of use are the key factors.

-dh


----------



## GP_Hawk

Maybe take a look at RADAR systems. Call Dave Dysart and tell him what you're looking for( a system tailored to tracking only).


----------



## david henman

...interesting! thanks, gp.

-fh


----------



## 79Deluxe

Computers suck my soul


----------



## Mooh

A 15 year old zombie thread of David Henman's. Man, this takes me back.

Absolutely computer. Garageband for me.


----------



## JimiGuy7

Great old thread for what I’m doing. I’ve been all about Logic Pro for years since graduating from GarageBand and prior to that four and eight track tape (a la Portastudio). Recently, I decided to get another four track which then prompted me to upgrade to an eight track (Yamaha MT8X) which now has me wanting the Tascam 238 lol. I’ve found using both together has been fun and inspiring. Using four tracks to record drums is fun and actually gets a very useable drum sound to my ears with some slight eq and compression. Sometimes it fun to go down the plug-in rabbit hole, sometimes it’s nice to be able to have as polished a product as a DAW can provide, and sometimes it’s just nice to go back and see what you can do and what you can get within the limitations of an old cassette Portastudio.


----------



## BlueRocker

I'm comfortable with computers, but I like the idea of a recording "appliance". I recently found a Boss BR-800 on Kijiji for $100 that was basically brand new. 5.5 hours of battery life on AA batteries, built in microphones, and small enough to fit in a gig bag, plus a USB interface to boot. Best of both worlds to me.


----------



## Midnight Rider

GP_Hawk said:


> Maybe take a look at RADAR systems. Call Dave Dysart and tell him what you're looking for( a system tailored to tracking only).


I have the RADAR 24 hooked up to an Allen & Heath GS-R24M console that also has the option of routing and mixing audio into a DAW if necessary. Best of all worlds as there are many possibilities to choose from,...mix in or outside the box. You can find used Radar systems on Kijiji, Reverb, eBay, etc. for a decent price. I have recorded with 2" 24 track analog tape decks running at 30 IPS and the Radar systems are the closest to that sound quality I have ever heard.

Furthermore the RADAR systems are *ROCK Solid* and made in Canada.


----------



## Midnight Rider

Allen & Heath GS-R24M workflow possibilities.


----------



## Simon Peterson

Maby I'm just a sucker for punishment, but DAWs drive me crazy, one day it's working, the next it's not. I prefer to use my teac 3340s and tascam 106 with just an art pro ii comp and a quadraverb 2. That being said, when the computer is co-operating it is faster and doesn't use expensive tape.

I think a lit of folks like me would be better off with a stand alone digital recorder like the new tascam 24


----------

