# Are Stand Alone Studio Recorders Obsolete?



## david henman

1. no new products introduced at NAMM this year?

2. fostex, zoom and yamaha have all but dropped out?

3. roland has dropped the 2400 series?

4. akai has dropped the dps series?

5. will tascam and korg be next?

...i just ordered a korg d3200 last night. i'll record my band's third cd on it, and then i'll probably be the last person on the planet to finally cross over to the dark side (computer based studio), which i've resisted up to now for a variety of reasons, all of which make perfect sense to me, though not to anyone else...

david henman


----------



## suttree

> Are Stand Alone Studio Recorders Obsolete?


yes.

why spend money on a small computer, when so many people have good computers at home? its just hard to compete in the recording market with a standalone unit for say $600 with two decent I/Os against computer periphrials that do the same thing for $90


----------



## david henman

suttree said:


> yes.
> why spend money on a small computer, when so many people have good computers at home? its just hard to compete in the recording market with a standalone unit for say $600 with two decent I/Os against computer periphrials that do the same thing for $90



...that _only_ works if you are a _solo_ recorder.

for me and my trio, the cost of getting in is well over $2000.

which is why i will be waiting until '09 to jump on the bandwagon.

-dh


----------



## Milkman

It's a personal thing.

I just bought a stand alone for the comprehensive nature of the device. I don't want to have to drag a computer and all the needed peripherals to record a demo or a live set.

Yes you can set your home PC up to record, but if you have a family (kids) who also need to use the computer this can be inconvenient.

I had a Tascam DAW and found it to be a pain in the a$$. I sold it a few weeks after buying it. I'm finding the little Boss unit much more to my liking.


----------



## david henman

Milkman said:


> Yes you can set your home PC up to record, but if you have a family (kids) who also need to use the computer this can be inconvenient.



...i believe that if you are serious about recording, you need a dedicated computer, preferrably one that is NOT connected to ther internet.

-dh


----------



## Milkman

david henman said:


> ...i believe that if you are serious about recording, you need a dedicated computer, preferrably one that is NOT connected to ther internet.
> 
> -dh


If so, the cost merit of the stand alones starts to look pretty good to me.


----------



## traynor_garnet

Yes, they are dead. I'm actually surprised they lasted as long as they did. 

I think they lasted as long as they did because in the late 1990s - early 2000s you still had to really optimize your computer and research all your components etc. Now, even your basic off the shelf PC will record and mix tracks fairly easily. Modern hard drives are SO fast and RAM is plentiful.

If you need to record a lot of tracks at once things get a bit more complicated but even this is less of a concern. I haven't recorded anything in eons, but I still have my old Cakewalk PC sitting around; that system worked really well.

TG


----------



## Milkman

I guess I still prefer the flexibility of being able to record wherever I choose. To do this with a computer would obviously require a lap top, and really a fairly high end one, as well as the required interface and peripheral gear.


All to record simple demos?


I suppose if your goal is to record CD quality tracks a PC is the way to go, but again, in that case you're into setting up a studio. From my perspective there's a huge difference between what I would do with a porta studio and an actual studio.


----------



## suttree

david henman said:


> ...that _only_ works if you are a _solo_ recorder.
> 
> for me and my trio, the cost of getting in is well over $2000.
> 
> which is why i will be waiting until '09 to jump on the bandwagon.
> 
> -dh


i think that you'll pay close to the same for a stand alone recorder that has multiple I/O's, as frankly there's just a hard cost there. it costs the same to build a processor and software for the hard disk recorder as it does on a PC, and the converters and mic preamps are an inescapable cost as well. the PC guys don't have to include faders and a cool looking box. also, you can do high quality recording for less than that. an m-audio delta1010lt and an apex 8 channel preamp box will give you all that a standalone recorder will (minus the faders, you can get that behringer control surface for $80, and it actually works as advertised, and since no audio passes through it, it's ok to be behringer, lol) for what, $600(and if you go used, the stuff is all dirt cheap)? that's 8 in and 8 out simultaneous at 24/96. add cubase for $500, and you're in another league from standalone performance pretty quickly. 

the scalability of computer based systems is also a major factor. when you get into a PC studio you can build on that much more effectively than with a standalone recorder.


----------



## david henman

Milkman said:


> From my perspective there's a huge difference between what I would do with a porta studio and an actual studio.


...same here, up until now.

for portability, of course, you can't top a portastudio. plug and play simplicity.

the main advantage of a computer set up has always been editing. for those of us with little or no use for editing, thats _not_ a benefit.

computer set ups were better suited for solo guys - guys who also had the time to navigate the (until now) steep learning curve. not to mention finding your way through the incredible amount and diversity of gear on the market. then there's the terminology....

for someone like me, who is recording an entire band, a computer set up just made no sense whatsoever. i have neither the space, nor the money, nor the time to devote to such a project.

but, things have changed, and rapidly.

as i understand it, all i need now is two presonus 8-channel interfaces and a dedicated computer. they have reached the stage, according to my salesguy, where they are virtually plug and play, and you can mix 24, 32, 48 or more channels right on the computer - no need for an outboard mixer.

i'll give myself one more year with a standalone. in the meantime, i'll be researching a home music computer studio.

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

Laptops and a firewire interface give you best of both worlds. The power of the computer interface and portability.

I been able to record 16 tracks @ 24/96 at once with my laptop and my Onyx. I was using an external hard drive though, 16 tracks would push a 7200 RPM internal drive.


----------



## david henman

...you computer studio guys are pretty hard-headed. of course, you probably see us standalone guys the same way.

the tascam 2488 (24-track) is $800. the korg d3200 i just ordered is $1400.

a pc or mac is going to cost me at least a grand, correct?

then, i need mulitple I/Os - 16 inputs. with preamps. i beleive the best i can do is a presonus 8-channel I/O for $500. times two, that's another grand.

so, we are already up well over two grand. 

another $500 for cubase?

now we are approaching three grand...

thanks, suttree, but for my needs, the korg d3200 at $1400 will just fine.

its a complete, all-in-one, plug and play system that will allow me to record raw tracks. it even has mixing and mastering facilities, although i have a private arrangement for that:smile:.

i can't tell you happy i am that i made the decision to wait until computer music technology caught up to guys like me. by the time i jump on board, it will be a simple matter of buying the gear, bringing it home plugging in and and recording.

it _better_ be.....

i've waited long enough!

-dh




suttree said:


> i think that you'll pay close to the same for a stand alone recorder that has multiple I/O's, as frankly there's just a hard cost there. it costs the same to build a processor and software for the hard disk recorder as it does on a PC, and the converters and mic preamps are an inescapable cost as well. the PC guys don't have to include faders and a cool looking box. also, you can do high quality recording for less than that. an m-audio delta1010lt and an apex 8 channel preamp box will give you all that a standalone recorder will (minus the faders, you can get that behringer control surface for $80, and it actually works as advertised, and since no audio passes through it, it's ok to be behringer, lol) for what, $600(and if you go used, the stuff is all dirt cheap)? that's 8 in and 8 out simultaneous at 24/96. add cubase for $500, and you're in another league from standalone performance pretty quickly.
> 
> the scalability of computer based systems is also a major factor. when you get into a PC studio you can build on that much more effectively than with a standalone recorder.


----------



## david henman

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Laptops and a firewire interface give you best of both worlds. The power of the computer interface and portability.
> 
> I been able to record 16 tracks @ 24/96 at once with my laptop and my Onyx. I was using an external hard drive though, 16 tracks would push a 7200 RPM internal drive.


...so you have to bring a laptop.

AND an interface.

AND an external drive.

AND all the necessary cables.

anything else?

can you see why milkman would want to stick with a simple, portable all-in-one?

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

david henman said:


> ...so you have to bring a laptop.
> 
> AND an interface.
> 
> AND an external drive.
> 
> AND all the necessary cables.
> 
> anything else?
> 
> can you see why milkman would want to stick with a simple, portable all-in-one?
> 
> -dh


No, actually if you want to record the number of tracks a portable unit is capable of at the quality of a portable unit does you'd just need to bring a laptop and an interface. The one little firewire cable won't kill you.


----------



## david henman

Jeff Flowerday said:


> No, actually if you want to record the number of tracks a portable unit is capable of at the quality of a portable unit does you'd just need to bring a laptop and an interface. The one little firewire cable won't kill you.



...cool.

funny, i never intended this to be a debate. i get computer-based studios. they are beginning to make sense to me, and i fully intend to cross over in the coming months. i've know for quite a while that it is inevitable.

i'll probably spend a little extra for a high-quality, flat-screen monitor. i think that will make the whole process a lot easier.

portability is not an issue for me. but space is, so i'm hoping/assuming that i won't need an outboard mixing desk.

-dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

david henman said:


> ...cool.
> 
> funny, i never intended this to be a debate. i get computer-based studios. they are beginning to make sense to me, and i fully intend to cross over in the coming months. i've know for quite a while that it is inevitable.
> 
> i'll probably spend a little extra for a high-quality, flat-screen monitor. i think that will make the whole process a lot easier.
> 
> portability is not an issue for me. but space is, so i'm hoping/assuming that i won't need an outboard mixing desk.
> 
> -dh


LOL
I wasn't debating, just replying to your smart ass reply to me. :smile::smile::smile:


----------



## david henman

Jeff Flowerday said:


> LOL
> I wasn't debating, just replying to your smart ass reply to me. :smile::smile::smile:


...i'll see that and raise you one swear word, two invectives and a politically incorrect opinion.

-dh


----------



## traynor_garnet

David,

How many discrete tracks do you need to record at once? How many can the Korg stand alone record at once?

For preamps, just grab a Mackie 1604 (or smaller one if you don't need 16 inputs). Cheap, decent quality, and the mic pres are as good as anything out there until you get in the real big leagues. Buy a used one and save lots of cash.

As far as a PC, I think you could spend less than a $1000. If you already have a PC monitor sitting around you are laughing. Get a PC with the fastest processor, biggest hard drive, and most ram you can for you $. Don't waste money on a fancy graphics card for video gaming: a simple video card will do. Don't bother getting a sound card installed (put your own good one in it). Get a bare bones system in terms of software; the less crap running in the background the better and since you won't use it, why pay for it?

Buy which ever software and soundcard fits your needs. If you don't plan to do midi or use software synths etc you could probably buyer a cheaper version of a company's software rather than shelling out all the cash for the flagship version.

The initial hit will still be higher than the Korg, but now you can do very cost effect upgrades as time goes by. Your Korg, however, isn't expandable and won't be worth anything in a very short time.

TG






david henman said:


> ...you computer studio guys are pretty hard-headed. of course, you probably see us standalone guys the same way.
> 
> the tascam 2488 (24-track) is $800. the korg d3200 i just ordered is $1400.
> 
> a pc or mac is going to cost me at least a grand, correct?
> 
> then, i need mulitple I/Os - 16 inputs. with preamps. i beleive the best i can do is a presonus 8-channel I/O for $500. times two, that's another grand.
> 
> so, we are already up well over two grand.
> 
> another $500 for cubase?
> 
> now we are approaching three grand...
> 
> thanks, suttree, but for my needs, the korg d3200 at $1400 will just fine.
> 
> its a complete, all-in-one, plug and play system that will allow me to record raw tracks. it even has mixing and mastering facilities, although i have a private arrangement for that:smile:.
> 
> i can't tell you happy i am that i made the decision to wait until computer music technology caught up to guys like me. by the time i jump on board, it will be a simple matter of buying the gear, bringing it home plugging in and and recording.
> 
> it _better_ be.....
> 
> i've waited long enough!
> 
> -dh


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

Paul said:


> OK......I'll bite....
> 
> What is an appropriate bomb-proof laptop to handle that kind of work? I know I can get a desktop computer built for me for a good price, that will be solid, reliable, cool running, quiet running, and will last. I found a company in Toronto that builds field deployable laptops, but they are an order of magnitude more expensive than the Dell/Acer/Lenovo laptops advertised in the newspaper supplements.
> 
> http://www.stealthcomputer.com/portables_notebook.htm


Yah, I don't think you need to go to that much of an extreme. 

Laptops are made to do what they do and can handle the little bit of abuse they'll get being hauled to and from recording sessions.

I have had good success with my HP. Mac is a good choice as well.


----------



## david henman

David,

How many discrete tracks do you need to record at once? How many can the Korg stand alone record at once?

_...i need 12. the korg will do 12-14, but only a 16-bit. that will have to do._

For preamps, just grab a Mackie 1604 (or smaller one if you don't need 16 inputs). Cheap, decent quality, and the mic pres are as good as anything out there until you get in the real big leagues. Buy a used one and save lots of cash.

_...sounds good. how much? for me, buying used makes no sense whatsoever. i have no idea what i'm getting into. this is completely new territory. i will not touch the used market._

As far as a PC, I think you could spend less than a $1000. If you already have a PC monitor sitting around you are laughing. Get a PC with the fastest processor, biggest hard drive, and most ram you can for you $. Don't waste money on a fancy graphics card for video gaming: a simple video card will do. Don't bother getting a sound card installed (put your own good one in it). Get a bare bones system in terms of software; the less crap running in the background the better and since you won't use it, why pay for it?

_...again, most of the terminology here is completely foreign to me. why would i need a video card, for example?_

Buy which ever software and soundcard fits your needs. 

_...meaning what? i havenpt the first clue what software and soundcard fits my needs. by the time i even begin to understand all this terminology, i could be sitting down with my band, plugged into the d3200 (which will probably arrive early next week, and recording live off the floor._

If you don't plan to do midi or use software synths etc you could probably buyer a cheaper version of a company's software rather than shelling out all the cash for the flagship version.

_...what language are you speaking?_

The initial hit will still be higher than the Korg, but now you can do very cost effect upgrades as time goes by. Your Korg, however, isn't expandable and won't be worth anything in a very short time.

_...upgrade to what, exactly? editing suites? i don't intend to do any editing. any time spent editing, assembling, cutting, pasting etc etc etc etc is time i could and should be spent with my hands on my instrument. i can't imagine need more than 24 tracks. i need only minimal, basic effects, like delay and reverb. i don't need my korg to expand to anything beyond what it already is and, yes, i do realize it will be practically worthless in a very short time, and have already factored that in as the cost of doing what i need to do.

although it sounds like it, i'm not fighting you guys. in fact, i learn more and more with each one of these exchanges. i do wonder why so many are trying to convince me to get into editing, etc. i'm a player, not an editor.

the bottom line on this is that it will take me a few months to do the neccessary homework to find what's out there in the computer recording field, as it relates to my needs and goals and vision of the studio i want to create.

by that time, i will be nearly finished recording my third cd on my korg d3200.

makes sense to me!

-dh_


----------



## suttree

the korg will only record 8 max simultaneous tracks at a time, not 12 to 14. the Delta101LT i mentioned will do the same, and with the ART mic pre setup, you'll actually have 8 microphone preamps instead of the korg's 4. as to playback, the number of tracks you can play back on a computer is really only limited by the PC itself. a current $500 MDG special should be able to play back oh, 80+ tracks at 24/96, depending on how many inserted effects you get. 

the budget is as follows: PC say $600, Delta 1010LT is $199 at guitar center, you'll get it here for that much, the art pre section is $80, and cubase4 studio is what, $400? so that's $1300 for: 8in and out at 24/96, unlimited edit undos, virtual instruments out the wazoo, scalability (say your buddy's kid has a punk band that wants a demo, suddenly you've got a revenue stream) if you decide to expand, and here's the big bonus: if you like something you've recorded, you can burn it to a cd, and walk into any recording studio on earth pretty much, and hand it to them, they can open it and tweak it for you on the spot. this is also useful when you want to work with a musician that isn't next door, by the way.

here's another thing, the $600 computer from MDG can also do your taxes and prepare documents, and design a cd cover and and and... the tascam won't do that. 

don't get me wrong, it's your money, you buy whatever makes you comfortable, and whatever you will get the most out of is the best decision for you. but you asked if standalone recording is obsolete, and largely, it is. but hey, so are studer 2 tracks, and the beatles did a thing or two with those puppies.


----------



## Kenmac

David, FWIW I have a standalone recorder as well, the Roland VS-1680 which I bought several years ago. It has a 2 gig hard drive, which isn't much now, but at the time that was considered fairly generous. I gave up on it a few years ago as I got into computer based recording. 

I know you're thinking about computer recording in the future so just a little advice, don't get Cubase. If you want to save some money and have a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) that works the way it's supposed to without unnecessary features or bloat, get Reaper: http://www.cockos.com/reaper/ It costs only $200.00 for a professional license and for sound editing you can't beat Audacity for the price. Free. http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ It's cross platform as well. 

Also once you get into computer based recording there are a whole world of virtual instruments and effects plug-ins out there. I ought to now, I have over 600 on my PC and the majority of them are free. Check out the KVR website at http://www.kvraudio.com/ This is where I downloaded most of them, plus there's a magazine called Computer Music which comes with a DVD loaded with Virtual Instruments and effects. I have a few of theirs on my PC as well. I know this is a lot of information but if you need any help feel free to ask.


----------



## david henman

the korg will only record 8 max simultaneous tracks at a time, not 12 to 14. 

_where are you getting your information?

"The D3200 can record, at 16 bits, 12 Analog inputs, 2 digital input and 2 tracks of session drums. So in reality, if you are not using the session drums, and have a 2 channel preamp with digital output--14 tracks at once.
It can play back 32 tracks at once.
At 24 bit you can record 12 tracks at once, but you can only play back a maximum of 16 tracks at once." -studiotrax.net

"Record up to twelve tracks at once, using 12 balanced 1/4” inputs – 8 are also equipped with XLR inputs and individual phantom power. A convenient guitar input jack is also provided for guitarists." - KORG WEBSITE_

the Delta101LT i mentioned will do the same, and with the ART mic pre setup, you'll actually have 8 microphone preamps instead of the korg's 4. 

_...again, the korg has eight._

as to playback, the number of tracks you can play back on a computer is really only limited by the PC itself. a current $500 MDG special should be able to play back oh, 80+ tracks at 24/96, depending on how many inserted effects you get. 

_...for this next cd, i only need 24. _

the budget is as follows: PC say $600, Delta 1010LT is $199 at guitar center, you'll get it here for that much, the art pre section is $80, and cubase4 studio is what, $400? so that's $1300 for: 8in and out at 24/96, 

_...again, i need at least 12 ins._


unlimited edit undos, virtual instruments out the wazoo, scalability (say your buddy's kid has a punk band that wants a demo, suddenly you've got a revenue stream) if you decide to expand, 

_...again, i don't need, or even want, any of this stuff._

and here's the big bonus: if you like something you've recorded, you can burn it to a cd, and walk into any recording studio on earth pretty much, and hand it to them, they can open it and tweak it for you on the spot. this is also useful when you want to work with a musician that isn't next door, by the way.

_...i have been able to do that with the tascam, and will be able to do it with the korg. _

here's another thing, the $600 computer from MDG can also do your taxes and prepare documents, and design a cd cover and and and... the tascam won't do that. 

_...my office computer handles all of that, and quite nicely. my music computer, when i get one, will do nothing but music. it will not even be hooked up to the internet._

don't get me wrong, it's your money, you buy whatever makes you comfortable, and whatever you will get the most out of is the best decision for you. but you asked if standalone recording is obsolete, and largely, it is. but hey, so are studer 2 tracks, and the beatles did a thing or two with those puppies.

_...and don't get ME wrong. i am already sold on a computer based home studio. its definitely coming, probably in early '09, and i will probably be coming back to you for advice and guidance.

i just don't need, or even want one right now.

-dh_


----------



## david henman

...thanks, kenmac. i hope you guys are around next year when i'll be looking for buying advice.

i'm going to be looking for stuff that is simple and straightforward, and designed strictly for recording, rather than fancy editing, assembling, cutting, pasting, sampling, triggering, virtual instruments etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

remember, i already have a _real_ band...

-dh



Kenmac said:


> David, FWIW I have a standalone recorder as well, the Roland VS-1680 which I bought several years ago. It has a 2 gig hard drive, which isn't much now, but at the time that was considered fairly generous. I gave up on it a few years ago as I got into computer based recording.
> 
> I know you're thinking about computer recording in the future so just a little advice, don't get Cubase. If you want to save some money and have a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) that works the way it's supposed to without unnecessary features or bloat, get Reaper: http://www.cockos.com/reaper/ It costs only $200.00 for a professional license and for sound editing you can't beat Audacity for the price. Free. http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ It's cross platform as well.
> 
> Also once you get into computer based recording there are a whole world of virtual instruments and effects plug-ins out there. I ought to now, I have over 600 on my PC and the majority of them are free. Check out the KVR website at http://www.kvraudio.com/ This is where I downloaded most of them, plus there's a magazine called Computer Music which comes with a DVD loaded with Virtual Instruments and effects. I have a few of theirs on my PC as well. I know this is a lot of information but if you need any help feel free to ask.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

jroberts said:


> Why not Cubase? It's been rock-solid for me.


It's been rock-solid for me as well!


----------



## torndownunit

I don't really see a need for them in my situation. I use Garageband, my $100 tone port and a few SM57's I bought. I am gradually learning the software and techniques and getting what I think are pretty good recordings for just learning. The setup is about as simple as you can get.


----------



## Guest

david henman said:


> i'm going to be looking for stuff that is simple and straightforward, and designed strictly for recording, rather than fancy editing, assembling, cutting, pasting, sampling, triggering, virtual instruments etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.


You know, after our other conversation about this when you were getting ready to buy, I was actually reasonably convinced that there's still a market for a straight-forward black box solution to recording like this. You made a good case for not using a computer. You need a way to capture it all with out a lot of fuss. Later you'll move it to a big old DAW with a keyboard and mouse.

You may want to consider ADAT HD when you upgrade (or another "hard disk recorder" like something from Otari) -- simple, but still extensible. Capture-only. Easy to move to a computer later. High quality. Couple it with mixer of your choice for the mic pre's. No screens, menus, effects, non-linear editing stuff -- just straight up high quality, capturing.


----------



## traynor_garnet

david henman said:


> _"Record up to twelve tracks at once, using 12 balanced 1/4” inputs – 8 are also equipped with XLR inputs and individual phantom power. A convenient guitar input jack is also provided for guitarists." - KORG WEBSITE_


Yeah, Korg's own website says 12 tracks at once max. That's still pretty good, but you could easily beat that with a PC



> _...again, the korg has eight mic pres._


The Mackie 1604 mixer I mentioned has 16 mic preamps that will be of better quality. Regarding your earlier post, this Mackie is an analog mixer so buying used isn't really risky nor does it require a lot of knowledge. Once on the PC you will mix on the PC so this is a front end only mixer (lots of good mic pres). I would stay away from the ART stuff another user mentioned.



> _...for this next cd, i only need 24 tracks. _


But what if you need a 25th  Seriously, having more tracks is never really a bad thing, even if you don't usually need them.



> _...again, i need at least 12 ins._


You can run more than one Delta 1010LT in your PC: you could buy two to start (for 16 in/out) and add more if you need them later.



> _...my office computer handles all of that, and quite nicely. my music computer, when i get one, will do nothing but music. it will not even be hooked up to the internet._


Yes, do NOT combine your music computer with your office computer unless you absolutely have to. 



> _...and don't get ME wrong. i am already sold on a computer based home studio. its definitely coming, probably in early '09, and i will probably be coming back to you for advice and guidance. i just don't need, or even want one right now.
> -dh_


I hear you David. But if you are going to be doing this in a year, why not do it now and save the cash spent on the Korg? At any rate, you should start learning about this stuff now so that you have some knowledge once you DO decide to move to a PC.

I doesn't really have to be complicated, especially if you don't care about editing, midi, software synths etc. 

TG


----------



## david henman

iaresee said:


> You know, after our other conversation about this when you were getting ready to buy, I was actually reasonably convinced that there's still a market for a straight-forward black box solution to recording like this. You made a good case for not using a computer. You need a way to capture it all with out a lot of fuss. Later you'll move it to a big old DAW with a keyboard and mouse.
> 
> You may want to consider ADAT HD when you upgrade (or another "hard disk recorder" like something from Otari) -- simple, but still extensible. Capture-only. Easy to move to a computer later. High quality. Couple it with mixer of your choice for the mic pre's. No screens, menus, effects, non-linear editing stuff -- just straight up high quality, capturing.



...this is definitely worth considering, and something i plan to look into down the road.

not feasible at the moment, however, as it would involve a mixing desk, hard disk recorder and a lot of cables.

very, very expensive, and takes up precious real estate in my tiny studio.

-dh


----------



## david henman

Yeah, Korg's own website says 12 tracks at once max. That's still pretty good, but you could easily beat that with a PC

_...truly, 12 tracks is all i need, at this point._

The Mackie 1604 mixer I mentioned has 16 mic preamps that will be of better quality. Regarding your earlier post, this Mackie is an analog mixer so buying used isn't really risky nor does it require a lot of knowledge. Once on the PC you will mix on the PC so this is a front end only mixer (lots of good mic pres). I would stay away from the ART stuff another user mentioned.

_...how big and expensive is the mackie? wouldn't i be better advised to buy two 8-channel interfaces?

on the other hand, whe i do set up a computer studio, i will be looking at compact 24-track mixers as an alternative._

But what if you need a 25th  Seriously, having more tracks is never really a bad thing, even if you don't usually need them.

_...of course! and, when the time comes, that WILL be a consideration._

You can run more than one Delta 1010LT in your PC: you could buy two to start (for 16 in/out) and add more if you need them later.

_...what are those?_

I hear you David. But if you are going to be doing this in a year, why not do it now and save the cash spent on the Korg? 

_...mainly because it makes no sense to me. as i think i mentioned earlier, by the time i do the research, learn about the massive amount of relevant product available, acquaint myself with both the termonology and the technology, solicit advice from everyone i can talk to, not to mention spending much more money than the $1400 it will cost me for the korg, i could be just about finished recording my third cd. to paraphrase homer simpson: "three minutes to make a meal? but i'm hungry now."_

At any rate, you should start learning about this stuff now so that you have some knowledge once you DO decide to move to a PC.

_...that is the plan._

I doesn't really have to be complicated, especially if you don't care about editing, midi, software synths etc. 

_...it better not be. i am a player, not a programmer, editor, drum looper, triggerer, guitar/amp sim user, paster, cutter, splicer, sampler.....

-dh _


----------



## Kenmac

:smile: I knew some people were going to get upset with that. I'm just saying if David wants to save some money then Reaper *may* be a viable option. Sonar is another option. To each his own. Personally I've found that Reaper works great for me. If you guys like Cubase that's fine as well. I used to have Cubase 2 on my PC a few years ago but I didn't find it to be as intuitive as Reaper. There's also another DAW called Kristal which is free but it doesn't handle virtual instruments and it's limited to 16 tracks. And David, even though you have a *real* band you'll still need some kind of audio editing software because all bands make mistakes. I know you're not into the "virtual instruments." Along with Audacity I'd also check out Sony Soundforge, Steinberg Wavelab and Adobe Audition but of course those last three you have to pay for. 

Originally Posted by *jroberts*
Why not Cubase? It's been rock-solid for me. 



Jeff Flowerday said:


> It's been rock-solid for me as well!


----------



## david henman

Kenmac said:


> And David, even though you have a *real* band you'll still need some kind of audio editing software because all bands make mistakes.



...i'll leave the mistakes in, if possible. if neccessary, these DAWs do have editing capabilities. and, of course, when i ship the tracks to a pro studio, mistakes can get repaired there.

-dh


----------



## JC103

Yes there is still a demand for stand alone multi track recorders.
Check out the Alesis HD24, great machine! There is also the Tascam DA-98HR. And RADAR but thats a little pricey for most.


----------



## david henman

JC103 said:


> Yes there is still a demand for stand alone multi track recorders.
> Check out the Alesis HD24, great machine! There is also the Tascam DA-98HR. And RADAR but thats a little pricey for most.


...these are strictly hard disk recorders that require an outboard mixer?

i'll take a look. 

where would i find RADAR?

incidentally, the korg d3200 has arrived! i'll pick it up tonight and start recording the third cd this weekend.

-dh


----------



## Guest

david henman said:


> ...these are strictly hard disk recorders that require an outboard mixer?


They have no mic pres, so yea.



> where would i find RADAR?


Saved By Technology carries all this stuff. L&M on Bloor would have some of it as well.


----------



## Kenmac

Well the mistake I made when I had Cubase was putting it on the same machine I used to access the Internet and read e-mail. At that time I didn't know about optimizing the system and that's probably why I didn't care for it that much. Blame it on the operator I suppose. :smile: I learned from that mistake and a couple of years ago I bought a computer that was strictly for recording only. I have Reaper, Samplitude SE 10 and Tracktion on it. Samplitude SE 10 came from Computer Music magazine and Tracktion was included on a CD as a bonus when I bought my StealthPlug. I switch between them depending on what I'm doing but I find Reaper the easiest to use.



jroberts said:


> Not upset in the least. I was just curious as to what problems you've experienced with it. Like I said, it's been 100% solid for me.


----------



## fretboard

Wow, so am I to believe I'm possibly the last dinosaur on earth with a Roland BR1600CD?

It's just so easy to use - I'm down in my guitar room 5 nights a week with the "record" light glowing red on that thing. Certainly for my needs, it's more than adequate. I can go weeks (truthfully, months) without plugging into an actual amp because for the amount of time it takes my amp to warm up, I'm plugged into the recorder and wailing away.

Never had any issues with it beyond losing 3 tracks I'd recorded but didn't save before the power went out once in a thunderstorm (had headphones on at the time, how was I supposed to know?) Tons of flexibility for a dude in his basement guitar room. Easily good enough to convince my "non-playing" friends that perhaps there's a glimmer of what might considered talent in my little hobby.

Damn you computer based techno dweebs and the USB cable you rode in on...:smile:


----------



## Telenator

Kenmac said:


> I know you're thinking about computer recording in the future so just a little advice, don't get Cubase. If you want to save some money and have a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) that works the way it's supposed to without unnecessary features or bloat, get Reaper: http://www.cockos.com/reaper/ It costs only $200.00 for a professional license and for sound editing you can't beat Audacity for the price. Free. http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ It's cross platform as well.
> 
> Also once you get into computer based recording there are a whole world of virtual instruments and effects plug-ins out there. I ought to now, I have over 600 on my PC and the majority of them are free. Check out the KVR website at http://www.kvraudio.com/ This is where I downloaded most of them, plus there's a magazine called Computer Music which comes with a DVD loaded with Virtual Instruments and effects. I have a few of theirs on my PC as well. I know this is a lot of information but if you need any help feel free to ask.


I'm not a huge Cubase fan either but I think the recomendation of not getting Cubase is more an issue of personal preference. I didn't like it because I found it not to be visually intuitive so I went with Sonar instead, but on the other hand my brother uses Cubase extensively and considers Sonar counter intuitive. 

A bloated DAW can be intimidating but there is nothing worse than finding out 6 months up the road that your DAW is not capable of doing something when you decide to get a little more experimental. 

Reaper is a good choice there is no doubt about it, but Sonar and Cubase are just as capable in the audio department and will blow Reaper out of the water in terms of midi functionality. That's not a bias that's a fact.

EDIT: Original question are standalone recorders dead? No


----------



## CocoTone

Dave, I am not anywhere near up to speed on the techy stuff, but nearly all the tracks on my sig soundlick, were done at our drummer's basement, into his PC with Cuebase. I think , to my ear, they sound pretty friggin' good, and rival anything I've heard, in regards to mix, clarity, depth and all that other bullshit. I don't think you can approach that level of sound quality with a stand alone, else lots more people would still be using them. If you want to record your third CD, I would think you'd want as good a finished product as you could get your hands on, and it can be done on a PC or a laptop.
Give a listen to our version of "The Letter", and tell me what you think.

CT.


----------



## Kenmac

Well as I said in my followup on the 11th: "Well the mistake I made when I had Cubase was putting it on the same machine I used to access the Internet and read e-mail. At that time I didn't know about optimizing the system and that's probably why I didn't care for it that much. Blame it on the operator I suppose. :smile:"
Cubase isn't for everybody and neither is Sonar or Reaper for that matter. It depends on what you're comfortable with. I've still got a Roland VS-1680 stand alone recorder but I haven't used it for years. I personally like DAWs better. It's funny how you and your brother are opposites when it comes to Cubase and Sonar. Once again it comes down to the "comfortability" factor.
Standalone recorders aren't dead yet but I *personally* think they're getting close.



Telenator said:


> I'm not a huge Cubase fan either but I think the recomendation of not getting Cubase is more an issue of personal preference. I didn't like it because I found it not to be visually intuitive so I went with Sonar instead, but on the other hand my brother uses Cubase extensively and considers Sonar counter intuitive.
> 
> A bloated DAW can be intimidating but there is nothing worse than finding out 6 months up the road that your DAW is not capable of doing something when you decide to get a little more experimental.
> 
> Reaper is a good choice there is no doubt about it, but Sonar and Cubase are just as capable in the audio department and will blow Reaper out of the water in terms of midi functionality. That's not a bias that's a fact.
> 
> EDIT: Original question are standalone recorders dead? No


----------



## Milkman

Again I think it's important to note that for many people, a standalone unit is the best solution for simple demo recording due to the portability factor.

Even with a lap top you still need much more in terms of peripheral gear to record direct to PC.

It's a matter of what you need from the devices. Unless I was prepared to go full tilt and build a proper studio in my home (which many folks do indeed want to do) the stand alone is clearly the way to go for me.


Of course, opinins vary.


----------



## david henman

CocoTone said:


> If you want to record your third CD, I would think you'd want as good a finished product as you could get your hands on, and it can be done on a PC or a laptop.



...for me, quality of performance trumps sonic quality. beyoned that, there are several inhibitive factors involved in setting up a computer-based studio, all discussed here previously.

we started recording with the new d3200 yesterday. the quality of sound compared to the tascam 2488 is noticably improved. on the downside, the 
d3200 is a much more complicated machine to operate.

and, i still may hesitate in setting up a computer based system next year, while i investigate hard disk recorders and continue to ignore all the guys who _insist_ that i need to be able to edit, program, assemble, sample, model, cut, paste, trigger, loop, simulate etc etc etc etc etc...

-dh


----------



## zontar

Kenmac said:


> Standalone recorders aren't dead yet but I *personally* think they're getting close.


Even if that's so, I wouldn't mind any of you shipping your standalone my way. :wink:

I'd have fun with it.


----------



## CocoTone

They have their place,,,songwriting and capturing moments that would otherwise be forgotten, but for best quality, they are done.
As for performance quality Dave, that is either there, or its not, If your recording live off the floor at a gig. If your doing it the traditional way, you can have both sound AND performance done right. I for one would want both.

CT.


----------



## suttree

man this "debate" rages on. 

mr henman, you seem to think i was trying to sell you a computer based recording setup? i don't mind what you prefer, it's your money after all... if you want to record into a stand alone recorder, or an edison panograph onto wax masters, or even an array of boss EQ pedals and y-cables, you go right ahead (you certainly wouldn't be the first person to use less than cutting edge gear to record, lol). your original post asked if the stand alone recorder is dead, and since the companies that make them are stopping due to lackluster sales, i'd say that they are indeed dead. ergo, so to speak. i was just trying to give reasons why i thought that happened, not why you should make the switch.


----------



## david henman

CocoTone said:


> They have their place,,,songwriting and capturing moments that would otherwise be forgotten, but for best quality, they are done.
> As for performance quality Dave, that is either there, or its not, If your recording live off the floor at a gig. If your doing it the traditional way, you can have both sound AND performance done right. I for one would want both.
> CT.



...ideally, so would i. easier said than done, however, as i have discovered.

as well, i am constantly surprised by how little sonic quality truly _matters_ when the performance is compelling.

prime example: blue rodeo

their drum sounds, for example, are among the worst in recorded history.

does it _matter_? not to me, not to their fans and, obviously, not to them.

-dh


----------



## david henman

suttree said:


> man this "debate" rages on.
> 
> mr henman, you seem to think i was trying to sell you a computer based recording setup? i don't mind what you prefer, it's your money after all... if you want to record into a stand alone recorder, or an edison panograph onto wax masters, or even an array of boss EQ pedals and y-cables, you go right ahead (you certainly wouldn't be the first person to use less than cutting edge gear to record, lol). your original post asked if the stand alone recorder is dead, and since the companies that make them are stopping due to lackluster sales, i'd say that they are indeed dead. ergo, so to speak. i was just trying to give reasons why i thought that happened, not why you should make the switch.


...i didn't intend to single you out, suttree, so i apologize if that's how it came off. and i do agree that the standalone market appears to be dead in its tracks, except for smaller, four and eight channel devices.

if i sound somewhat defensive, its because i have started similar posts on a number of forums and have been absolutely inundated with responses that purport to convince me that i should be jumping on the computer studio bandwagon, and attempt to disparage my every effort to defend my affinity for standalones.

-dh


----------



## suttree

hey david. you didn't come across that way, just seemed odd that you were defending your choice to me, when i think you're perfectly justified in liking stand alone recorders, since they obviously are the least intrusive solution you've found (and that's what matters, so you can get on with the important thing, which is recording, not knob twiddling). i just didn't want to come across as telling you what you should do... if you're comfortable with your gear, that's the important thing, period. don't let any forum or store knowitall tell you any different, lol....

as to bad drum sounds on a brilliant album, i'll see your blue rodeo, and raise you paul simon's graceland, which was apparently recorded at the bottom of the grand canyon, or something... 

as to jrobert's post, while i've heard the same thing, i'll agree with dh on this front as well. a compelling performance is the root of a great recording. you can't polish the proverbial turd, no matter what products you use... the great recordings of our age i would argue are largely unmolested by digital editing (of course there are exceptions), and many of the very top were done live off the floor into a few microphones (kind of blue, for instance), or were done before the advent of digital editing, so they were forced to start with great performances done in a great room (say, abbey road). the problem with most bands that i hear (and i do hear lots) is that they're all competing to be loudest. imagine a world where the band listened to each other first. 

also, there just doesn't seem to be any pocket drummers anymore. they're all trying to push the beat, and they're all trying to get the perfect fill... whatever happened to... i dunno... carrying the friggin beat?


----------



## david henman

jroberts said:


> As an aside, I run across guys all the time who fancy themselves "purists" who don't want to take advantage of any recording techniques developed in the past 50 years. They shun computers, editing, comping, punch-ins; sometimes even overdubbing and compression. For them, it's all about the performance, and they don't need any "studio trickery". Without fail, every time, they end up wondering why their recordings sound amateur and nothing like the albums their favorite artists put out.


...yeah!

who do they think they are, eh?

for that matter, do you have any idea who i think i am?

:wave:

-dh

(hint: i am not who i used to think i am)


----------



## david henman

suttree said:


> as to jrobert's post, while i've heard the same thing, i'll agree with dh on this front as well. a compelling performance is the root of a great recording. you can't polish the proverbial turd, no matter what products you use...



...i assume jroberts is being his usual cheeky self :smile:.

but i disagree: you CAN polish a turd. true, you end up with a well-polished turd, but that is not neccessarily a bad thing.

many (if not most) pop records, i would contend, are well polished turds.

by that i mean mediocre, or not so great, songs that have been transformed into great recordings.

a prime example, i think, would be def leppard.

i happen to be a huge fan of great recordings, _regardless_ of the quality of the song itself.

at the same time, i can certainly appreciate great songwriting, and the fact that great songs transcend the most awful recordings and even more awful performances.

-dh


----------



## suttree

jroberts said:


> Before digital editing there was tape editing. You may be absolutely floored by how much "studio trickery" was used in some of your favorite recordings that you think are "largely unmolested".


i wouldn't be floored at all. i'm kind of a buff of this stuff, so i have a pretty clear idea. that being said, the tape itself had very strict limitations as to how far you could take things. i've heard george martin talk about how they had the tape so cut and splice on sgt peppers that they were pretty certain that it wouldn't even play through the machine anymore. the problem with digital editing is that it's so bloody easy, everything gets edited. the kick's late on the beat? inch it into place. singer's pitchy (or britney)? get the ol' antares plug-in ready. the problem is that it destroys the looseness of the music. i'm not interested in listening to machines make music (at least, not yet). 

dh, i wouldn't agree that you can polish a turd. def leppard doesn't make a great argument for you, either  a weak song is still a weak song. creed's stuff is wonderfully recorded. i don't want to listen to it though.


----------



## suttree

the above post makes me sound like i'm down on electronic music, which is not the case, for the record. i own and actively listen to a number of albums that would fit under the "electronica" umbrella. portishead, massive attack, tricky, public enemy, talib kweli, and more. i just don't think that what's important is the perfection. what's important is the song and the performance. the recording is nice, but i won't buy an album strictly because of it.


----------



## david henman

suttree said:


> dh, i wouldn't agree that you can polish a turd. def leppard doesn't make a great argument for you, either  a weak song is still a weak song. creed's stuff is wonderfully recorded. i don't want to listen to it though.


...then its strictly a matter of taste, yes? i also happen to like creed's recordings. as much as i love, respect, admire and appreciate excellence in songwriting, and strive for it constantly, i grew up on american pop music and, as a result, developed a taste for mediocre songs rendered great by virtue of clever recording/production.

-dh


----------



## david henman

jroberts said:


> Also, to me, a bad sounding recording really _can_ detract from a great song. I'm a big Steve Earle fan, but can't stand listening to his earliest albums recorded on those first-generation Mitsubushi digital machines. There are some great, great songs on there, but the recordings sound like gl(ass) to me. So I never listen to them. Just one example.



...this has never been a problem for me. i was born tone deaf, still have tin ears and absolutely nothing remotely resembling good taste.

it also helps that i play my music on cheap stereos and boomboxes.

i'm only half joking. i'll never be a connoisseur, when it comes to music.

but, once in a while, it is great to listen to well-crafted music, well-produced, on a top notch system

i just try not to make a habit of it.

:smile:

-dh


----------



## suttree

jroberts said:


> It's a false dichotomy to suggest that you have to choose between the song/performance and the use of modern production techniques. Just like a bit of editing or getting a good drum sound isn't going to turn a bad song into a good song, neither is it going to turn a good song into a bad one.
> 
> In my view, you should do whatever makes the end product the most enjoyable to listen to. If that involves editing, comping, punching, whatever... Then you should do that. If it involves leaving well enough alone, then you should do that. Sometimes mistakes sound good, and sometimes they don't. How much to leave in and how much to fix is itself a creative decision and largely depends on the type of music you are doing. If you simply reject out of hand all modern production techniques, though, you are more likely just going to end up with a recording that sounds like a documented rehearsal. If that's what you want, great. You could probably just use a stereo pair for that, though. Why bother even multi-tracking?


well, the johnny cash american trilogy comes to mind as a great recording that was largely left alone to be what it is. the famous cowboy junkies version of sweet jane was recorded with an XY (interesting factoid i heard on CBC, the total budget for that album pre-mastering was $150, including pizza). there's a number of incredible classical recordings done on a stereo pair setup. you don't need multi tracking to make a great album. rubber soul was what, two track? abbey road was 4 (actually 2 2tracks). i know i'm making partly your argument for you, in that those are very produced albums. 

i don't reject modern techniques out of hand. but i do think that they're extremely overused. and i wonder sometimes if part of the current crop of troubles the music industry is facing aren't somehow fed by the impossibly high standards that modern production techniques are setting. musicians and producers focus so carefully on every missed beat, every microtone off-key, that they don't pay attention to the fact that maybe the performance just isn't all that inspired. also, they've at some point invested so much effort on a song that they become very loathe to go back and re-record it.

oh also, that early steve earle stuff is barely listenable, eh? he's such a great songwriter, but the production is absolutely horrid. ice picks to the forehead. 

re: creed. their songs aren't poorly written, they're very well written. with the money invested in that brand (not a typo for band ), the labels certainly wouldn't let bad songs out the door. the problem is that you can literally hear the committees at work through every friggen note of that band's music. it's just so stupid and juvenile. songs for 12 year old girls, but written and performed by 30+ year old, shirtless men. creepy.


----------



## Lester B. Flat

Interesting thread. First off, I'll say that there will always be a market for stand alone recorders but they will disappear and the market won't miss them. They will go the way of the stand alone cell phone. Cell phones are still perfectly functional as phones even though you can also watch TV, play games, take photos, listen to music, surf the internet etc. There is still a market for cell phones, even if they really aren't just cell phones, and you can still just use them to make phone calls if that's all you want.

Nobody misses the stand alone cell phone and no one will miss the stand alone recorder.

Regarding the use/misuse of certain features in digital recording software, Steely Dan on _Two Against Nature_ spent months altering the beats of a drum machine to make it imperfect and sound more human. Now that's what I call the creative use of technology against itself!


----------



## suttree

well, since you're all dying to know what i think will be coming next, i'll tell ya 

i'd look to apple to release an ipod based field recorder of some sort. it would have for instance a digi designed line of plug in interfaces, for various professional uses (field recording for journalists, or multi channel interfaces for audio guys, or audio capture for film, or what have you). it'll also have software suites with ipod touch style controls. 

recording of audio and video are becoming ubiquitous in our society. it's going to become personalized (and constant, as memory storage gets ever cheaper), both for legal protection in an increasingly litigious culture, and because the flow of controlled versions of ourselves (edited daily diaries in full motion video) is becoming the norm with young people. a fully digital age is approaching. soon we'll be blinking at in-eye display screens. soon we'll use computers in every single facet of our lives.


----------



## Lester B. Flat

suttree said:


> well, since you're all dying to know what i think will be coming next, i'll tell ya
> 
> i'd look to apple to release an ipod based field recorder of some sort. it would have for instance a digi designed line of plug in interfaces, for various professional uses (field recording for journalists, or multi channel interfaces for audio guys, or audio capture for film, or what have you). it'll also have software suites with ipod touch style controls.
> 
> recording of audio and video are becoming ubiquitous in our society. it's going to become personalized (and constant, as memory storage gets ever cheaper), both for legal protection in an increasingly litigious culture, and because the flow of controlled versions of ourselves (edited daily diaries in full motion video) is becoming the norm with young people. a fully digital age is approaching. soon we'll be blinking at in-eye display screens. soon we'll use computers in every single facet of our lives.


I can't see any of that stuff happening until at least the end of the month.


----------



## david henman

Lester B. Flat said:


> Interesting thread. First off, I'll say that there will always be a market for stand alone recorders but they will disappear and the market won't miss them. They will go the way of the stand alone cell phone. Cell phones are still perfectly functional as phones even though you can also watch TV, play games, take photos, listen to music, surf the internet etc. There is still a market for cell phones, even if they really aren't just cell phones, and you can still just use them to make phone calls if that's all you want.
> Nobody misses the stand alone cell phone and no one will miss the stand alone recorder.



...this makes me a proud anomaly!

my cell phone does only one thing - phone calls.

the only use i have for a recorder is to record.

-dh


----------



## david henman

suttree said:


> i'd look to apple to release an ipod based field recorder of some sort. it would have for instance a digi designed line of plug in interfaces, for various professional uses (field recording for journalists, or multi channel interfaces for audio guys, or audio capture for film, or what have you). it'll also have software suites with ipod touch style controls.



...if some enterprising manufacturer came out with a digital field recorder that ONLY records (and plays back), i'd buy it.

-dh


----------



## david henman

jroberts said:


> My argument isn't that every recording should be multitracked or highly produced. It's that you should use every tool at your disposal to make the best recording possible, and shouldn't reject technologies or techniques out of some misguided sense of "purity" or "integrity". None of your favorite artists do that. I can almost guarantee it. It's up to the artist to decide when and how to use the technology. Do you pitch and time correct every single note? In a dance-pop tune, you probably do. Not in a roots-rock or folk record, you sure don't though. It would sound weird. But even in genres like that, there is almost always _some_ opportunity to use technology to get a better end product.


...i agree!

however, i don't reject the whole editing technology because i'm a purist.

i reject it because i prefer to leave it to someone else - a professional recording engineer, for example.

and that probably has much to do with the fact that i have to spend the majority of my time at a day job. the time that is left to me to devote to making music is at a premium.

no one appears to understand this, except for milkman. on other forums, _no one_ gets it.

i just want to focus ALL my time, energy and $$ on getting the best performances i can muster recorded.

the other elements - sampling, editing, looping, cutting, pasting, triggering, programming, assembling, modeling, simulating etc etc etc just do not interest me, personally.

why bother multi-tracking? simple: control.

i need to know that if the snare is unbearably loud, i can just lower the fader.

-dh


----------



## david henman

Paul said:


> Waht about this?
> http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?a_prod_no=MR1&category_id=3



...nice, but check the feature set. i'd be paying for a ton of stuff i don't need and would never use.

on the other hand, IF its a affordable...

do you happen to know the price?

-dh


----------



## david henman

jroberts said:


> It's a false dichotomy to suggest that you have to choose between the song/performance and the use of modern production techniques.
> (edit)
> If you simply reject out of hand all modern production techniques, though, you are more likely just going to end up with a recording that sounds like a documented rehearsal. If that's what you want, great.


...again, i agree. 

however, i do not feel that i am FORCED to choose between the two.

its a concious decision, on my part, based upon what makes sense _to me_.

and, because my "documented rehearsals" are carefully tracked and then sent to a professional studio to be mixed/processed etc, no doubt using the "modern production techniques" to which you refer, i think i benefit from getting the best of both worlds, as it were.

-dh


----------



## david henman

Paul said:


> $699.00 at Musicians Friend. That't give you a ballpark price in the real world.
> http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Korg-MR1?sku=700878


...bizarre. i have a number of excellent cassette decks for which i paid $5-$10each at local pawn shops.

not exactly portable, but i actually don't need portable.

just affordable.

-dh


----------



## Guest

david henman said:


> my cell phone does only one thing - phone calls.


Ha! Yea, have you ever seen David Lynch talk about movies on the iPhone. Hilarious. "You'll _think_ you have experienced it but you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness." Perfectly apt.


----------



## Guest

I have a VS-840 I picked up off e-bay for $225 and a cd writer I picked up new for $45. The VS-840 looks new and has an internal drive. Its not high tech but its digital and sold for 10X that amount when first introduced. Its not worth my while to invest into computer interfaces when gear this cheap is being dumped.


----------



## Milkman

I finally managed to find time to set up my Boss BR900CD and although I haven't yet figured out how to actually record, I _will_ say the amp and effect models are bloody fantastic as are the drum sounds.

If nothing else, it makes me want to practice.


----------



## Milkman

Paul said:


> Let me know if you figure out a quick and repeatable way to programme the exact drum parts you want. I've got the BR1180-CD, and I've never worked that out to my lazy satisfaction. I also have the Roland powered monitors to go with the unit. They really help show off how (un)well you play and sound.
> 
> I have one of the APEX condensor and tube mic kits. Let me know if they are any use to you when it comes time to track vocals and acoustic instruments.
> 
> http://www.apexelectronics.com/products.asp?type=1&cat=20&id=81


So far I'm just exploring the preset drum patterns and guitar sounds. I have some good mics, and really my needs from this device are simple demos. 

Like I said, so far I'm really impressed with the guitar sounds. In the headphones they're as good as the Tonelab and the effects are as good as the Digitech GNX3000.


I'll learn to use it little by little. I may ask for some tips as I move along.


Thanks,


Mike


----------



## Milkman

Paul said:


> One of the things I've found useful is to record the guitar dry, while monitoring with the sound I'm likely to use. Then when it comes time to make some hard decisions, I can insert the guitar sound I want and tweak from there. Doing it this way involves lots of bouncing and creative use of the "virtual tracks", but it works for me.


I really don't use much in the way of effects on guitar. Generally I'll add a little reverb or delay during mixdown. For the most part I record sans FX with just the basic gain levels and tones I want.

When I get to the stage where I'm really concerned with sound quality, somebody else will be at the controls. I have no desire to be an engineer and prefer to stick to musical elements in this context.


----------



## Milkman

Paul said:


> I mean bone dry, as in no commitment to an amp model or tones or EQ or anything. The built in drum sounds are what they are, and I am more likely to commit to a bass tone early on. But when it comes to putting it all together, I like having the option of "re-amping" as it were.


Well that's probably a good approach, but for me it's a much more 'tone" oriented approach than I would normally use.

I tend to be less fussy about tones than I am with song structure. It's more about which notes I use than about the timbre and tone of each note, but that's just me.


----------



## david henman

Milkman said:


> I have no desire to be an engineer and prefer to stick to musical elements in this context.


...same here. that's one of the main reasons that i have resisted the computer-based studio.

as a singer/player/composer i have a world of catching up to do. any time spent knob twiddling is counter-productive to that.

-dh


----------



## david henman

...thing is, for most guys our age, decent tone and taste are (or should be) a given. we really shouldn't have to spend hours trying to fashion the perfect guitar tone on a track unless we simply want to. as well, i would expect that, at this stage of the game, we'd be relatively quick to recognize a sound that is detracting from the song.

-dh





Paul said:


> Now that we're way OT from the OP:smile::smile:
> 
> .....I tend to believe that tones that are pleasing on thier own may not work in context of the production. Sometimes, the solo'd tones seem less than ideal, but in the big picture, the "lousy tone" contributes more than it detracts.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.....I believe with every fibre of my being that the song is the thing. You cannot kill a good song. But clever production, (not excessive, but deliberate and thought out), can bring out the best in whatever the song has to offer. You already know that to a large degree. The TMKB CD shows a lot of signs of that. I'm sure the CD in the works will expand on everything you've learned as a musician to date.


----------



## Milkman

Paul said:


> True dat....the problem is it is very easy to set up an appropriate drum pattern to track against/with, (as opposed to a simple click). If the first thing you track is guitar, and most of us are guitarists, the tone you pick up front may not be ideal for the production. Unless you have the golden ear and the long range plans to know exactly how the tune will sound when it's done, before you even start, I like the idea of keeping options open as long as possible.


I track (generally speaking) as follows:

Drums
Bass
Keyboards
Acoustic instruments
Guitar
guitar
Geetar
Kadar
Gitfiddle
vocals
vocals
vocals
vocals

I'd be the last person to call myself a guitarist.

I think your approach is a logical one and one that may allow for more flexibility, but it might take a good deal of the fun out of playing the guitar tracks, particularly if you're supposed to be laying down a high gain tone. The way you play the track would be impacted IMO, unless I'm misunderstanding you.


----------



## david henman

Paul said:


> True dat....the problem is it is very easy to set up an appropriate drum pattern to track against/with, (as opposed to a simple click). If the first thing you track is guitar, and most of us are guitarists, the tone you pick up front may not be ideal for the production. Unless you have the golden ear and the long range plans to know exactly how the tune will sound when it's done, before you even start, I like the idea of keeping options open as long as possible.


...which, for me, is the biggest advantage of digital recording: you rarely, if ever, run out of options. the possibilities are almost limitless. in my band, that means an "anything is possible" approach to recording.

on my first two cds, i tracked a guide vocal plus guide guitar with a click track, and had the drummer and bassist add their parts next, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes separately, then layered everything else on top of that.

however, for the new cd, i want to start out with the _final_ vocal performance, perhaps including the _final_ rhythm guitar performance, and then track the drums, bass AND a guitar track, live off the floor, so that everything serves and supports the vocal and, therefore, the song itself.

the concept being that, going forward, my cds will consist of recorded _performances_, rather than _assembled_ recordings.

-dh


----------



## Guest

Paul said:


> Good plan, 'cept folks like me work alone with our little 2 input, 8 track devices. I don't have 16 mics, let alone 16 tracks!!!:smile::smile:


I apply a similar strategy when I record solo work. I always chart the song first so I have a paper map to go by. Then I lay down the drums and bass, in that order, and get those working right together. On top of that some rhythm guitar. Any non-invasive keys like lighter piano or quite pads. Then on the rare occasion I record vocals they'll come next. And then final guitar overdubs, solos. And after that if I'm running big pads or big synth stuff I'll start to pour that into the mix.


----------



## david henman

jroberts said:


> I've done drums as overdubs and have never been entirely happy with the results. It's kind of like pouring the foundation of your house after the framing is up.



...how odd. what kind of problems do you run into?

all the drummer is doing is playing along with the other instruments, as he/she would normally.

we're not first call new york studio musicians, so we work to a click track.

i find it works better than the other way around, which too often has the drummer playing completely out of context, since he is literally playing in a vacuum. he ends up guessing at things like dynamics, flow, momentum etc.

whatever works for the individual, of course...

-dh


----------



## david henman

...i think we're actually going for the same results, and in fact i plan to use the same process as you, going forward. similarly, the primary intent has been and will continue to be "getting the best drum tracks possible, with the secondary intent of getting a keeper bass track", as you state.

and i agree that it can be difficult to get the drummer to "overdub" his part, after the fact. i only do this if the drummer requests it. he's actually pretty good at this.

the big difference, for me, is that i want the guide vocal to actually be the _final_ vocal, in the future, as i want it to dictate the feel and the dynamics of the track.

-dh




jroberts said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're doing. Or maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm doing. I will almost always track with the whole band playing together. With very few exceptions, that always seems to get the best results for me. I just find it difficult to get everyone to lock into a groove when they are playing separately from each other.
> 
> I usually track with the primary intent of getting the best drum tracks possible, with the secondary intent of getting a keeper bass track. If I get keeper rhythm guitar tracks, that's great too. I like to get keepers of as many tracks as possible in that session, though the vocals are pretty much always just as a guide, with the intent of retracking those later. The primary reason for tracking vocals later is that that I like to have everyone tracking in the same room, and I find the drum bleed into the vocals to be very difficult to manage at mixdown. More often than not, I'll have the drummer play to a click, but nobody else gets the click in their cans. I find the feel often becomes stilted when _everyone_ is listening to the click, particularly if the musicians are _not_ top session guys.
> 
> Having the drummer overdub while listening to a recording of the guitar and vocal or having guitar and vocal overdub while listening to a recording of the drummer may sound like six of one a half dozen of the other, but in my experience having that key rhythm element down first (or preferably at the same time) makes a big difference to the overall feel of the song. I agree that it wouldn't usually work well for a drummer to record without having any context. That why I would always have bass, guitars and vocals playing along with the drummer at the time you are tracking the drums, even if some or all of those aren't being recorded at the same time.


----------



## david henman

...i gotta tell ya, the new korg d3200 makes my former tascam 2488 seem like a toy, by comparison.

it was a little daunting, at first, but once i began to grasp the design concept...wow!

great preamps - can't believe how good it sounds before anything like eq, compression or other forms of processing (all of which are verboten in my studio).

plus, i only record at 16 bit.

-dh


----------



## Ed Dore'

*stand alone recording units*

Hi Ed here.
I know zip about these recording units but am interested in purchasing one. I just want to be able to lay down some tracks, rythm , improvisation, and comping . It would be nice to have the bass and drum built in. I'm not too interested in working with a home computer as i am on the road a great deal commuting to and from work I set up at home and wherever i couch surf in Toronto. Any suggestions as to a product? 
Thanks in advance Ed.


----------



## mrmatt1972

I don't record much, but bought a Tascam last year. The stupid thing wouldn't interface with my ancient home computer so I couldn't export tracks and save them. I pawned it. I now have a laptop (needed it for school), a small mixer (really cheap) and Audacity (free). I plug an adapter into the tape outs on the mixer and then into the mic input on the laptop and juggle the levels. Believe it or not it works well.

So, yes, stand alone units are dead.

BTW, What free downloadable software do people use for drum tracks?


----------



## allthumbs56

Ed Dore' said:


> Hi Ed here.
> I know zip about these recording units but am interested in purchasing one. I just want to be able to lay down some tracks, rythm , improvisation, and comping . It would be nice to have the bass and drum built in. I'm not too interested in working with a home computer as i am on the road a great deal commuting to and from work I set up at home and wherever i couch surf in Toronto. Any suggestions as to a product?
> Thanks in advance Ed.


Hey Ed,

I just picked up a used Boss BR-600 for pretty much the same reasons you've given. As an experiment, I set up a drum pattern (built in) and plugged in my Tele. Using one of the bass simulations I laid down a servicable bass track, found an amp sim and did a little shuffle. Did a vocal using the onboard mics and finished up with some lead work. Sounded pretty good and will only get better with familiarity.

There are a bunch of units that will probably do the same things and you probably can't go wrong with any of them.

It was great fun :smile:


----------



## Ed Dore'

*Re BR600*

Hi Chris 
Thanks for your information. If i understand you correctly the unit has built in bass. ? the advertisements are unclear ( though i am a simple country lad) and a sales rep at Long and Mcquade stated the he was unsure if the unit had programable bass. It would be great if you could clear this up for me.
Geez louise all these fancy quotes i'm reading on this site!
I'm afraid i have nothing to suggest... Unless ... A quart of oil goes a long way on a concrete floor. ah well i tried.
Ed


----------



## Milkman

Ed Dore' said:


> Hi Chris
> Thanks for your information. If i understand you correctly the unit has built in bass. ? the advertisements are unclear ( though i am a simple country lad) and a sales rep at Long and Mcquade stated the he was unsure if the unit had programable bass. It would be great if you could clear this up for me.
> Geez louise all these fancy quotes i'm reading on this site!
> I'm afraid i have nothing to suggest... Unless ... A quart of oil goes a long way on a concrete floor. ah well i tried.
> Ed


I don't think it has programmable bass, but it has bass simulators that are supposed to make your guitar sound like a bass. Personally I think they sound pretty unconvincing. A cheapo bass will sound a lot better.


----------



## allthumbs56

Milkman said:


> I don't think it has programmable bass, but it has bass simulators that are supposed to make your guitar sound like a bass. Personally I think they sound pretty unconvincing. A cheapo bass will sound a lot better.


Correct. The simulator works well enough to lay down an acceptable bass tone in the mix. You just play the notes on your guitar and it converts them. It reminds me of the tone and tracking of an OC-2 - same kind of latency and occasional warble. But quite convincing in the mix as long as you're not trying to be John Entwhistle.


----------

