Old guy needs direction. . .

Hi there,
I'm sure the HD-24 is a capable machine, but I've never used one. I have a RADAR V, and if you don't mind spending the money, those machines are all still supported by IZ Corp.

I prefer recording on analog. But, with my digital 24 track, I record almost every band practice I do simply because I can - it's quick, no tape to worry about (in regards to costs and squeezing long sessions onto a reel) and I can quickly archive to DVD or a USB thumb drive. When it's time for us to do a serious recording, it goes on my 1" 16 track Tascam MS-16.

If you are in need of more tracks you may want to consider synchronizing with a smaller HD that supports slaving to MIDI Time Code. Just another option to consider in order to stay mostly analog, and regardless of which path you ultimately take, the flexibility is nice to have, especially in light of how cheap a JL Cooper sync box can be had.

On the other hand, if you want to spend cheap money on an easy to use Portastudio with better than average availability for connections, check out the Tascam 788. It can be picked up for dirt cheap, and although it isn't a straight hard drive an only has 8 tracks, it can easily be synced up to any reel gear as it has a MIDI input and the proper hardware to do so. With the latest Tascam 788, individual tracks can be outputted to CD-R if you really want to do any editing later on a computer, and with the proper sync gear and virtual tracks, that can amount to a lot of tracks (much greater than 8) per song.


Just some thoughts that I don't believe were expressed yet in this thread.

I only make these suggestions if you have to go for the digital route. Personally, if it's just a matter of needing more tracks, I'd stick with analog and get a 16 track, like the MSR-16 or a 1" MSR-24 (as Beck previously suggested).

-MD
 
One thing to be careful of is that you don’t wind up on the same digital wild goose chase that I’ve watched my friends and colleagues running over the last 20 years. There’s no end to it.

....................

I use a DAW when I need a few extra tracks, but everything tracks to tape first and is mixed down to tape on a half-track mastering deck last.

Yes it's true that digital can become involved if you let it, but I don't think the same issues/pitfalls/concerns exit today that were there in the early years, when the conversion was not good and the functionality still coming of age.
Most of the current upper end DAWs are quite past that point, and the sound quality while not the same flavor as tape, is certainly quite good. I mean...I would no longer have any concerns if had to do some tracking direct to DAW, which I've done a bunch of times...and even mix in the DAW if need be...but I still prefer the hybrid SOP and will stay with it for quite awhile yet.

The one thing about digital that hasn't changed, and is maybe even worse now...is that it is a double-edged sword...there's so much capability that you can get buried by it if you let yourself go.
You can edit at sample level...and it can become obbsessive...so you really need to learn how to work with that much power even more than just learning the DAW functionality and operation.
It took me a few songs to find my comfortable SOP where I was able to do what I wanted/needed but also know where the point of diminishing returns was and when to stop and move o to something else.


Yeah...I pretty much do what you do, tough I don't use the DAW just for extra tracks, but instead dump all my tape tracks into it and the mix back out when I'm done with edits and comps.
I think there is a nice balance to this type of hybrid SOP, and you pretty much get the best of both worlds while using the two formats to support each other...tape and analog for it's sound flavor and digital for it's editing/comping.
 
Not to worry. The biggest change in the recording scene is that it is more amateur than ever. The hi-fi bar has been lowered and thus it also sounds worse than ever. Probably the biggest mistake one can make is to assume the changes they missed equal advancement or improvement and they need to be brought up to speed.

That’s why this analog forum is even here. A good many members over the years came here in the first place because of disappointment with digital recording technology. One thing to be careful of is that you don’t wind up on the same digital wild goose chase that I’ve watched my friends and colleagues running over the last 20 years. There’s no end to it.

It’s just as likely you’ll find the right direction in improving on your analog equipment with an upgrade in analog equipment. I mentioned the Tascam MSR-16 if you can get by with 16 tracks, but if you really need more there are options, such as the Tascam MSR-24 and Fostex G24, which use 1-inch tape.

There’s no digital equivalent to analog tape, so expect to take a sonic hit if you try to go all digital. I wouldn’t record in a purely digital environment. If you can integrate digital technology with your current analog machine and mixing console you can keep your sound from going completely in the tank, but then you’ll be delving into synchronization and other things that might seem more trouble than it’s worth.

I use a DAW when I need a few extra tracks, but everything tracks to tape first and is mixed down to tape on a half-track mastering deck last. It’s really more trouble than just buying a 16-track analog machine, but I don’t need more tracks all that often even though I will only bounce a track once. I use MIDI sequencing the old fashioned way as well, so most of my keyboard tracks run in sync with the analog multitrack and go directly to the mixdown deck first generation. I don’t know how heavily you use keyboards in your music or if you were busy that week when syncing MIDI instruments to tape was the cool thing. ;)

Once again, the master has spoken.
 
I'm not quite sure what a "control surface" is, but I'm reasonably certain I don't have one of those either. . .

A control surface is a computer peripheral with faders and knobs intended to make your DAW feel more like a real mixer. There's no technical reason they should be more expensive than, say, a flat screen TV or DVD player. I suppose they justify the prices because the market for them isn't as large as the market for TVs and DVD players.
 
Thanks diggy. . after I read your post I googed it. . . I would call them "Human-interface DAW Mixers" . . . I think going the DAW route would just require too many equipment purchases to make it work for me. . and trying to get it all communicating with eachother !?!? Id probably wind up right back where I am now except that I'd have a pile of un-used DAW gear and alot less money . .

I've started thinking seriously about a 16-track taper now, thanks to the gentle (and NOT so gentle ;) ) suggestions of a few posters here. . . I could fit my project music on 16 tracks. . If I absolutely had to bounce, it wouldn't have to be a critical track. . . That and a CD finalizing deck like a Masterlink, etc would set me up I think. . .

And then I could still be proudly (almost) all analog. .

Now where would I find a good MSR16, I wonder. . .
 
It wouldn't really require a lot of gear purchases. Setting it all up would be the major problem. I spent hours creating a MIDI key map in Reaper to get my US-428 control surface working the way I wanted it to because there was no driver support for it. The Reaper developers wouldn't even provide technical knowledge to users who wanted to write their own driver. I may have lost that map when my old PC died, and I don't really care to do it all over again.
 
I agree...adding a control surface plus any MIDI odds-n-ends would raise the complexity bar and the cost.

My DAW suggestion was more about just a DAW and an interface(s)...which isn't that much more complicated than a rack of gear and patchbays to hook up, though maybe a bit more cost than an HD recorder, but also more flexible and upgradeable, where the HD recorder would be at the end of its (if not already obsolete) life-cycle, depending on brand/model.

Yeah..in the end, staying with a tape deck may be the best solution for you...and I think we all agree on that. :)
 
I agree...adding a control surface plus any MIDI odds-n-ends would raise the complexity bar and the cost.

My DAW suggestion was more about just a DAW and an interface(s)...which isn't that much more complicated than a rack of gear and patchbays to hook up, though maybe a bit more cost than an HD recorder, but also more flexible and upgradeable, where the HD recorder would be at the end of its (if not already obsolete) life-cycle, depending on brand/model.

Yeah..in the end, staying with a tape deck may be the best solution for you...and I think we all agree on that. :)

I completely understood your suggestions . . . I just meant that a user-friendly control surface (I can't believe I'm speaking like this) would be a necessity for me in order to use a DAW, along with whatever else would make it less DAW-like. . .

I"ve been quite the dog chasing his own tail here . . But I've learned a great bit lately, and I've defined my needs for my own self . . Thanks!
 
Right...mouse-mixing in a DAW is not fun, though folks that live their lives around computers handle it pretty well.
I work in IT, so I don't freak about 'puters like folks who rarely have a need to touch them (which is totally understandable)...but even so, if I was working all In-The-Box and no analog at all...I would have to get a control surface, but since I only do edits/comps for the most part, I can get by pretty easy and fast with a mouse (I actually use a roller-ball, which for me is quicker) and lots of keyboard shortcuts. :D

I'm generally like you...love/prefer the touchy-feely aspect of a console, rack gear, cables, knobs-n-faders...the smell of my Hammond organ after it's been running for a bit.... :cool:
You don't get that with a computer.
 
I just meant that a user-friendly control surface (I can't believe I'm speaking like this) would be a necessity for me in order to use a DAW, along with whatever else would make it less DAW-like

A friend of mine went through three stand-alone recorders. He kept searching for the one that had the least daunting learning curve . . . unsuccessfully . . . and in the end went for a computer-based system. It was not that the stand-alones were intrinsically more difficult to use, but rather that he discovered that the computer-based system was more aligned to how he liked to think about and do things, even though, at an intellectual level, he was seeking, by going for a stand-alone, the electronic equivalent of a tape-based system. They just didn't work for him.

Regarding a control surface as "a necessity" seems like a similar thing; a way of simulating the physicality of a tape-based system and maintaining an element of familiarity. But familiarity is not necessarily a synonym for ease-of-use.

By writing this, I'm not trying to suggest using one method of recording over another, but to highlight that people are wired differently, and what defines 'ease of use' or 'intuitive' can depend more on that wiring, rather than something inherent in the method.
 
mouse-mixing

I originally got into learning recording because I had gotten my hand slapped (literally) when I reached toward the eq on a studio's console during mixdown. . The second time I was threatened with eviction from the studio. . .

If he'd had just a mouse, I would still be just a musician.
 
DAW without a hardware control system is a major pain to use, when you have to instead rely on a mouse & keyboard short cuts.
Stand alone recorders with faders could be a good idea but often small LSD screens & lack of i/o tracks let them down, the on board FX are weak compared to DAW's .
Analog tape or Digital tape / hard disk recorder with a desk is still the easiest & fastest way to work when tracking & less complicated to set up.

Personally I track to analog Fostex E16 / Tascam TSR8 MTC synced up to Pro Tools for the extra edited tracks, software instruments, mostly keys, Drum Loops ect. This is not that much difference to MIDI tape sync with outboard MIDI keys & Drum machines like I did during the '90's but the MIDI instruments are in the DAW nowadays.

I think using a DAW without a control interface is impossibly slow, I use a Digi002 console with flying faders so it's a bit easier. I won't be upgrading to Pro Tools Version 99 when the Digi002 becomes obsolete because the software is out of date & my Macbook Pro is incompatible.

I would rather save the money for better outboard than paying £300 for the latest software every year. At least outboard is still in use years or even decades afterwards!

It's always best to make full use of what you have already, the OP has good outboard gear so should maybe go for a standalone analog or digital HD recorder instead of getting involved in tedious computer DAW software / hardware upgrades or messing about looking at LCD screens. And save his cash at the same time!
 
the OP has good outboard gear. . .

Let's not jump to any conclusions. . .;) But I agree, my outboard gear hasn't gone out of date- -

I've decided to stick with analog, and find a 16 track. . . I'm waiting for a couple of sellers to reply. . If a cheap HD-24 comes along, I'd probably get it, but I don't know if I'd really like it. . .

I really started thinking lately about tape and its character and fullness and warmth and compression and forgiveness. . . and simplicity, . . and even its smell . . I think if I were to go digital, I would feel like I was guilty of infidelity, so to speak. . .

Did I just say that? :facepalm:
 
UPDATE :

For the interested, I thought I'd follow up with how things turned out. . .

I bought an MSR-24 of unknown condition ebay. . The story was the unit worked and was put in storage for a while (years?). . .I took the chance, paid $850, and got probably $50-$100 in snakes included. . . It was shipped UPS a thousand miles in three boxes (the unit, the power supply, and the cables). It was obvious that the power supply's transformer was loose when I took it out of the box. Whether that happened during shipping, IDK. . Anyway, I dropped off the unit and PS for a professional repair, and for just $350 I picked up the unit and PS last week in amazingly clean and excellent condition. . . Unit is 100%, practically new ! Quite happy with my lucky purchase, and grateful for the excellent service. . . Non-tech creative types like myself are quite dependent on smart people. . .

I also picked up a mint Alesis Masterlink (also ebay, $400)

I've got a line on a good Tascam 32, so my studio will now rely on the following:
424MKIII for songwriting, creating, pre-production.
MSR-24
32 for mix-downs.
Masterlink to get it on disc.
Running it all through my Yamaha 32/14. . .Outboard comps and reverbs include dbx, ART, Alesis, Lexicon, Behringer. . For guitars, two Crate amps, Line6 pod pro, Yamaha GEP50. . . A couple of Yamaha keyboards, 5 guitars, 2 basses, 3 drumkits, and the money is pretty much all gone, so that's the story. . . Thanks to all ! ! for the advice and I hope to have something worth listening to in the near future .
 
Congrats! I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I've had both and MS-16 and an MSR-16, and although I've never used the MSR-24, based on my experience with similar Tascam machines you'll love it.

-MD
 
Thanks ! . . I think best part is the freedom from having to bounce anything. . No more compromises and having to make hard choices like I did with the 38. . . I wouldn't change that though- - The critical listening and the ear-training that you do when you have to combine tracks; making that commitment to the bounce so you can continue tracking. . . getting the right tone WHILE recording. . . All priceless and necessary learning. . . That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger. . .
 
Back
Top