Old guy needs direction. . .

AtoDeficient

New member
Hi all. . posting this here 'cause I really want to stay as analog as possible. .
I didn't buy an ADAT. I was busy that week. . then I didn't get an HD-24. That was the summer I got divorced. . I'm looking at the Tascam DP-24 as my jump-off into digital after many years of home recording with my beloved 38, 424mkIII, big ol' mixer, etc. .
Is this, or any studio-in-a-box unit the direction to go in for a computer illiterate old-school guy, racks of outboard gear, etc?. . or are the HD-24s still a viable solution, given the discontinued status?. .
I really, really don't want to have to learn computer recording, and something like the DP-24 would seem to meet my limited digial needs. .

Your patient advice is greatly appreciated, young man.
 
Just as well that you were busy the week tape ADATs were hip :D

I don't have much experience with the Tascam DP-24 but I have a suspicion that you may find its ergonomics a turnoff, though it would be preferable to a home computer-based DAW.

I've used the Alesis HD-24 quite a bit; I still have mine racked up as a backup even though I mainly use analog tape and/or ProTools (I loathe ProTools but as a professional studio engineer I can't really avoid it sometimes). I can tell you that the HD-24 is a solid, dependable machine that sounds good, is very easy to use and has a transport similar to analog tape machines but with some nice little digital extras like tight punching and fairly easy track editing. If you already have the rack gear and mixer, don't like computers and pretty much want a digital solution to stand in for 24-track tape recording/storage, I would certainly recommend the HD-24.

The only caveat is that they use older IDE hard drives; the bad news is that those drives are getting less and less common on the market all the time, but also good news in a way because you can find them cheap as obsolete hardware, stock up on a pile of them and with the HD-24's twin HD bays you can easily make mirror backups of each hard drive (always, always always recommended when it comes to hard drive storage!). A 40gb hard drive holds a whole bunch of hours of material on an HD24 and exactly how much depends on how many projects you have on each drive, how many tracks in each song, what sample rate you're recording at so-on.
 
Here's the thing.....

IMO....they MAIN benefit of recording to digital is what you can do after you're done tracking....editing, FX/Processing...etc...and to get the most of that in the digital world, it's best to record into a computer.
You can use all sorts of interfaces or even standalone digital recorders, but in the end, you are going to want have in a computer DAW where you can see all your tracks, comp and edit to your heart's content, apply a gazillion plugs, and then do the final mixing an mastering.

If you don't want to mess with all that...then stay all analog and just keep tracking to tape.

I track to tape...and I even mix through an analog console and use all outboard analog processing...BUT....in-between the tracking and the mixing, I dump all my tape tracks into a computer DAW so I can edit/comp/adjust/etc....and then from there it goes back out to the console when I'm ready to mix.

You really don't need to learn *computers*...you mainly need to learn the DAW application. Yeah, there is short period where you may need to mess around a bit getting things configured with the computer, unless you get some turnkey system all loaded up and ready to go...but it's not that painful, and once you get past it, then you are working just in the DAW....the computer is transparent.
You can then run some sort of hybrid system like I do...or work pretty much all ITB (In The Box).
 
Thanks guys. . . I understand and appreciate the usefulness of computer editing, but the learning curve must be unusually steep for me. . . I suspect eventually I'll wind up with a digi-porta-studio, an HD-24, AND a DAW, and I will probably be kicking and screaming the whole way there . . I think I'll start with the HD-24 while I can still GET one of those. . .
 
but in the end, you are going to want have in a computer DAW where you can see all your tracks, comp and edit to your heart's content, apply a gazillion plugs, and then do the final mixing an mastering.

PC DAW's party piece is the deep editing, and to a lesser extent the non-destructive recording if capturing solid takes all the way through is a problem (I look at that as a talent issue but that's for another discussion). The suggestion that people should apply a gazillion plugs and use endless comping and other cheats just because the ability is there makes me cringe and speaks volumes about some of the well-deserved cynicism becoming more common toward modern digital music production, and with the current crop of affordable pro mastering engineers it's not like you "need" or should particularly want self mastering plugs either unless you're doing amateur super small-run no-budget projects and just need the overall vol up to commercial levels. Version and interface compatibility with some PC DAWs kinda drives me nuts too.

That being said, you definitely do make some fair enough points (especially about standalone digital vs. analog tape) and I do respect your opinion, but reading the nature of the OP's post again, I don't blame him one bit for not wanting to bother with all that hullabaloo especially if he already has an analog production rig he's happy with and mostly just doesn't want to deal with purchasing tape, keeping the machines maintained, keeping noise down etc. Unless he's after really deep editing capabilities or doesn't have space for all his outboard gear anymore, the software mixer and effects/processing plugs in a PC DAW are kind of redundant.

The HD24 as well as typical standalone digital workstation tracks can be dumped into a PC DAW to take advantage of their particular capabilities but if you think that's ever something you'd be doing very much, then I'd agree with miroslav and go for a PC DAW in the first place.

The OP is absolutely correct that all PC DAWs have a distinct learning curve which is made even steeper by computer illiteracy. All-in-one digital workstations like the DP24 will certainly have learning curves too but perhaps not as daunting as a PC DAW. The HD24 has a few idiosyncracies too, particularly some of the more advanced utilities, and you get faster on the transport and editing with a little experience of course but the manual is pretty good about laying the functionality out in an understandable way and general use is pretty familiar to an analog vet.
 
Last edited:
Well, I suppose what I NEED is 24 tracks, and simple track editing just to clean up individual track over-dubs, punch-ins, etc. . .
I don't particularly want OR need music I can see, and I'm not the micro-editing type, but any help with mastering my agreeably amateur super-small run, no-budget projects would be nice, too . .
Some great points you're both making. . But I think an HD-24 or the potra-studio will have to come first, if only to help me to understand any DAW program i might get in the future. . . .
I said "might". . .
 
Thanks guys. . . I understand and appreciate the usefulness of computer editing, but the learning curve must be unusually steep for me. . . I suspect eventually I'll wind up with a digi-porta-studio, an HD-24, AND a DAW, and I will probably be kicking and screaming the whole way there . . I think I'll start with the HD-24 while I can still GET one of those. . .
do you have rack mount gear?

And do you want to continue using that gear plus pretty much doing things exactly like you've always done?
Then go with the HD24 ..... it'll hook up to your mixer just like a reel to reel would and recording to it will feel just like the old tape machines plus you'll still have some digital editing capabilities.
I use a Fostex D1624 which is like an HD24 but not as good and I'm way happy. In fact I just bought a second one. I started in 1969 with a reel to reel and have always wanted to not have to change my processes.
The HD24 will do that while still allowing for basic cut and paste and stuff like that.
Basically the HD24 is a stand alone digital recorder that will mesh with your analog stuff as if you bought a 24 track reel to reel ..... no digital learning curve required. But as you want to you'll be able to add some digital editing to your capabilities.
 
Yeah, it sounds like the HD-24 is the direction I'm headed in. .
Curious that the street price for a used, discontinued one seems pretty high.
High enough that one wonders why they were ever discontinued. . .

Thanks all for letting me think out loud.
It helps me seperate all the voices I hear in my head.
 
There was one for sale on this board for under $700. If I had the money I'd take it. I'd love a second unit.
 
Yeah, it sounds like the HD-24 is the direction I'm headed in. .
Curious that the street price for a used, discontinued one seems pretty high.
High enough that one wonders why they were ever discontinued. . .

I bought mine new about 8 years ago for somewhere around 1700 if I recall correctly. They retain their value fairly well as far as discontinued digital gear goes; the XR version with the upgraded converters goes for a bit more but it seems like the market value for used standard models is around $800-1000 which isn't terrible for a pro quality 24-track recorder that works and sounds the same every time you turn it on, doesn't need maintenance (aside from keeping your hard drives backed up) and has some bonus capabilities as well...not that that kind of dough isn't a bit of a chunk generally ;)

Glad our info was useful!
 
Do you really need 24 tracks? The more I play and practice and the more I learn about recording, the more I find 8 tape tracks is plenty for most things I do. Changing from analog to digital is not doing yourself any favors if you want to keep a simple process for good recordings. Just my two cents.

Cheers,

Otto
 
Do you really need 24 tracks? The more I play and practice and the more I learn about recording, the more I find 8 tape tracks is plenty for most things I do. Changing from analog to digital is not doing yourself any favors if you want to keep a simple process for good recordings. Just my two cents.

Cheers,

Otto

Or how about 16 tracks? A Roland VS-1680 is going dirt cheap these days, similar sort of thing to the HD-24 and DP-24 just a bit older. You could get one with an external CD Recorder for probably less that $300. I have one and use it occasionally over my tape machines because it is so easy to use and very portable but has a similar recording process to analog machines.
 
Or how about 16 tracks? A Roland VS-1680 is going dirt cheap these days, similar sort of thing to the HD-24 and DP-24 just a bit older..

Agreed on the Roland unit being worth considering; however, to be clear here, they're not all the same sort of thing. The DP-24 and VS-1680 are both all in one digital workstations; the HD-24 is a standalone hard disk recorder with basic editing, no mixer/signal processing like the other two have.
 
The suggestion that people should apply a gazillion plugs and use endless comping and other cheats just because the ability is there makes me cringe and speaks volumes about some of the well-deserved cynicism becoming more common toward modern digital music production, and with the current crop of affordable pro mastering engineers it's not like you "need" or should particularly want self mastering plugs either unless you're doing amateur super small-run no-budget projects and just need the overall vol up to commercial levels.

I hardly use any plugs. I track to tape and mix OTB (from the DAW) and use all outboard gear. :)
Thing is, I have a lot of outboard gear, and I prefer mixing in analog, so it works for me. However, with just a standalone digital recorder and analog mixer, the OP is not going to have much else to use for FX and processing...which is why I suggest going the DAW route, and yes, there are a gazillion plugs at your disposal...
...but I never said you need to always use a gazillion plugs on everything. ;)
I know the standalone digital recorders have some editing/processing capbilites...but that's a PITA way to work in digital compared to a computer DAW and nice LCD monitors.

AFA the comment about "cheats"....ahhhh, it's called "music production"... :D
We are not talking about recording a full-tilt band who comes in to just lay down some tracks in a given amount of time...rather we are talking about a solo musician, home-rec setup, where recording/writing/creating all takes on a simultaneous process in many cases...and in the world of a solo musician recording in a home studio...edting, comping and all those so-called "cheats" make life a lot easier.

Recording is not about making some deep moral decisions...it's about getting a good finished product.
The reality is that all the pros use those tools, so no need to be a crusader and do things the hard way, unless that somehow makes you feel better.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about faking/cheating stuff...I'm just talking about using audio tools that make certain tedious processes much easier and quicker. That's why I go with the hybrid setup...the DAW is there mainly to edit/comp tracks...and you know, they use to also do that quite a lot back when tape was king, they just used a razor blade and/or bounced tracks from machine to machine...so yeah, that kind of "cheating" has been going on from the earliest days of recording.

Heck....if the OP doesn't want to use a DAW because of the computer/learning curve...then my advice for the OP would be not to even bother with the digital standalone recorder...just stay all analog, and stick with tape if you want to keep it simple.
Avoid the A/D/A conversions with *NO* real benefit of using the digital format.
IMO...if you are going to record digital, then at least have the BIG benefit of digital which is the editing/comping and the gazillion plugs that are much cheaper (many are free) than the cost of outfitting a decent amount of outboard rack gear.
I guess other than not wanting to keep buying tape...I don't see the need to stick one, standalone digital recorder in an otherwise all-analog setup...without the use/benefit of any other digital devices/processes...why do that?


I think maybe a lot will have to do with the OP's longterm goals and what level of recording he is after. If it means making some changes and learning some new things to get there...then that's what has to happen.
 
STAY ANALOG !

No computers here ... I might be one of only a few around here who really don't use computers for recording at all.
 
Yeah, I was just going to say what lonewhitefly said, but he beat me to it by a few minutes. Keep on doing what you were doing and look at digital as a final step in conversion. I have all kinds of digital goodies in my studio DAW, but it mostly just sits there doing nothing because I don't need more than 8 tracks of analog for what I do these days and I have a room full of outboard gear. If you need more tracks get a Tascam MSR-16 and you can still use 1/2" tape that you've been using with the 38.

People are falling all over themselves trying to learn what you already know how to do and trying to get the gear you already have. No reason to feel you should move into the digital realm, except for the end medium... CD, mp3, etc. Spend your money on a good analog mastering reel-to-reel (If you don't have one) and a stand-alone CD recorder like the HHB CDR-850 or the Fostex CR-300.

Speaking of which... I can't believe this CD recorder sat for 7 days at $150.00 with no takers and is now relisted. These go for twice that and are worth more than that. I have no connection to this seller, but it looks like a great buy. I would snatch it up, but I already have one.

Fostex CR 300 CD Recorder! | eBay
 
Or how about 16 tracks? A Roland VS-1680 is going dirt cheap these days, similar sort of thing to the HD-24 and DP-24 just a bit older. You could get one with an external CD Recorder for probably less that $300. I have one and use it occasionally over my tape machines because it is so easy to use and very portable but has a similar recording process to analog machines.
no ....a VS 1680 is way different than a HD 24. The HD 24 is gonna hook up like any 24 track reel to reel with 24 outs on the machine.
A 1680 is gonna have limited outs and thus limited ways to patch outboard gear to it.

They're very different IMO.
 
I I don't see the need to stick one, standalone digital recorder in an otherwise all-analog setup...without the use/benefit of any other digital devices/processes ... why do that?


.
he already said why do that and I already said the same reasons that I choose to do that. You essentially have most of the benifits of an analog rig without having to spend the money on tapes which are expensive and getting harder to come by.

I have tons of outboard gear ...... you have to get some pretty big interfaces to be able to hook all of it up with the ease that I can with my rig.
So if he goes all 'puter then all that rackmount stuff he has becomes mostly useless. No need for it to.

I have zero interest in going to plug ins ...... with a standalone I can use all the reast of my analog rig exactly like I always have but I don't have to buy tape.
The best of both worlds.
 
no ....a VS 1680 is way different than a HD 24. The HD 24 is gonna hook up like any 24 track reel to reel with 24 outs on the machine.
A 1680 is gonna have limited outs and thus limited ways to patch outboard gear to it.

They're very different IMO.

Yep correct, I meant just the DP-24

But really they are all just 1's and 0's :D
 
Back
Top