Alesis HD recording vs Computer recording...

[Mip]

I'm planning a studio at the moment, and i've been leaning towards a computer setup, but this morning I found the Alesis HD24, and I noticed it's cheaper than other Hard Disk recording units. In general, is Hard disk recording better quality, easier to use and possibly cheaper?

Does the Alesis HD24 have something like an insert for an effects processor (alesis nanoverb) or do I have to run - eg/ guitar to effects proc. to HD24?
I noticed the HD24 has 24 I/O. Does this mean that every input is for every output (if you know what I mean)? Or does two outputs (for left and right) play back the whole lot in stereo?
Do you need a mixer, or can you plug straight into the HD24?
Because it has the easy removable hard disk bays, can I put the drive straight into a computer for mastering, eliminating the need for an expensive soundcard?
Is 24 tracks plenty? Has anybody ever found 24 tracks to be too little?
It says it can sync with ADATS. When I can afford it and if I need to, could I sync it with another Alesis HD24 to give me 48 tracks?

Also for mastering I was thinking about the Alesis Masterlink. Is it's CD drive replaceable? Is it's hard drive replaceable? Is it a really good piece of equipment, or are there other units out there that are better and maybe even cheaper?

Thanks in advance!!

 

[oneArtist]

Mip,
There is no comparisons between HDRs and PC DAWs. There is a very large multible learning curve to PC recording - the software, the soundcards, the right IRQ slot, the right PC configuration - on & on.
With a HDR, within 30 minutes you're laying down tracks.
The PC processors have their place and a CDRW is much cheaper in a PC than outboard, but I would recommend you start with a HDR. As a real basic beginning, you could get a Masterlink off ebay and record just 2 channels and burn redbook cds(the standard form), or even make a Master copy cd at 24bit/96K and send it off to the mass burners. Masterlink is a unique machine that has no equal. The HD24 should also be very interesting.
Chuck

 

[DavidK]

Mip,
I ve never seen the Alesis, but I will try
to field a few questions.

Is 24 tracks plenty? Has anybody ever found 24 tracks to be too little?

I can go through 24 tracks in no time flat. I do complex
Classical stuff, so its easy to do, but even
in pop:

6-8 Tracks of Drums
2-5 Guitar Tracks
3 Lead vocals, tripled
3-6 background vocals
Already thats a lot, and we havent done keyboards effects,
sax section, or the symphony you will need for your
cover of " A Day in the Life".

It says it can sync with ADATS. When I can afford it and if I need to, could I sync it with another Alesis HD24 to give me 48 tracks?

Yup.

Do you need a mixer, or can you plug straight into the HD24?
I would guess you could plug directly in. You will
still need a mixer to "mix"

is Hard disk recording better quality, easier to use and possibly cheaper? Easier, no doubt. Cheaper, I
doubt it. Software is getting dirt cheap, hard drives
are cheap,etc. Good Luck,David

 

[skippy]

Well, in the computer versus HDR wars, I have to come down solidly on the side of the dedicated HDR. Don't get me wrong: I also have a computer DAW on the way (which will hopefully be delivered this very evening), but my dedicated HDR will *always* be my primary tracking vehicle.

Heavily biased opinion follows. One thing that most of the computer-recording folks tend to downplay is reliability. With computer recording, you have the above-mentioned learning curve to deal with. What happens while you are learning is that your tracks get deleted, munged, lost, and otherwise come to infinitely-frustrating grief. The very nice thing about dedicated HDR recording is that it is much harder to lose your data as you learn the art, and very much easier to be productive right away. That was important to me.

My model of recording is based on my long experience with analog multitrack. When I used to record with my old analog machines, I don't think I ever experienced the Blue Screen Of Death in mid-take (;-). I can't recall ever having a reel of 2" tape that developed a bad block and became unuseable because Windows wasn't ready to be shut down when it was powered off, or had a big chunk zeroed out when the machine decided to run "scandisk" next time it was brought up. I don't remember having skips and stutters in the audio because some random hardware decided to misbehave. Bottom line: my personal model of recording is that the recorder *can not fail*, it *cannot be allowed to piss me off*. Thus, my decision to go with a dedicated HDR.

Once the tracks are printed, *then* I can fly them to the DAW for editing and monkeying with, and occasionally losing when the phase of the moon is wrong: it's going to happen. There are just too many stories of people having difficulty getting up that learning curve, and I personally do not have the time or the patience for it. My creative time is too limited... Once you are up to speed on DAW-based recording, I have no doubt that you can be equally productive, and experience infrequent annoyances. But I personally do not have that much time to invest, and my tolerance for annoyance is very, very low. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Having said all that in support of the HDR approach, a warning: I don't think the Alesis HDR is shipping yet. So I'd recommend taking great care in putting all your hopes on the first generation of that product. With all this high-technology foofaraw, it is always better to let somebody _else_ take the bath on debugging it. After the HD24 has been shipping for 6 months or so, _then_ it may be a viable product... I could be wrong, of course- I have the Masterlink, and love the thing: wouldn't be without it. But even so, it's a hell of a lot more useful now with the recent v2.0 software update than it was when it first came out. I don't have time to debug immature hardware, either.

The initial reviews of the Tascam and Mackie 24-track boxes were pretty mixed: the Mackie was vaporware for a geological era, and the Tascam support site has lots of tales of woe as well. I went with the Fostex D1624, which is the third generation of that product line, and is quite solid. The DAW/software package that I have coming in is going to end up costing me almost dime-for-dime the same as that HDR. With the DAW, I doubt that I'll get anything useful out of it in the next 6 months. The primary win for the HDR/Masterlink combo in my book is that I've been recording, with 100% reliability and 100% uptime, since 2 hours after it came in the door...

Will the HD24 do that for you, whenever it becomes real? Search me. At least Alesis knows the biz well (with their ADAT and Masterlink experience). I'll be paying active attention, believe me. But if I ever need more than 16 tracks for anything, I suspect that I'll be getting another D1624 to slave in, rather than buying another Hammerfall...

Hope that helps, anyway.